While Reddit mods and admin try to keep up with the site's "no violence" terms of use, Facebook and LinkedIn is reacting with tens of thousands of laughing emojis.
I couldn’t help but notice Blue Cross rescinded its very dangerous policy placing a time limit on anesthesia the day after the murder.
I don’t want a reign of terror, but perhaps just a little bit of terror will have CEOs thinking they could be next when considering especially harmful policies.
In France, during the Nazi occupation in WW2, a few people turned to the Resistance movement which was also a terror operation: they would target military objectives but also conduct assassinations of nazi officials designed to inspire fear in the others and spark support in the population.
On yet another front, the Greek resistance would kill Nazis. In retaliation, Nazis would kill whole villages. Enraged, more Greeks would join the resistance and kill more Nazis. Net result: Towards the end pretty much every Greek was in the resistance and Greece was the only (IIRC, or at least the first or something) country to free itself from Nazi occupation. (Then they became a dictatorship different story).
No, it’s terror. It’s just that that isn’t always the negative we’ve tended to think it is.
Typically we’ve been citizens in a country on the “power” side of the dynamic, so using terror like that meant using it on us, and so we learned that it’s bad.
This time we’re on the other side of the power dynamic, so it’s seemingly… Good.
The bad thing being good creates cognitive dissonance.
This is a direct consequence of “the war on terror” attempting to redefine the military strategy of asymmetrical warfare as terrorism and inherently immoral.
To sell the bullshit “war on terror” the easiest way to make the US seem righteous was to degrade the public’s sense of why people violently resist and reduce it to the act of violently resisting an organized traditional military is immoral unless the thing resisting is also a traditional organized military.
I am glad that narrative is breaking down though as the distortion of how and why violent conflicts occur is dangerously blinding to a basic understanding of the world.
Technically they didn’t fully rescind it. They rescinded it in some places but not others, and for some patients but not others. It’s just PR, they have no intention of actually changing things.
I couldn’t help but notice Blue Cross rescinded its very dangerous policy placing a time limit on anesthesia the day after the murder.
I don’t want a reign of terror, but perhaps just a little bit of terror will have CEOs thinking they could be next when considering especially harmful policies.
In France, during the Nazi occupation in WW2, a few people turned to the Resistance movement which was also a terror operation: they would target military objectives but also conduct assassinations of nazi officials designed to inspire fear in the others and spark support in the population.
You just reminded me of a movie and let’s just say I highly recommend it.
On yet another front, the Greek resistance would kill Nazis. In retaliation, Nazis would kill whole villages. Enraged, more Greeks would join the resistance and kill more Nazis. Net result: Towards the end pretty much every Greek was in the resistance and Greece was the only (IIRC, or at least the first or something) country to free itself from Nazi occupation. (Then they became a dictatorship different story).
And you just reminded me of a movie from a show and let’s just say I recommend both.
https://youtu.be/X1DcKBwliAw
Finding out after you’ve fucked around isn’t terror.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. This guy’s a vigilante.
I guess it all depends how IRA makes you feel lol
Thatcher was the one that got away
deleted by creator
Always has been
Thats okay because its not terror its defense.
No, it’s terror. It’s just that that isn’t always the negative we’ve tended to think it is.
Typically we’ve been citizens in a country on the “power” side of the dynamic, so using terror like that meant using it on us, and so we learned that it’s bad.
This time we’re on the other side of the power dynamic, so it’s seemingly… Good.
The bad thing being good creates cognitive dissonance.
This is a direct consequence of “the war on terror” attempting to redefine the military strategy of asymmetrical warfare as terrorism and inherently immoral.
To sell the bullshit “war on terror” the easiest way to make the US seem righteous was to degrade the public’s sense of why people violently resist and reduce it to the act of violently resisting an organized traditional military is immoral unless the thing resisting is also a traditional organized military.
I am glad that narrative is breaking down though as the distortion of how and why violent conflicts occur is dangerously blinding to a basic understanding of the world.
Killing people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time is always wrong.
I think you will find Palestinian citizens agree with you on that point.
Yes. And the Israeli hostages.
Marx once said that proletarians won’t embellish the terror once it’s their turn.
Robespierre thought killing tens of thousands of people was defense. History has not been kind to that position.
Good thing there’s only 2066 of them. 2065 now.
Technically they didn’t fully rescind it. They rescinded it in some places but not others, and for some patients but not others. It’s just PR, they have no intention of actually changing things.
Just a light drizzle of terror