this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
859 points (99.0% liked)

Greentext

6130 readers
1481 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
859
Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 day ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:

I never said "political ends". I was reasonably specific "fewer people dying in the long run".

Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don't care about virtue at all.

I also don't put powerful people on the same level as a regular "civilian". When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump's case, he's now literally the commander in chief of the US military.

I also want to point out that I don't even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn't that I simply want to "take out the trash" or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.