Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[Gospel]

But the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading.

Some examples, please.

Read the thread

Of course, I don't expect it to do any good, because you won't be able to see the implicit harm in the repeated call to arms of Trump being an existential threat, or the misleading nature of intentionally transforming "dictator for one day to do this specific thing" said with a laugh into "going to be a tyrant dictator for life". And of course, you will be incapable of even considering the potential ramifications of framing the entirety of the GOP as trying to turn the US into a fascist state, and all of their supporters are nazi/bigot/fascist/racist/deplorables.

Your inability to recognize the risk in those messages is not my problem to solve for you.

I suppose we'll see. If Harris wins and a bunch of republicans launch some violence, neither of us will be surprised. If Trump wins and a bunch of democrats launch some violence, I'll be here to say "I told you so" since you have convinced yourself that's not a plausible outcome.

The exasperated, defensive tone is reminiscent of leftists and their expressions of resigned frustration.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Skipping the peculiarity of you including the adjective "unwarranted" for violence, that wasn't your actual claim.

You were claiming that the DNC is inciting violence with their rhetoric. Yet, Harris isn't saying the election is all her's and it only goes to Trump via election fraud, where as Trump actually is.

It is my position that the narrative of existential threat, fascist, and dictator that are being applied to Trump have primed the powderkeg for violence if Trump wins. Thus, I believe that if Trump wins, there will be violence initiated by the left.

If Harris wins, I think it's a foregone conclusion that there will be violence initiated by the right.

 

[laughing dog]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Skipping the peculiarity of you including the adjective "unwarranted" for violence, that wasn't your actual claim.

You were claiming that the DNC is inciting violence with their rhetoric. Yet, Harris isn't saying the election is all her's and it only goes to Trump via election fraud, where as Trump actually is.

It is my position that the narrative of existential threat, fascist, and dictator that are being applied to Trump have primed the powderkeg for violence if Trump wins. Thus, I believe that if Trump wins, there will be violence initiated by the left.

If Harris wins, I think it's a foregone conclusion that there will be violence initiated by the right.

So if Trump wins and there is no violence, then there is a silver lining to that disaster. Personally, I don't that test is worth the outcome.

 

[Emily Lake]

This has been framed as an "existential threat" to the nation, by someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state.

It is perfectly appropriate and ethically required to identify someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state, as someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state, if their words and actions conform to the definition. I’m way old fashioned (never said that before!) but
THIS IS NOT NORMAL
It is a real live emulation of Hitler’s process of seizing supreme powers of life and death over all he surveyed. Don’t believe me though.
READ THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS
That it is not the same geography, demography etc is irrelevant- it’s the same process. We are at the critical moment that tells us whether we want to keep our democracy or NOT. Do we want to be allied with European Countries, or with Russia, North Korea and other dictatorships?
Nothing is about making friends right now, it’s about facing facts or believing lies.

One fact that is unpleasant for many, is that if we don’t defeat the fascists, it will be bad for the US and the world, and nobody but the oligarchs will be spared.

/rant

All of these things you're saying are justifications for expected future violence. It lays the groundwork for retaliatory violence if Trump wins.

If you actually, truly believe the things you say, you should be prepared to take direct action against Trump. If you aren't prepared to take direct aggressive action, you shouldn't be saying it.

 

[Emily Lake]

But the rhetoric coming from the left is also purposefully harmful and misleading.

Some examples, please.

Read the thread

Of course, I don't expect it to do any good, because you won't be able to see the implicit harm in the repeated call to arms of Trump being an existential threat, or the misleading nature of intentionally transforming "dictator for one day to do this specific thing" said with a laugh into "going to be a tyrant dictator for life". And of course, you will be incapable of even considering the potential ramifications of framing the entirety of the GOP as trying to turn the US into a fascist state, and all of their supporters are nazi/bigot/fascist/racist/deplorables.

Your inability to recognize the risk in those messages is not my problem to solve for you.

I suppose we'll see. If Harris wins and a bunch of republicans launch some violence, neither of us will be surprised. If Trump wins and a bunch of democrats launch some violence, I'll be here to say "I told you so" since you have convinced yourself that's not a plausible outcome.

The exasperated, defensive tone is reminiscent of leftists and their expressions of resigned frustration.

Oh I'm definitely exasperated and frustrated, but I'm not entirely resigned. Were I resigned, I wouldn't be in here arguing for people to recognize the impact of their rhetoric and take a step back.

 

[Gospel]

Look, folks, I’m with Emily on this. I think she’s highlighting the dangers of dehumanizing one another. There’s a fine line we need to avoid crossing if we truly want to deter the encouragement of extremism—whether it’s from the left or the right. We all know extremists exist on both sides, and regardless of where you stand, there are people within your camp who may intend to cause serious harm. So, while you may not consider Trump’s impact equal to Harris’s, I think it’s fair to ask that we all proceed with caution. I think that's all Emily is getting at here.

