News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Well then you'll be surprised to know that I also condemn vigilantism broadly so we have less to argue about than it seemed, however I don't understand the need for provocation on this issue if you actually care about delivering your message. You should understand that in this space, if you're coming from the angle of saying that political violence is never an option, you're upholding the liberal mindset that existing power structures are adequate for creating systemic change and equality, and MOST leftists will tell you that no, it's not. That argument comes from the neo-liberal, pro-capitalist movement and it will do as well to shift hearts as coming at it from the right and claiming "no fair." It's a weak approach to denouncing violence.
Unless you're going for a full-pacifist angle, which least ethically clear and consistent, we need to understand that revolutions are violent. Were either of these people engaged in a revolution? No, but that's not because someone needs to "declare" a revolution, it just becomes one when enough people are doing the same thing. So it's expected that a "side" is going to cheer for someone who is furthering the goals of the group.
I think the better question you should be pondering though is at what point do you start agreeing with the violence? At what point do you see enough of the people standing up for what's right commit enough violence that you decide "oh, so this is now a revolution" and it's no longer vigilantism?
While you're there, ask what "law" means in this context. What are the rules around our society and what enforces them? It's always the threat of violence, so again we need to ask at what point do violent actions constitute overthrowing an old legal system and writing new laws? How do you do that anyway if you don't have other means?
If it were any other point in history of America I would be right alongside you decrying all forms of violent action, and I still do condemn taking lives without an organized movement, but we're well into the "grey" zone now where change comes at the end of a sword, because all other options are rapidly being closed in the faces of the people. In this kind of climate, it feels like saying "killing a corporate leader of the ruling class is wrong and you should feel bad for not feeling bad" just feels like more the leftist "scolding" that makes people broadly turn away from the movement, and enough of us should know this by now that engaging in this kind of rhetoric feels bad-faith. Polarities shift as the noose tightens and scolding people about their soft support for violence will have the opposite effect if you care about human life and are not just performatively clearing your conscience.