403
I said something along the lines of:
"Wow, I haven't had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while."
Along with
"Nah, the more dead ~~corpos~~ dragons, the better."
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
...
Good ole' civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
Class war being an actual hot war is both highly debatable and highly inflammatory. It's a fringe ideology of an already minority ideology. Expecting that to be a moderating standard on one of the largest Lemmy Instances is ridiculous at best.
It's not really about ideology, it's reality. People are being killed every day by people like Brian Thompson. If you actually cared, it's pretty easy to find countless stories of people losing loved ones because their insurance company sacrificed their lives for profit. Nobody really pays attention to those stories though, because the violence is so common, frequent, and normalized that we've become desensitized to it. In contrast, when violence happens in the reverse direction, in a highly contained retaliatory strike against one of the people most responsible, it's shocking precisely because it's so rare, because our side is so much more peaceful and restrained than theirs.
But whether for good or ill, as long as the system keeps backing people against the wall, more of this will happen. It's inevitable, you can't expect people to just accept it as conditions get harsher and more and more intolerable. If you commit social murder, you're putting your own life on the line.
I don't really see what's debatable or ideological about that. When people get fucked over, they will fight back.
As you go on to talk about the ideology.
I'm not really sure what you think is ideological about it. Is it ideological to say that people are being denied coverage? Is is ideological to say that some of the people denied coverage will die because of it? Is it ideological to say that when one group of people causes a second group of people to die, the second group tends to fight back? Because all three of those statements seem like pretty objective facts to me.
You can try to be reductive about your own ideology to be disingneous but it's still an ideology.
Well, if acknowledging objectively correct things means that you subscribe to a particular ideology, then what does that say about that ideology? 🤔
That's the problem though isn't it? It's only objectively correct to people who believe in that ideology.
Is it? Which of the three things I said is not objectively correct?
So gonna be a bootlicker... Weird time to expose it lol