This is way too reductive, insulting, and patronizing to be a valid argument. Yes, there are hurdles, but hurdles can and should be overcome. The future of the nation depends on it. And you cannot seriously continue to intimidate everyone else to kowtowing to a bunch of bullying racists simply because they have weapons, which most Americans can easily procure.
If you’re not willing to respect anyone else, no one else should respect you.
Well, that’s one way to tell us you can’t make a solid point without attacking the person or violating civility. Your attitude will cause the very violence you seek to prevent. You can’t claim that debate would be effective at solving the problem or even possible if you can’t even treat people with respect on Lemmy.
It’s not really, it’s pretty weak, and we can tell from the way he speaks of (people he views as) his opponents. If it was strong, he wouldn’t have to call names or insult those he’s seeking to convince, or try to bully them. I’ve seen that sort of thing many many times in my life. Honestly, people should treat his and the arguments of anyone who resorts to ad hom and abusive behavior as sus.
You don’t have to like his argument, but from his perspective, it is what he says. Rather than whine about it, try deconstructing his argument and countering it with facts.
It hardly matters how we feel about his argument. We dislike his behaviour, and it’s obvious that he’s disguising a really poor attempt at intimidating people into compliance through insult, ad-homs, and a domineering attitude.
People who are correct don’t do that. Ergo, we can dismiss him off-hand. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the basic premises of logical debate, rendering any debate meaningless.
It sounds like you want an echo chamber where you never see opposing views or you just want Masters level political discussion which you won’t find online, ever.
Why do any of them want this? Why do they hate Black people? It’s not because someone told them they should or anything, other people don’t listen to that… ~Cherei
Police are fundamentally built on racism and oppression. The idea of a standing police force very much goes back to the days of slave catching and union busting (arguably that specifically goes back to also putting down peasant uprisings under feudalism).
Why maintain those aspects though?
And a lot of that is the idea that, under any form of resource scarcity*, it is a zero sum game. If Fred has a loaf of bread, that means I have one less loaf of bread. So I should go cave Fred’s skull in and take my bread back. Obviously.
Not obviously, it’s pretty well known that we grow more than enough food to feed pretty much everyone at this point. And what resources are even being exhausted here?
What does work? What will help specifically? Why do some people choose this and others not? Why do some stop after doing it for a while and others not? Why do some start doing after a while of not doing it and others not? It’s not as if it’s some obscure, hard-to-find conclusion that this stuff never ever goes well… ~Cherri
Why don’t they care until it’s them? Why do others care? And I know it’s not exclusive to white people, I’m just talking about the white people in that
town because that’s what’s relevant here. Why prioritize getting and maintaining power over others over human lives? Why do others not? Why do people want notches above? I… I don’t get it. It just leads to more questions ~Cherri
Not obviously, it’s pretty well known that we grow more than enough food to feed pretty much everyone at this point. And what resources are even being exhausted here?
The idea is that the people who want those groups fighting will push that way of thinking. Also, resources in this context dont just mean necessities of survival. Go watch fox news. One of the main views they push there is that “illegal immigrants are there to steal your jobs”. They’ve gone as far as to say things like “democrats are stealing your money” or “those guys are satanists, they’re stealing your children!”
It isn’t the fact that resources really are greater than demand, it’s about stoking the thought that some group is less desirable by pushing the ideology that resources are finite and those groups are taking them.
This is not really relevant to the discussion at hand (and think your comments are spot on) but you keep using “WILDCATS” in reference to militias… unless there’s a different reference that I don’t know about, I think you mean the “WOLVERINES”. That was the name of the militia formed by kids in Red Dawn (it was their sports team name if I recall correctly)
He’s trying to mock and insult people suggesting rebellion into submission. It’s an intimidation tactic. He really needs to be downvoted and reported to a mod for doing that, actually 🤔 It might violate the civility rules of the sub.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This is way too reductive, insulting, and patronizing to be a valid argument. Yes, there are hurdles, but hurdles can and should be overcome. The future of the nation depends on it. And you cannot seriously continue to intimidate everyone else to kowtowing to a bunch of bullying racists simply because they have weapons, which most Americans can easily procure.
If you’re not willing to respect anyone else, no one else should respect you.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Well, that’s one way to tell us you can’t make a solid point without attacking the person or violating civility. Your attitude will cause the very violence you seek to prevent. You can’t claim that debate would be effective at solving the problem or even possible if you can’t even treat people with respect on Lemmy.
It’s a valid argument.
It’s not really, it’s pretty weak, and we can tell from the way he speaks of (people he views as) his opponents. If it was strong, he wouldn’t have to call names or insult those he’s seeking to convince, or try to bully them. I’ve seen that sort of thing many many times in my life. Honestly, people should treat his and the arguments of anyone who resorts to ad hom and abusive behavior as sus.
You don’t have to like his argument, but from his perspective, it is what he says. Rather than whine about it, try deconstructing his argument and countering it with facts.
It hardly matters how we feel about his argument. We dislike his behaviour, and it’s obvious that he’s disguising a really poor attempt at intimidating people into compliance through insult, ad-homs, and a domineering attitude.
People who are correct don’t do that. Ergo, we can dismiss him off-hand. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the basic premises of logical debate, rendering any debate meaningless.
It sounds like you want an echo chamber where you never see opposing views or you just want Masters level political discussion which you won’t find online, ever.
Why do any of them want this? Why do they hate Black people? It’s not because someone told them they should or anything, other people don’t listen to that… ~Cherei
Removed by mod
Why maintain those aspects though?
Not obviously, it’s pretty well known that we grow more than enough food to feed pretty much everyone at this point. And what resources are even being exhausted here?
What does work? What will help specifically? Why do some people choose this and others not? Why do some stop after doing it for a while and others not? Why do some start doing after a while of not doing it and others not? It’s not as if it’s some obscure, hard-to-find conclusion that this stuff never ever goes well… ~Cherri
Removed by mod
Why don’t they care until it’s them? Why do others care? And I know it’s not exclusive to white people, I’m just talking about the white people in that town because that’s what’s relevant here. Why prioritize getting and maintaining power over others over human lives? Why do others not? Why do people want notches above? I… I don’t get it. It just leads to more questions ~Cherri
The idea is that the people who want those groups fighting will push that way of thinking. Also, resources in this context dont just mean necessities of survival. Go watch fox news. One of the main views they push there is that “illegal immigrants are there to steal your jobs”. They’ve gone as far as to say things like “democrats are stealing your money” or “those guys are satanists, they’re stealing your children!”
It isn’t the fact that resources really are greater than demand, it’s about stoking the thought that some group is less desirable by pushing the ideology that resources are finite and those groups are taking them.
Does it matter if Andy is carrying the bullet today when the police department is outnumbered 6:1?
How many police could a town this size have, anyway?
Removed by mod
This is not really relevant to the discussion at hand (and think your comments are spot on) but you keep using “WILDCATS” in reference to militias… unless there’s a different reference that I don’t know about, I think you mean the “WOLVERINES”. That was the name of the militia formed by kids in Red Dawn (it was their sports team name if I recall correctly)
Removed by mod
For sure, it just immediately reminded me of the Simpsons like you said:
“Who are we?” “THE WILDCATS!” “Who are we going to beat?” “THE WILDCATS!”
He’s trying to mock and insult people suggesting rebellion into submission. It’s an intimidation tactic. He really needs to be downvoted and reported to a mod for doing that, actually 🤔 It might violate the civility rules of the sub.