I was discussing this with someone who was using the pragmatic, most-important-thing-is-to-get-Trump-out-and-not-sure-impeachment-is-most-likely-to-do-that. My response was that if half of the elected senators and, in a subsequent election, half of the American people, are okay with the president attacking the electoral system then democracy is over anyway. I feel like the “It cannot happen here” thinking is so strong in some people they won’t look at the plainest facts.
10 Likes
Yep and that’s a huge problem. Even if he doesn’t get removed from office over impeachment, it will put people on the record for supporting him. That’s going to matter in the long run, I think.
But yes, we are not immune to these kinds of problems. We are not exceptional, we’ve just been damn lucky.
9 Likes
You make a good point.
2 Likes
there’s nothing preventing others from getting weapons. I know retired cops and vets. If I need a gun I know where to get advice and info
I think a call for civil war would end up like storming Area 51. Millions might sign up for it but only a handful of people will show up, half of them press, and when they realize they aren’t going to win by suppertime, they’ll all go home.
What’s more likely is a spike in terrorism attacks, and that worries me most.
12 Likes
I agree, and far too much of the discussion is probably wrapped up in different people having different ideas on what a “civil war” would be (which is probably why the original quote said “civil-war-like fracture.”) The idea that there will be trench warfare along the Oregon-Idaho border feels pretty far fetched. The idea that the number of Americans who go out and shoot strangers at random each year will go from 1 in a million to 1 in 200,000 is terrifying.
12 Likes
I agree. I also agree with your assessment on Syria. It was just a glib response that political problems can always be solved through book reading and non-violent protest. I actually agree that should be the solution for the US, but not every situation can be changed just because a large portion of the population wants change.
My initial reply was to point out there are varying degrees of armed protest, and different responses to those protests. And historically in the US that response has evolved over time. There are specific examples where armed - but non violent - protest was used and successfully pushed back against the authoritative powers. There were armed protestors at some of the BLM protests in Ferguson, for example. Of course you can also cite examples where it failed, but the point still stands.
And on the flip side, if a government is so tyrannical it is droning civilians, what do you think peaceful protest is going to change?
I’ll pose the same questions to you:
So do you think violence against a government should be a last resort?
Or violence against a government should never be an option?
Or something else?
And again, this is not endorsement, it is acknowledgement that it is a thing and has been used in the past through out history.
An analogy is that kicking a guy in the nuts is often a successful tactic when defending yourself from assault. But that doesn’t mean one endorses just going around and kicking people in the nuts willy-nilly. It means in an extreme circumstance that tactic may be the only recourse to defend yourself.
Personally I am very non-violent and can’t imagine a realistic scenario where I would engage in armed protest. But thus far I am in a privileged position where I don’t have to.
I feel like a bomb dropping would be in a different ball park where one can excuse someone getting shot “in the heat of the moment”. That and shooting an unarmed person is NOT ok today. We have a lot of push back from various groups. But I hope this hypothetical would never happen again.
Totally agree.
That’s true, but that is because their authoritative infrastructure was crumbling as well. If one tried that shit at the height of when Stalin was in power, one would end up in a mass grave or a gulag.
My point there is that you were right that violence gives the government an excuse for violence - but government violence also gives extremists a reason for more violence. ISIS would be another example.
Alight - MOST people don’t want one. I completely agree that his comments were unacceptable, but I also think @Mangochin is right that we aren’t going to see a mass revolt. The number of people to mouth off vs actually do something will be tiny to none. I hope I’m not proven wrong.
We agree on this too, then.
Thumbs up emoji.
I ask them if they think Obama, or Sanders, or Warren colluding with Britain, or Canada, or some other nation against a Republican candidate in the future was ok? Because ignoring this Ukrainian thing is exactly what you are asking for.
2 Likes
I don’t… again, you and I were both alive when the MOVE bombing happened… There is no reason to believe that, under the current tensions, it can’t happen again.
And yet it still happens and in the overwhelming number of cases, the police are exonerated, as are some private citizens in some cases.
Context matters, but peaceful protest can have a measurable effect. And to turn that back, what precisely do you think would have happened with an armed uprising against Stalin?
It is a never ending vicious cycle that at the end of the day hurts civilians the most. “Freedom fighters” end up causing more pain and misery for people just trying to live their lives. Does that mean violence is always the wrong answer? No, but in many cases, it absolutely is the wrong answer.
I wouldn’t even say that. Many of us, maybe. But there are plenty of people who see no way through and would love to test their manliness in battle.
Me too. But we can very easily go down the violent road at this point, and some would argue we already are on that road.
12 Likes
But the thing is even now terrorism is on a sharp decline in the developed world from say a generation ago. The age of professional terrorists and well supplied and organized terror campaigns is long over. ISIS style suicide bombers and “lone wolf” attacks are the mark of impoverished resource poor groups. Literally amateur hour. What gives these groups power is overstating their danger, overreacting in ways which compromise sane law enforcement and civil liberties standards.
