this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
1444 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
11261 readers
380 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Splattering lives is okay,but shattering such windows is the promotion of violence? Honestly? 🔨
In capitalist US, property is more valuable than human life.
Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives.
Who told you that?
Rittenhouse
He was damaging property to protect lives?
His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests).
That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above.
Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at.
Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place.
Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before.
Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system.
His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked.
Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat.
It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat.
why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies?
Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him.
You're not being very clear here.
Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.
Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?
Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.
This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?"
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.)
At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude.
One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder.
Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base?
It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me.
Gestures broadly
Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time.
Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time!
Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh?
Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith.
Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith.
This is your warning.
Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic.
Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor.
Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with.
In fairness, my dogs are considered "property" and I value both of them far more than the human who put this on their vehicle.
Thats just called familial priorities tho. Doggo is fam.
Ah, so that's why they try to reestablish slavery. Make people property again to protect them. Got it!
Property is more valuable than human life everywhere in the world. For example, two million children die from hunger each year. 7$ will protect a child from malaria for a season. I could save so many lives by selling everything I own and donating it to charity, and yet I don't. And neither do you, or most of the rest of the world.
Life has value. Each of us estimates our own life to be invaluable, but the life of those farther and farther away has less and less value for us. Not because it's not actually worth less, but because we're tribal beings. We care about ourselves first, then our tribe, then if we have any extra resources we might care about other tribes too.
But yeah, what I'm saying is I'd let the entirety of lemmy die for a crisp 1$ note and I'd lose no sleep about it, y'all were born in the wrong tribe.
You're a bad person and you should stop pretending your selfish disposition is natural and immutable simply because you've noticed others are too. There are reasons people behave the way they do and those reasons can change.
It's some weird sort of sarcasm/projection. He does not really mean it, I have been there, been edgy before...
No not really. There are lots of places where it wont fly in court when you kill someone to protect your property. In the US it does, all the time. They frame it differently and cry self defense or something, but we all know what actually happens.
Wow, you'd really let me die for $1?
I'd let myself die for $1 if it was painless and quick.
Sounds cheap enough.
I'm sorry man. That's unfortunate, and I have to hope my life is never in your hands. I hope you understand why.
Uncritical acceptance of power structures as natural extensions of humanity. Sometimes this place really is Reddit.
The mod might be referring to the sticker itself. "Don't post bumper stickers that promote violence."
Then the mod should have posted the comment as it's own comment and pinned it to the top.