The Presidency of the Joes, part II: lol documents

Laying down in front of a bulldozer is a dumber way to protest.

Especially without a towel.

7 Likes

This is a much better option as you have no chance of hurting someone else.

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter

1 Like

I don’t think good and effective protesting necessarily has to minimize the chances of hurting someone else.

Not sure how you could morally justify this.

Some suffering is necessary for the greater good.

1 Like

That is abstract bumper sticker wisdom. It’s not an actual moral justification.

If you are fine with innocent, uninvolved, people dying for your protest your morality needs serious recalibration.

1 Like

It’s just another version of the trolley problem.

Some people maybe die now (and maybe they’re not so innocent) vs maybe more people dying in the future due to climate change, but those people are more abstract and you can’t point to any specific life that can be saved.

1 Like

It’s not the trolly problem because in this version you are the one tying people to the rails.

This logic would make it morally acceptable to shoot up a pipeline company’s office.

1 Like

Maybe that would be morally acceptable, given sufficiently positive benefits.

I believe in the possibility of a just war. Why wouldn’t I believe that violence can theoretically be +EV on a smaller scale?

This is a really awful analogy for your point, as the vast majority of wars are not net benefits or morally acceptable.

When the CEO or board of Exxon gets assassinated in 10-20 years the assassins lawyers will want me on the jury.

2 Likes

afaict from the articles they were sabotaging projects under construction, not ones in use.

2 Likes

Oh maybe I misread. I thought it said they were targeting risers ect so I assumed operational.

If not then I withdraw my objection.

There’s a non-zero percentage of wars that are just. At least some political violence is morally acceptable. That a lot of it is not does not invalidate the premise that some of it can be.

1 Like

Also, defending one’s citizens against an invader or occupier would certainly seem morally justified to the people being attacked.

1 Like

Look it’s your argument, and you can make it however you want I don’t care. You’re just making a really dumb argument if you’re going to point to war of all things the way you are.

Has the Overton window shifted so much that lefties on UP are equating property damage with OMG TERRORISM? The Blue Lives Matter chuds only called it “violence” and I 'member when we thought that was a ridiculous take.

3 Likes

I’m sad nobody else hearted this post.

2 Likes