I don't think you should, but should we derive what is just from how much sympathy capital a given person has? Assuming your objective is to end poverty, etc, and to minimize suffering, then if you are ready to advocate for something like murder even in the hypothetical that you absolutely don't need to, then you're probably just letting your feeling dictate your actions. You can of course dispute that hypothetical, and there is definitely an argument to be made there, but a lot of people don't and still go all in on it. Hence the problem with "wanting" these people to die, as opposed to "doing what is necessary".

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's entertain that thought for a minute.

What you're describing (in unnecessarily complex phrasing) is, that calling for the actual death of billionaires is an emotional response.

If you read my comment above, my argument is not, that per being rich billionaires are bad and thus deserve death. My argument is, that the fact that these people own so much directly causes deaths several orders of magnitude above what a complete eradication of all billionaires would cause. That's math, not emotion.

Now, killing them and redistributing their wealth is without question violence, but not doing it causes much more violence.

What your fundamental error is, is that you're equating doing nothing with doing neutral. In your setup, watching a Nazi kill 100 Jews is neutral, but killing the Nazi is bad, because murder is bad. I'm exaggerating slightly here, but I think you get the point.

This kind of thinking is unfortunately very common, and it's almost perfect for people who are so aloof, that it's even beneath them to interact with the real world and they claim is rational - which is it not.

So circling back to the initial question: killing billionaires is a net positive. It's without bad sides, it's certainly neither the way I would prefer things to go down and it's not the ideal way neither. But it's not the worst option either, certainly better than the status quo.

[–] That_Mad_Scientist@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh no that kind of thing I agree with. As long as it is necessary, then sure. However, a lot of these discussions are plainly theoretical - no one here is gonna do shit, in short. But people get galvanized by the idea of committing these acts and get from these fantasies a certain kind of satisfaction I'm not sure I understand properly. I mean - I do understand. People are fed up and angry with the state of the world. But since this is purely ideological and not practical, it derails all productive discussion.

What I'm saying is: as long as you can't come up with an actual plan that has better odds of working than any other proposed alternatives, I don't know why you'd be so obsessed with the idea of violence that it ends up being unhealthy; this maladaptive coping mechanism, in turn, might bleed into other aspects of your life and/or activism. Even if the maths check out, a lot of this is inflammatory tribalistic discourse with no point other than to rile up ideological support through emotive means. I think that actually matters quite a lot.

Apologies if my expression is somewhat unclear at times.