Is it ethical to slaughter groups of people based on their political beliefs?
Take communists. They want to utterly destroy my country, but at the moment they are nothing but a tiny, tiny minority who only exist in University campuses
Is it justifiable to kill them based on the threat their views hold?
This isn't /pol/, bud
Next time you should at least try to make this related to history and humanities in some way
The question isn't "Is it justifiable," it is, "Whom must I justify it to."
1. I've never posted in /pol/
2. This is about philosophy
3. There is a similar thread with Popper's work, but instead of silence it is slaughter
Yeah buddy communists are a huge threat in 2017. What's with these fucking kids, why did they start LARPing 50's?
americans need to be gassed
>the holocaust
>holohoax
>armenien joke
>rwandan nigger war
lel
>I dislike jews which means that the mountains of eyewitness testimony, documentation, physical and forensic evidence, demographic changes are all made up
>I'm gonna pretend my theories hold water even though they get utterly BTFO in every holocaust thread on Veeky Forums every single time
t. stormfag brainlets
Killing people for their beliefs and speech in the context of a civil society seems wrong.
However, I think it's reasonable to arrest people protesting when there is an implied threat that they will take over the society and violate the rights of other citizens.
For instance,
>several black men lynched by KKK in secret over the course of a month
>KKK goes to city center and conducts a peaceful demonstration where they state they will take over the police and government via the ballot box and "deal" with black people in the future
The content of the protest combined with identification with a group engaged in a terror campaign against black people would be a case where banning the protest would be acceptable. I take it that France cracksdown on public displays of female repression under Islam to prevent the implicit threat of "if you don't wear conservative clothing, you get attacked" from taking hold. If you let the KKK, sunni fundamentalist Islamist, or communists protest after engaging in violent terror campaigns you're allowing them to destroy civil society.
>typing more than 10 words in response to a shitpost
Literally giving out death sentences for a thought crime.
In addition, if you start just shooting anyone you label as a "communist" on sight, they'll respond with counter-attacks. Right now, communist movements in the Western world are fairly peaceful. All you'd do is cause unnecessary death on every side involved, leading into a spiral of constant revenge attacks. And you'll be seen as the villain by the majority, for firing the first shot.
>its Ganowicz shitpost again
That cuck spent his entire life fighting for wahabi Saudi sultan against the "communists" (Baathist freedom fighters) And then fighting some random nigger against another niggers, both of them being supported by the Soviet union
>Antifa
>peaceful
You don't need to be a Right Winger to see they're anything but peaceful.
>i think it's reasonable to arrest people protesting when there is an implied threat that they will take over society
The modern KKK has no chance of ever becoming a relevant political organization, and neither do any of the extremist groups in the US. Furthermore, most of them are already heavily infiltrated by the FBI. They don't pose enough of a threat to warrant taking away their civil rights. They aren't "destroying civil society" because they hardly have an effect on it in the first place.
Peaceful as in they're mostly just getting into brawls and committing vandalism, not actively engaging in terrorism.
>Is it ethical to slaughter groups of people based on their political beliefs?
>Take Nazis. They want to utterly destroy my country, but at the moment they are nothing but a tiny, tiny minority who only exist in University campuses
>Is it justifiable to kill them based on the threat their views hold?
they kind of forget to mention mass 3rd world immigration and how much academia and media have been pushing child-free propaganda
I wonder why.
>Take Nazis. They want to utterly destroy my country
No nazi wants to do that unless he's a nazi jew I guess.
We should kill you
...
>actual genocides
>holocaust
>srebrenica
Stopped reading there
>but at the moment they are nothing but a tiny, tiny minority who only exist in University campuses
I don't think you know what a communist is
This is like rap music. Coming at a time after the baby boom and baby boomers were having kids themselves. And baby boomers did not want to be like their drunk or attentiveless parents. So they grew in innocence and would say stupid things out of innocence. That could perhaps get them into a lot of trouble. So rap music came along and helped curve that dilemma. Our grandparents were from a time you could not speak, the only speaking was done when getting drunk. Other than that theyd be beat up, slaughtered...etc.
As for my answer. It depends how their society is engineered. There needs to be rails in a society for you to enjoy freedom of speech.
Our parents and grandparents grew up in a time there was not so much security and violence escalated. Their parents didnt care for them but depended on some mythical christian upbringing. So our parents grandparents had to resort to gangs which in it itself established a common wealth communism because they had to be militant and pay off their own security in their turf. And kill any outsider trying to steal from them their inheritance, their family land, their jobs etc. they werent rich but it was their only security.
They establish shotgun towns. Govt further relied on welfare programs. Despite of it being political it was culturally accepted. And used as a fight against communism. Take for example the crips: they started off in US military. their organization was about who takes blame for what protection. The oldermen would kill and their minors would get accused. It was about a system
Bloods were for black industry. So they were more autonomous than crips. That were for military position. Mexican Family, Black Mafia, and Ñetas are both prison system protection rackets. Latin Kings are a legal racket. KKK is a military and legal racket. Most join KKK in military. Communism will never sell because crime sells and people enjoy making the money to atleast say they achieved something. Because communism is an organized state crime based on system where all pay for crime. Capitalism is unorganized state crime where one person does.
Even if communists weren't 0.001 percent of the population, just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they want to destroy the country. Chill the fuck out. This is a history board.
>shitposting shittily
Communism means country must pay for everyones doings.
Capitalism means one person must pay for their country's wrong doing.
Has to do with the legal systems so capitalists and communists fight. Communists want tighter control at the same time they kill capitalists and hide behind group unpunished. The communist group has nothing but lawyers.
Capitalists have to choose their perpetrators or else theyll be penalized more. They have to work extra harder and cant hide. Plus they need $$$ whereas communists have the best legal advisers for a fraction of the costs.
No. It would only be justifiable to kill them if they posed an imminent violent threat and the situation was such a complete emergency that it was not possible to imprison them rather than kill them.
Even 1919 Germany doesn't fit these criteria, meaning that Ebert was not justified. He was justified in suppressing the communists, but not in looking the other way while human rights abuses were committed by anti-communist forces.
Even 1973 Chile doesn't fit these criteria, meaning that Pinochet was not justified.
In the situation you describe, killing would not even be close to being justified.
Every Nazi holds views that, if implemented, would destroy his country.
>3585403
Except they don't really have the express aim of 'destroying your country' though do they? They want to make it better and rightly or wrongly they think communism is the way to do that, probably not deserving of death.
Lets see american society. How towns were built. Suburbia. One town has all the business employers, the next the worker, next landowners (employ foreign workers/entities), the other the federal employees, the next all the cops. Youll see in the vast scheme of things the worker towns are gentrified, the cop towns fill up with low level criminals, the federal employee towns somehow escape a lot of the bull, and employer towns become commercial.
They are all ruled by shotgun/guntown rule. Which their parents grandparents established because their foreign lands business were getting possessed by illegal homesteading and local bureaucracy. Besides being commercial they become lawyer towns.
>Is it ethical to slaughter groups of people based on their political beliefs?
no
especially the slaughter part
>tfw I have the same picture but 6 years old
Guntown stronghold are in places with landowners. And usually the last ones to get out and prone to have similar interests as employer town. They care about stability. Whereas worker towns hate employers. The landowner towns are the ones that have an operable segregation. Most people settle there because they were established by international celebrities, trendsetters. They helped ease the way for their extensions and their family extensions easened the way for ppl from old land. However they operate in small town doctrine. Since they come from most suffered, the last of mohicans and have paid enforcement protection which has helped western industry remain stable. So the CIA likes to get involved.
No.