895
Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

But they are though. [breaking the law]

Sure, maybe? Besides the point though, slavery was once codified in law. Breaking the law isn't the issue: The harm is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    We didn't end slavery by assassinating slave owners, we ended it by passing legislation banning it (and I'm sure there were assassinations during the slave era). Yeah, we fought a war first (in the US), but in many other areas, governments just passed laws banning the practice and enforced those laws.

    Legislation is the proper way to solve this. If what they're doing is currently legal but undesirable, pass some consumer-protection laws to prevent most of the harm, and investigate why things cost so much and attack that so both the consumer and health care providers win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You are attributing a lot of credit to legislation in the same sentence that you concede that there was a lot of violence before and after the events that actually fully ended slavery in the US. (ignoring that I guess technically we haven't yet if you count prison labor)

    A non-violent resolution is preferable in these cases if it can be done quickly. However, a violent resolution is better than letting it continue unabated and waiting as more suffering and death happens in the mean time.

    Now, if you want to argue that your non-violent methods are more effective or tactical, I'm not really going to argue against that because sometimes that actually is the case.

    But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.

    Ok, violence is rarely effective at enacting desired change. Look at how many times the US has overthrown dictators just to get someone worse in power. Look at failed revolutions that resulted in authoritarians in charge. Look at Islamic extremism's results creating even more violence. Look at the complete lack of changes since Luigi Mangione took matters into his own hands.

    Targeted violence just doesn't have a good track record for solving problems. It just creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is frequently filled by something even worse.

    So yeah, maybe it's occasionally effective, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent