As a veteran disillusioned with the American government, I could see myself being radicalized. I could never see myself siding with criminals, rapists, and/or fascists though. wtf is up with people believing they’ve fought for freedom and prosperity and then doing the opposite?
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
80 points (95.5% liked)
News
23200 readers
3075 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because they want freedom for themselves but not for the "lessers"
Because the best explanation I've encountered for conservative-minded logic is "I get to tell you what to do but you don't get to tell me what to do."
If you're the hero, then everyone who isn't vocally on your side is the ~~recent~~ enemy.
Edit: "Recent"? Goddamned autocorrect.
What?
You asked why they're basically attacking what they were supposed to defend.
They consider themselves heroes. They need to be heroes because otherwise they're nothing. And heroes need villains to fight. If you're not hailing them as one of the heroes, then obviously you're one of the villains. It's standard Sith absolutes.
(Edit: I see the word substitution that turned my reply to nonsense now. Ugh, sorry... :) )
“I’m a political prisoner,” he wrote, echoing the language former President Donald Trump and others have used to minimize the crimes committed in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
Nope. Politics is an unarmed, nonviolent activity. This is something else.
In all the history of nation states around the world politics have been imposed through violence, they are enforced through violence and perpetuated through violence.
This is not to say that politics are inherently violent but the idea that they are inherently non-violent is a falacy.
The state has a monopoly on sanctioned violence, I think is what you mean. Yes, that is true.
Imposed through violence, no, not necessarily though. Unless you think politics is what gets in your way if you try to rob someone or something. Quite a few systems have changed, passing of legislative power from colonial to local control, stuff like that, nonviolently though.
I do agree that nothing is inherently nonviolent about politics, certainly.
Imposed through violence
How do you think monarchies and governments were first created? What about colonialism? What would hapen if trump becomes president and the us becomes an openly fascist state? Wouldnt it be imposed on all americans through violence?
Even if there are cases where power was nonviolently transfered to "local control" (which AFAIK its not true) the structures and institutions of government that remain were first established through violence and these countries still serve the interests of their former "conquerors" either through collusion, International laws (which those colonialist powers mostly controll) and/or the threat of sanctions and violence.
Well, yes, if you're looking for a place where political violence has never happened, that will be much more difficult to find. We certainly do not live in a utopia and possibly never will.
Regarding colonial independence, it actually happened quite a bit, we just don't cover it in a lot of history classes except as maybe a brief sentence somewhere. But New Zealand for instance never won any independence war or anything like that. Didn't have to.
Well, yes, if you're looking for a place where political violence has never happened, that will be much more difficult to find. We certainly do not live in a utopia and possibly never will.
??? I was just arguing (and expanding on said argument) against your description of politics as "an unarmed, nonviolent activity"
Interesting wiki read about New Zealand, I wasnt aware of it. Thanks.
I was saying that just because politics featured some violence at some point, does not necessarily mean that we should associate it with violence. Violence is a thing that exists. Politics is a thing that exists. They can exist independently, or together, it varies. In some places very heavy repression is used, and the process is extremely violent very regularly. In other places at other times, the process is peaceful and people agreeably settle their differences. It just depends.
In America, where I am, the process is usually nonviolent. It does not have to be nonviolent, but we really have nothing to gain from adding violence to the mix. We'll get the same varied sorts of results, except people will die in the process. No gain, just loss, since violence in no way ensures you will get some leader or system that is superior to another leader or system. I point to the large number of times a revolution has ushered in yet another shitty dictator who years later ended up hated by his people and eventually deposed as evidence of this principle.
And yea np.
Politics is what creates violence. Check out the wars, prisons, etc. They were all created by politicians and their politics.
It only seems nonviolent because politicians almost never experience any violence themselves. But their victims experience violence everywhere on the planet.
I do not think violence would disappear if there were no politics. Judging from archaeological evidence, people have been engaging in violence since before the agricultural revolution.
We choose to try to make politics nonviolent. It's an aspirational goal to move in a different direction and attempt a different method from the past several millennia. Even this will not make crime and war go away, though, until we can adequately address things like sociopathy, fear and resource scarcity. And even like, romantic envy can be an instigator for violence.
They brainwash these kids to be fascists then act surprised when they're fascists. Gotta protect that consitution! \s