Highlights: One of the defining features of the rise of American neofascism is violence. This is in no way surprising: violence is one of the primary tools that enemies of democracy use to impose their will, undermine institutions, and prevent the types of consensus-seeking that’s foundational to a healthy democracy and society. Contrary to what right-wing leaders and their disinformation media would like to suggest, this violence is not on “both sides.” The data and other evidence show that political violence and extremism in the Age of Trump (and from the late 1980s to the present more generally) is a phenomenon almost exclusive to the right-wing and “conservative” movement.
National security experts and law enforcement are continuing to warn that right-wing political violence as seen on Jan. 6, in mass shootings and other acts of terrorism, hate crimes, and other such actions – up to an including the possibility of a sustained insurgency to remove President Biden and the Democrats from power – is the greatest threat to the country’s domestic safety and security.
When “the fascists come knocking” and you pull out one of your guns, you will be made an example of. “They” will come with bigger guns than yours and they will be more than one person and you will quickly realize how silly your idea of fighting back “the fascists” really is. Maybe before you die in your own front door, you’ll have time to realize how your silly idea helped mentally ill people kill kids in schools because guns are so easily available and nobody really wanted to do anything about it. You probably won’t, though, and thus kids will keep being killed in schools because stepping back and questioning the heroic vision of yourself you were told to strive for is unpleasant.
It’s a deterrence thing not a defense thing. The guns aren’t there to stop a fascist raid in progress; they’re there to prevent it from starting in the first place.
Yes, and I’m saying the deterrence is useless when it’s you and your forty guns against a beefed up semi-military police force. If you had thermo-nuclear warheads, that would be a deterrence.
Isn’t that rather the point? And what’s yours? Don’t fight back when they come to take you to the train? You’ve attributed a lot of actions and ideas on me.
And this might really bake your noodle; How do you think the fascists might be held back? Make them not so bold?
Voting ain’t working, and the right is consolidating power to take even that away from us. Young people and liberals are obviously lazy as fuck when it comes to pulling a lever in a voting both. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be arguing all this. Do you disagree?
There was a horrifying video of jihadis running down the street after the Iranian people pulled off a “mini” rebellion last year. American liberals were all over social media talking about… whatever. And none of them had a clue that this sort of this isn’t possible in America because the citizens are armed.
It’s not that I would go Rambo shooting out my window, unless it came to brass tacks. It’s that I have the option, and the brownshirts know that.
tl;dr An armed citizenry is a deterrence. And if deterrence isn’t enough, shoot back. Or, get on the train with the fags and other “degenerates”. (JK, that’s never happened before and we in the US are too enlightened to allow it. /s)
Your point is dying a meaningless death in an imagined heroic act in an imagined fascist overthrow? Please excuse me for not arguing with that, I wouldn’t know where to start, seeing our diametrically opposed views on the meaning of life in general.
Kids are being killed in schools which is bad. Having guns as easily accessible as they are now helps kids being killed in schools which is bad. Not having guns as easily accessible as they are now would be better.
Do fight back when the imaginary fascist overthrow takes place. Do not make guns easily accessible so someone can kill kids in schools. It’s not that difficult of a concept, really.
How do you think the fascists might be held back? By pointing a useless stick at their army equipment? Grow up. You hold back fascist shit by not letting it take root. The US leaves systemic issues unsolved which benefits fascist shit. “Oh, but it’s our evil politicians, don’t yo-” Then go protest and don’t stop until they do what you tell them to do. Other, allegedly less “free” and “great” countries have done it.
I don’t disagree with the facts, I disagree with your deduction. Protesting and striking now is the way, not preparing for the “inevitable” fascist overthrow somewhere down the line while shrugging off the piles of dead kids.
This sort of this isn’t possible in the US because the police forces are equipped like armies.
Which is why they will come in bigger numbers and equipped with bigger guns. Come on, what would you do in their place? Imagine living in a fascist hellhole and finally the people voted in a left-wing government that is willing to clean up the country of actual fascists. Oh, but the fascists own private guns, you know! Some of them up to 40! Do you think there’s a small possibility you might have a chance with unlimited money and resources at your disposal?
If you’re scared of a fascist overthrow, act now. Don’t watch more kids die just to keep up an illusion.
I know this is a weird way to look at it, but the meaning of that death manifests in the past.
It is before that death that, because it would involve danger to the attacker even if it’s death for the defender, the willingness to die has its effect.
I’m not trying to sound mystical or esoteric here. I’m just trying to use new language to describe the same concept because it just doesn’t get through for some reason.
Like deterrence is one kid saying “If you smash my xbox, I’ll smash yours”.
Smashing the second xbox doesn’t save the first xbox. Promising to smash the second xbox is what saves the first xbox. The second smashing happens after the first smashing and therefore cannot affect the first smashing since causality goes forward in time. The purpose of the second smashing is to keep, ie validate, the promise made before the first smashing.
It’s a weird, abstract thing. To me it kinda feels like imaginary numbers in math. Like they don’t exist but using them works on things that do exist.
There’s no causal arrow from the second smashing back to the first smashing, but doing your “math” as if the second smashing is a reality, like as if it “already” exists there in the future, changes the probability of the first smashing.
I keep going long-winded with this but what I’m really trying to say is, do you really not grok how “If you do this thing I’ll punish you for it” shapes behavior?
I know what deterrence means. I’m telling you deterrence doesn’t work if one side has access to unlimited amounts of Xboxes. They don’t care if you smash their Xbox because they simply buy a new one and then they kill you anyway.