Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[Emily Lake]

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.

That might be how you intend it, but I really really don't think that's going to be the consequence.

"Vote for Harris or else Trump is going to be a dictator and destroy democracy, and turn the miltary against US Citizens and it's going to be Hitler all over again. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, if he wins he's going to persecute liberals and round up immigrants and deport them or put them in camps!"

And you think that the only repercussion of that message is to get people to go to the voting booth? You don't think there's any chance at all that anyone is going to take that seriously? You don't think anyone is going to take it further than that if Trump wins?

Even in your own post, you're messaging that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY we can have a peaceful transfer of power is if Harris wins by a landslide. You've already internalized and repeated that Harris has to win or else...

 

[Emily Lake]

Trump has never won an election.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, this is you challenging the legitimacy of an election. This is the left's tactic toward delegitimizing the results of a fair election by the rules of the country.

Trump won in 2016. That is factual. Biden won in 2020. That is also factual.

 

[Emily Lake]

Financially insecure people are easily brought to believe that financial stability would banish their insecurity.

That's like the entire selling point of UBI, by the way.

 

[TomC]

Trump has never won an election.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, this is you challenging the legitimacy of an election. This is the left's tactic toward delegitimizing the results of a fair election by the rules of the country.

Trump won in 2016. That is factual. Biden won in 2020. That is also factual.

I'm challenging the legitimacy of our non-democratic system and referring to our appointment process as a democracy.
Trump got appointed, once. He has never won an election.
Tom

 

[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.

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.

That's literally what Elixir said. Those are his words, I didn't change any of them.

You can disagree with how I view the repercussions of what Elixir said... but don't claim that he didn't say the things that he actually said. I didn't even trim out context, FFS.

 

[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.

That's literally what Elixir said. Those are his words, I didn't change any of them.

You can disagree with how I view the repercussions of what Elixir said... but don't claim that he didn't say the things that he actually said. I didn't even trim out context, FFS.

What you said is not what Elixir said.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Why did you trim my quote where you did? Is it your intent to mischaracterize my view? Do you believe that if you ignore the sentence immediately preceding that, it doesn't exist? Do you think that by selectively snipping out my acknowledgement that the right is prone to violence, it somehow transmutes reality into me only calling out the left?

This is what I said:

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

Trump has never won an election.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, this is you challenging the legitimacy of an election. This is the left's tactic toward delegitimizing the results of a fair election by the rules of the country.

Trump won in 2016. That is factual. Biden won in 2020. That is also factual.

I'm challenging the legitimacy of our non-democratic system and referring to our appointment process as a democracy.
Trump got appointed, once. He has never won an election.
Tom

You're contributing to the problem.

By the rules of elections in the US, Trump won the election. He did not win the popular vote, but the popular vote has never been the means by which an election is one or lost in the US.

 

[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.

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.

That's literally what Elixir said. Those are his words, I didn't change any of them.

You can disagree with how I view the repercussions of what Elixir said... but don't claim that he didn't say the things that he actually said. I didn't even trim out context, FFS.

What you said is not what Elixir said.

I need you to translate whatever you're trying to say. I didn't claim that Elixir said what I said, I quoted what Elixir actually said in Elixir's own words. Then I spoke to the ramification of those words.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Some examples, please.

Read the thread

No. Cite examples.

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.

Your inability to recognise the risks that so very many others, including a crap ton of people that worked directly with Trump and ARE Republicans is not my problem to solve for you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

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.

Yes, we shall see. The track record however does not favor your position.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

 

[ZiprHead]

Harris isn't saying if she loses it'll be because of fraud.

That's what Trump said in 2020 - that if he lost it would be because of fraud.

Surprise. He lied.

 

[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.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

It gets framed differently. When it's antifa setting buildings on fire with people in them, it's a "mostly peaceful" protest where it's "understandable that emotions run high" and "it's just a few outliers" among the sea of black-clad balaclava-wearing hooligans.

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America

extremism.gwu.edu

Subcommittee Chair Bishop: “It’s Past Time We Recognize Left-Wing Violence for What it is” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.

www.csis.org

 

[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.

