Because if you start justifying these kinds of things, they will eventually be turned against you and next you know it, your own political representative is being shot at because their opponent’s supporters are feeling threatened just as you are (whether they are truly justified in feeling threatened or not, doesn’t matter).
I don’t think that’s true. Obviously you need elections that can be trusted (and despite everything I don’t think elections results are being tampered with too significantly) but if there are bad faith actors (like Trump) then just… Get people not to vote for such an actor. Should be easy enough seeing as they’re a bad faith actor right?
Well no, because people are poorly educated or brainwashed or scared or bigoted or hateful or afraid or all the other reasons that people in the US might vote for Trump. The problem is not Trump, the problem is the people voting for him. That’s also why shooting him is a bad idea, it only entrenches his supporters even further (aside from the fact that shooting anyone is generally a bad idea).
Democracy requires nonviolence and an educated and informed population. The US fails on both accounts.
Eh, they are Danish. Settler is the wrong term for them if you are trying to make out a continuity from classical colonialism to neo colonialism, as Denmark did not really have colonies in the classical sense (with one minor notable exception and the domination of Norway through its personal union for 450 years).
Denmark’s history as a thriving social democracy in the modern era also makes it less of a perpetrator of the violence spread by modern bourgeoisie democracies than what your comment implies, in my opinion.
Lumping every Western nation together into some imperial core makes it harder to study the material conditions of neo colonialism.
As an example of the point I am trying to make of the importance of studying the material conditions of the global north as well: Denmark-Norway was the first European country to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. The reason for it is obvious, they did not really have colonies to speak of on their own.
Like I give the first, second, or third fuck? Where they’re from doesn’t change my people’s history, or that cracker’s place within it. I genuinely see the vast majority of you euros the same, because where they’re from doesn’t change the fact that they still talk the exact same way the actual settlers that still devil my people do.
That, “oh, this isn’t like us”, “oh, you need to condemn this violence even though violence is our profit”, “oh, this isn’t how politics works” and all that other happy cracker horseshit; this tells me white supremacy and habitus has already infected the Nordics-- which were never friends to the Black nation, regardless of who ended their trade in flesh when.
If you cannot distinguish between friend and enemy, that is a problem for you. Capitalists are exploiting you and, surprise, they are exploiting us as well. No shit European history is bad, but do you not think the big whigs fucking shafted those they could in Europe as well? Consider the Sápmi people for instance. They are not your enemy, neither historical nor current even though you might reject all of their culture and history and just call them “euros” because nowadays they have been forcefully assimilated into Nordic culture.
The same is true, not only for the marginalized cultures, but also for the proletariat classes of all European countries that talk in the manner of your oppressors. If you think the issues of capitalism are of a cultural or national character, you are falling for capitalist propaganda.
I never said anything in the likes of what you put in quotes. I said that making a continuity between classical colonialism and neo colonialism that anyone can take seriously has to consider the historical materialist conditions. From what you write it seems like you are just equating classical and neo colonial economic exploitation and have no knowledge of who and what actually makes it happen, ultimately doing yourself a disservice.
I know who my enemy is. It’s any paternalist white from any nation that isn’t mine; any paternalist white who fixes their face to try and dictate who my enemies SHOULD be when I know for a fact there’s still hella blood on their hands. You do yourself a disservice continuing to run your misbegotten mouth to someone who clearly doesn’t have the time or patience for it. 'Cause I’d bet my left eye you aren’t Sápmi; but just like an Amerikan cracker, you’ll lift their name and their struggle to try and cudgel me and mine with it.
And while I’m thinking about it, you may not be saying the things in quotes, but you’re sure as shit bearing the water of a cracker who is! You want me to believe you’re on the level? Tell your compatriots to start fucking acting like it.
You are no ally. Cease your correspondence. Death to the West.
Your lack of patience I inferred from your lack of understanding of theory, which I attribute to a lack of reading. If you could stop thinking in terms of pejoratives for a minute, I would ask you to consider that maybe neo colonialism is the cooperation of the bourgeoisie classes of both the global south and the global north, in an effort that does indeed extract surplus value from the global south to the north.
