Mod Note: I'm bending the "no politics' rule to highlight a disgusting trend I've been seeing on Lemmy lately. Due to the sheer volume of comments fitting that trend and the huge number downvotes given to anyone who speaks out against it, I'm convinced this opinion is truly unpopular in the Lemmy-verse. This is also topical and important enough to merit discussion or at least to provide a point of reflection. So while it touches on politics, that's merely the framing device of current events being used to highlight a larger problem.
As you're inevitably downvoting this, at least take a good, long look in the mirror while you do so.
The sheer number of people here praising the shooter, advocating for, glorifying, or just flat out calling for violence has been a real eye opener and litmus test for the kind of people I've surrounded myself with on this platform. Suffice it to say, a lot of you have failed that test spectacularly.
A rational, independent thinker should be able to condemn this kind of violence even when it's targeted towards their "enemies." Political violence has absolutely NO PLACE in a healthy society, and no one should be praising or advocating for it. No one. Ever. This is one thing that, regardless of the paradox of tolerance, should be universally condemned.
There are, apparently, a ton of extremists here that don't see themselves as such because they believe their extremism is justified and that they're on the right side of history. Ironically, which is what all extremists think.
This goes back further than just yesterdays's events. For example, it's been a common refrain since the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision that, paraphrased, "The current non-dictator president should do dictator things to stop the other dictator". Which is just another flavor of "Extremism is bad except when it's my flavor of extremism".
Don't give me that "it's just gallows humor", "I'm oppressed, and he deserved it", "if you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back to 1934...", "we haven't been a healthy society for X years...", or other excuses. This is a BFD with major implications and ramifications, and y'all Lemmings are treating like we just missed the exit ramp to Utopia and are trying to find a wide spot to make a U-turn.
It's certainly fine to have no sympathy for the guy (I sure as hell don't), but it's another thing entirely to be cheering on, promoting, and/or advocating for extremist stances like those being thrown out lately.
You say you want a better society? Then act like it!
Moments like this are the true test of one's character and intellectual honesty, and I'm beyond disappointed in so many of you.
Preach.
We have to have principles, which we hold even when inconvenient and distasteful. When we try to improve the world we are asking other people to give something up for principles, and we can't realistically do that if we don't demonstrate principles of our own.
Basic human rights, really basic rights, we should be able to agree on.
Don't murder people, don't celebrate murder, don't encourage people to commit murder
Being able to speak, and communicate your position, concerns, and wants without fear of silencing.
Bonus points:
These are just the starting points, I hope we can find common ground here.
You annihilate yourself by strictly adhering to pacifism. The harsh reality is that, yes, you sometimes have to murder people to protect yourself and the values of an enlightened society, particularly one that condemns murder, because such structures are the most prone to be attacked by people that do not share your values, and such people will always exist. In fact, when defending a free society from the loss of said freedom, murder can be the most moral option there is.
However, I want to conclude this comment by saying that the assassination attempt on Trump may not (yet) be warranted, particularly because I do not believe that the Republicans have the actual will and political momentum to establish a dictatorship post-election. And it is particularly distressing that this incident caused the death of a wholly innocent bystander.
Edit: changed wording from "is the most moral option" to "can be the most moral option"
I tend to feel that the monopoly on violence should, for this very reason, remain with the state. Nothing good will come from vigilante justice becoming popular. Simply pulling out a gun and shooting anyone is such an extreme and unfair thing to do and nobody wants to live in a society like that, even if they think they do. Fixing the entire government and justice system is a whole different question then, but I don't think this approach is taking us any closer.
The problem is you invite every individual to decide when someone should die, so by condoning murder as political expression you REQUIRE authoritarian strong man politics.
My family has fought multiple wars, and I will fight you too, to stop you from murdering people because they are inconvenient for you.
You do not have to fight me, I principally believe in the same values as you (at least I think so, from what little I know about you). It is true that "condoning murder as political expression" is a slippery slope and kind of a "leopards eating people's faces" situation, but if you do not reserve the act of killing as an emergency option, you and your values will eventually disappear. This is the reason why every meaningful nation still has a military, and why many European democracies are again investing billions into armaments after decades of demilitarisation. Just shouting at people while they kill you will make sure that they can successfully kill you.