Zaune wrote:Believe it or not, I don't want to see people killed either. But I don't think we can avoid people getting killed at some point,
Do you have
any idea how many evil things have been justified by the assumption that they were inevitable?
Fate is a wonderful excuse for people to act on their impulses without considering other options.
Moreover, their are degrees of catastrophe. Let's say that you're right that some people will inevitably die. Alright then, the question is: should we pick a course of action that will try to limit the number of dead, or should we just say "Fuck it, their are going to be dead people, so let's just make a few more?"
and letting the other side fire the first shot buys us nothing but a minor moral victory,
Hardly a minor one, and you completely ignore the symbolic importance.
In terms of public perception, and sympathy, there is a great deal of difference between a victim fighting back in self-defence, and an aggressor who fired the first shot.
Keep in mind that the majority of the public do not share your belief that political violence and murder are inevitable or necessary. If elements of the Left start a riots, or God forbid a civil war, for the purposes of intimidating the opposition, do not imagine that public opinion will be in their favour.
Remember also that in the run-up to the American Civil War, a time where violence very much was inevitable, insomuch as anything is "inevitable" (thanks to the fanaticism of the South on slavery), just (to overthrow the institution of slavery and put down an unlawful armed rebellion), and necessary (to preserve a united, democratic America), Abraham Lincoln's administration nonetheless went to great pains to limit their initial response, to offer the South a chance for peace, and only declare war after the South started it- in part to make it abundantly clear that the South, not the North, was the aggressor.
which would be cold comfort to the families of the dead and of dubious benefit to the living; if you're at the point of choosing your government with gunfire then who the hell cares whose side the media take?
You do know that PR and public support matter tremendously in both politics and warfare, don't you?
I'm sorry, but when you say things like this, it makes me think that either you are reacting purely on emotion and have put zero thought into the consequences and implications of your position, or that you are being disingenuous.
And hell, I'd rather get the complete collapse of Western Civilisation over with already instead of watch it slowly and painfully deteriorating around us. Maybe whoever's left standing afterwards will build something better.
This is the classic "apocalyptic fantasy". The world will end, all the bad people will burn, and then a new utopia will arise from the ashes. You even regard your apocalypse as inevitable, predestined.
With all due respect, you are operating off much the same basic psychology, in my opinion, as the Book of Revelations. Just with a different ideological coat of paint.
Because your responses lack one important characteristic: They don't affect the kind of Republican officials we need to target, ie the ones who are motivated only by greed, ambition and self-preservation.
I did mention suing the Republican Party/Republican officials over any incidents. Go after their money.
We can't incentivise them to not do this kind of awful shit by offering them money or power because they can't be trusted with either, and we can't appeal to their better nature because we'd never be able to find the poor shrivelled nub of a thing. But what we can do, if we're willing to take the necessary measures, is make them scared. In a perfect world we'd do this with a justice system and law-enforcement organisations free of partisan politics, and a press that was committed to reporting nothing but substantiated fact no matter what the editorial line. But we don't, so we have to use the tools we have available: Buckets of hot tar, sacks of feathers and a fence rail. Hell, that might even work in the Left's favour from a PR perspective; conservatives like to ramble on about Traditional American Values, and what's more traditionally American than mob justice?
(I wish we had a 'laughing on the outside, screaming at the sky in despair on the inside' smiley.)
You are directly and explicitly advocating terrorist acts, and I do not share your assumption that this will win, or at least will not cost, a great deal of sympathy with the American people (and the rest of the world).
I think, to be honest, that your problem is that you've allowed your emotions to get the better of you, have latched onto a single option as the only viable one, and are actively ignoring both the problems with what you propose, and any alternative possibilities.
Edit: I wonder how many of the Oathkeepers feel that it is inevitable that a civil war will be fought when the government comes to take their guns? How much of the current situation we're in is a result of people who are frightened and angry concluding that violence is the only option, and actively steering us toward that eventuality because they cannot, or refuse to, see any other?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
