It's interesting how fucked-up people can be. Well and truly fucked-up and even when you take them by the hair on the back of their head, shove their faces right up to their stupidity and then rub their noses in it, they still can't figure it out.
On the intertubes somewhere I'm being taken to task for my non-condemnation of the fire-bombing of a RBC branch. Given the fact that nobody was hurt, and given the fact that one of the things they were protesting about, global warming, is pretty serious, ... um, make that catastrophically serious, ... I'm still a little uncertain as to whether trashing empty buildings is really such a sin against decency and civilization.
I'm not interested in debating with those people who doubt anthropogenic global warming. For the most part, those people are on a different planet as far as I'm concerned. (That just happened but I think one could stretch that concept to make all sorts of points!) The following is for the sane people who believe that the combination of a 95% scientific consensus and a predictive model with sterling results means that global warming is real:
The scientific consensus, the VAST scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming and that global warming is going to [it's too late to stop any of this stuff] cause massive flooding of all the world's coastal areas, which will result in massive homelessness, massive losses in crop areas which will cause massive famines, massive hurricanes, massive droughts, the altering of ocean currents creating a much colder Europe, meaning higher heating bills and lower crop yields, massive starvation, disease, wars, misery, ... etc., etc., . Not counting the species that are going to go extinct, tens of millions of human beings will die.
It's the carbon economy that is pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the Alberta Tar Sands is one of the largest single contributors to this disaster.
Now then, let's compare: Massive alteration of the planet's eco-system, the extinction of numerous species of animals, and the death and misery of tens of millions of human beings, vs. fire-bombing empty buildings.
Now, here's the thing. If, like most people in the progressive Canadian blog-o-sphere, you want to maintain that fire-bombing that branch was out-of-line, given the facts that, oh, I don't know, banks are virtuous corporate citizens, or that bricks and glass and electronics can feel pain, or the anxiety of that bank branch's employees when they pulled up to work the next day and saw that it was trashed is more important than the anxiety that's going to be felt by the millions of Bangladeshis when their homeland goes underwater, ... we can have that debate.
BUT, the reason I'm writing this post is because the stupid fucker who is attacking me for my position here is on record as supporting the Mubarak dictatorship during the recent citizen's uprising in Egypt!
I mean, how fucked-up can you be to accuse somebody of being a dangerously violent political thinker when you believe it is necessary and just to maintain a dictatorship that has been robbing and torturing its people for over thirty years? Hmmm. Fire-bombing an empty building or beating people to death, ... which is worse? It's a puzzle all right.
When I pointed this out to the dunce (repeatedly) the shit-head continued with the lame accusations and refused to deal with the reality of his support for torture and dictatorship at all. When I attempted to force the fuck-wit to confront the ridiculousness of his/her/its gargantuan hypocrisy, he/she/it lamely said that there's "plenty more" violent ravings here at my blog. This means two things: First, that the psychotic idiot is defiling my blog without my knowing it. (Yuck.) Secondly, that the self-righteous, self-satisfied, inhuman pompous ass can't fucking figure it out yet, that property damage is nothing when compared to torture.
I think what I'm mostly on record in stating is that I don't condemn vandalism. I do say that in the face of state violence to stifle dissent or to suppress democracy that the tactical use of violence is necessary although it is often counterproductive. I have absolutely no respect for individuals who try to use that to paint me as an undemocratic, violent terrorist. Especially since a lot of these individuals, such as the shit-head being discussed here, support the torture of Egyptians and the killing of Iraqis. If you're going to condemn violence you really ought not to be endorsing some of the largest exercises in violence.