I am no ally of yours though, because your bias is not going to change anything, even if you were successful, except the color of the face of capitalism.
Because if you start justifying these kinds of things…
Republicans have already been justifying it. It was only days ago that a Republican said [paraphrasing] “theres a revolution already going on and it will be bloodless if the left doesnt interfere”.
Republicans have already been justifying the death of BIPoC, trans kids, the queer community, Palestinians and anyone who opposes their genocide… the list goes on. And its mealy mouthed liberals that always say shit like “oh but we shouldn’t start justifying using violence, even in defence” from their positions of privilege.
WTF do you think is going to happen after November, whether Trump wins or not? They have been laying out the justification for using violence for 4 fucking years and you’ve slept through it, hoping its just some nightmare you’ll wake up from.
Democracy does not work with violence.
How do you think your form of ‘democracy’ was achieved? You ballot box is awash with so much fucking blood that you would piss your pants if you had a tiny inkling. And most of it is from those who your country mercilessly crushed for you to have it.
I’m not sure what you’re saying - since they are justifying violence, you should too? That doesn’t seem sustainable, unless your goal is a civil war.
EDIT for your edit: I am not from the US so I’m not sleeping through anything, I’m just watching from the sidelines. My form of democracy was actually introduced quite peacefully, all things considered. But that’s neither here nor there.
Any bloodless revolution is done through an implicit threat of violence. It is just the losing side being smart about how they lose.
I tillegg om du er dansk, vil eg påpeike at Danmark mista eineveldet sitt då dei tapte Napoleonskrigane i 1814, som også var grunnlaget for Noreg sin uavhengigheit og demokratiske grunnlov.
Let’s say you’re in school, and you’re assigned a lab partner and told the requirements of your project and that you need to compromise both individual’s ideas to make it happen.
Every time you try to make a suggestion, they immediately say no and suggest something that isn’t even graded for the project, and refuses to budge until you compromise. When you don’t compromise, they threaten to tell the teacher that you’re not compromising. As you try to hold your ground trying to get a good grade for both of you, they just keep doing whatever they want and making more threats to you: they’ll take your lunch money, they’ll beat you up after school, they’ll pop your bike tires, etc.
When you tell the teacher, they tell you to stop overreacting and you need to learn to work with others. After school, your science partner punches you and says you better agree to XYZ tomorrow. You tell the teacher they hit you, and you’re told you need to stop exaggerating and learn to compromise and work together. Every day that week, your science partner makes good on each threat after school, and every day you tell your teacher, they tell you to stop exaggerating and learn to play nice.
On the last day, you punch the kid back, really hit him, break his nose kind of punch. And you’re punished: the teacher says you shouldn’t have resorted to violence, your partner says they were the true victim in the project arrangement, you get a failing grade because everything you compromised on didn’t meet the requirements, but your science partner still got an A and wasn’t punished for anything he did all week because “the rules don’t apply to them the same way, they’re troubled/have a lot going on at home/whatever excuse.”
That’s the current state of US politics: Republicans are justified in any and everything they do because they’re “special,” but Democrats have to follow all of the rules, all of the time, even when the other side of the aisle refuses to even listen to them or the centuries/decades of legal precedent. And they, the Republicans, still win because that’s just how the fucking system works.
Political violence ≠ fascism. Violence is what people turn to when they can’t achieve what they need by merely talking and voting. Cf. every revolution, ever. Including the American one.
Violence is what people turn to when they can’t achieve what they need by merely talking and voting.
The fact that this is the state of things is the bigger problem. That’s the problem that needs to be fixed and sorry, but violence is not the solution to that, it only makes things even worse.
do you really think murdering your political opponents is justified?
You don’t know your own history. This is EXACTLY how your governments work; it’s only the last hundred and twenty years that the crackers have tried to whip the righteous desire for vengeance out of the denigrated and put-upon subject of empire.
Our “democracy” IS violent, it just isn’t the ruling class experiencing the violence. Every day our society is upheld by violence. Violence over seas (231 years of war, support of genocide, coups, and interventions) and violence at home in the form of an increasingly more powerful police state.
