“I can say that he has been very cooperative,” Cox continued, possibly misgendering the roommate. “This partner has been incredibly cooperative, had no idea that this was happening and is working with investigators right now.”
This has to be intentional. Shitting in one hand calling it “civility” then in the other lobbing a grenade of transphobia. Love it.
I have made no value judgement in any of the above replies regarding the event.
A fascist was shot. A person is collaborating with the cops to catch the shooter of the fascist.
Those are just the facts. I haven’t given my own opinion at all, I just wanted to do an exercise because I suspect everyone has a different line for where it becomes ok vs not ok and I think causes many problems.
My personal take is that I think no amount of collaboration is acceptable. I think people should shut the fuck up. You saw nothing. You say nothing. You do nothing. You give the absolute fucking minimum to cover your own ass and that’s it. Any tolerance of collaboration - any amount of leeway given - will result in everyone judging that their own personal situation makes it acceptable to give information. Is this hardnosed? Fuck yes it is. It’s about as hardnosed as it was in Ireland during the Troubles where you say one fucking word out of line and you’ll have some nice IRA men visiting your house for a beating. Why is it necessary to be this firm about it? Because any inch given will result in people collaborating. So not even one single inch should be given.
That’s my personal position. I don’t think there’s any room to allow people to judge on a case by case basis.
Was killing Kirk a bad idea? Yeah it probably was. Does it change the fact people should shut the fuck up? Not for me.
deleted by creator
I’m not really arguing either. We have different thoughts and that’s ok. Events that have already happened can’t be changed with our opinions.
Not trans, so let me know if I’m off base, but my thoughts:
A major difference is that this is adventurist. Being a snitch about something that was useless and possibly actually working against a greater strategy can be the correct choice for a broader movement. Killing Nazis was basically always part of at least a broader movement, even if not every event was planned/known to others in the movement. Killing Kirk was in no plan for improvements or part of any meaningful strategy. If nobody knew, nobody wanted it, then it’s qualitatively very distinct from resistance movements and should be treated very differently. ‘Sacrificing’ the person who was no part of your movement by collaborating can be the correct choice in those cases.
Idk the real relationships that existed in these cases, but I’m willing to bet that this roommate was in no part knowledgeable about the killing beforehand. And that there were 0 organized attempts/movements behind this killing. In which case it should be treated like anarchistic noise which harms a movement.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we disagree much (maybe you do support anarchic actions, in which case I’d suggest you to read more about failures of adventurism), but I do think there’s miscommunication one where or another based on your response.
There is no movement in the US, yes. That fact makes separate, disparate, anarchic actions dangerous.
Hamas does organized (even if decentralized) actions, which are justifiable strategically for that reason (among others). The killing of Kirk was not part of any strategy, which means that there is no organization prepared to defend against retaliation.
Hamas calculated their risks, and does constantly. Kirk’s killer almost definitely did not, and I would guess has little empathy for those retaliated against, maybe even hoping for the retaliation.
Hamas does actions as part of a larger strategy which is prepared and for which next steps are developed with people ready to support. Kirk’s killer did not, and if he did it was for a right-wing strategy.
Your last paragraph doesn’t make much sense to me, sorry. I’m not sure how it connects to what I said at all. Doing something as part of a movement doesn’t always implicate the whole movement? But it does allow a movement to act instead of being blindsided.
My point was, because this is so different from things like Hamas actions, and because there is no group asking for such actions, it’s only dangerous. And so a trans person protecting themselves from it by being a snitch is qualitatively different from snitching on any resistance act that is part of a larger strategy
deleted by creator
I agree that we don’t know and I’m speculating on the hypothetical where the informant is trans. But that’s the convo above? I was just replying to that.
We don’t know the shooter’s motives, but there is no way that this is part of any trans-supportive organization strategy, that would be a ridiculous claim. It has zero characteristics of any organized actions, and reactions until now have been perfectly in line with it being unorganized. I don’t think we’re better off with Kirk dead, genuinely. His impact is bigger now, and his fascism spread is only accelerated. I hadn’t seen a single video of him for years and now the US is gonna move quicker to kill trans people than ever before, and to crack down and kill leftists too. With no propaganda push prepared, no defenses set up, this was an opening salvo across the battle lines at a fort without even digging a trench.
You are arguing everywhere about the specifics of the situation, but like Awoo, I am trying to get to the bottom of when snitching is acceptable, but I don’t think it’s NEVER a justifiable action. In this case, we should be thinking about whether talking had any positive impact on the way media reported on trans people generally (again, assuming the informant is trans). I think I agree that in this case, seeing how the media reacted, it helped nothing and was likely a mistake
deleted by creator