this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)
News Summary
178 readers
3 users here now
News feed with AI summary.
Rules:
- follow instance rules
- Engage in good faith discussion
- Tag relevant posts with [Meta] or [Request]
- meta = Discussion about the bot or AI summary.
- request = Development request or an rss feed to incorporate into the feed
- No calls for actionable violence
- Congratulations your behavior is now a new rule
Credit:
Community icon @Alice@hilariouschaos.com
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmcqjP8mhk
I don't believe I commented on Brian Thomas assassination except maybe to meme on the Americans about their fucked healthcare system and gloat about my Australian supremacy in that particular regard.
If u want my take tho here we go: Their is no moral justification for the murder of anyone Brian Thomson included. If you are to justify it then you must do so through the lens of warfare. Warfare is not a moral action it is the practised systematised usage of violence to achieve ends that cannot be achieved by other means. Morality has no power in the face of overwhelming violence. It is the execution of Darwinian selection by the strong upon the week. Luigi practised warfare to shift the balance of probability in favour of approving claims (lest u be shot) and it worked until black rock shifted them back by suing them for not being profitable enough. Their is no moral justification for warfare or such actions short of "I have the capacity for superior violence and I will use it to take what I want". Luigi is now finding out that he did not in fact have superior violence Brian Thomson did as he is backed by the rule of lsw and thus the states monopoly of violence. The best definition of a nation is an area in which a single entity holds a near monopoly on violence. Luigi will spend the rest of his life locked in a box experiencing the practised, systematised, and agreed upon near monopoly on violence the state holds.
This of course is closely linked with revolution as u get revolution when the rules of the system are considered unjust by the people who control said monopoly of violence. We have law and order and rules because we have all agree that we have these things. The second the monopoly on violence is held by someone who claims these things are different they utilise their monopoly of violence to change the rules in their favour. This is also an excellent justification for the second amendment (Charlie Kirk commented on exactly this). This is why the celebration of Charlie Kirk's assassination by the left is so monumentally stupid because if democracy and free speech fail they do not hold a monopoly on violence (the Republicans will be 2 for 2 when it comes to winning civil wars).
If the people own guns the people can collectively at any point come together to make monopoly of violence and impose their will upon those without. The intention behind the second amendment was this exact purpose. To ensure the continued ability for the people to revolt against their own government in the case of democracy failing. Democracy has only broken down once in american history at which point the people collectively came together to exercise their monopoly of violence against the confederates. This is the second amendment working as intended. Unfortunately the second amendment has been watered down to the point it can no longer fulfill its intended purpose. The second amendment in its original interpretation mandated that every conscriptable man had the right and obligation to receive military training and bear military weapons. This was of course borrowed from the Swiss as this is the same concept they used to become a free, independent, self determinant nation.
Thanks for the source. Very interesting if not terrifying that that dude got so many cheers and that people like Kirk are seemingly obsessed with a book written thousands of years ago. They don’t even stick to its teachings either. I’m sure half of America pretends to be religious as that’s how you get followers.
As to your point in law and order and violence. You’re correct that we all agree to a social contract and abide by laws etc. until that contract is broken, then people have nothing left to lose and you get a Luigi that takes matters into their own hands.
Well I'm not religious I believe we don't have sufficient evidence to confirm or deny the existence of god. To stick to one side and claim it with absolute certainty is plain ignorance, an atheist has just as much evidence against religion as Charlie has for it (except maybe he can quote a book of questionable reputation at you).
Ur almost certainly right if you've read Machiavelli's "The Prince” it comments on exactly this that to be leader you must appear to your follows to be religious. I would consider a religion in this specific context to be an agreed upon set of beliefs of your followers ie communism, wokism, Nazism, etc all qualify along with traditional religions.
Yep pretty much.
PS. Thanks for the civil good faith discussion I think it was insightful for both of us. I believe this is exactly what Charlie Kirk wanted to see in this world. I think he would have been honoured to see such civility and open communication between disagreeing parties in a time of such divide. See you round the fediverse my friend.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion too. Although I don’t agree that Charlie’s intentions were as you said but we can agree to disagree on that.
Have a great day.