This is just the direct forms of oppression like guns, bombs and jackbooted thugs. There are also sanctions that starve people and IMF loans that impoverish people. These all uphold our standards of living, the united states cannot exist with the impoverishment and exploitation of others.
Lol that minimizes what fascism actually is. Assassinations have happened throughout history, including before Capitalism and before the crisis within Capitalism that created fascism.
That “lol” is quite unnecessary. There is no need to ridicule me. I would expect better from a mod of a community like this.
minimizes what fascism actually is
I didn’t say that is all fascism is, just that it is a tactic within fascism. It can be a part of it. But anyway I don’t want to argue what is and isn’t fascism, my point is just that political violence and murdering your political opponents does not work with democracy and shouldn’t ever be hoped for or wanted, even if it is your political opponent being targeted. I want Trump gone as much as the next guy on the fediverse but I don’t want him killed.
Fucking lmao you are such a wretched, servile dog. You know NOTHING of western history and make no attempt to prove that you do. Rank anglo ignorati that shouldn’t even be regarded at this point beyond ridiculing.
That “lol” is quite unnecessary. There is no need to ridicule me. I would expect better from a mod of a community like this.
I dont need to, but I felt like it. I chose restraint and went with “lol” instead of really getting into how ridiculous and chauvinist of an opinion it is.
I didn’t say that is all fascism is, just that it is a tactic within fascism
You said this: “Murdering your political opponents is a fascist tactic.”
my point is just that political violence and murdering your political opponents does not work with democracy
I mean the Soviets murdered the hell out of nazis, so there is a counterexample for you. The cubans also murdered the hell out of high level regime collaborators when batista was overthrown. Another counterexample. I’m not advocating for murder within our political system but like, you’re not correct.
Because if you start justifying these kinds of things, they will eventually be turned against you and next you know it, your own political representative is being shot at because their opponent’s supporters are feeling threatened just as you are (whether they are truly justified in feeling threatened or not, doesn’t matter).
Democracy does not work with violence.
It doesn’t work if all parties aren’t participating in good faith, either. What then?
I don’t think that’s true. Obviously you need elections that can be trusted (and despite everything I don’t think elections results are being tampered with too significantly) but if there are bad faith actors (like Trump) then just… Get people not to vote for such an actor. Should be easy enough seeing as they’re a bad faith actor right?
Well no, because people are poorly educated or brainwashed or scared or bigoted or hateful or afraid or all the other reasons that people in the US might vote for Trump. The problem is not Trump, the problem is the people voting for him. That’s also why shooting him is a bad idea, it only entrenches his supporters even further (aside from the fact that shooting anyone is generally a bad idea).
Democracy requires nonviolence and an educated and informed population. The US fails on both accounts.
HAHAHAHA oh damn my dude go and read any history book.
He’s apparently allergic; he won’t even entertain the NOTION that he doesn’t know his own history.
Tell that to every civil rights leader martyred by your so-called ‘democracy’ you comfortable-assed settler
Eh, they are Danish. Settler is the wrong term for them if you are trying to make out a continuity from classical colonialism to neo colonialism, as Denmark did not really have colonies in the classical sense (with one minor notable exception and the domination of Norway through its personal union for 450 years).
Denmark’s history as a thriving social democracy in the modern era also makes it less of a perpetrator of the violence spread by modern bourgeoisie democracies than what your comment implies, in my opinion.
Lumping every Western nation together into some imperial core makes it harder to study the material conditions of neo colonialism.
As an example of the point I am trying to make of the importance of studying the material conditions of the global north as well: Denmark-Norway was the first European country to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. The reason for it is obvious, they did not really have colonies to speak of on their own.
Like I give the first, second, or third fuck? Where they’re from doesn’t change my people’s history, or that cracker’s place within it. I genuinely see the vast majority of you euros the same, because where they’re from doesn’t change the fact that they still talk the exact same way the actual settlers that still devil my people do.
