The quote HappyBadger posted is from philosopher (among other things) Karl Marx; it has been abbreviated and taken out of context. The full quote says:
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.”
Marx made the declaration when Prussia sent soldiers to shut down his newspaper; he was saying force will be used against the State’s attempt to use force as a way to suppress people.
The article to which HappyBadger is responding is about PEOPLE suppressing people while the State is trying to show compassion; antithesis of the original purpose of the Marx statement.
By abbreviating/misrepresenting the quote, HappyBadger is saying that he wants no compassion, in turn will show no compassion, and that he’s not apologetic for his behavior.
My response attempts to call out his post as a lie. Our everyday lives are filled with moments of exchanged compassion; all of which enrich the lives of the givers and receivers. It is an unspoken aspect of how individuals relate to one another within a social context.
If HappyBadger truly has no compassion, then he is likely a very unhappy person. And if all the unspoken, unsolicited compassion received throughout his daily life was truly taken away because he didn’t ask for it (and supposedly doesn’t want it), his life would be made all the more miserable because of the lack.
You’re being way to fucking literal about it. The quote is about resisting oppression, period. In that case, yeah, it was the state, but any opressor group is applicable.
People really need to get this hyper-autistic need for everything to be a perfect 1:1 analog in order to be valid, because there is no such fucking thing.
I could be wrong. Maybe GASP you could be wrong. But isn’t Lemmy a wonderful beacon of freedom in which we can express our (potentially) mutually wrong opinions? 🤔
The quote HappyBadger posted is from philosopher (among other things) Karl Marx; it has been abbreviated and taken out of context. The full quote says:
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.”
Marx made the declaration when Prussia sent soldiers to shut down his newspaper; he was saying force will be used against the State’s attempt to use force as a way to suppress people.
The article to which HappyBadger is responding is about PEOPLE suppressing people while the State is trying to show compassion; antithesis of the original purpose of the Marx statement.
By abbreviating/misrepresenting the quote, HappyBadger is saying that he wants no compassion, in turn will show no compassion, and that he’s not apologetic for his behavior.
My response attempts to call out his post as a lie. Our everyday lives are filled with moments of exchanged compassion; all of which enrich the lives of the givers and receivers. It is an unspoken aspect of how individuals relate to one another within a social context.
If HappyBadger truly has no compassion, then he is likely a very unhappy person. And if all the unspoken, unsolicited compassion received throughout his daily life was truly taken away because he didn’t ask for it (and supposedly doesn’t want it), his life would be made all the more miserable because of the lack.
You’re being way to fucking literal about it. The quote is about resisting oppression, period. In that case, yeah, it was the state, but any opressor group is applicable.
People really need to get this hyper-autistic need for everything to be a perfect 1:1 analog in order to be valid, because there is no such fucking thing.
If a post not addressed to or in reply to you has got you this upset, why not just block the user instead of getting all sweary and pissed at them?
I could be wrong. Maybe GASP you could be wrong. But isn’t Lemmy a wonderful beacon of freedom in which we can express our (potentially) mutually wrong opinions? 🤔
Don’t do quote -surgery, just write your own thoughts.
If you quote someone expect analysis on that source’s intent and context