• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    260
    ·
    1 year ago

    The bio of the victim from her store’s website:

    Lauri Carleton’s career in fashion began early in her teens, working in the family business at Fred Segal Feet in Los Angeles while attending Art Center School of Design. From there she ran “the” top fashion shoe floor in the US at Joseph Magnin Century City. Eventually she joined Kenneth Cole almost from its inception and remained there for over fifteen years as an executive, building highly successful businesses, working with factories and design teams in Italy and Spain, and traveling 200 plus days a year.

    With a penchant for longevity, she has been married to the same man for 28 years and is the mother of a blended family of nine children, the youngest being identical twin girls. She and her husband have traveled the greater part of the US, Europe and South America. From these travels they have nourished a passion for architecture, design, fine art, food, fashion, and have consequently learned to drink in and appreciate the beauty, style and brilliance of life. Their home of thirty years in Studio City is a reflection of this passion, as well as their getaway- a restored 1920’s Fisherman’s Cabin in Lake Arrowhead. Coveting the simpler lifestyle with family, friends and animals at the lake is enhanced greatly by their 1946 all mahogany Chris-Craft; the ultimate in cultivating a well appreciated and honed lifestyle.

    Mag.Pi for Lauri is all about tackling everyday life with grace and ease and continuing to dream…

    What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I threw one of those blue lives matter flags in the trash. It blew in from my neighbors house fuck hate the traitorous fucks.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They outright kill someone over a flag and you’re fantasising about politely ripping one down?

        Really puts it into perspective huh? Unfortunately we can’t afford to be polite with savages.

      • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Blat blat. Fire power’s something no american has bragging rights over `cause we all can get it. Legal or illegal. We’re in a slow motion civil war so don’t go bragging about shit everyone has access to if you’re a soft handed new age patriot.

        People should be building up rations of medicine.

    • chilburn06@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I smuggled home a confederate flag I found in a drawer at my grandmother’s house. Disposed of it with a bag of cat shit.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bruh, you just stole G-Ma’s emergency TP reserve left over from the early days of covid. Nothing else attracts shit like the stars and bars.

    • Aderyna@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a guy in my rural northern NY town with TWO confederate flags in the back of his big ass truck 🙄

  • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed “over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store”.

    No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a “reason”. Let’s not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.

    My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      That headline is doing the murderer’s work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don’t think this person acted out of fear though.

      • Imotali@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.

  • Shortstack@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.

    Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.

    Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.

    • fosho@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      the problem I have with this is that you’re basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong and I mainly don’t disagree with you.

        But look at it from another perspective.

        Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.

        Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.

        My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that’s not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn’t sit well with me.

        • Digitalprimate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.

          However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

          • tacosplease@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m open to a solution, but it’s unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.

            We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn’t though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn’t work here because the ideology is different.

          • Shortstack@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I’m not sure we would be in this situation now.

            I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I’m simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

            However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

            Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.

        • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean… I kind of get where you’re coming from but “with impunity”? The shooter is now dead. If they weren’t dead they’d be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.

          • Shortstack@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.

            That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I’m related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.

        But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it’s a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?

        The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.

        Cars have a licensing procedure (though it’s essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can’t be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you’d still get racist denials.

        And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you’ll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don’t have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don’t want to say to a large chunk of the population “we’re going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way.”

        And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you’re going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.

        I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you’d also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).

        • fosho@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.

          obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.

          regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.

            To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.

            This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.

            • fosho@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.

              • Liz@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.

                • fosho@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.

    • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Carrying doesn’t do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won’t even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.

      The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).

      More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s more than you realize.

        You likely don’t hear much about it because liberal gun owners don’t fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe it wasn’t a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?

    • telllos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny… oh wait…

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is they don’t see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It’s hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.

      • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it’s their guy hurting the “correct” people…

      • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You couldn’t be more wrong Telllos. If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?

    • ph00p@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can just print that shit now.

      Imagine if these crazy fucks didn’t already have guns and they just discovered printable ones, I think that would have been a worse outcome.

      • Margrave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please elaborate as to how that would be worse. At least half these nutters wouldn’t be able to figure out how to use a printer, let alone a 3d printer.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This thread has, predictably, devolved into a hugely disrespectful exchange given the linked post.

          But as an aside, I shudder to think of trying to design an additively manufactured part that would reliably contain a propellant blast using anything less than an industrial $100k-$1m DMLS or at least really really good SLS machine. If the goal is to harm somebody using a 3D printer, you’d probably be better off bashing them over the head with it.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Full plastic guns generally don’t last very long- but they have been proven to somewhat work since 2013. Now there are more stable designs that use off-the-shelf plumbing parts with plastic components. There are also designs that can be CNC’d with a cheap machine

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Two sides of the same coin, since all “regular” conservatives are also “far-right” extremists. Any “moderate conservative” is just a centrist Democrat at this point.

        • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except no. The majority of “moderate conservatives” would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way “Moderate.”

            That’s the point. That’s the Overton Window.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.

              There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it’s part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you’ve ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you’d understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would’ve been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it’s like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor’s lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).

                The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.

                Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right

                  I can’t speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:

                  1. Anti-corruption
                  2. This idea that both parties are the same and here’s someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
                  3. Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don’t usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)

                  This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.

                  In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism

                  There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.

                  both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion

                  This is true, and why it’s both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on “everything Trump said is a lie” and were able to prove it, and that wasn’t enough.

                  Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                  Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are “centirsts” or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.

            • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?

              I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - “I’m Christian so I’ll be fine”) what does one call that?

              • S_204@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                One calls that bigotry because that’s exactly what it is. They’re bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I’d wager races as well.

          • Mockrenocks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.

  • Everlastingspud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don’t know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.

      I said something like “these dipshits are acting like they didn’t get their mandated MMR shots already.” And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced “You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it’s a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!” He stormed out. Didn’t pay his tab.

      The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like “damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy”

      Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Brown shirts aren’t inherently bigoted, but they can be a reference to the colloquial name for the SA, the brownshirts, called that because their uniforms included brown shirts and also to differentiate them from other fascist militias of the era that wore different colored shirts. The SA used similar styles of military imagery, threats of violence, and acts of violence to modern right wing militias.

  • Hobbes@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ever notice how there’s no such thing as a liberal hate crime?

    “We are all domestic terrorists”.

    How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I’m guessing it’s a lot more.

      • duviobaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.

              • duviobaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn’t get my pity

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

      Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on…

          • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

        • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.

          One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

        They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).

          Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.

          At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”

          • brognak@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Either way they lie and recruit the same. I’d much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.

              Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.

              • carbonated@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.

      • girlfriend@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

      • ph00p@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

      That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

      Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action

      • WiildFiire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Extremely extremely uncommon police W

        Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn’t doubt

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.

          • Wahots@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It’s sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do they ever want to get arrested? That sounds like a poor excuse not to hit him with a bunch of taser darts and take him down that way. Sure, that might kill him too, but at least there would be a chance. Easier for the cop to reach for their gun and “solve” the problem.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.

            • WiildFiire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              As much as I will defend my stance that I’m glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I’d be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive

          • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.

            Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)

            That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.

            I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!

              • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.

              • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.

                I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.

        • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don’t forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time…

          I hope they weren’t wrong here…

          • Root@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not their job to execute people. It’s their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it’s the perpetrator.

            • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That is why I’m arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done “correctly” by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.

              Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.

        • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.

      • IGuessThisIsForNSFW@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!