Raids on “compounds”. And martial law because of assassination threats.
I realize it is mostly a right wing wet dream but can we please apply even a modicum of critical thought to the “me and my buddies are gonna be a militia. WILDCATS!!!” stupidity?
Life is not a disney channel show. You aren’t going to stop the cops just by trapping them in a logic puzzle or punching out one fat white supremacist. The legal system is set up to give them immunity for all of their actions and consequences and they are itching for an excuse to murder some black folk/socialists/whatever. And while you may think your assault rifle will match their assault rifle, they also have much better body armor, tanks, grenades, etc.
And on the off chance you do get your WILDCATS!!! on and actually fight back? now the military is involved and they will commit war crimes against you and your family and the people next door like it is Fallujah on a Friday night. And the news media will portray you as evil brown terrorists (no matter how much you scream “white power” in the hopes of confusing them) and that we should Support the Troops.
Humanity is well past the point of armed uprisings by militias accomplishing much of anything. The only way that works out is if you are already in a failed state (not “we have no social systems and guns have more rights than people” failed state but “warlords are driving down the street executing people” failed state) or you have the backing of a significant faction of the military.
But a bunch of dumbasses cosplaying as soldiers on the weekend? They are about as effective as a russian soldier.
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.
Funny enough, I think you have a better chance with your current approach of “how dare you disrespect me. I would like to speak to your manager” approach than a militia would. So focus more on that
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
First and foremost: 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). And that holds true in basically every country. Wherever there is an oppressed people, there are the boys in blue to beat on them if they get too uppity.
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.
Which… will become a more valid argument as more and more of the world collapses to climate change. But mostly, this was used as a way for (generally white) politicians to maintain power. The problem isn’t outdated factories and production models. The problem is black people taking your jobs. So rather than wonder why we have no social safety nets, you should take your jobs back from them. Same with the idea that Fred would have been promoted, even though he can barely read and is grossly incompetent at his job, if Sophie hadn’t gotten promoted because of affirmative action.
Its Irish and Asian, but Warrior on Cinemax (? whatever, one of the things HBO owns) is actually a really good look at this. Set in turn of the century San Francisco and shows how quickly “We can abuse these workers more” turns into “Sorry Irish people but the Chinese stole your jobs”. And it is just a spectacular show in almost every way (LOTS of gratuitous nudity in season 1 though… which may be a plus or minus depending on your thoughts). And it is especially “funny” because the Irish have historically been shit on (to the point that there are a LOT of horrifically racist phrases that boil down to “The irish/Romani/Travelers are the black people of white people”). Which gets into a different mess that still goes on (and tends to result in asian people getting beaten on the moment there is any economic uncertainty).
Which is, again, why violent uprisings won’t work. Because that plays into the idea that 'Those black folk are coming to steal your jobs, your land, your women, and your loaf of bread". And is probably a good chunk of why “We have to protect the Target!” became such a rallying cry against the BLM protests.
*: Yes, capitalism takes the ball and runs with it. But this is also an issue under more socialist/communist models, as can be seen under the USSR and Cuba and the like. Resource scarcity is the fundamental issue
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
It’s not as if it’s some obscure, hard-to-find conclusion that this stuff never ever goes well
“White People” would very much beg to differ. Hell, we have an example of an extreme minority using racism and bigotry to remain in power in ways that outright shit on the fundamentals of the country they claim to be serving. And this includes actively trying to kill a man by hiding his firefighting tools from him.
Having armed thugs who will beat on and keep anyone who tries to stand up for themselves into submission is how you maintain power. And thugs will gladly support that if it means they are a bit above their others. Same with everyday people who decide they want to support the thugs because it means they’ll be a notch or two above the people who lost eyes to “rubber bullets” or were permanently crippled by broken bones. And so forth.
And “White people” is obviously not the entire story. Plenty of African and Middle Eastern warlords and the like use the same tactics. Hell, the CCP are actively engaging in genocide and mostly it is just the right wing propaganda channels who care enough to even acknowledge it (and they mostly just want an excuse to beat on asian people). But the fact that the “ethnicity in power” on 5 or 6 continents can be traced to rich europeans says a lot. Because people love “peace and safety” and don’t care how many people get their faces caved in with a baton to get it… until it is their face being caved in.
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.
The great thing about assault rifles is that they are really effective for mass shootings. Just ask any kindergartner.
And like I mentioned below: on the off chance we actually have a militia that is getting their WILDCATS!!! on and being successful: that is when the national guard/army rolls in and does some mass executions and ships people off to wherever we are getting our gitmo on these days.
And to add on: look at the BLM protests. If black folk get uppety then white folk from the tri state area will grab their rifles and come help out the boys in blue.
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.
Problem is the cops will side with the white folk. And now you gave them carte blanche to go on a retaliatory killing spree.
