Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:11 pm UTC

Angua wrote:You can argue over whether or not they may have been morally justified in doing it because the leader was a horrible person who kicked kittens and supported the wrong cricket team (though let's be honest, it was probably because he was the person who fired them), but don't try and pretend that this was in any way not torturing and killing someone.

Heisenberg said that the only reason anyone would light anyone on fire was to satisfy a depraved need to inflict suffering. I pointed to a case where this wan't true. No one is saying it wasn't torture and murder.

The Great Hippo wrote:What exact configuration of magical events would we need to cobble together to make this somehow justified? I'm waiting with baited breath to hear exactly how you're going to pull yourself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp with some sort of fucking One Thousand and One Nights level story-telling shit. Are you going to use genies? Magical unicorns, maybe? Maybe Agent Smith showed up and told them if they didn't light the guy on fire and watch him burn, all their families would die? Spin me a tale, Scheherazade.

A) I'm not saying they are justified. I'm saying that calling this insane and evil without any of the information required to make that determination is presumptuous. This article says that laid-off workers singled someone out and burned them to death. That is literally all the information that the article gave.
B) This event sparks a popular uprising that spreads throughout the globe, starting an endless golden age of humanity.
C) I suck at story telling.
D) Why would I want to pull myself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp? All options should be on the table at all times.


The Great Hippo wrote:
NitePhyyre wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.
[citation needed]
For every case you cite where a rabid lynch mob accomplished a genuine good that extended beyond the heinous act, I'll cite you twenty ten1 where they didn't.

I'm sure you could. Sturgeon's Law and all. That doesn't really say much about anything though does it?


The Great Hippo wrote:1) I'm all for interpreting the shit out of events. By all means; let's understand what's going on here and why there's such a brutal, violent response to the firings. When I hear about things like this, I have two responses: Horror, followed by a desire to understand why. But while we're doing that, let's at no juncture whatsoever try to justify those brutal, violent responses. I'm fine with putting things in context; I'm not fine with trying to use that context to justify lighting people on fire and watching them burn. Not unless there is something beneficial to gain from lighting people on fire.

2) I'm really sick and tired of people trying to use the whole 'You don't understand their experiences' defense to justify horrible acts of violence. I don't need to understand their experiences to understand that what they are doing is wrong. I understand that their situation may be horrible, deplorable, and fucked up beyond all measure; I accept that I have no understanding of what it is to live in deplorable poverty where the life of my family can be decided by the presence of a pink slip. These things do not justify acts of atrocity. They don't justify genocide, they don't justify rape, they don't justify torture, they don't justify murder, and I am sick to fucking death of people pretending like they do. The only way you can ever justify violating the rights of another human being is as a means to protect the rights of other human beings. If what they did doesn't accomplish that, then what they did is completely fucking wrong.

The underlined sections: It seems like your position on whether or not these acts are justified depend on the outcome of other acts that will follow from this one. If things go back to the status quo, it was unjustified. If the rest of the management decides to change their policy, it becomes justified. Yet, you have already condemned this as insane and evil. Your position depends on information you do not yet have, cannot yet have, but you have assumed it anyway. This is called "jumping to conclusions".

@cleverbeans:
Thanks for the info about India, it was interesting to get a little bit of context.
A google search for 'Clarence Darrow violence' (no quotes) didn't turn up anything interesting in the first couple of results. What should we be googling?
EDIT: Actually, the wikiquote article on him paints him in an anti-violence/pro-love picture.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:14 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:A) I'm not saying they are justified. I'm saying that calling this insane and evil without any of the information required to make that determination is presumptuous.
I didn't say the action was insane and evil (I'd stop simply at 'evil'). I said JonScholar's position that this could be justifiable was insane and evil. That's an important distinction.
nitePhyyre wrote:The underlined sections: It seems like your position on whether or not these acts are justified depend on the outcome of other acts that will follow from this one. If things go back to the status quo, it was unjustified. If the rest of the management decides to change their policy, it becomes justified. Yet, you have already condemned this as insane and evil. Your position depends on information you do not yet have, cannot yet have, but you have assumed it anyway. This is called "jumping to conclusions".
Again, I would condemn this as evil, not necessarily insane.

