this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
5 points (51.5% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6148 readers
28 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Mod Note: I'm bending the "no politics' rule to highlight a disgusting trend I've been seeing on Lemmy lately. Due to the sheer volume of comments fitting that trend and the huge number downvotes given to anyone who speaks out against it, I'm convinced this opinion is truly unpopular in the Lemmy-verse. This is also topical and important enough to merit discussion or at least to provide a point of reflection. So while it touches on politics, that's merely the framing device of current events being used to highlight a larger problem.

As you're inevitably downvoting this, at least take a good, long look in the mirror while you do so.


The sheer number of people here praising the shooter, advocating for, glorifying, or just flat out calling for violence has been a real eye opener and litmus test for the kind of people I've surrounded myself with on this platform. Suffice it to say, a lot of you have failed that test spectacularly.

A rational, independent thinker should be able to condemn this kind of violence even when it's targeted towards their "enemies." Political violence has absolutely NO PLACE in a healthy society, and no one should be praising or advocating for it. No one. Ever. This is one thing that, regardless of the paradox of tolerance, should be universally condemned.

There are, apparently, a ton of extremists here that don't see themselves as such because they believe their extremism is justified and that they're on the right side of history. Ironically, which is what all extremists think.

This goes back further than just yesterdays's events. For example, it's been a common refrain since the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision that, paraphrased, "The current non-dictator president should do dictator things to stop the other dictator". Which is just another flavor of "Extremism is bad except when it's my flavor of extremism".

Don't give me that "it's just gallows humor", "I'm oppressed, and he deserved it", "if you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back to 1934...", "we haven't been a healthy society for X years...", or other excuses. This is a BFD with major implications and ramifications, and y'all Lemmings are treating like we just missed the exit ramp to Utopia and are trying to find a wide spot to make a U-turn.

It's certainly fine to have no sympathy for the guy (I sure as hell don't), but it's another thing entirely to be cheering on, promoting, and/or advocating for extremist stances like those being thrown out lately.

You say you want a better society? Then act like it!

Moments like this are the true test of one's character and intellectual honesty, and I'm beyond disappointed in so many of you.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Donald Trump has incited violence for the last 4 years, he gets grazed by a bullet or a shard of glass, people rejoice! Why? Because the psychopath who wants America to burn to the ground just got some of the violence HE caused. Karma.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

Celebrating another's misfortune is one thing (not condoning that, but it's not what I'm talking about here). Sinking to his level of violent rhetoric is not what we claim to be. That's the issue.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Political violence has absolutely no place in a healthy society

But we aren't in a healthy society. If anything, this shooting is proof of it. This isn't an excuse. This is a claim that your arguments will fall on deaf ears.

I'm not cheering this (I would go as far as saying that I hate what happened), but I don't think people who have/are doing so, are displaying abject character or intellectual dishonesty. I think they are misreading the current political context, and I think nothing good will come of this.

Trump has caused unknowable deaths from the policies put into place during his presidency, and with Project 2025 would (will?) cause even more.

Pacifism becomes extremism when it cares more about policing and shaming those who vent their frustration at the current state of things. "missed the exit ramp to utopia" is a hell of a way to convince people to listen to what you have to say with an open mind.

Political violence has been happening for years, and this is what gets us a mod post ? I would venture that I am just as disappointed in my fellow lemmings as you are, but frankly, this feels almost as tone-deaf and unhelpful as those calling for blood.

Now is the time for constructive advice. Bandying about "extremism" helps no cause but that of inaction.

You want a better society? Go outside and organize. Help people feel prepared for their future. Leave those calling for blood on an online forum to be picked up by the feds and law enforcement. Or talk to people like you care about them, not picking up after the mess they will make.

People are dying of hunger, of lack of shelter, of preventable diseases, of working 3 jobs without breaking even, and they just saw one of the rich fucks that spent 4 years making their lives worse dodge death and supercharge his followers. Now you expect them to calm down because someone online invokes "rational, independent thinkers", after preemptively accusing them of downvoting a post that they have yet to read.

Shooting Trump is not how we get through this. Making this post with this tone is not how we get through this, either. I don't have the answers beyond "find a better way to get your point across or you will just push away those you are trying to reach". Hopefully I have not, myself, fallen into the same trap with this comment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The way I think about posts like this, as I tend to create them myself too, is that if it makes even one person stop for a moment, reflect on their behavior, and hopefully act differently in the future, then it was worth it. At the very least, I can't imagine it making things worse. It's also a kind of sanity-check for the minority of users who agree but don't want to voice their unpopular opinion.

I do admit, though, that if the tone of my writing is so off-putting that it bounces off people, then my time writing it has been wasted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

You're not wrong, but step one of problem solving is admitting there is a problem (in this case, extremism).

While the post is (intentionally) harsh, it's no less an accurate spotlight on the toxic attitudes being displayed by those who claim to oppose authoritarianism / fascism / whatever bad-ism but spout out opinions that amount to "but a little bit is okay when it's my side doing it"

All this heated rhetoric is adding more fuel to an already raging fire, and that bleeds out into the real world with real world consequences.

All I'm asking is for people to look in the mirror, take a good look, stop encouraging/cheering/advocating violence, and try even slightly to turn the heat down.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

are you surprised though? The number of people I have heard from early childhood all the way to present who say things like "if I could go back in time I would kill hitler as a baby" or "I wouldnt feel bad about killing a pedophile" is so high I lost count when I was 6. A lot of them are people I'm certain couldn't handle the emotional aftermath of actually killing someone. Its so much easier if someone else does it for you without your involvement. Essentially this is exactly what I expected of people, especially social media users.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Sadly, no, I'm not surprised.

