Asklemmy

44182 readers

1589 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

252

Why is there so little discussion on the history of anti-terrorism statutes in the USA as they're being brought against Luigi Mangione? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Everyone seems shocked at this. I personally felt a lot less shocked and more like I'd been waiting for this shoe to drop for 20 years. I've been waiting for people to notice the tools of the Iraq War being turned against American citizens for over a decade now.

I spent the better part of 2001 and on arguing against the PATRIOT Act and its codification of terrorism as a crime. Lots of people were against it (we were in the minority, obviously), pointing out how the PATRIOT Act would consider the Founding Fathers terrorists. They committed violence to achieve political ends.

Did everyone just forget that at one point there was actually a nascent conversation on why this was a bad idea, especially considering people warning that they would soon use these laws against their own citizens?

Why did these conversations stop? More importantly, now that Mangione is being charged with terrorism, why aren't the conversations beginning anew?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I would always say, if we justify some killings, there is always a chance people will abuse this “loophole” for crime we created.

Oh you mean how UHC uses that loophole to kill people with social murder, and our moral system doesn't consider it a crime because they didn't directly stab someone to death, but instead purposefully denied them care that they had paid for by paying for insurance, leaving them to die.

So saying all killings are illegal is kind of the best application of our morals we have.

Except, we clearly don't say all killings are illegal, as evidenced by what I just discussed. We have clearly made the choice that social murder though things like denying healthcare or denying housing and pushing people into the frozen deadly streets of winter are totes okay. That's literally what's at issue here, is that a whole swath of killings are allowed, and not just allowed, but are allowed to be profited from, and handsomely. Which is far darker and worse, imho.

Genuinely, it's easy to say that we have banned all killings, but we clearly haven't. Cops even have qualified immunity to murder with impunity. We have the largest military in the world, and we've been known as the violent "World Police" that will bomb your country to the fucking stone age. Those deaths and that violence is normalized. That's why they say "the state has a monopoly on violence."