The Batlord

I mean if you believe that we've actually ended history and neoliberalism is inescapable then whatever, but I highly doubt the current power structure will be able to survive what's coming without some level of destabilization. The chickens will come home to roost at some point.

__________________

jwb

I don't get how you came to that particular strawman version of what i said.

I just answered your question as to whether or not ecoterrorism is worth defending or condemning. I didn't say anything about the end of history or neoliberalism blah blah blah insert lazy online leftist buzzword here.

You seem to have a really retributive approach towards justice when it comes to taking the elite to task. Which is probably the opposite approach of what you'd take towards most forms of criminal justice. So i think what it boils down to is you're actually asking does revenge feel good? To which my answer is yes but that's a different question from whether it's ethical or not.

Frownland

Targeted assassinations with effective messaging could potentially sway billionaires from environmentally destructive actions on the simple threat of death, plus they can lose the foundation of their labour force if the threat of an attack is tacked onto their working conditions. Even if that doesn't sway them, there's a certain point where the reactive security in response to such attacks would run up against the profit margin.

You're right that the state and media would vilify such actions and use it as justification to take a few more steps toward fascism, but that's the fault of those entities, not of assassination in itself. I'm also not of the mind that fascism is inherently successful.

Similar to the way that you're viewing the outcome of ecoterrorist attacks, Bat likely thinks that you're a proponent of neoliberalism because you're rejecting anything that threatens it, which functionally the same as supporting neoliberal norms.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

The Batlord

I wasn't talking to you, you stupid bitch. I was talking to a "nice guy" who generally never takes aggressive stances and asking if at this point he's willing to entertain a more aggressive stance.

__________________

jwb

I'm not ruling it out but i find that hard to believe. If anyone threatened the multi billion dollar fossil fuel industry via terrorism i think they would become a target of the powers that be so much so that the oil companies themselves would not have to worry at all about the cost of security because they would have the full weight of the US military and other global powers backing them.

I'm very skeptical that you can scare people out of making billions of dollars.


well in my mind the only way to morally rationalize terrorism is to say it serves a greater good... So if the results are that things get worse instead then it doesn't matter to me what your motivations were, it's still condemnable because you made things worse not better. If you wanna say ah but the oil companies/govts/etc have more blood on their hands then fine. That in no way makes the terrorism more justified.

I'm rejecting the idea that terrorism is justified.. if that is the same as rejecting anything that threatens the ever nebulous "neoliberal establishment" then you have already coccus that terrorism is the only thing that could threaten said neoliberalism

And what I'm saying is that if i had any faith at all in the terrorists actually making things better then the question would be much more difficult to answer. I might be more sympathetic if i thought they could. So to me you cannot separate whether or not it's worth condemning from the consequences it has. The consequences are the main reason i oppose terrorists in the first place.

jwb

you already responded to me anyway so here we are... On an open forum. Take a xanax dude

Frownland

Historically that has also widely swayed public opinion in favour of the "terrorists".

Scare em to death. There aren't that many.

Blaming the victim. You recognize the government using an event as justification for a fascist takeover as valid while rejecting any motivations for an ecoterrorist assassination as justified. Pretty obvious which conclusion you're working backwards from there.

On the basis that the government existing to protect corporate interests is a valid starting point, which is the crux of neoliberalism.

Then you understand why I don't have any faith in asking nicely.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

jwb

can you give an example to illustrate what you mean?



using what mechanism? Go for it if you have the plan don't let me talk you out of it ..



how is it blaming the victim?



dunno what this means tbh but I'm also high



I don't either. But i don't get why you have faith in terrorism working better. Maybe you can give me an example to change my mind but it seems to me like it would probably **** us over .

jwb

Seems like online posturing as a revolutionary is the new way to be edgy tbh

Very shocking stuff guys here come the guillotines zzzzzz

Frownland

It's common for "terrorist" rebel groups to see an increase in membership in response to being targeted by the government.

idunno. Piano wire is exciting.

The government using terrorism against anything that threatens the wealthy has compelled you into submission RE: this convo. Why can't that work in the other direction?

We're ****ed regardless tbh.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.