If you handed me a gun and proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that killing the man in front of me was necessary to save the lives of a thousand human beings, it would be morally justifiable for me to do so. But this is a ridiculous and stupid scenario that never actually happens. In reality, the ends of violence are difficult if not impossible to measure, and only get fuzzier the farther out you stretch them.

It is possible (in the vaguest, most trivial sense of the word) that from the death of this man will arise a greater good; it is impossible that the men who killed him had a clear and absolute knowledge that this end would come to pass. Fuck, it's pretty much impossible that they had a reasonable knowledge that this end would come to pass. To believe they did is to believe in leprechauns and psychics. Try constructing a scenario where they somehow knew that setting him on fire and watching him burn was the only way to save lives--try doing this without resorting to fucking genies in a bottle. I dare you.

Any good that comes of this will be coincidental, and I sincerely doubt much good will come.
nitePhyyre wrote:A google search for 'Clarence Darrow violence' (no quotes) didn't turn up anything interesting in the first couple of results. What should we be googling?
EDIT: Actually, the wikiquote article on him paints him in an anti-violence/pro-love picture.
Pretty much. Which was why I was going 'buh, what?' at the whole 'Clarence Darrow supported violence' schtick.

Anyway, since I've been called out on my Western rich boy privilege on account of opposing this sort of violence, let me do a little privilege call-out of my own. Those of you who think this could be reasonable or justifiable in the larger context of labor rights: Have you considered the privilege you enjoy by not being burned alive?

And no, I'm not joking around. I am dead fucking serious. Someone was lit on fire and died a horrible, agonizing death. I assume since you are alive and posting on these forums, that is not an experience any of you are personally familiar with. Can one of you explain to me precisely what this man did that would make him deserving of that particular fate? What anyone could do that would make them deserve to die in a fire? Could someone explain to me how arguing that his slow, excruciating death might have been justified depending on the context isn't shitting on him and his rights as a human fucking being?

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:57 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
And no, I'm not joking around. I am dead fucking serious. Someone was lit on fire and died a horrible, agonizing death. I assume since you are alive and posting on these forums, that is not an experience any of you are personally familiar with. Can one of you explain to me precisely what this man did that would make him deserving of that particular fate? What anyone could do that would make them deserve to die in a fire? Could someone explain to me how arguing that his slow, excruciating death might have been justified depending on the context isn't shitting on him and his rights as a human fucking being?


Answers...

1) Nothing.

2) I can't even think of an act that would be so horrific that it would justify death by burning.

3) Even if he was a horrible boss, he didn't deserve to have this happen to him. Mob rule is never a good way of meting out punishment for crimes both real and imagined.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:01 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:3) Even if he was a horrible boss, he didn't deserve to have this happen to him. Mob rule is never a good way of meting out punishment for crimes both real and imagined.
Well to be fair, I think the general assumption was that he was contributing to a system that's, in essence, slavery--and that he was one of the slave-drivers. Although that's a mighty big assumption (it's just as possible that he faced a situation where not firing these guys meant he would be fired, and thusly face exactly the same consequences they were facing).

But if a group of escaped slaves got together, tracked down their former master, lit him on fire and then watched him die, I'd ask exactly the same questions and raise exactly the same points.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:53 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Cleverbeans wrote:So, when the most charitable companies are doing the murdering and pillaging, and a layoff equivalent to a death sentence for you and your family - what would you do?
Resort to crime as a means to feed and support my family.
Cleverbeans wrote:Maybe plan a particularly brutal means of killing them so that someone, out there might see what you did, dig a little deeper than the headline of some corporate rag taking a pot shot at the labor movement and maybe someone will notice?
In precisely what way does brutally killing your employers do anything but reaffirm the notion that organized labor is a horrible idea that should be resisted at all cost? This sort of mob justice does nothing but reinforce an anti-labor, anti-union climate. If they did this out of a desire of activism rather than reciprocity, then they aren't just murderers--they're horrible activists, too.