5 Likes
These seem designed to get into unproductive overgeneralized debates about non-specific scenarios.
Carting guns to protests, specifically, is about as stupid as playing Candy Crush while driving, specifically. Both will increase the chance of death.
I’m not going to play “Alt Right Nazi’s Advocate” (The secular version of Devil’s Advocate) with you. Pushing the idea that it theoretically might be a cool idea for somebody else (but not you) to have armed protests is straight-up irresponsible. Not because you wouldn’t do it yourself, but because you’re describing “benefits” that only accrue to people “protesting” against social justice.
11 Likes
6 Likes
It’s not like it’s going to happen this week.
6 Likes
Again - my original point - way up there - is not whether it is cool or not, but that it can have different results that just getting droned out of existence.
You’re ignoring or missed my earlier post which specifically pointed out that in the past there were armed people fighting FOR social justice. There are still armed leftist in America as well, they just aren’t showing their asses like the white nationalists are (like my friends kid who is trans anarcho-communist).
Maybe take JonS’s advice and read some articles about people like Ida B Wells who said things like “A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.” in regards to lynchings. Or John Brown who raided a federal armory in part to arm slaves. Or the Black Panthers who had armed patrols to challenge police brutality. Maybe these and other attempts weren’t fully successful, but were they wrong in their challenge to government authority? Did they stand up for what was right?
History is full of examples like this and they are labeled either terrorists if they are on the wrong side of history, or revolutionaries if they are on the right side of history. Sometimes those labels switch depending on who is telling the story.
But please, continue to pervert my points, as you are prone to do, asserting that the reason for mentioning armed protest or possible violence against authority is to play “Alt Right Nazi’s Advocate”. Please continue to ignore the many historical examples both within the US and other places where arms were used to resist government tyranny.
Absolutely agree peaceful protests can have measurable effects. It is clearly the preferable option, and one we should be taking here at this point.
Per my first reply way up there, Stalin would - and did - put down armed revolts, holding nothing back. My point I keep repeating because it seems to keep getting lots - there are different degrees of armed protest and responses. Not every thing is as extreme as open revolt and as tyrannical as Stalin. My original reply was about acting like the worst case scenario is the only likely outcome.
Also when I say armed protest, that isn’t just firearms. Bats, bricks, shields, rocks, Molotov cocktail, etc are all arms. Let’s look at Hong Kong right now. They COULD just drone the shit out of protestors or run them over with tanks. But because China is now a part of the global community, they will want to avoid that (despite just shooting a guy today.) But they are actively clashing with the police.
So when we talk about violence against the government, if we have pro-democracy Hong Kongese clashing with police, I am going to support that movement. That doesn’t mean I support white nationalists doing the same thing. That’s absurd.
1 Like
I’m not ignoring it at all. If the US didn’t have systemic racism, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Wounded Knee, etc. would have more likely achieved the “advantages” of “making the government pause” and been more like the Bundy-picnics or Klan marches or whatever “successful” armed protest you want to point to.
Are you honestly describing John Brown as Not. Fully. Successful? That’s like now calling him alive (but not fully).
Of course John Brown was right to back abolition. No one should impugn his bravery, and I think he saved people with his actions. But, no, I don’t think it ended up being the best tactic, and that was a situation where what we know as “protest” wasn’t allowed at all for John Brown.
Going this far back proves what I expected, that you wanted to debate the role of violence across history, when George Washington or Che Guevara picking up a rifle has nothing to do with whether an armed protestor is less likely to be tear gassed or kettled (which was your original claim).
More modern examples don’t back up your claims about armed protest helping groups fighting for social justice. The Panthers were right that police were out to violently suppress them, and if they had lived in a world where holding a gun was treated as an equal civil right and not a provocation to white prejudice, then armed patrols would have been encouraged and supported by society as OathKeepers are openly tolerated now. But we don’t live in that world, so making it seem like armed protest is “beneficial” is not that helpful when it wouldn’t be.
6 Likes
-
If they never will be, Trump, why the yammering? Nothing better to do with your thumbs?
-
Trump hasn’t told a truth yet, except by accident.
-
Bloviator’s gonna bloviate.
yes, I definitely expect the incels to desperately prove their pathetic manhood by shooting a bunch of people.
We all have to be on the alert for “angry white guys” who have way to easy access to weapons
9 Likes
But… FREEEEEEEZZZZEEEEEE PPPPPEAAAACCCHHHHHH… /s
Also… punching nazis was good enough for my Pop Pop… it’s good enough for us!
9 Likes
Personally, I would venture that the “Nevermore Trump or Trump-Alike” people like me will fight with their votes.
–Recently re-registered after not voting for 20+ years
1 Like
