- https://the-mad-pirate-prints.teemill.com/
Ohhh...fuck....I keep forgetting those are "is only OK when we do it" moments....
@TheMadPirate @apropos@freespeechextremist.com "defiled" is a strange choice of words. The mural was approved by the city, it wasn't graffiti.
50 years later :
- "Hey, How is it that you are still alive?"
- I just used an extra life approved "by the city" it doesn't mean it was approved by its citizens. If anything, I think that a government body that is unable to represent accurately the interest of the citizen is no actual government body at all.
@TheMadPirate @comicbot Regardless, the owners of the wall approved of the artwork. Disliking artwork does not justify destroying it.
How is your justification any different from vandalizing a statue? You seem to think that's wrong, unless I've misunderstood your previous post. Why is it acceptable to vandalize art you dislike, yet wrong to vandalize art you like?
So unless there's some equality under the law first ( and absolute moral standards by society ), how can you expect people to not justify it ?. It vandalizing statues in the name of one ideology is celebrated, how is it that "vandalizing" in the name of other is criminalized ?.
If anything, without solving the reciprocity aspect first, all arguments about "moral wrongness" of the act falls flat.
@TheMadPirate @comicbot The point I'm making is that both are wrong. You're presenting one as wrong and one as right, when your justifications for why one is wrong and for why one is right can both be equally applied to either.
Perhaps "the citizens" support the BLM mural more than they support the confederate statues - perhaps punishing those who vandalize the mural is, to paraphrase you, accurately representing the interests of the citizens. In such a case, using your argument, isn't it acceptable to punish those who vandalized the mural, and acceptable to allow those who vandalized the statues to go free, if those represent the interests of the citizens?
I get your point.
But that's not the point I am making.
What I am saying is that, in the subjective context we are immersed and with the blatant hypocrisy surrounding us, being "principled" is idiotic.
It's Battlefield Morality time.
It's Reciprocity time.
It's time to fight the left with their own tactics.
It's time to use Alinsky's Rules for Radicals against them.
Once the left is beaten up and defeated, we can go back to "principled" morality. When this hypocrites are beaten to a pulp, then we go "back to normal" and among principled people have principled discussions.
Until them, is fighting fire with fire.
@TheMadPirate @comicbot I see. We have very different views, then.
And, I never said you were a centrist. I don't know why you seem to think I was implying you were one.
"muh both sides" is one of the most tedious arguments on the internet today
Marxists (and all Leftists) are simply delusional. It's OK to accept this, and to say that perhaps in their own countries, they have the right to be delusional if it makes them happy.
@amerika @comicbot @TheMadPirate The issue with that is that Marxism refuses to stay in its own country, and it makes everyone else in the country suffer.
It is a messianic ideology.
Only equality is good, therefore equality must be spread.
Like AIDS, Ebola, COVID, etc.
If we where immersed in an Objective context, in which society at large and government in particular had condemned BLM "protests" and "activism" acknowledging that is nothing but Marxist Subversion Tactics and criminalizing it as much as they are criminalizing the acts of this couple, I would then and only then say "You are right".
But sadly, we are immersed in a Subjective context, in which irrationality reigns free and one side is given carte blanche while the other side is criminalized for the same perceived acts. Therefore, there is no "center" in this situation , no valid "objective principle" to apply condemning "both sides" ( which, even is not comparable if you take into account the scale of BLM activists destruction of private property compared to this "vandalism" ).