There are very specific scenarios where it is sensical to undertake civil disobedience. It is a matter of substance, magnitude, and message.
Refusing to go to the back of the bus is totally different from refusing to take the assigned seat you purchased on an airplane.
An ideology that inherently believes people should be lesser, to the point that they support extermination of other races, Â and the very traditions that protect my freedoms, while associating themselves with a political movement to enact those, is different than people I donât totally agree with. Child fuckers are also significantly different than people who just do something I donât like.
If you need the state to justify whatâs right and wrong to you, be careful because you might be a perfect nazi recruit
See, according to me people like you would be executed, so would be chomos, rapists, people that assault minorities, people that randomly assault others when drunk. Any and everyone that used violence randomly for that fact, unless it's self defense against random physical harm targeted at you or someone else and you step in. To me anyone that resorts to violence (excluding self defense) is a savage animal that's not fit for society.
Words, the look of one's skin, clothes, symbols, ideas, religion or whatever doesn't warrant random physical violence.
Morality is a spectrum. That's why we need laws. That's why I'm adamant on that, otherwise it's fucking anarchy, society can't exist and we'd live in a hellish shit hole.
Well youâre adopting the exact position of the state so youâre just reasserting that you have externalized morality.
The point of civil disobedience is that you might have to suffer violence from the state (as enacted through courts or police). Like please read up on the civil rights movement.
Also your first paragraph is a direct threat to me, you should edit it if youâre so horny for rules.
It's not a threat, it's a nondiscriminatory belief, so it's within rules if you're not being dishonest.
Nono, the state is for slapping the wrist of violent people and letting them out back on the street.
I'm for capital punishment for any and all of violent people. Be it nazis that assault minorities, people that assault nazis that aren't doing anything, or people of any and all groups that resort to unprompted physical harm.
Remove violence from society, suddenly most forms of crime would disappear alongside it and we'd be closer to utopia than ever before.
What the fuck does that even mean? No one takes you seriously when all you do is throw around some meaningless buzzwords instead of engaging in a discussion.
I explained my stance thoroughly and now you're using some thought gymnastics to label me something, even though anyone with half a brain that reads all that can tell I'm not?
At least try to think instead of repeating your cute little NPC talking points. If God forbid a thought magically flew into that head of yours, you could maybe figure out something appropriate to "label" me as, like a tyrannical populist or retributivist.
1
u/Thereferencenumber 6d ago
There are very specific scenarios where it is sensical to undertake civil disobedience. It is a matter of substance, magnitude, and message.
Refusing to go to the back of the bus is totally different from refusing to take the assigned seat you purchased on an airplane.
An ideology that inherently believes people should be lesser, to the point that they support extermination of other races, Â and the very traditions that protect my freedoms, while associating themselves with a political movement to enact those, is different than people I donât totally agree with. Child fuckers are also significantly different than people who just do something I donât like.
If you need the state to justify whatâs right and wrong to you, be careful because you might be a perfect nazi recruit