Lmao I unfortunately have to draw a distinction between civilians in a war zone and inheritors of a monarchical state. But you did catch me out in a semantic contradiction. Such is the price of conciseness sometimes.
Contradiction indeed. “Legitimizing violence against children and juveniles is not a good look. Oh wait, no, those ones are ok to kill because of the specific power their parents had.”
Hey comrade, there’s material differences between the God-ordained ruler of an institution that takes that sort of thing seriously and children who don’t have the power of an entire state (and the implied entitlement over the lives and labors of the literal serfs it contains) as part of their inheritance. Sorry you’re missing the forest for the trees here, but that’s not on me. Are the children of monarchs more culpable than kids of civilians? No, probably not. Are they a greater material risk/threat by an exponential factor? Yes absolutely.
There are material differences pointed out by ComradeCmdrPiggy that you conveniently ignored to make a blanket statement like “making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” Turns out, you just draw the line at the killing of children in different material circumstances than both I and ComradeCmdrPiggy do. And your lines have more to do with some vague future potential than the actual immediate threat to those fighting for the liberation of their people. You can say I’m missing the forest for the trees, but by your own admission, you’re the one contradicting yourself.
Keyword, semantic contradiction. If you’re going to take my good grace acknowledgement of unspecificity as inherently contradictory in my intent then you’re not engaging in good faith and I invite you to fuck off. I’m not interested in re-litigating the entire Romanov struggle session. Accept my ‘mea culpa’ and move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please. Put your guns away comrade, we’re on the same side today.
Consider this a response to both your comments under mine and @a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net’s contributions so far. I endorse their good humor and recognition of the futility of resorting to debate-broism in this moment/place.
Likewise. But while you’re at it, I’d also invite you to do some self crit and examine the contradiction and the “mea culpa” you correctly admitted to.
move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please.
This is more than just an academic question for some of us, even though it may be just that for you. And please don’t pretend like I’m the one focusing on what happened 100 years ago when everything I’ve said is about what’s going on right now.
But fine, I am taking the above comment as a “disengage” so I’m doing the same.
Uncritical support to the Palestinian resistance freedom fighters against the genocidal occupation.
I acknowledge the implication of your objection and implied contradiction on my part, I simply recognize what I actually intended with my original statement and don’t care to trudge through the entire matter of the Romanovs again because I failed to put a, what I take to be, unnecessary carve out to my concise line above. This isn’t an oversight on my part, it’s a product of not typing a thesis. Our primary struggle today is not with kings/queens/their successors. My day job also literally pertains to evaluating these matters of culpability in, not exactly the same, but similar, circumstances. Self-defense law, just-war theory, and other matters of similar philosophical/legal significance are not something I have a coarse understanding of. You and I have a difference of opinion on an empirical matter (practical importance of executing a monarchy’s line), and one which neither of us are in a real position to provide the evidence to back up. Such is the way of history sometimes
And I did not say disengage because I did not intend it. I meant it as a shot across the bow about reading into statements too literally, debate-bro technicalities, and picking fights where they don’t need to be. I’d rather not walk away with the verbal equivalent of PPB on the table.
Just because you started (and were on the correct side) of that struggle session doesn’t make you the arbiter of what gets discussed, weirdo. This IS the wrong place to bring up the Romanov kids struggle session, as you did. But pointing out the contradiction (which tbf he did himself point out as well) in someone’s arguments about what’s happening right now is not doing that.
ComradeCmdrPiggy isn’t wrong - if a 15 year-old Israeli kid is, for example, pointing a gun at a Palestinian freedom fighter, no one should expect the Palestinian not to protect themselves and the necessary struggle for their liberation in whatever way possible. If that same kid is huddled down and simply trying not to die, but is present because their parents are colonizers, killing that kid would be fucking heinous. Someone enters this conversation with the understandable and justifiable take of “I’m in favor of Palestine engaging in violent resistance, but if you’re going to start making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” That’s great, but then that person proceeds to say “well if that huddled, non-threatening, prisoner kid might inherit a dangerous position, they’re fair game. Scratch what I said earlier about apologisms for violence against teenagers being bad.” Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
It doesn’t though, cause it’s easily fixed with an ad hoc carve out, and in order to explore whether or not that ad hoc carve out stands up to scrutiny will, in substantial effect, involve reopening the Romanov struggle session and the justifications within it. Something both of us agreed shouldn’t happen.
Man the Romanov children struggle session was wild.
Lmao I unfortunately have to draw a distinction between civilians in a war zone and inheritors of a monarchical state. But you did catch me out in a semantic contradiction. Such is the price of conciseness sometimes.
