It depends on the capital owned by that person. If they're just a high level accountant or a minor player with little influence, they're not worth the trouble. If they're a major shareholder at a company that's exploits its workers, then a lot is justified if it results in the end of the exploitation (it likely wouldn't tbf). It doesn't matter if they work in the games industry or the fossil fuels industry; the owning class needs to have their power stripped from them, and they aren't gonna give it willingly. That will only ever happen through violence, be it state or non state, threats or actions. There is no other way to accomplish it, and anyone who thinks we can do it peacefully is wrong.

As far as public politicians go, many of them gleefully pen laws that lead to the deaths and ruin of innocent people. As the right to freely vote and elect alternatives to these ghouls gets further and further eroded, it might become literally impossible to remove them by voting rather than practically so. If the only ones allowed political power are people that terrorize the population with the law, then what voice do the people have? If the only party in charge is a Nazi party, then shouldn't you be ok with killing them?

What I will agree on is that fantasizing about punishing people is not helpful. Terrible people cannot be made to feel the weight of their sins, only prevented from doing more terrible things. If all the kings and lords willingly gave their wealth and power back to the workers and civilians, then it would be wrong to seek retribution. It's also unlikely that killing a terrible person or two will really change things. A lone act can only ever be a statement, terrorism of the ruling class.

However, that also means that we shouldn't consider if someone is a sympathetic person, only the totality of their past and potential future actions. They might be a good spouse and a good parent, but if they are responsible for imprisoning minorities and starving children, then they need be stopped. Billionaires and the politicians that support them are orders of magnitude more dangerous to humanity than serial killers, and need to be treated more harshly than they are. If unpleasant violence is the best way to stop them, then I think it's wrong to be against that.

Examples please. Also, blaming the entirety of Lemmy for, as an example, my call for Israel to stop being a country, is the same error that got me kicked off Reddit. Context matters.

If I'm calling for them to stop being a country because of their religion or ethnicity, then I'm a bigot and a Nazi and should indeed be removed.

If I'm calling for the end of the theocratic state that holds one group above all others, then I can be reasoned with.

"If we kill the bad guys we become bad guys too! We should just tell them to stop so we look good, send them somewhere else where we won't have to look bad anymore or just look away until they fix themselves"

Is this your point? You're advocating for fair fight and mutual respect with psychopaths, this isn't some mistake or misunderstanding on their end, it's the plan

Do you have like a specific example? cause I haven't personally encountered what you're describing

So coy about everything. Name examples and where theyre from, because both matter greatly. The first one could be talking about the rapist blizzard execs. I don't believe in the death penalty for multiple reasons, but im not shedding a tear over them. And the politician could be so many people including trump and gee i wonder why people would say such a thing about him and his ilk.

Youre either making things up to feel superior, misattributing them to blahaj, or just a plain bad actor with either the goal of protecting pedophiles or protecting tessersct. Could be any of those truly

Why does this scare you?