That, “oh, this isn’t like us”, “oh, you need to condemn this violence even though violence is our profit”, “oh, this isn’t how politics works” and all that other happy cracker horseshit; this tells me white supremacy and habitus has already infected the Nordics-- which were never friends to the Black nation, regardless of who ended their trade in flesh when.
If you cannot distinguish between friend and enemy, that is a problem for you. Capitalists are exploiting you and, surprise, they are exploiting us as well. No shit European history is bad, but do you not think the big whigs fucking shafted those they could in Europe as well? Consider the Sápmi people for instance. They are not your enemy, neither historical nor current even though you might reject all of their culture and history and just call them “euros” because nowadays they have been forcefully assimilated into Nordic culture.
The same is true, not only for the marginalized cultures, but also for the proletariat classes of all European countries that talk in the manner of your oppressors. If you think the issues of capitalism are of a cultural or national character, you are falling for capitalist propaganda.
I never said anything in the likes of what you put in quotes. I said that making a continuity between classical colonialism and neo colonialism that anyone can take seriously has to consider the historical materialist conditions. From what you write it seems like you are just equating classical and neo colonial economic exploitation and have no knowledge of who and what actually makes it happen, ultimately doing yourself a disservice.
I know who my enemy is. It’s any paternalist white from any nation that isn’t mine; any paternalist white who fixes their face to try and dictate who my enemies SHOULD be when I know for a fact there’s still hella blood on their hands. You do yourself a disservice continuing to run your misbegotten mouth to someone who clearly doesn’t have the time or patience for it. 'Cause I’d bet my left eye you aren’t Sápmi; but just like an Amerikan cracker, you’ll lift their name and their struggle to try and cudgel me and mine with it.
And while I’m thinking about it, you may not be saying the things in quotes, but you’re sure as shit bearing the water of a cracker who is! You want me to believe you’re on the level? Tell your compatriots to start fucking acting like it.
You are no ally. Cease your correspondence. Death to the West.
Your lack of patience I inferred from your lack of understanding of theory, which I attribute to a lack of reading. If you could stop thinking in terms of pejoratives for a minute, I would ask you to consider that maybe neo colonialism is the cooperation of the bourgeoisie classes of both the global south and the global north, in an effort that does indeed extract surplus value from the global south to the north.
I am no ally of yours though, because your bias is not going to change anything, even if you were successful, except the color of the face of capitalism.
Republicans have already been justifying it. It was only days ago that a Republican said [paraphrasing] “theres a revolution already going on and it will be bloodless if the left doesnt interfere”.
Republicans have already been justifying the death of BIPoC, trans kids, the queer community, Palestinians and anyone who opposes their genocide… the list goes on. And its mealy mouthed liberals that always say shit like “oh but we shouldn’t start justifying using violence, even in defence” from their positions of privilege.
WTF do you think is going to happen after November, whether Trump wins or not? They have been laying out the justification for using violence for 4 fucking years and you’ve slept through it, hoping its just some nightmare you’ll wake up from.
How do you think your form of ‘democracy’ was achieved? You ballot box is awash with so much fucking blood that you would piss your pants if you had a tiny inkling. And most of it is from those who your country mercilessly crushed for you to have it.
Dude, who are the ones actually shooting at people? You so worried about what might happen that you can’t see what’s going on right in front of you.
The guy doing the shooting was a registered republican.
Yeah that’s an interesting development. I have more questions now than I did before.
I’m not sure what you’re saying - since they are justifying violence, you should too? That doesn’t seem sustainable, unless your goal is a civil war.
EDIT for your edit: I am not from the US so I’m not sleeping through anything, I’m just watching from the sidelines. My form of democracy was actually introduced quite peacefully, all things considered. But that’s neither here nor there.
Any bloodless revolution is done through an implicit threat of violence. It is just the losing side being smart about how they lose.
I tillegg om du er dansk, vil eg påpeike at Danmark mista eineveldet sitt då dei tapte Napoleonskrigane i 1814, som også var grunnlaget for Noreg sin uavhengigheit og demokratiske grunnlov.
