Counterpoint:
Holy false equivalence batman
Which part is false?
I’m sure they don’t actually mean the stuff they say in project 2025
You still haven’t answered the question, and yet you’ve had plenty of time to shitpost since I asked you.
Sometimes, violence is the only way to stop fascists. See: WW2
I mean, the Eastern Front was just fascist infighting.
Those hexbears would be very upset if they could read
I mean that’s kinda like, 50% antifa by way of fa hating fa, I guess.
I’m what you can call undereducated on WWII, and current leaders, who are these men?
Left to right, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin, leaders of the UK, USA, and USSR respectively.
Oh shit
Or as my friend once dubbed them, the supreme leaders of alcohols, wheelchairs, and mustache.
Sure, when fascism gets far enough, the only solution against it becomes violence. However, all that accomplishes is taking down specific fascists but not fascism itself as an ideology, and it will eventually return (see: WW2 and modern day politics).
B-b-but someone shot at him! That means he was right all along and you have to vote for him now! IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!
lol
Political violence IS bad, but for the same reason that violating a truce is bad. It’s not always because the shot is unwarranted, but because of what the shot leads to. “You can’t always give people what they deserve” kind of energy.
Sometimes there’s no other reasonable choice, but normalizing or condoning it means opening up… well, open conflict. And you need to be pretty goddamn sure that there’s no other viable option before you do that, unless you enjoy widespread devastation and the deaths of thousands of people at minimum, in which case you’ve been reading the Doctrine of Fascism’s musings on struggle and need to go home and rethink your life.
I’ve literally just been told we can’t call someone a fascist and then say not to kill them in the same breathe. That’s the facts.
I guess this is how all these dumb ‘polite society’ rules are thought up.
Two Fascists.
JD Vance is as bad a pick as they come.
Political violence has been continuously and systemically inflicted on the working class and otherwise marginalised people for profit for centuries, you considering it being aimed towards head fascist a problem, is telling on yourself, and on where your allegiances lie - firmly and actively on the side of fascism.
The only one you’re fooling is yourself.
How come Trump isn’t in prison then if violence is so bad? That monster moved waves of people to kill for him and destroyed countless lives even before ever becoming president. And now that his crimes can no longer be hidden or defended the supreme court rules him immune from the law. There is no peaceful status quo to go back to, we’re way past that point! He continues to openly contribute and endorse mass murder and we still pretend like there’s some peace to go back to, it’s too late. Trump and his cabal have destroyed all semblance of “rule of law”, they established that might makes right and thus no law can be used to stop him.
Literally whataboutism.
Somebody needs to make the fucking ~~patrick ~~ friends meme about these kinds of comments.
Political
Assasinations
Are
Bad
Political assasinations are ok if I think the politician deserves it
Trump’s decisions made out of greed and malice killed untold thousands of people, and stripped rights away from thousands more. He’s made it very clear he intends to double down if elected again. Killing him before he manages to worm his way back into the oval office could save so many lives, and improve the quality of life for millions. I feel like that makes it morally justifiable to kill him. It’s basically self defense.
I agree with you in spirit, but your argument can be stretched to justify actions I’m sure you would not approve of.
What about all the people killed by drone strikes under the Obama administration? Would assassinating him be justifiable as self defense?
And how does killing Trump solve anything? The republican party will keep chugging along fine trying to take your rights away but now they’ll have a martyr.
World leaders would be far less likely to order drone strikes or declare war if their skin might be on the line too.
Killing Trump deprives them of their only viable candidate for this election.
The martyr effect is definitely a valid argument, but that’s more of a tactical concern than an ethical one.
So it’s only bad when it’s “political” and an “assassination”. As long as it’s behind closed doors or indirect it’s A-ok, gotcha… As long as you got the government and supreme court covering your ass it’s fine… /s
I’m not trying to justify political violence, I’m trying to point out that we’re way past the point of no return. Even if we manage to vote out Trump and he steps down quietly (even tho he constantly says he won’t go down peacefully and demonstrated his stubbornness to comply with democracy countless times), the system still needs major reform if we don’t want a repeat of this whole mess next election. MAGA established a new norm that erodes the possibility of a democracy. We have somebody with more crimes under his belt than I can count at the top with his lawyers arguing he should be allowed to assassinate political rivals! They can say this AND NO-ONE IS LAUGHING EM OUT THE BUILDING! This would be unimaginable 10 years ago, but it is the world we live in now, the world MAGA created and wishes to further peruse.