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

Comrade Kamala is spending the waning days of her horrible campaign using the same old tropes to attack the most beautiful movement in American history, MAGA! Yet, it’s not working, and even her own Super PAC has screamed, “STOP!” She is incapable of talking about real issues. Instead, many...

truthsocial.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Skipping the peculiarity of you including the adjective "unwarranted" for violence, that wasn't your actual claim.

You were claiming that the DNC is inciting violence with their rhetoric. Yet, Harris isn't saying the election is all her's and it only goes to Trump via election fraud, where as Trump actually is.

It is my position that the narrative of existential threat, fascist, and dictator that are being applied to Trump have primed the powderkeg for violence if Trump wins.

If Trump wins, he wins. You think the left wing was happy with W winning re-election '04 or Trump in '16?

Thus, I believe that if Trump wins, there will be violence initiated by the left.

That is a baseless assertion and repeating it doesn't make it any less baseless.

If Harris wins, I think it's a foregone conclusion that there will be violence initiated by the right.

I don't think violence is set in stone in either case. Trump sure the heck is setting it up though. He has made questioning the veracity of our elections a mainstream right-wing thing. This isn't just him now.

 

[Gospel]

At least she didn't say Comrade Trump? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Elixir]

All of these things you're saying are justifications for expected future violence.

No. They are motivations for turning out to vote in numbers sufficient not only to create an electoral landslide, but also to discourage people from participating in the ensuing coup attempt. That is the only path to a peaceful transfer of power in January. And by peaceful, I mean body counts of no more than three digits.

 

[TomC]

If Trump wins, he wins.

"Win" is a complicated word in that sentence.

Trump has never won an election. Ever. He's always been 2nd runner up.

In 2016 the state legislatures appointed enough EC delegates for Trump to take the White House.

In 2020 he both lost the popular vote and also the EC appointment. He responded with lies and violence designed to undercut the USA, from faith in our elections to basic American institutions. When nothing worked out he stole crates of top secret documents he could sell to our enemies.

Trump winning isn't much of a question. The question is how much damage he will do to the USA trying to keep his grip on power.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look, folks, I’m with Emily on this. I think she’s highlighting the dangers of dehumanizing one another.

*self-moderated* that! Emily is trying to convince people the left-wing is dehumanizing the right-wing. They aren't.

Trump is dehumanizing immigrants and migrants. The liberals are the "enemy from within".

“The crazy lunatics that we have — the fascists, the Marxists, the communists, the people that we have that are actually running the country,” Trump said this month at a rally in Wisconsin. “Those people are more dangerous — the enemy from within — than Russia and China and other people.”

link

The left-wing is warning about Project 2025 and the roadmap that provides. A roadmap that aims at turning the nation closer to before the days when the Fed got involved in the South. It says that, not the left says that.
Donald Trump is saying that the Democrats (ie "the people that we have that are actually running the country") are "fascists", "Marxists", "communists" by his declaration.

Project 2025 roadmap... real.
Fascist Democrats... not real.

There’s a fine line we need to avoid crossing if we truly want to deter the encouragement of extremism—whether it’s from the left or the right. We all know extremists exist on both sides, and regardless of where you stand, there are people within your camp who may intend to cause serious harm. So, while you may not consider Trump’s impact equal to Harris’s, I think it’s fair to ask that we all proceed with caution. I think that's all Emily is getting at here.

That is polite of you. But no, Emily isn't saying that. She is creating a false equivalence (beyond that of Moore-Coulter), where there isn't even a viable comparison to be made. Gaslighting via the cloak of false equivalence.

 

[Toni]

Here’s the thing tho:

A quick glance at any posts about FEMA's hurricane response on X reveals the numerous conspiracy theories that drive this kind of behavior.

Right. But what's driving the conspiracy theories?

Generally fear.

As well as love of money and power. I happen to think those are fear based as well but I’m not even a psych major-or minor for that matter.

 

[Elixir]

The question is how much damage he will do to the USA trying to keep his grip on power.

That’s the foundational threat - let me have it or I’ll burn the place down.

 

[Gospel]

There’s a fine line we need to avoid crossing if we truly want to deter the encouragement of extremism—whether it’s from the left or the right. We all know extremists exist on both sides, and regardless of where you stand, there are people within your camp who may intend to cause serious harm. So, while you may not consider Trump’s impact equal to Harris’s, I think it’s fair to ask that we all proceed with caution. I think that's all Emily is getting at here.

That is polite of you. But no, Emily isn't saying that. She is creating a false equivalence (beyond that of Moore-Coulter), where there isn't even a viable comparison to be made. Gaslighting via the cloak of false equivalence.

Look, I was just translating what she said—just like she’s translating what Trump said. Alright? Geez!

 

[Elixir]

Look, I was just translating what she said—just like she’s translating what Trump said. Alright? Geez!

FWIW I think you’re both doing a shit job.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here’s the thing tho:

A quick glance at any posts about FEMA's hurricane response on X reveals the numerous conspiracy theories that drive this kind of behavior.

Right. But what's driving the conspiracy theories?

