I cringe when I think about my past stances on so many things, as well as the absolute surety I felt with regard to being right. I also understand that I continue to be prone to this kind of thinking, knowing without a doubt that I am right about something. I realize that this in itself is problematic, regardless of the position itself.
It’s another slightly different Dunning-Krueger “ism” at work. Almost like “the stronger one feels about the absolute truth of their position, the less likely it is that they are actually correct” - something like that.
…and it’s pretty universally acknowledged to be outrageous, which is why it is news. Individual members of these agencies often do what they want, but their leaders will quash this garbage in a second. Or they won’t get to be leaders any more.
No, I did not equate violence with fascism at all. I’ll just explain again: A normal person thinks of fascists as - probably severely deluded - human beings with the same basic rights as themselves, including the right to a fair trial, so you wouldn’t just round them up and shoot them because they’re fascists, you wouldn’t torture them, or put them and their families into concentration camps etc.
Fascists, however, have no problem whatsoever denying “the other” basic rights, respect and dignity. Over time fascists have amply demonstrated their capacity for excessive and random cruelty, which they are ready to inflict on any “other” who is opposing - or even not openly supporting - them.
So a gun might help you on occasion for driving away a couple of fascists who come round one night, but it’s not a sustainable deterrent. If they’re really after you, they’ll just come back another day in greater numbers, or set fire to your house, come after your children, whatever. That is a game you can only lose if you are alone, ain’t no gun big enough to keep you safe.
So what exactly is your plan here? Because it sounds awfully like “ensure everyone gets a gun so that the odds are even, and then fight a civil war”? I can’t help but think this is a strange idea, because you already fought one over basically same shit 150 years ago, and yet, here you are again. I mean, you can try the same thing and hope for a different outcome, but I’d rather try something different with a higher chance of success.
i don’t know why you think that would even be implied. nobody on the left is seriously advocating for civil war or reeducation. i’m not suggesting we organize posses to conduct guerilla attacks. what i’m saying is that it’s very clear that the most radical elements of the right wing in the u.s. are actively planning, advocating, and sometimes attempting those very things. it is frightening and historically illiterate that roughly half of this country’s population is effectively saying, “we’ll let the authorities handle it,” while the “authorities” are part of a venn diagram that includes the aggressors in this case. i’m not debating that guns are dangerous or that there are too many of them. i’m simply observing with great concern and frustration that most of the guns belong to the people with fascist and authoritarian leanings, and the liberal response is simply “guns are bad, we don’t want/need them.” that’s idiotic.
being dead is a generally effective deterrent. if you’re arguing that it’s pointless to fight back because they have more guns, that’s precisely my point.
again, highly influential segments of this country’s electorate and not a few in leadership are already actively plotting armed civil unrest, advocating and perpetrating violence against vulnerable people. i’m not sure what you think would have a “higher chance of success” given this reality, as rule of law, civil discourse and education have not prevented things from escalating.
speaking of civil war, those in power in this country were quite content to “wait out” slavery in the 1840s-50s. meanwhile, slaves, freemen, and abolitionists were murdered by armed and violent slavery proponents. not until 1865 was bondage slavery effectively ended, by force of arms. even then, radical reconstructionists who sought to keep confederate apologists out of power failed against more “liberal” factions who made way for jim crow and the kkk. this ensured that supporters of the confederacy and those sympathetic to its aims maintained political and police power until the present day. there are not fewer guns now than there were then, there is just a much wider disparity of who own and threatens the use of them.
I’m pretty sure there are a couple displays in the Museum of Natural History containing critters that one of NYC’s most celebrated native sons shot before he started high school.