Removed by mod
Raids on “compounds”. And martial law because of assassination threats.
I realize it is mostly a right wing wet dream but can we please apply even a modicum of critical thought to the “me and my buddies are gonna be a militia. WILDCATS!!!” stupidity?
Life is not a disney channel show. You aren’t going to stop the cops just by trapping them in a logic puzzle or punching out one fat white supremacist. The legal system is set up to give them immunity for all of their actions and consequences and they are itching for an excuse to murder some black folk/socialists/whatever. And while you may think your assault rifle will match their assault rifle, they also have much better body armor, tanks, grenades, etc.
And on the off chance you do get your WILDCATS!!! on and actually fight back? now the military is involved and they will commit war crimes against you and your family and the people next door like it is Fallujah on a Friday night. And the news media will portray you as evil brown terrorists (no matter how much you scream “white power” in the hopes of confusing them) and that we should Support the Troops.
Humanity is well past the point of armed uprisings by militias accomplishing much of anything. The only way that works out is if you are already in a failed state (not “we have no social systems and guns have more rights than people” failed state but “warlords are driving down the street executing people” failed state) or you have the backing of a significant faction of the military.
But a bunch of dumbasses cosplaying as soldiers on the weekend? They are about as effective as a russian soldier.
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
Funny enough, I think you have a better chance with your current approach of “how dare you disrespect me. I would like to speak to your manager” approach than a militia would. So focus more on that
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
First and foremost: 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). And that holds true in basically every country. Wherever there is an oppressed people, there are the boys in blue to beat on them if they get too uppity.
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.
Which… will become a more valid argument as more and more of the world collapses to climate change. But mostly, this was used as a way for (generally white) politicians to maintain power. The problem isn’t outdated factories and production models. The problem is black people taking your jobs. So rather than wonder why we have no social safety nets, you should take your jobs back from them. Same with the idea that Fred would have been promoted, even though he can barely read and is grossly incompetent at his job, if Sophie hadn’t gotten promoted because of affirmative action.
Its Irish and Asian, but Warrior on Cinemax (? whatever, one of the things HBO owns) is actually a really good look at this. Set in turn of the century San Francisco and shows how quickly “We can abuse these workers more” turns into “Sorry Irish people but the Chinese stole your jobs”. And it is just a spectacular show in almost every way (LOTS of gratuitous nudity in season 1 though… which may be a plus or minus depending on your thoughts). And it is especially “funny” because the Irish have historically been shit on (to the point that there are a LOT of horrifically racist phrases that boil down to “The irish/Romani/Travelers are the black people of white people”). Which gets into a different mess that still goes on (and tends to result in asian people getting beaten on the moment there is any economic uncertainty).
Which is, again, why violent uprisings won’t work. Because that plays into the idea that 'Those black folk are coming to steal your jobs, your land, your women, and your loaf of bread". And is probably a good chunk of why “We have to protect the Target!” became such a rallying cry against the BLM protests.
*: Yes, capitalism takes the ball and runs with it. But this is also an issue under more socialist/communist models, as can be seen under the USSR and Cuba and the like. Resource scarcity is the fundamental issue
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
“White People” would very much beg to differ. Hell, we have an example of an extreme minority using racism and bigotry to remain in power in ways that outright shit on the fundamentals of the country they claim to be serving. And this includes actively trying to kill a man by hiding his firefighting tools from him.
Having armed thugs who will beat on and keep anyone who tries to stand up for themselves into submission is how you maintain power. And thugs will gladly support that if it means they are a bit above their others. Same with everyday people who decide they want to support the thugs because it means they’ll be a notch or two above the people who lost eyes to “rubber bullets” or were permanently crippled by broken bones. And so forth.
And “White people” is obviously not the entire story. Plenty of African and Middle Eastern warlords and the like use the same tactics. Hell, the CCP are actively engaging in genocide and mostly it is just the right wing propaganda channels who care enough to even acknowledge it (and they mostly just want an excuse to beat on asian people). But the fact that the “ethnicity in power” on 5 or 6 continents can be traced to rich europeans says a lot. Because people love “peace and safety” and don’t care how many people get their faces caved in with a baton to get it… until it is their face being caved in.
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?
The great thing about assault rifles is that they are really effective for mass shootings. Just ask any kindergartner.
And like I mentioned below: on the off chance we actually have a militia that is getting their WILDCATS!!! on and being successful: that is when the national guard/army rolls in and does some mass executions and ships people off to wherever we are getting our gitmo on these days.
And to add on: look at the BLM protests. If black folk get uppety then white folk from the tri state area will grab their rifles and come help out the boys in blue.
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)
Was it? Heh. I must have mixed it up with all the parodies where every child is on a team called The Wildcats.
I’m gonna leave it because I think it is funnier this way
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.