Generally fear.

As well as love of money and power. I happen to think those are fear based as well but I’m not even a psych major-or minor for that matter.

I think you nailed it. Fear generates hatred and insecurity, two hallmarks of the right wing. They want the money, the power and the glory that is rightly owed them because it's owed them. Never mind that maybe they're not as smart or as lucky as the next person.

Right wingers really have no vision, let alone collective vision, of the future aside from furthering their own selfish interests.

 

[Elixir]

Financially insecure people are easily brought to believe that financial stability would banish their insecurity. It turns out that insecurity is a human condition, not a financial one. But keeping the masses subdued and insecure, is most easily accomplished by imposing financial hardship them. (Just make sure you have a pre-fabricated villain to blame it on).

That’s a big part of what Pootey has been tutoring his puppet on.

 

[Politesse]

This has been framed as an "existential threat" to the nation, by someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state.

It is perfectly appropriate and ethically required to identify someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state, as someone who intends to become a dictator acting within a fascist state, if their words and actions conform to the definition. I’m way old fashioned (never said that before!) but
THIS IS NOT NORMAL
It is a real live emulation of Hitler’s process of seizing supreme powers of life and death over all he surveyed. Don’t believe me though.
READ THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS
That it is not the same geography, demography etc is irrelevant- it’s the same process. We are at the critical moment that tells us whether we want to keep our democracy or NOT. Do we want to be allied with European Countries, or with Russia, North Korea and other dictatorships?
Nothing is about making friends right now, it’s about facing facts or believing lies.

One fact that is unpleasant for many, is that if we don’t defeat the fascists, it will be bad for the US and the world, and nobody but the oligarchs will be spared.

/rant

All of these things you're saying are justifications for expected future violence. It lays the groundwork for retaliatory violence if Trump wins.

If you actually, truly believe the things you say, you should be prepared to take direct action against Trump. If you aren't prepared to take direct aggressive action, you shouldn't be saying it.

Well, no. Elixir has not said that. You said that, about Elixir. I'm pretty sure Elixir is hoping for an electoral defeat of Trumpism.

 

[Politesse]

If Trump wins and a bunch of democrats launch some violence, I'll be here to say "I told you so" since you have convinced yourself that's not a plausible outcome.

It seems to me that Trump's people are likely to perpetrate violence either way. They certainly did last time. Speaking from my little corner of the world, some of the worst violent incidents we have ever seen in the history of the college campus where I work happened in the months following the 2016 election, as emboldened local hate groups took aim at students they believed to be undocumented.

But while we should be prepared for that reality, individual vigilante justice is not the only way to deal with terroristic threats, that is the role of the police and legal system, or in the case of interstate organizations, the federal government.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Skipping the peculiarity of you including the adjective "unwarranted" for violence, that wasn't your actual claim.

You were claiming that the DNC is inciting violence with their rhetoric. Yet, Harris isn't saying the election is all her's and it only goes to Trump via election fraud, where as Trump actually is.

It is my position that the narrative of existential threat, fascist, and dictator that are being applied to Trump have primed the powderkeg for violence if Trump wins.

If Trump wins, he wins. You think the left wing was happy with W winning re-election '04 or Trump in '16?

No, they weren't happy. But they also weren't preaching the same message in the lead-up. They weren't banging the drum about fascist dictator for life, imprison political enemies, hunt down us citizens, repeat of hitler, existential threat.

The rhetoric from the left has changed for this election. The rhetoric has become much more inciteful than it has been in the past. That's why I'm concerned.

Thus, I believe that if Trump wins, there will be violence initiated by the left.

That is a baseless assertion and repeating it doesn't make it any less baseless.

If Harris wins, I think it's a foregone conclusion that there will be violence initiated by the right.

I don't think violence is set in stone in either case. Trump sure the heck is setting it up though. He has made questioning the veracity of our elections a mainstream right-wing thing. This isn't just him now.

What's your first recollection of the outcome of a presidential election being challenged? It's been escalating for several election cycles, and it's not an exclusively right wing issue. The tactics employed differ by party, but the tendency to challenge or call into question either the legitimacy or the fairness of the outcome has been going on since Gore v Bush.

I don't know how to get this across. This is a conceptual issue, based on the abstract impact of learned behaviors, and the way they get amplified over time.

The political divide in the US has been growing over time. Democrats and Republicans keep getting further and further apart. When I was younger, working across the aisle was common. Now it's virtually forbidden. It used to be that average americans might be registered, or lean toward one party or another, but we all had a very large common ground that we agreed on. We differed on some bits and piece, or we different in how something should be implemented, or to what extent... but the core values were shared. That's no longer the case - and we're in a period now where average everyday people have become extremely partisan. We're at a point where we're all being conditioned to be intolerant of "those people" and to view anyone who even leans toward the other party as bad from top to bottom.

The tactics differ by party, but the strategy is the same.

That schism, that inability to find or even tolerate common ground and a shared objective... that's a far bigger risk to democracy than any specific individual.