In my opinion this is written beautifully. There's a big difference between choosing violence mournfully and not choosing violence at all. I can see the killing of a human being - even if it is a murderer - as wrong and sad and mourn the loss of a person, while simultaneously acknowledging the immense (in a way positive) effect this had on the people, its grotesque sparking of hope, and the cruelty of the victim's actions before their murder. Both things can be true at the same time.

There's also a difference between being found guilty and being sentenced. I personally would not have a problem with the murderer being found guilty. I might be awkwardly relieved if his sentence was nullified - one day less of life in prison for every person's death the CEO has (more or less indirectly) caused. He would not have to serve one day after the verdict. Probably, though, there will be harsh sentencing, I doubt that the murderer didn't expect this. I think he very well understood that his actions would have personal consequences, but that there is a big chance that his actions would also spark something incredible for society and he must have been willing to pay the price.

Similarly, the Powers That Be only capitulated to MLK et al. because of the threat of folks like Malcolm X and Huey Newton as the alternative.

I'm curious which ones you're thinking of, because the progressive societies I'm aware of did not arrive there peacefully or have at the very least needed violence to defend their progress.

At this point, asking a generation or two to be patient is too big of a RISK.

1000% agree. But I wouldn't even call it a "risk" because that implies there's a chance it won't suck. I think it's a forgone conclusion where this administration is going and a forgone conclusion that the damage will take a generation or two to undo. And worse, I watched in abject horror as MAGA populism dragged the Democrats far to the right along with them. Fucking hell.

This is not a "fair" fight any more. We don't get anything we want by being polite.

That’s one tall horse, sir!

If non-violence is always the better answer, then why is it universally accepted that violence is the best answer when the government has a boogie man to catch?

Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam…you’d think that with all the money and alliances that governments have at their disposal, they could have helped the countries that harbored these people and ensured they were brought to justice and judged by a jury of their countrymen. But that isn’t what happened. They used violence because violence is effective in creating drastic change quickly.

Non-violence hopes for change slowly, but often is just a tool that gets manipulated to preserve the status quo—just look at the “approved protest areas” that happened with Occupy Wallstreet. They were more than happy to tell those people exactly how to be nonviolent so the impact was meaningless.

Meanwhile, Luigi’s bullet had plenty of impact and plenty of meaning, as evidenced by the outcry of support from common people of both parties. This may be one of the only issues that the far left and the far right actually agree on.

We didn’t need to be patient. We didn’t effectively use the nonviolent tools are our disposal. They were too boring.

I disagree... change takes time. We've made tremendous incremental progress over the past 50-60 years. But it takes time to change laws and even longer to change cultures. Nonviolent protest and similar actions are useful and effective at building communities and cohesion, but less so at effecting change. For effective, long-lasting change we need to educate and advocate, which means engaging in the political process. I don't know what magical "nonviolent tools" are at our disposal that can turn things around now a time frame that matters to us.

In the last 10 years or so we've been steam-rolled over by neoliberal and neoconservative forces bankrolled by the wealthy. The sophistication of this effort and the mechanisms employed are incredibly hard to oppose. You need only witness the recalcitrance of the Dems to shift toward even the most basic progressive goals.

Before the recent election I was advocating hard for Harris not because I don't consider her essentially a neocon but because the alternative is going to be horrible. Pretty weak, I acknowledge. I also made similar statements as you with regard to not voting for her, even while I shared the feelings of betrayal, simply because it was so clear how much harder any progress was going to be under Trump.

We're faced with an administration that will set us back decades on every front imaginable. We have 4 years or less to do everything we can to ensure that at a minimum we get to vote them out in 2028 and that the damage is as contained as possible. This isn't the time for slow incremental change. This is the time to put politicians and the wealthy on notice and make sure they understand the consequences of engaging in even deeper fleecing of the American public.

That doesn't mean we don't do the hard, boring work of winning elections and engaging in the political process. To me it just means that isn't enough right now. It probably won't be enough for a long time to come. This is going to be a hard fight.

Hello, Mister Seabury

Yes. Yes it was.

No fucking kings is the foundation of the left. Take a look, it’s in a book.

Class solidarity and material analysis are also core concepts that influence that rational thinking. You wouldn't chastise a serf for cheering the death of a lord tyrant, would you?

This one is pretty easy. The system is crushing people. Healthcare CEOs have directly chosen to kill people and their loved ones.

Class war has been raging for at least the last 50 years and the working class hasn’t even realized a punch has been thrown.

We have more empty homes than homeless people in the US.

We spend far more on healthcare per person than any other country yet our life expectancy is significantly worse

Every aspect of your existence is monetized by some billionaire or another. Life is hollow and empty and that’s only about to get a lot worse.

Peaceful protest by itself has rarely led to change. Peaceful protest is ALWAYS the better approach though.

Who wouldn’t?

Me, they got years of extreme wealth off our backs, they don't deserve the kindness of a mind change and continued life

The slower and more painful the death for them the happier I'll be, don't assume everyone a little bitch like you

Because you're fake and virtue signaling. Your vanity is disgusting.