Edit: For clarification, I (personally) would support the acts of the farmers you described in your post, because they are actively working to protect their interests--even if those acts are violent. When lives are at stake, violence can be justified. But brutally killing someone after your interests have passed--when this killing won't benefit you in any way? How can we even begin to justify that? Again, this isn't killing a man for bread to feed your family; this is killing the man because he charges too much for his bread. For the men who killed this person, there was nothing more at stake--the evil had been done. They burned a man alive for absolutely nothing.

I condone violence only when it is an effective means to serve justice. Lighting someone on fire and then claiming it was to send a 'message' that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated--that in no way serves justice.

To be fair, would privileged Americans living in their palaces by comparison be giving more than two shits about their situation at the moment if they hadn't committed the act? So, while it was horrific, it did do something in terms of highlighting the plight of their situation to the world. So, I wouldn't say it did absolutely nothing.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:10 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:To be fair, would privileged Americans living in their palaces by comparison be giving more than two shits about their situation at the moment if they hadn't committed the act? So, while it was horrific, it did do something in terms of highlighting the plight of their situation to the world. So, I wouldn't say it did absolutely nothing.
But can we clearly measure and compare whatever positive effect this has by drawing attention to India's crippling poverty to whatever negative effect this has by reinforcing the narrative that labor movements consists of violent, murderous, anarchist thugs?

Nevertheless, my language there was too strong; I'm no more capable of measuring the ends here then the men who committed this act are.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:27 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:To be fair, would privileged Americans living in their palaces by comparison be giving more than two shits about their situation at the moment if they hadn't committed the act? So, while it was horrific, it did do something in terms of highlighting the plight of their situation to the world. So, I wouldn't say it did absolutely nothing.
But can we clearly measure and compare whatever positive effect this has by drawing attention to India's crippling poverty to whatever negative effect this has by reinforcing the narrative that labor movements consists of violent, murderous, anarchist thugs?

Nevertheless, my language there was too strong; I'm no more capable of measuring the ends here then the men who committed this act are.

Yeah, I still say burning the factory down after getting everybody out would have been much more effective anyways. Then again, I like fire and that would have been a bigger fire.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:13 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It is possible (in the vaguest, most trivial sense of the word) that from the death of this man will arise a greater good; it is impossible that the men who killed him had a clear and absolute knowledge that this end would come to pass. Fuck, it's pretty much impossible that they had a reasonable knowledge that this end would come to pass. To believe they did is to believe in leprechauns and psychics. Try constructing a scenario where they somehow knew that setting him on fire and watching him burn was the only way to save lives--try doing this without resorting to fucking genies in a bottle. I dare you.

Any good that comes of this will be coincidental, and I sincerely doubt much good will come.

That line of thinking pretty much eliminates all forms of revolutionary action. You aren't much of a believer in 'gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette' are you?

Jahoclave wrote:Yeah, I still say burning the factory down after getting everybody out would have been much more effective anyways. Then again, I like fire and that would have been a bigger fire.
We can only hope it was a fireworks factory.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cryopyre » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:38 pm UTC

There's a degree where violence and murder will probably be necessary for socialist/anarchist revolutions.

That said, I have my doubts this will actually contribute to any degree, instead it's just a lone act of violence against an oppressor, but so long as it remains isolated it remains useless.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

Silastic
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:45 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Silastic » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:58 pm UTC

Cryopyre wrote:That said, I have my doubts this will actually contribute to any degree, instead it's just a lone act of violence against an oppressor, but so long as it remains isolated it remains useless.

I agree, we don't have all the facts, but it seems unlikely that this act was done in order to insight any "greater movement", and it seems unlikely to do so.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:00 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:That line of thinking pretty much eliminates all forms of revolutionary action. You aren't much of a believer in 'gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette' are you?
You should read that again. He's said he's ok with murdering people to make your omelette. He simply doesn't see any omelette that requires that murdered person to be flambe.

And considering the success of completely non-violent revolutions in the past, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choosing to gun people down in the streets instead of lighting them on fire isn't going to hinder your movement that much.

