Heaven forbid

@Salacious Swanky Cat I can count to 17 real good

I'm not listening, so I can't tell (going to listen tomorrow at work). Did she actually justify it or just say it was inevitable (which is true)?

@2krispy4u Hardy har har. lol

It was more of an understanding of desperation being a motivator to take action

@2krispy4u WAR EAGLE!!!!!

that's a perfectly rational statement

Well yeah, what do you expect?

@Salacious Swanky Cat ouch my ears

I can understand why a jihadist kills himself

@2krispy4u lol

I dont' have to think its good

That's the ultimate result of censorship

Refuse to give someone a platform to subsequently speak their truth to power and you've left them with no choice but to rely on infamy to get a lucid point across

Tarrant won't be the last

When even *bringing up* a topic instantly gets you deplatformed, fired, and socially ostracized, eventually you'll get to the point where you feel violence is the only option

It's more of the tone of understanding. It's kind of tricky explaining. Something you'd need to hear more than read

Tarrant would likely not have done this if he actually had people on the other side he could have conversations with without either him or both being banned from every platform known to man

Agreed

But desperation as an approved motivator tends to be more destructive than productive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pawij9XrZjQ this is the best video on the topic imo

It's sad that NZ won't fry him

Why

Which is my biggest issue with Accelerationism. Accelerationism is the politics of despair

Accelerationism assumes a lot. It assumes you survive the collapse. Your ideals will prevail. Outside intervention won't tip the balance against you.

it could result in most of us dying

the increasing degree of overlap between the far right and the muslims is really odd.

muh horseshoe

Not really, accelerationism requires you to have legals and be able to provide a system of support. You have to come from a position of simultaneously strengthening your own auxiliary model otherwise if you just accelerate you accelerate your movement right off the cliff with the rest of civilisation

You either want to reform society or sink it and start over

Naw, not frying. They should hang him

Too bad

Accelerationism doesn't require anything outside of speeding up the destruction and hoping the new society supports your plans for it

^

That's wrong

It leaves you outside the locus of control

Your opponent has institutional global power

Accelerationism is just commie talk

the point of accelerationism is to hasten/bolster destructive/bad policies to undermine a system you dont want, ultimately

Society might collapse and the economy might weaken but you still lack any locus of control and are left as an unconscious instrument of political agenda

used as a method of social change, it does require that you have a faction or system to shove into that power gap