Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

internet_chump t1_j250ld8 wrote

Reply to comment by MainCareless in Northern California statue of meat-packing magnate beheaded by GZAofTheMidwest

Chill, brah. Nobody was worshipping this guy as a hero. There's no evidence of the motive, so it could have been random vandalism, a disgruntled employee, a drunken frat-boy pledge stunt, or literally any other of 1000 reasons.

The fact that nobody or group has claimed responsibility or given a reason is a pretty strong reason to think the motive had nothing to do with activism, because if no one knows why it happened then what was the point?

Even if it was activism, what would this accomplish? It shifts focus away from the cause and distracts from the message. Nobody is going to listen to people they don't respect. If you want to change people's minds they have to be willing to sit at the table with you. Don't cheer this on.

1

TheJudgementIsDeath t1_j25d6hj wrote

Sometimes you need to draw attention to your cause with an extreme action. This probably isn't that, but vandalism can be a valid political tool.

−3

internet_chump t1_j25niu8 wrote

You do understand this is the same justification that runs through the minds of the people shooting up electricity substations, right?

The same justification the Jan 6th insurrectionists used?

This is the same "the ends justify the means" bullshit that leads to the worst of human behavior and never solves any problems. You can't eat the fruits of a poisoned tree. The means are the justification of the end, the categorical imperative demands it.

−1

TheJudgementIsDeath t1_j2600mm wrote

Fair enough, but I'm talking about when there's a genuine need to resist. And I get that paranoid racists could use the same argument for their fucked up shit, but so could the folks resisting the Nazis back in the day, or their contemporary cousins today.

0

internet_chump t1_j266rpl wrote

No, you don't seem to get it.

What constitutes the "genuine need" you speak of? Seems like there is genuine need to reduce carbon emissions, should people be sabotaging our power infrastructure? What if it turned out that these substation attacks were committed by people using that exact justification, because there's a genuine need to use extreme tactics to reduce energy consumption? Are you saying you would condone that? If you don't condone that, are you saying there isn't a genuine need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

There's a genuine need to reduce the growing far-right hate groups, too. What sort of extremist actions are justified in that case? Who gets to draw that line? You? Me?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether you want to admit it or not, that's the essence of your justification for whatever romantic notion you seem to have about committing "extremist acts of resistance".

Not only that, they aren't nearly as effective as non-violent respectability politics and passive civil disobedience.

−1