What are you saying? You’re not trying to justify political violence, but we’re past the point of return. Therefore political violence is necessary?
Why are we past the point of no return? How does political violence reform the system? How does reforming the system change the fact that millions and millions of people vote for someone like Trump?
Violence has no place in a functional democracy. I’d argue it was barely “functional” before, but now it’s no longer a “democracy” either. A democracy requires power to belong to the people. MAGA doesn’t allow that and enacts laws 70% of the country doesn’t agree with. A democracy requires checks and balances. MAGA doesn’t allow that by giving its members imunity from those laws.
If Trump was in prison, I wouldn’t even care. But we live in a world where he committed (and vocally plans to continue) soo many crimes the only way out for him was the supreme court declaring him above law. US democracy isn’t under threat, it is in purgatory and future events will decide if it can be rebuilt or left to rot for the foreseeable future.
The fact that his lawyers can argue he should be able to eliminate political rivals should have been a wakeup call to everyone, it’s sad it wasn’t, now it only cements the new world MAGA wishes to establish. I remember a time where planing to eliminate the current/former president was an act of treason, we no longer live in that world, because MAGA showed there’s no repercussions.
As for stopping people from voting for assholes, that’s literally all about reform. People need to be educated to think for them selves. Currently the school system just teaches to recite facts from a book and praise the flag. Not to mention we live in a hierarchy from birth, be it family, school and then work, until we die we must kiss somebody’s ass. And then we are expected to participate in a democracy? Most people have never seen such a thing!
That’s the friends meme, tho.
thank you
Weird. These aren’t related choices and this feels like virtue signaling. Seeing so much of this. We get it, you think you’re a great person.
Why is there some weird sudden concern that violence against an individual might have made you change your vote and so people feel a need to point out this doesn’t change how they’d vote.
So strange.
Because politcal violence is a hallmark of fascists, and a lot of people are becoming aware of that
"we are in the midst of a second revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it"
But sure, advocating for political violence is bad.
Hold on, let me ask my grandfather how he felt about political violence against fascists during his Normandy to Berlin tour.
Yeah, ask your grandpa how much he enjoyed the violence of war.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Violence is permissible when one is at threat of harm be it through social, economic, or direct violence. Meaning that the bludgeoning a pacifist for trying to fuck you over economically is just as valid as gutting someone trying to stab you. But said actions must be taken with wisdom and consideration though. The casus belli for common folks is written in blood, it was written at Blair mountain, at Stonewall, at Tulsa. Its stimply a matter of finding the right time.
isn’t political violence our main export?
Not only that, it’s how we gained our independence. We celebrate political violence very year on July 4. A lot of people think the Second Amendment exists so people are able to commit political violence.
Over the past couple days I’ve heard a lot about how unacceptable violence is, and that’s fine, but if violence is never an acceptable option we have to make sure we have non-violent ways of resolving conflicts. I think the unspoken part of this plea for non-violence is that it’s better for conflicts to go unresolved than for them to be resolved through violence. I’m just not sure that’s a viable solution. In fact, that’s the opposite of a solution. I think these conflicts are going to resolve themselves one way or another, eventually.
What’s a non-violent way to stop fascists for individuals?
Voting.
It REALLY is that simple, folks. No need to tie oneself into chaotic mental knots. You have ALL the information that you need to:
TUNE OUT, TURN OUT AND VOTE
EDIT: it’s the only healthy way left for voters.
Why tune in to shrill hysteria because someone somewhere told somebody that “it’s information… stay informed” and they all decided to go along with it?
Don’t play that game, we all lose. Tune out and forget about it, find peace, avoid it like the plague, until Super Tuesday in November, when you quietly go to the polls and VOTE Democrat.
