No, I literally stated that the goal isn't to kill people, but collectivize property. If your only way of dealing with alternative viewpoints is to lie about them, then you should reconsider your own viewpoints.

[+] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works -9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My comment was going back to the original question: if it's ok to kill this CEO, who decided who else it's ok to kill.

My problem is that, while I fully agree that capitalism is the principal cause of injustice in the modern world, taking justice into one's own hands through violence will only lead to more violence. The day citizens as a whole are ready for a real social revolution, I might re-evaluate my position on violence, but the majority of US voters have just elected, again, Epstein's closest friend as president so I doubt that what they want is a way out of capitalism.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

I agree with you somewhat and I don't like how much downvote spam you're getting. You bring up some good points we ought to be mindful of.

Right now it seems very clear who the oppressors are, but the scary thing about reactive movements is that even if they accomplish their goal, they tend to seek to justify themselves indefinitely before everyone gets bored and it dissolves.

Everybody wants a revolution on paper, but things get messy and blurry once the powder keg goes off, and people en masse would be looking for the next enemy, the next oppressor, that must be hunted down to finally secure Utopia.

While I'm an anarchist and want the "ownership class" to answer for their wicked ways, I also don't think a bunch of independent actors picking targets and gunning them down based solely on their own justification is an ideal solution. Even if I understand why it happens and don't defend the perpetrators that push people to such extremes in the first place.