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cryopyre » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:considering the success of completely non-violent revolutions in the past


What? There was Martin Luther King, but that revolution moved almost entirely through the system, breaking very few laws in comparison to actual revolutions that require a complete re-construction of the system at hand. This is liberal revisionism, violence is necessary for socialist and democratic revolutions to free the working class. This is because the power structures will completely resist any peaceful attempts to do so.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:03 pm UTC

Cryopyre wrote:What? There was Martin Luther King, but that revolution moved almost entirely through the system, breaking very few laws in comparison to actual revolutions that require a complete re-construction of the system at hand. This is liberal revisionism, violence is necessary for socialist and democratic revolutions to free the working class. This is because the power structures will completely resist any peaceful attempts to do so.
Not entirely true.

But yes, violence seems to be an inevitable product of upsetting the status quo; when the status quo is horrible enough to justify that violence, I can see the revolutionary's point. Someone is going to get hurt--either the protesters will commit violence, or the protesters will have violence committed to them. I have a deeper respect for the latter, but I don't expect people to give up their lives and bodies for their freedom.

Regardless, that isn't what we're looking at here.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Arrian » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:09 pm UTC

Cryopyre wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:considering the success of completely non-violent revolutions in the past


What? There was Martin Luther King, but that revolution moved almost entirely through the system, breaking very few laws in comparison to actual revolutions that require a complete re-construction of the system at hand. This is liberal revisionism, violence is necessary for socialist and democratic revolutions to free the working class. This is because the power structures will completely resist any peaceful attempts to do so.


Well, since we're talking about India, one might use Ghandi as an example. Don't remember reading about any burned up Brits in the course of India gaining its independence.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:Well, since we're talking about India, one might use Ghandi as an example. Don't remember reading about any burned up Brits in the course of India gaining its independence.
Just to be fair and thorough, there definitely was violence and murder (Ghandi condemned said violence, and on at least one occasion called off all protests via a hunger strike on account of his fear that the non-violent movement would devolve into all-out chaos), but yeah, in the broad view, the manner in which India won its independence (and significant portions of the independence movement) often exemplified non-violent resistance (and was apparently the primary inspiration for Martin Luthor King and other Civil Rights leaders in America throughout the 60s).

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cryopyre » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:26 pm UTC

To all three above me I am well aware of Ghandi's acts of nonviolent protest. However, there was definitely a violent aspect to the revolution.

And even then, Ghandi's protests resulted in many deaths, but they were just the deaths of Indians who were under oppression. And to be honest, I think that if there's a revolution and it's the oppressed against the oppressors, I'd rather take the route that kills the oppressors.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:34 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Arrian wrote:Well, since we're talking about India, one might use Ghandi as an example. Don't remember reading about any burned up Brits in the course of India gaining its independence.
Just to be fair and thorough, there definitely was violence and murder (Ghandi condemned said violence, and on at least one occasion called off all protests via a hunger strike on account of his fear that the non-violent movement would devolve into all-out chaos), but yeah, in the broad view, the manner in which India won its independence (and significant portions of the independence movement) often exemplified non-violent resistance (and was apparently the primary inspiration for Martin Luthor King and other Civil Rights leaders in America throughout the 60s).

And to be fair, there is a slight difference in a struggle to cast off a colonialist power in an age of waning imperialism and the decline of the colonial holder's ability to project power in the region, the call for basic civil rights that doesn't really upset much of the status quo, and a full-fledged socialist revolution that overthrows the hegemonic social ordering that props up capitalism. So, Cyro isn't exactly talking about the same thing, he's just semi out of date on Marxist theory. Being that, while that was the traditional and early view, the only through violence route fell a bit out of favor with the Rise of Stalin--in that violent revolution tends to trend towards Stalin pig instead of Trostky Pig. The consideration being that socialism is supposed to make things more democratic, and as has been alluded to, violence tends to be rather undemocratic. While Marx and Engels were brilliant thinkers who did a lot to highlight the abuse of capitalism on the person, they didn't do so much in the how to get past capitalism department.

Thus, I think it's better to not compare revolutions to an idealized simulacrum of what a revolution should be, but rather upon their response to their own real conditions. A sort of revolutionary relativism if you will.

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cryopyre » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

I'm more a Bakunin and Kropotkin kind of guy anyways.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:57 pm UTC

Cryopyre wrote:I'm more a Bakunin and Kropotkin kind of guy anyways.

Well, I will give you Kropotkin in the beard competition.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests