I do not agree with that. I gave you a clear explanation why.

Oppressive remarks are not the result of inherently bad mindset but the product of material conditions of existence that shape said mindset.

That's why targetting inherent mindset depoliticize the problem and prevent us to look at the structural issues of society.


>The short activist answer is yes, he was. This answer allow us to target the problem and the subject directly for efficiency.
> The better answer is no he wasn't and just had massive racist biases due to effect of imperialism and systemic racism. This answer allows us to have a more materialistic look at the situation.


I believe we all have a potential to do good as long as we push the system to create good people
The potential or even some display of good doesn't render null the blatant evil

Just cause an rapist has moments where he shows semblance of moral good doesn't make him less of a scumbag if he persists in what makes him a scumbag.

Humans are often either defined by aspects of humanity they excel at or inhumanity their perverse at.
 
Nah Logiko's logic is that if you only do it once it's fine it's just an action and it's in the past
So whatever crimes you do, i.e assault, vandalism, arson, murder, rape, stealing etc., you should never get charged if you only commit said crime once and say you're sorry after.
ok I get that point of view but only very rare few people commit crime by mistake so that's a pretty naive take if you ask me
 
The potential or even some display of good doesn't render null the blatant evil

Just cause an rapist has moments where he shows semblance of moral good doesn't make him less of a scumbag if he persists in what makes him a scumbag.

Humans are often either defined by aspects of humanity they excel at or inhumanity their perverse at.
But do you believe in 2nd chances and where or when is the supposed cut off for that?
 
It's always funny to me to see the transition between the good and bad faith with liberals. It always has that je ne sais quoi of insults.

Even with the most cordial discussions
:catsure:


Hitler wasn't a nazi dictator rather his actions were I guess :kayneshrug::kayneshrug:
Hitler WAS a genocider. That's a fact. It's a set of action situated in time and space.

Now if you tell me that Hitler has always been a genocider, I won't agree. Simple enough

:kayneshrug:


Nah Logiko's logic is that if you only do it once it's fine it's just an action and it's in the past
So whatever crimes you do, i.e assault, vandalism, arson, murder, rape, stealing etc., you should never get charged if you only commit said crime once and say you're sorry after.
Funny, right ? How a simple change in the way with see an action can completely change our vision of society.

Indeed. I do not believe - in absolute - in the fact of charging someone for a crime. In term of logic, it doesn't make sense to me on the logic side.

BUT

This is a logic that does not have its place in the current world.

When I'm talking about logic here about the placement of action in time and space and the importance of not essentializing them to the entire existence of a person... I'm TAKING A SHORTCUT.

A shortcut that leads directly to an utopia. As only in an utopia will we be able to have this kind of discussion about logic.

In the current world, we can't. Simply because we must essentialize some stuff like "rapist" or "genocider" to point out problems, behaviors and domination systems. We must not go too far ahead, hence why I'm saying that I'm 300 year too early to have this debate. It's not a debate that I can have safely in this society, especially not in a place with so many oppressive behavior and mindset.

No.. INSTEAD we have to look at the other political side of the coin : Abolitionnism

Prison, are by essence, institution of systemic oppression. Now, this is a little bit advanced for this thread (meaning by that that I risk to see a lot of outrage here and I don't really want to deal with that) but basically, abolitionnist (because I'm also an abolitionnist) believe that prison do not help in any thing, and are actually the tool of the system to subjegate and exploit marginalized populations.

We know that most big criminal (murderer, rapist, active pedophiles, war criminal etc.) are not convicted, they are free most of the time and we also know that prison are overcrowed with crimes of lower standards. Crimes that are usually perpetuated by the material condition of existence of people (the black community in the US, for ex, is highly discriminated that way). Prison serves basically as a justice of class against the poor.

We believe in RESTORATIVE JUSTICE in the materialistic sense of the world. This is NOT rehabilitative justic and this is NOT centered around the rehabilitation of the person who commit the action, but the VICTIM who is subjected to the action.

Also we are not talking about the restorative justice that we know today. What we mean is a type of justice that really take the victims into consideration and the importance of allowing them to HEAL (and not necessarily have justice like so many here want) NOT the perpetuator.

It can only be done by stricking down all type of domination system as there will be no healing for the victims as long as men will be able to avoid the consequences of their actions or when rich people will be able to keep avoiding sentences. As long as there will be the possibility for people to access situation of power, some will abuse them.


