Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!

Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.

    • friendlymessage@feddit.org
      6·
      6 days ago

      There’s a difference of fighting back including killing to defeat an enemy or denying someone the basic right to life.

      The first means you fight back until you defeat the enemy, the second one means after you defeat them you round them up and put them in camps to exterminate them.

      It also means it limits your actions to those targets who actually hold power and not just anyone who has a Trump / Vance flag in their garden.

        • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          46·
          6 days ago

          Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before. Even then, only if it’s necessary to achieve military objectives. You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power. Mass murder can never be the goal for anyone who believes in human rights.

          Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act. An army can’t fight without fuel, food, and ammunition.

              • Senal@slrpnk.net
                11·
                5 days ago

                Firstly, citation? because as i understand it “killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights.

                Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.

                • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
                  21·
                  5 days ago

                  there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.

                  Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.

                  killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights

                  You can find that in international humanitarian law.

                  • Senal@slrpnk.net
                    1·
                    5 days ago

                    Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.

                    So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.

                    Absolute statements such as :

                    Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

                    and

                    You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power.

                    Can be contradictory, depending on context.

                    I wasn’t challenging your interpretation, though i do think it’s naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.

                    While I’m at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :

                    Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.

                    Those things are not mutually exclusive.

                    You can find that in international humanitarian law.

                    That’s a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i’d appreciate it.