Let’s say you’re in school, and you’re assigned a lab partner and told the requirements of your project and that you need to compromise both individual’s ideas to make it happen.
Every time you try to make a suggestion, they immediately say no and suggest something that isn’t even graded for the project, and refuses to budge until you compromise. When you don’t compromise, they threaten to tell the teacher that you’re not compromising. As you try to hold your ground trying to get a good grade for both of you, they just keep doing whatever they want and making more threats to you: they’ll take your lunch money, they’ll beat you up after school, they’ll pop your bike tires, etc.
When you tell the teacher, they tell you to stop overreacting and you need to learn to work with others. After school, your science partner punches you and says you better agree to XYZ tomorrow. You tell the teacher they hit you, and you’re told you need to stop exaggerating and learn to compromise and work together. Every day that week, your science partner makes good on each threat after school, and every day you tell your teacher, they tell you to stop exaggerating and learn to play nice.
On the last day, you punch the kid back, really hit him, break his nose kind of punch. And you’re punished: the teacher says you shouldn’t have resorted to violence, your partner says they were the true victim in the project arrangement, you get a failing grade because everything you compromised on didn’t meet the requirements, but your science partner still got an A and wasn’t punished for anything he did all week because “the rules don’t apply to them the same way, they’re troubled/have a lot going on at home/whatever excuse.”
That’s the current state of US politics: Republicans are justified in any and everything they do because they’re “special,” but Democrats have to follow all of the rules, all of the time, even when the other side of the aisle refuses to even listen to them or the centuries/decades of legal precedent. And they, the Republicans, still win because that’s just how the fucking system works.
Political violence ≠ fascism. Violence is what people turn to when they can’t achieve what they need by merely talking and voting. Cf. every revolution, ever. Including the American one.
The fact that this is the state of things is the bigger problem. That’s the problem that needs to be fixed and sorry, but violence is not the solution to that, it only makes things even worse.
You don’t know your own history.
You don’t know your own history. This is EXACTLY how your governments work; it’s only the last hundred and twenty years that the crackers have tried to whip the righteous desire for vengeance out of the denigrated and put-upon subject of empire.
Our “democracy” IS violent, it just isn’t the ruling class experiencing the violence. Every day our society is upheld by violence. Violence over seas (231 years of war, support of genocide, coups, and interventions) and violence at home in the form of an increasingly more powerful police state.
This is just the direct forms of oppression like guns, bombs and jackbooted thugs. There are also sanctions that starve people and IMF loans that impoverish people. These all uphold our standards of living, the united states cannot exist with the impoverishment and exploitation of others.
Killing fascists makes you a fascist?
Murdering your political opponents is a fascist tactic.
Lol that minimizes what fascism actually is. Assassinations have happened throughout history, including before Capitalism and before the crisis within Capitalism that created fascism.
That “lol” is quite unnecessary. There is no need to ridicule me. I would expect better from a mod of a community like this.
I didn’t say that is all fascism is, just that it is a tactic within fascism. It can be a part of it. But anyway I don’t want to argue what is and isn’t fascism, my point is just that political violence and murdering your political opponents does not work with democracy and shouldn’t ever be hoped for or wanted, even if it is your political opponent being targeted. I want Trump gone as much as the next guy on the fediverse but I don’t want him killed.
Fucking lmao you are such a wretched, servile dog. You know NOTHING of western history and make no attempt to prove that you do. Rank anglo ignorati that shouldn’t even be regarded at this point beyond ridiculing.
I dont need to, but I felt like it. I chose restraint and went with “lol” instead of really getting into how ridiculous and chauvinist of an opinion it is.
You said this: “Murdering your political opponents is a fascist tactic.”
I mean the Soviets murdered the hell out of nazis, so there is a counterexample for you. The cubans also murdered the hell out of high level regime collaborators when batista was overthrown. Another counterexample. I’m not advocating for murder within our political system but like, you’re not correct.
Lol
I dont think you know what fascism means
To crackers, it does; because that’s their only defense for the fascism they already uphold, and the only way they maintain their unjust hegemon.