> If you say it’s valid and not a war crime for the US to assassinate former political Iranian figures and their families for aiding the new regime and therefore becoming enemy combatants in the eye of the US Military, it’s also valid to assassinate Altman and his family for doing the same to the other war party.
Sam isn't a political leader, so this comparison is flawed. What the hell, are we really arguing about if assasinating a long-standing figure of this community here is valid? Seriously??
He is a leader and a political figure. This blogpost is political (as well as sharing a family photo, which is itself imbued with a political message in that context).
Engineer archetypes hate politics and refuse to think about it. For most engineering, there is negligible political dimension. But culturally-transformative technology is inherently political to the degree it's transformative. Altman recognises this.
He is working towards a social goal, and attracting support to achieve it. Yes, he is a political leader.
He's rich, connected at the highest levels, works with the US govt and specifically the military. Able to have a relatively high political influence (on the workforce at the very least). How is he not actively a political figure?
People on this forum applauded Charlie Kirk’s murder too. Unfortunately theres a number of people here who believe it’s okay to murder instead of argue with words. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Indeed. I've seen much more outright support for the murders of Pretti, Good, and Taylor than people "applauding" Kirk's murder. Never mind the recent support for the mass murder of Iranians ("bomb them back to the stone age" etc). Unfortunately those incompetents who take refuge in violence are now in charge of our society.
(I suppose I'm getting the reply-less downvotes from people's cognitive dissonance getting triggered. Just because it's possible to frame a murder as being legally justified, does not absolve you of the fact that by adopting this justification you're still supporting a murder. In fact I'd point out that the most horrific atrocities in human history have been legally justified. Randomly-directed violence doesn't really scale up, whereas organized violence does)
I intentionally repeated the same word for consistency, and that was the word used by GP's comment. If you don't like the word, then feel free to mentally replace it with something else, perhaps "killing". Especially if that can help you engage with the substance of an argument.
Sam isn't a political leader, so this comparison is flawed. What the hell, are we really arguing about if assasinating a long-standing figure of this community here is valid? Seriously??