davel

I think you might be confused about what conversation is going on here.

Yeah, I was answering the question asked of me.

I don’t know, what? And you think you’re being very clever with your alt account, maybe?

More 👏 Cop 👏 Cities 👏

I think you’re reading more bloodlust in this outpouring of catharsis & outrage than is actually there. People are expressing righteous anger, not murderous intent.

There are anti-Zionist Israelis, but they are very much in the minority. It’s dangerous to be vocal about it.

The great majority of adult Israelis are militant settler-colonizers and Palestinians have the legal right under UN law to struggle against their occupiers by any means necessary, including armed struggle and Israel, as an occupier, has no right to “self defense.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Breaks Community Rules

IMO shooting CEOs will just bring more repression and give an authoritarian government a sens of legitimacy

I agree. That’s what I said on Wednesday: https://lemmy.ml/post/23216334/15339156

<davel> As cathartic as it may be, assassinating CEOs will do nothing but embiggen the police state.

<xxxxx> So centrist of you.

<davel> This is not coming from a centrist position: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Adventurism

• Promoting murder
• Planning homicide
• Call for violence
• Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
• advocating violence

Take your guillotine to work day.

How would I know, it hasn’t happened yet. You think you’re asking an ethical question, but you’re basically asking a historical question about the future. One can’t predict how violently the capitalists will react to a socialist revolution in an indeterminate future moment that becomes ripe for one.

How many people will die if US monopoly capitalism—otherwise known as imperialism[1]—continues? Because lately it’s been killing by the millions.

When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another, such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessities of life, places them in conditions in which they cannot live,—forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence—knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual.