Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

ziq wrote

Who decides 'that's justice' and why is that justice?

I just did. Pay attention.

Could you not argue that true justice would only have been done if he had been deported himself? And thus justice remains undelivered?

That wouldn't be justice, it would be moving.

Could it not also have been argued that, several weeks detention and some re-education would have been justice, and thus the penalty (of being doxxed) was unduly harsh due to media attention?

You thinking that a white kid with every advantage in the world ruining the lives of a poor brown family for being brown should get a time-out is exactly why you are the last person to talk about justice for poc. You're choking on your own privilege.

No, I don't think it was harsh. Him being relocated from one school to another is nothing compared to a family being ousted from their home.

If it were up to me, I'd beat the shit out of the little weasel. All he had to do was relocate to another school. Big whoop.

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

You thinking that a white kid with every advantage in the world

He's hardly a toff attending Eton, so I wouldn't go as far as saying he has every advantage in the world, but will accept some of the spirit that your kicking.

I just did

But do you have the authority to declare that justice has been served? how do you represent the views of the 350 million Americans, in his community? Many of a similar political view to him would disagree with your view that justice has been served, (too harsh). Many with a similar political view to you would also disagree that justice has been served (too lenient).

You yourself, seem to provide a contradiction to your view that, Justice has been served, when you say he should have recieved corporal punishment?

(If the people are to form the police and authority on a case by case basis as per anarchacist doctrine, does that mean that an anarchacist society would condone state sanctioned violence and severe beatings as form of punishment? - So that we can measure out this punishment more preciesely to bring justice for a range of different crimes, should we perhaps use some form of impliment? say a whipp? I hear the threat of 100 lashes is quite good at keeping people in line)

So why do you, and 'the mob' have the authority to decide on what is just?

If some right wingers get upset because someone ripped down the statue of someone they like, do they then also have the right to enact mob justice?

how would this be organised? would people have to submit a form denoting their political views and if they match up with the political views of the 'establishement' they would be able to enact violent justice as they saw fit, but if their political views did not match up with the political views of the establishment, then they would be denied justice?

1

ziq wrote

But do you have the authority to declare that justice has been served? how do you represent the views of the 350 million Americans, in his community?

Anarchists put no stock in 'authority' so your question is as meaningless to me as your claim to morality. I don't pretend to represent anyone other than myself.

Many of a similar political view to him would disagree with your view that justice has been served, (too harsh).

I couldn't care less. Those people don't speak for me.

You yourself, seem to provide a contradiction to your view that, Justice has been served, when you say he should have recieved corporal punishment?

Him getting punched for being a racist shit isn't 'corporal punishment'. I'm not a state. You hurt people that didn't do anything to warrant it, you open yourself up to direct action.

It's not a contradiction. Justice isn't some kind of definitive 1:1 thing. It comes in different flavors and at different ratios.

does that mean that an anarchacist society would condone state sanctioned violence and severe beatings as form of punishment?

Anarchists don't support states, genius. Our authority ends with our own 2 fists. It's not a 'form of punishment', it's an individual's chosen response to another individual's chosen action. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and the results of those actions.

There is no "anarchist society" in this world, the only anarchy we have is over our own minds. And punching a fascist that's doing real harm to innocent people is as anarchic and just an action as I can imagine.

So why do you, and 'the mob' have the authority to decide on what is just?

I have no authority and never claimed to.

should we perhaps use some form of impliment? say a whipp? I hear the threat of 100 lashes is quite good at keeping people in line)

Again. It's not punishment. It's shutting down a fascist so he stops hurting people less advantaged than him. Fists are all you need.

If some right wingers get upset because someone ripped down the statue of someone they like, do they then also have the right to enact mob justice?

"Rights" aren't real. You comparing fascists getting brown kids deported to poc pulling down a racist statue makes me wish I could punch you, though.

how would this be organised?

Organized violence is better suited to you statists. We'll stick to direct individual action, thanks.