But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't do better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'm only downvoting this for the hypocrisy of "bending the rules". I didn't read the rest.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Don't worry man, I've noticed an uptick in crap, but for the most part I've just seen a large uptick in trolls. They're coming out of the woodwork right now, they latch onto stuff like this to stir the pot.

You and I don't agree on everything, but we definitely agree on this. Just don't feed the trolls

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

It’s Eternal September for Lemmy these days. I’m part of that wave too. I noticed a lot of my takes get downvoted to oblivion!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

You and I don't agree on everything, but we definitely agree on this.

Having seen you around, agreed, but in a good way. Like, the things I've seen us have differences of opinions on are all such that you could legitimately change my mind on some of them (and I would hope the reverse holds true). Those are the kinds of disagreements I like.

They're coming out of the woodwork right now, they latch onto stuff like this to stir the pot. ... Just don't feed the trolls

Also agreed and yep, have seen the same uptick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think the content you see is bad? Check the modlogs. People really went over the top in some cases

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, I'm sure. Appreciate the work you all are putting in :)

I'm an admin. I see it all, even stuff that's been removed and the lurkers silently cheering that shit on (which is what utterly broke me and inspired this post).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Louder for the people in the back, please

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's not.

Treating a fascist in good faith is exactly how they get into power. The whole post is conveniently ignoring Trump already started this mess trying to get Congress and his own VP killed to maintain power.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, so if they do it first it must be okay, then.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

You don't stop fascism by inviting it over for a chat.

Trump and the MAGA movement are not acting in good faith. If they were I would fully agree. But context is really important.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This isn't about Trump. It's about condemning the shooter.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's exactly how extremists justify political violence

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

Let me know when people try to kill a House rep simply because they disagree with policy proposals.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"Character" is just as much a social construct as gender is. What you call a "test of character" I call a "natural human reaction."

When you learned about all the evil Hitler did, did you scold the people who celebrated his death? What about Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? The US government assassinated Bin Laden and the Iraqi people hanged Hussein- did you decry them not being tried for their crimes? Should people not be happy that Lee Harvey Oswald got what he gave out?

Plenty of historians have drawn parallels between what's happening in the US today and where Weimar Germany was in the 1920's. Obviously I'm not saying that Trump is on the same level as the other people I mentioned, but if a person truly sees the historical connections, do you blame them for trying to avert what comes next using more extreme methods?

The fact is, political violence has been ingrained into American myth since its inception. Every year of public school we're taught that the people who overthrew the government with violence were right to do so because they succeeded, while the people who tried to secede with violence were wrong to do so because they failed. Why would you expect any American to not think otherwise? People like Washington and John Brown are hailed as great American heroes for using violence.

On top of that, Donald Trump is a man that the legal system is bending over backwards to prevent him from facing any consequences whatsoever from crimes he's committed. The "process" isn't working- is it a shock that when the system is failing the people, the people will take matters into their hands? The voice of the people is systematically being silenced; people will therefore resort to whatever means they have to make themselves heard. This is a constant throughout all of human history.

And not just that, but Donald Trump is the head of a political party that shrugs its shoulders when hundreds of children are murdered in schools or churches or malls annually. Every time a school shooting happens, Republicans rush to decry Democrats for "politicizing" a tragedy to avoid any sort of gun control legislation from even being discussed. Should people not feel some sort of vindication at seeing the party that refuses to address gun violence in the US suffering from that refusal?

So, yeah. I think that someone being upset that a person tried to assassinate a political candidate is a rational response. But I also think it's not unreasonable to have other feelings about it too.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with believing that his death would solve whatever issue people hope it would. It's not obvious to me that this would be the guaranteed outcome, but I guess I can't blame anyone for thinking that.

What I do take issue with is endorsing this kind of behavior. I don't want to live in a world where we solve political debates by assassinating the opposition. That's not how civilized people behave. Do I mourn the death of Hitler or shun the people celebrating his death? Of course not. Would I have preferred for him to be caught alive, tried, and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life? Yes.

If Putin accidentally wandered into Finland tomorrow while picking blueberries in the forest and gets arrested, does he deserve to be hanged in the marketplace and made an example of? Yes. Is that what we should do? No. That's what they would do. That is exactly the moment we're supposed to take the moral high ground and show people on the other side that we have principles and we're better than that. This is the test so many people failed today. They act like the people they oppose.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The founding fathers did not attack the British. They declared their independence, and then were invaded. Defense and attack are different things.

It's true that the Confederacy was itself invaded after declaring its own independence, no question. But then what values were being defended? The right to own other humans as chattel? Not quite the same.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Americans did shoot first. Militiamen marched on powder and arms warehouses in Lexington and Concord and after being ordered to disperse by a British colonial, shot at the regulars assembled there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, and the Confederates shot first in the US Civil War. However, who fired the first bullet has nothing to do with who is invading who, or who is starting a war. These are all three different things. That would be like saying the first shot of WW1 was the one that killed the Archduke, and not the actual countries that declared war on each other and marshalled their armies.

There are many ways to respond to a single atrocity or even battle. The British could have, if they wished, withdrawn. Similarly, Fort Sumpter could have, if they wished, surrendered.

load more comments
view more: next ›