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.
And so leaving the judgement to a fallible and often emotional, solo human being? Yea, that can't go wrong.
Yes, he's a bad person. But no, glorifying this opens the door to a world you don't want b/c then judgement can be made by any individual, and not everyone agrees on what is justifiable.
We already do and have forever lived in this world.
Any and all individuals have always made their own judgements, and everyone always has differing opinions on whether or not what they did or did not do was just, judged by differing moral frameworks.
I'll continue to celebrate the instances where I think someone's action was justifiable and good and criticize the instances where I think it was unjustifiable and bad.
Just because a government, whether based in democracy to some extent or not, deems an action or policy to be good and moral, has no bearing on whether or not it actually is.
Morality has always and will always be a grand group excersize in subjective judgement.
When the official system fails to stop horrendous ongoing legalized violence, suffering and death, and has entrenched and reinforced itself so well that it cannot be changed by playing by its own rules, at some point you realize the game is rigged, there is no reason to play by rigged rules.
Or are you going to tell me that Robin Hood was actually evil, and his story should not be celebrated, that Django Unchained glorifies vigilantism and should thus be banned from circulation, that the American or French or Haitian or Russian revolutions were all totally evil and wrong purely because they involved vigilantism by the existing legal standards prior to their outbreak?