Somewhat funny to read all these holy, well-tamed, moral people condemning violence with most dumb, ungrounded "violence bad" that cannot even hold a second of scrutiny.

Yes, violence shouldn't be the first resort, and when violence is unleashed innocent suffer as well, but there is a great difference between choosing not to use violence due to whatever consideration, and being so toothless and tamed that a sight of dog that finally bites when being constantly beaten sickens you.

▲

qmr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. A lot of commenters who have probably had privileged lives and never faced a situation where violence was, in fact, the answer.

	▲	sph 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And they live in a country where the industry of violence is the largest slice of government budget.
	▲	tim333 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's not good for this sort of disagree with a CEO stuff. Fighting Hitler is ok. Typed from England where we fought Hitler but don't generally go for CEOs. Is that privileged?
	▲	senordevnyc 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think it’s the opposite: many of these keyboard warriors advocating for violence in 2026 in America have no fucking clue what they’re advocating for, or how stupid they sound.

▲

bad_username 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Where violence is acceptable as a tool, it empowers "cruel humans" on average much more than "beaten dogs".

	▲	ramon156 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you are getting bombed by the opposing country, is a ballot going to stop that? We're not on first resort anymore, people are dying because they cannot afford living.
	▲	samrus 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		True, but at one point the calculus shift to justifying that risk. Basically when the beaten dogs outnumber the cruel humans by alot
	▲	cindyllm 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]