the idea that destroying the machines that are trying to kill us all is "violence" is itself, from the very beginning, hostile rhetoric implanted by the parasites with an interest vested in those machines staying operational.

I am going to put my foot down on this, and I'd like to see if others might as well:
It is not violence if it is not injury being inflicted upon a PERSON.

If people suffer from the collapse of harmful machinery, it is the fault of the machinery.
No one would have collapsed it if it was not harmful.

Destroy the tools of abuse. It is not violence. It is corrective force.

[–] x_cell@slrpnk.net 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with your point in general, but this doesn't make much sense:

If people suffer from the collapse of harmful machinery, it is the fault of the machinery.
No one would have collapsed it if it was not harmful.

A lot of people depend on machines to stay alive, machines that do produce harmful impacts around the world (that may or may not be possible to reduce), like advanced medical equipment that is dependent on semiconductors.

As a disabled person myself, I prefer if no one has to die.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

Not all machinery is harmful. As you have indicated yourself.

Motivating people to construct less harmful systems would be a healthy selective pressure.

Nobody in their right mind is interested in destroying someone's wheel chair, crutches, eyeglasses, or dialysis machine.

If an apparatus is used to violate the social contract and deliberately harm others obviously enough for us to actually casually perceive it happening without even looking for it specifically, it's fairly obvious that it needs to be disassembled with extreme prejudice.

[–] zazo@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I personally agree with the sentiment but how do we reconcile with medical or like farming equipment?

If we shut down a fossil fuel power station and all people in the ER die - who's fault is it? I guess the producers of the fuels for providing "dirty" electricity to hospitals, but then do we require anyone who wants to build or provide anything to consider all downstream misuses of the thing they've made?

I'm not trying to advocate for the status quo I'm genuinely trying to figure out a better alternative.