Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!

Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.

  • Senal@slrpnk.net
    1·
    5 days ago

    I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :

    Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

    • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      5 days ago

      You are right, that this is overly condensed and can be misunderstood.

      Killing isn’t universally allowed in warfare either. As in you can‘t kill prisoners of war or civilians for example.

      Let’s put it in another way. Killing is the last resort, when milder actions fail.

      Let’s say your goal is to keep Nazis from gaining power. There are lots of things you can and should do besides mass murder. It’s an ideology after all and people’s minds can be changed.

      • Senal@slrpnk.net
        1·
        5 days ago

        Sure, when you reach a point that you don’t have better options to achieve the desired goal (for whatever metric you define as ‘better’) then killing is on the table by the sounds of it.

        All we need now is an agreement on the threshold.

        I’m assuming you’ll concede that individual killing comes before mass killing, in the hierarchy of options.

        So, once this threshold is reached then, according to your logic, you are morally allowed to kill in defence ( and i assume pre-emptive defence, given the “They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.” statement ).

        So going back to your original statement, it’s entirely possible to kill an individual and still believe in your definition of ‘believe in universal human rights.’ ?

        Provided the correct conditions are met, ofc.