I mean, if she’s committed crimes bad enough to warrant death I’m not gonna object to the killing itself, but still there would’ve been better execution methods than burning her alive. Hanging or firing squad, for example. Reveling in brutality is generally not something you want in a resistance movement.
What isn’t too much, but also creates the necessary drastic changes?
You know, kill or imprison those responsible for the people’s suffering, take or burn their stuff, etc. I’m in no way against violent revolution; I just believe even the worst people should get a relatively humane death when possible. Whether the billionaires and their lackies are killed or not really has no bearing on the end result; it’s the actual seizure of power (or threat thereof) that gets things done.
I don’t know, I have a damn hard time stopping to show this much consideration for those who have repeatedly proved they would never bother to do the same for me or mine.
Got burned alive for being a sadistic corrupt fascist living in luxury while the people starved? Sucks to suck, maybe the next one will think twice.
What really gets me is we only seem to ever have this hand wringing when it’s a rich person that meets a gruesome end.
Imagine if this person had instead been an ordinary person that did something horrible. Imagine there’s a child molester or a serial killer barricaded in their home, the police outside. They fire a flash bang inside, this causes the house to catch fire, and the monster ends up being burned alive. Would people be here lamenting this fact? No, they wouldnt. It is only when the rich and powerful meet gruesome ends that we start moralizing about vigilante justice. When a monster that isn’t rich meets a gruesome end through extrajudicial violence, no one bats an eye.
Oh I’m not at all upset about her meeting a gruesome end; it’s the part about deliberately inflicting that gruesome end that I’m complaining about. In your example it’d be an unintended consequence of something desirable (catching the serial killer), which is a whole different story. If the story was instead “corrupt PMs die inside parliament after protesters burn it down” it’d have been a lot more acceptable.
Nope. It’s impossible to intimidate the elites into submission through violence against them; you have to seriously threaten their power. The lesson the Nepalese ruling class will learn from this is to never fall under the protesters (though at this point “revolutionaries” is probably a more appropriate term), not to be better people. There is literally nothing productive about this.
I mean, if she’s committed crimes bad enough to warrant death I’m not gonna object to the killing itself, but still there would’ve been better execution methods than burning her alive. Hanging or firing squad, for example. Reveling in brutality is generally not something you want in a resistance movement.
You know, kill or imprison those responsible for the people’s suffering, take or burn their stuff, etc. I’m in no way against violent revolution; I just believe even the worst people should get a relatively humane death when possible. Whether the billionaires and their lackies are killed or not really has no bearing on the end result; it’s the actual seizure of power (or threat thereof) that gets things done.
I don’t know, I have a damn hard time stopping to show this much consideration for those who have repeatedly proved they would never bother to do the same for me or mine.
Got burned alive for being a sadistic corrupt fascist living in luxury while the people starved? Sucks to suck, maybe the next one will think twice.
What really gets me is we only seem to ever have this hand wringing when it’s a rich person that meets a gruesome end.
Imagine if this person had instead been an ordinary person that did something horrible. Imagine there’s a child molester or a serial killer barricaded in their home, the police outside. They fire a flash bang inside, this causes the house to catch fire, and the monster ends up being burned alive. Would people be here lamenting this fact? No, they wouldnt. It is only when the rich and powerful meet gruesome ends that we start moralizing about vigilante justice. When a monster that isn’t rich meets a gruesome end through extrajudicial violence, no one bats an eye.
Oh I’m not at all upset about her meeting a gruesome end; it’s the part about deliberately inflicting that gruesome end that I’m complaining about. In your example it’d be an unintended consequence of something desirable (catching the serial killer), which is a whole different story. If the story was instead “corrupt PMs die inside parliament after protesters burn it down” it’d have been a lot more acceptable.
Shoot them, THEN hang the wealthy for all the other bastards to see.
Sometimes you need to make an example.
Nope. It’s impossible to intimidate the elites into submission through violence against them; you have to seriously threaten their power. The lesson the Nepalese ruling class will learn from this is to never fall under the protesters (though at this point “revolutionaries” is probably a more appropriate term), not to be better people. There is literally nothing productive about this.
They don’t need to be better people. They need to be put down.