Why did you trim my quote where you did? Is it your intent to mischaracterize my view? Do you believe that if you ignore the sentence immediately preceding that, it doesn't exist? Do you think that by selectively snipping out my acknowledgement that the right is prone to violence, it somehow transmutes reality into me only calling out the left?

This is what I said:

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.

Because that was the only portion relevant to my response.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

It gets framed differently. When it's antifa setting buildings on fire with people in them, it's a "mostly peaceful" protest where it's "understandable that emotions run high" and "it's just a few outliers" among the sea of black-clad balaclava-wearing hooligans.

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America

extremism.gwu.edu

Subcommittee Chair Bishop: “It’s Past Time We Recognize Left-Wing Violence for What it is” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.

www.csis.org

Good lord. Your own last link cites "white supremacists". Are they lefties too?

 

[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.

That's literally what Elixir said. Those are his words, I didn't change any of them.

You can disagree with how I view the repercussions of what Elixir said... but don't claim that he didn't say the things that he actually said. I didn't even trim out context, FFS.

What you said is not what Elixir said.

I need you to translate whatever you're trying to say. I didn't claim that Elixir said what I said, I quoted what Elixir actually said in Elixir's own words. Then I spoke to the ramification of those words.

You say that Elixir is advocating violence. But he isn't. He said nothing about violence. Whereas you did. You committed the very crime you are falsely accused Elixir of:

"If you actually, truly believe the things you say, you should be prepared to take direct action against Trump."

That is a plain and unequivocal call to violence. Nothing Elixir wrote even suggests that he thinks retaliatory violence would be the best response to the threat Trump obviously poses. Whereas you claim that it would be some sort of moral imperative if Elixir believes his statements are true, which he presumably does given that they are his statements.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Who said it was absent??? Straw man much?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

It gets framed differently. When it's antifa setting buildings on fire with people in them, it's a "mostly peaceful" protest where it's "understandable that emotions run high" and "it's just a few outliers" among the sea of black-clad balaclava-wearing hooligans.

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America

extremism.gwu.edu

Subcommittee Chair Bishop: “It’s Past Time We Recognize Left-Wing Violence for What it is” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.

www.csis.org

There's already been right wing violence associated to the election. Several ballot drop boxes have been set on fire in heavily blue districts.

 

[Toni]

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.

That might be how you intend it, but I really really don't think that's going to be the consequence.

"Vote for Harris or else Trump is going to be a dictator and destroy democracy, and turn the miltary against US Citizens and it's going to be Hitler all over again. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, if he wins he's going to persecute liberals and round up immigrants and deport them or put them in camps!"

And you think that the only repercussion of that message is to get people to go to the voting booth? You don't think there's any chance at all that anyone is going to take that seriously? You don't think anyone is going to take it further than that if Trump wins?

Even in your own post, you're messaging that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY we can have a peaceful transfer of power is if Harris wins by a landslide. You've already internalized and repeated that Harris has to win or else...

Well, yes. I believe the difference between the two choices is really that stark: Harris wins and we still have democracy or Trump wins and democracy in the US is essentially over.

Cool that you don't think that Trump means all the shit he says but I think he's shown that he really does mean it. Maybe there will be enough adults in the room to keep him from doing his worst, which, btw, is really really really bad. But maybe not. That's not a chance that I think is worth risking.

Harris is not my very most ideal candidate but that's ok. I'm used to that. I'm still pretty upset by how Biden has been treated and if the GOP were not so reprehensible to the very core, I'd be much more inclined to consider voting third party. But I've been down that path before and have come to regret every single one of those third party votes.

I really cannot tell exactly what your problem with Harris is. Or why you seem to be saying that Trump is a better alternative. I just don't get it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump has never won an election.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, this is you challenging the legitimacy of an election. This is the left's tactic toward delegitimizing the results of a fair election by the rules of the country.

Trump won in 2016. That is factual. Biden won in 2020. That is also factual.

Not factual, saying TomC is delegitimizing Trump's victory in 2016.