• 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jesus dude. I know right wingers can be absolute cunts but wishing death on them? Really?

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people’s death.

          Edit: spelling

        • ed_cock@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don’t see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The last resort according to basic self preservation.

              The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And sure, shoot at the fucker that’s a threat to you. That’s no justification to shoot at persons 2 and 3 that had similar belief systems but wasn’t shooting at you.

              • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.

                Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  One side is gonna lose in the end.

                  And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.

                  Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.

                  Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.

            • ed_cock@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The guy people keep partly citing when they bring up the “paradox of tolerance”, for example.

        • Vivarevo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you tolerate the intolerant, the tolerant society shifts to intolerant.

        • Duxon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right-wing politics isn’t inherently fascist. It’s a broad spectrum, ranging from moderate conservatism to extreme ideologies like fascism. Fascism involves dictatorial power and forcible suppression, which are not characteristic of all right-wing beliefs.

  • DieguiTux8623@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are a little ahead of schedule if our goal is to revive last century’s events exactly 100 years afterwards, the civil was was from '36 to '39.

  • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t want to condone violence, but I feel like Spain knows a little too well what happens when we let fascists get comfy…

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Accepting violence as a valid political tool for anything other than an absolute last resort is the exact thing that leads to complete and utter chaos. You have to keep in mind that your side is probably not the only side with guns, and those on the other side are also telling themselves that there are plenty of examples of what happens when you let communists get comfy.

      Now, I would obviously say that one of these sides is much more in the wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that, unless you want a politics of everyone shooting at each other, political violence should essentially always be condemned, even if it’s against your political foes.

      • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.

          • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like you don’t have a definition either. The problem with a loose definition of fascism is it gets used to justify lots of atrocities. Putin used it as a justification for invading Ukraine, for example.

              • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are literally entire books written about fascism, by fascists too. Try the doctrine of fascism for starters.

            • Occamsrazer@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?

              • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why don’t liberals understand that there already are definitions for things such as fascism?

                And why can I not do both? Both be violently opposed to fascism and also be fine with violence against my political enemies in general? There are plenty of justifications against other political enemies besides calling them fascists.

                • Occamsrazer@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.

    • Hillock@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I said it eleswhere but this assasination attempt is almost certainly not related to spanish politics. The guy is retired and hasn’t been in office since 2014. He still is active as a lobbyist for the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ and ‘European Friends of Israel’. He is also considered a terrorist by the Iranian government. So if this is politically motivated, it’s way more likely related to the current events in Israel.

  • Drama_durch_Lama@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So to get this straight: An advocate for the democratic movement against the religious fascist regime in Iran, who was officially declared a terrorist by the iranian regime, was (almost successfully) assassinated and the people in this thread do not condemn or even celebrate it, because he was an elected far right politician almost ten years ago.

    • T_Lee@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Drama_durch_Lama @gigachad yep pretty much. Just because you dont agree with someone’s politics doesnt mean its oke to cheer them being shot in the face. The only time thats oke is during a war.

      I’m not to familiar with spanish politics so I will refrain from commenting on it. In my home country far right politicians from 10 years ago would be normal rightwing today, policy wise that is. We had a far-right politician here who got shot and murdered 20 years ago. Today he’d be far left.

  • mindbleach
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I refuse to feel the same way about bad things happening to bigots as I would if they happened to better people.

    The insistence that anyone should is misguided at best and abusive at worst. It’s okay to have different opinions based on people’s words and actions. That’s not prejudice. It’s just regular judice.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus Christ political violence is not a good road to go down on. Hopefully things won’t escalate

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      You got a lot of face that’s not load-bearing.

    • No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shooting someone in the face and them surviving would depend on a bunch of super unpredictable factors. Like, the type of gun and ammo used, the distance of the shot, the angle, and how quick they get medical help.
      If it’s just a graze or if the bullet somehow misses the major stuff in the face like the brain, that could up the chances of survival. Plus, having top-notch trauma docs on hand could make a huge difference. But for real, it’s a roll of the dice situation and totally not something to try to vibe with.

    • 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Real life is not a video game, headshots don’t automatically kill you. People can survive all kinds of weird incidents and likewise die to things that don’t seem all that dangerous, like slipping in the shower

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Phineas Gage had a iron bar blown through his skull by an unexpected dynamite detonation leaving a hole that a person could reach through from each side and touch their fingers on the inside, and he lived for years afterwards and held jobs and everything.

        Then again, John Ritter died when his aorta just spontaneously unzipped inside of his chest. The human body is wild.

    • Stuka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like the obvious answer here is that getting shot in the face doesn’t necessarily mean getting shot in the brain, even though that is rarely survivable as well.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A Spanish rightwing politician and former vice-president of the European parliament is reported to be in a stable condition in hospital after being shot in the face by a masked gunman in a wealthy Madrid neighbourhood.

    El País reported that Vidal-Quadras was in a stable condition in Gregorio Marañon hospital and was being treated for a wound to the face.

    Spain’s acting prime minister, the socialist leader Pedro Sánchez, conveyed his shock and sadness at the attack.

    Sánchez moved a step closer to another term in office on Thursday after his socialist party, the PSOE, won the support of Catalan separatists by offering a deeply controversial amnesty for those who took part in the illegal and failed bid for regional independence six years ago.

    The proposed amnesty law has been fiercely condemned by the PP and Vox, who see it as a cynical move to allow Sánchez to remain in power.

    “The infamous pact … that will crush the rule of law and end the separation of powers has been agreed,” he wrote on X, formerly know as Twitter, on Thursday morning.


    The original article contains 489 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Violence against elected officials is not compatible with democracy. To those cheering at this act of violence: you are as violent and authoritarian as the people you loathe. Shame on you.

    • Hillock@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He is not a currently elected official. He hasn’t been in office since 2014. He isn’t even running for any office. He is retired and “active” as a lobbyist for the ‘National Council of Resistance of Iran’ and ‘European Friends of Israel’.

      While no motive has been established, I doubt it’s related to spanish politics since he is basically irrelevant there. If the attempt was politically motivated, it’s way more likely to be related to the current events in Israel and Gaza. Or his general stance on the current Iranian government. He is considered a terrorist by the Iranian government.

      So there is no threat to democacy and people cheering at this are just happy that a shitty person got hurt. Which still isn’t the best mentality.