Contradiction indeed. “Legitimizing violence against children and juveniles is not a good look. Oh wait, no, those ones are ok to kill because of the specific power their parents had.”
Hey comrade, there’s material differences between the God-ordained ruler of an institution that takes that sort of thing seriously and children who don’t have the power of an entire state (and the implied entitlement over the lives and labors of the literal serfs it contains) as part of their inheritance. Sorry you’re missing the forest for the trees here, but that’s not on me. Are the children of monarchs more culpable than kids of civilians? No, probably not. Are they a greater material risk/threat by an exponential factor? Yes absolutely.
There are material differences pointed out by ComradeCmdrPiggy that you conveniently ignored to make a blanket statement like “making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” Turns out, you just draw the line at the killing of children in different material circumstances than both I and ComradeCmdrPiggy do. And your lines have more to do with some vague future potential than the actual immediate threat to those fighting for the liberation of their people. You can say I’m missing the forest for the trees, but by your own admission, you’re the one contradicting yourself.
edit: fixed a word (blanket, not blatant).
Keyword, semantic contradiction. If you’re going to take my good grace acknowledgement of unspecificity as inherently contradictory in my intent then you’re not engaging in good faith and I invite you to fuck off. I’m not interested in re-litigating the entire Romanov struggle session. Accept my ‘mea culpa’ and move on to matters affecting actual children today instead of literally events from over 100 years ago please. Put your guns away comrade, we’re on the same side today.
Consider this a response to both your comments under mine and @a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net’s contributions so far. I endorse their good humor and recognition of the futility of resorting to debate-broism in this moment/place.
Likewise. But while you’re at it, I’d also invite you to do some self crit and examine the contradiction and the “mea culpa” you correctly admitted to.
This is more than just an academic question for some of us, even though it may be just that for you. And please don’t pretend like I’m the one focusing on what happened 100 years ago when everything I’ve said is about what’s going on right now.
But fine, I am taking the above comment as a “disengage” so I’m doing the same.
Uncritical support to the Palestinian resistance freedom fighters against the genocidal occupation.
I acknowledge the implication of your objection and implied contradiction on my part, I simply recognize what I actually intended with my original statement and don’t care to trudge through the entire matter of the Romanovs again because I failed to put a, what I take to be, unnecessary carve out to my concise line above. This isn’t an oversight on my part, it’s a product of not typing a thesis. Our primary struggle today is not with kings/queens/their successors. My day job also literally pertains to evaluating these matters of culpability in, not exactly the same, but similar, circumstances. Self-defense law, just-war theory, and other matters of similar philosophical/legal significance are not something I have a coarse understanding of. You and I have a difference of opinion on an empirical matter (practical importance of executing a monarchy’s line), and one which neither of us are in a real position to provide the evidence to back up. Such is the way of history sometimes
And I did not say disengage because I did not intend it. I meant it as a shot across the bow about reading into statements too literally, debate-bro technicalities, and picking fights where they don’t need to be. I’d rather not walk away with the verbal equivalent of PPB on the table.
Nope nope nope I can’t do this again shut it down. I was making a joke.
Just because you started (and were on the correct side) of that struggle session doesn’t make you the arbiter of what gets discussed, weirdo. This IS the wrong place to bring up the Romanov kids struggle session, as you did. But pointing out the contradiction (which tbf he did himself point out as well) in someone’s arguments about what’s happening right now is not doing that.
ComradeCmdrPiggy isn’t wrong - if a 15 year-old Israeli kid is, for example, pointing a gun at a Palestinian freedom fighter, no one should expect the Palestinian not to protect themselves and the necessary struggle for their liberation in whatever way possible. If that same kid is huddled down and simply trying not to die, but is present because their parents are colonizers, killing that kid would be fucking heinous. Someone enters this conversation with the understandable and justifiable take of “I’m in favor of Palestine engaging in violent resistance, but if you’re going to start making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” That’s great, but then that person proceeds to say “well if that huddled, non-threatening, prisoner kid might inherit a dangerous position, they’re fair game. Scratch what I said earlier about apologisms for violence against teenagers being bad.” Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
It doesn’t though, cause it’s easily fixed with an ad hoc carve out, and in order to explore whether or not that ad hoc carve out stands up to scrutiny will, in substantial effect, involve reopening the Romanov struggle session and the justifications within it. Something both of us agreed shouldn’t happen.
If you think this conversation shouldn’t be had here, then stop commenting on it and perpetuating it.
I can’t believe you’ve done this.