Just cause an rapist has moments where he shows semblance of moral good doesn't make him less of a scumbag if he persists in what makes him a scumbag.
Indeed. That's why I'm pointing out the notion of action in the dimension of time.

As long as the action is repeated in time, the label is perfectly normal. And even necessary.

For example, Netanyahou is STILL a genocider under that logic, and will only stop being one once he has no material way to continue. (although in our time, we will still call him a genocider long after the fact, and it's normal and even necessary as I explained in the previous reply just above this one)
 
Last edited:
But do you believe in 2nd chances and where or when is the supposed cut off for that?
if by 2nd chances you mean someone who may have been an ardent racist realizes his fundamental moral flaw with his mentality and seeks change than as long as there is that potential, if we speak strictly ideological flaws, there should always be second chances. As long as he persists in his bigotry then he is what he professes until he resolves himself.
 
Oh my god it's happening soon isn't it?
IT'S HAPPENING SOON ISN'T IT?
Careful, the righties will accuse you of wishing harm on the guy who is singlehandedly bringing the world to its knees just because he’s a petty, vindictive monster :getnappaed:
But do you believe in 2nd chances and where or when is the supposed cut off for that?
No response to my article about the truly terrible things Kirk said throughout his life, so you’re a moron AND a coward :fujilaugh:
 
For example, Netanyahou is STILL a genocider under that logic, and will only stop being one once he has no material way to continue. (although in our time, we will still call him a genocider long after the fact, and it's normal and even necessary as I explained in the previous reply just above this one)
Time span is redundant. His actions against humanity depict his legacy now and forever. Intrenched in this timeline as the genocider of Palistinians.
 
Looking at the reaction of the far right and Kirk's fanbase, I think this assassination, far from raising a full anti-leftist rethoric, just reboosted the dying old pre-2014 "Israel did 9/11" conspiracy theory

I wouldn't be surprised if the maga base starts shifting slowly away from the critic of muslims and woke toward a more radical anti-Israel and Antisemitic rethoric. I wonder how Trump will be able to deal with that.


I hate to pile on here, but Bibi has been and still is committing a full-on genocide…once you do something like that, you’re kinda known for it throughout the remainder of history :13_Punches:
Yes, I agree. In our current system it's logic, normal and even necessary to say the least.
I like to project our reflexion behind the simple point of our current system. In a world where capitalism is only something children learn about in history classes.


I hope you don't mean that when this genocide is over.. He will be less rotten from within as he is now.

Assuming you believe it doesn't matter if he still thinks it was all justified.
That's not what I mean no.

I mean that his action is over, therefore IN ABSOLUTE calling him a genocider will not make a lot of sense for me if I follow my own personnal logic. But that's the me who is always projecting myself into some utopic future. In reality, I will call the guy a genocider for the rest of my life. And gladly.
I have different level of reflexion when I have discussions about stuff like this. That's why I sometimes uses the term "in absolute".
 
Looking at the reaction of the far right and Kirk's fanbase, I think this assassination, far from raising a full anti-leftist rethoric, just reboosted the dying old pre-2014 "Israel did 9/11" conspiracy theory

I wouldn't be surprised if the maga base starts shifting slowly away from the critic of muslims and woke toward a more radical anti-Israel and Antisemitic rethoric. I wonder how Trump will be able to deal with that.



Yes, I agree. In our current system it's logic, normal and even necessary to say the least.
I like to project our reflexion behind the simple point of our current system. In a world where capitalism is only something children learn about in history classes.



That's not what I mean no.

I mean that his action is over, therefore IN ABSOLUTE calling him a genocider will not make a lot of sense for me if I follow my own personnal logic. But that's the me who is always projecting myself into some utopic future. In reality, I will call the guy a genocider for the rest of my life. And gladly.
I have different level of reflexion when I have discussions about stuff like this. That's why I sometimes uses the term "in absolute".
I think the problem with him at hand transcends trivial semantics with all due respect

Whether or not you think crimes against humanity, devoid of innocence and stand as apex of inhumanity and evil should be labeled to individuals and later known for it forever.. should be restricted in time, which undermines his actions altogether, I believe that isn't your intention, but it is redundant.
 
Whether or not you think crimes against humanity, devoid of innocence and stand as apex of inhumanity and evil should be labeled to individuals and later known for it forever.. should be restricted in time, which undermines his actions altogether, I believe that isn't your intention, but it is redundant.
I'm sorry, can you rephrase that please ? I didn't understand.
 
Top