Coup For Civil Rights/Moral Society

[Valystria]

Merely voicing an opinion isn't sufficient.
But actually violating the rights?
Crushing anyone who does that, that is the entire essence of civil rights.
When you violate someones rights, we crush you. We enact state sanctioned violence against you in order to protect those rights.
That is why most crimes are deemed criminal.

And how would state sanctioned violence encourage the person in question to change their mind about rights, and not want to despise the government? It's seems to me you're just as tough on crime as Conservatives are.

If they don't change their mind about civil rights, the state will need to ensure that these conservatives do not have the power to bring back the old regime.

We have a duty to educate the ignorant, but if they do not wish to be educated we must keep them in check.

[Camicon]

And how would state sanctioned violence encourage the person in question to change their mind about rights, and not want to despise the government? It's seems to me you're just as tough on crime as Conservatives are.

If they don't change their mind about civil rights, the state will need to ensure that these conservatives do not have the power to bring back the old regime.

We have a duty to educate the ignorant, but if they do not wish to be educated we must keep them in check.

Because suppressing "subversive" information always works out so well, right? Fuck letting people form their own opinions, they'll think what the state tells them and damn well like!

[TomKirk]

Every state was ultimately founded in violence, and every civil right we have based on peaceful adoption through political processes depends on the application of force to make those political processes effective. The American Revolution was a military coup, and the decision that slavery was not compatible with our promises of equality was not arrived at by out-arguing the South.

[Ostroeuropa]

Every state was ultimately founded in violence, and every civil right we have based on peaceful adoption through political processes depends on the application of force to make those political processes effective. The American Revolution was a military coup, and the decision that slavery was not compatible with our promises of equality was not arrived at by out-arguing the South.

Pretty much yeh.

[Kanadorika]

And how would state sanctioned violence encourage the person in question to change their mind about rights, and not want to despise the government? It's seems to me you're just as tough on crime as Conservatives are.

It doesn't have to change their mind.

It's a case of the state no longer sanctioning violence against gay people, and instead sanctioning violence against people who assault people for being gay.
This isn't an education excercise. It's removing harmful elements from society.

The fact is the violence will occur either way. We cannot tolerate the intolerant.

This is literally no different than the "TUFF ON CRIME" nonsense you complained about earlier. This shit doesn't work, it just builds up resentment against society. I would expect you to be more supportive of rehabilitation, but apparently not.

And if you can, please prove to me how the state sanctions violence against gays.

[Valystria]

If they don't change their mind about civil rights, the state will need to ensure that these conservatives do not have the power to bring back the old regime.

We have a duty to educate the ignorant, but if they do not wish to be educated we must keep them in check.

Because suppressing "subversive" information always works out so well, right? Fuck letting people form their own opinions, they'll think what the state tells them and damn well like!

Yes.

That's what our states already do.

What they should be doing is using it for good.

[Ostroeuropa]

It doesn't have to change their mind.

It's a case of the state no longer sanctioning violence against gay people, and instead sanctioning violence against people who assault people for being gay.
This isn't an education excercise. It's removing harmful elements from society.

The fact is the violence will occur either way. We cannot tolerate the intolerant.

This is literally no different than the "TUFF ON CRIME" nonsense you complained about earlier. This shit doesn't work, it just builds up resentment against society. I would expect you to be more supportive of rehabilitation, but apparently not.

And if you can, please prove to me how the state sanctions violence against gays.

Social authoritarianism also breeds resentment. Enough that a majority in this thread are prepared to at least tolerate a military coup to see the end of it. The coup policy would be no different in terms of breeding resentment.
The only functional difference is that we'd stop abusing people for no rational reason, and remove the right of people who want to continue to use the state to abuse people to do so.
If those regressives then want to flip their shit and arm themselves, or independently enact their oppressive notions, that's when the state sanctioned violence would kick in.

Instead of just pointlessly fucking with people minding their own fucking business, we'd be defending innocents against irrationally violent thugs.
Those who can keep their shit to themselves are welcome to continue to hold nonsense opinions unmolested.

[Kanadorika]

And how would state sanctioned violence encourage the person in question to change their mind about rights, and not want to despise the government? It's seems to me you're just as tough on crime as Conservatives are.

If they don't change their mind about civil rights, the state will need to ensure that these conservatives do not have the power to bring back the old regime.

We have a duty to educate the ignorant, but if they do not wish to be educated we must
keep them in check.

Because we all know how easily those conservatives give up, right? It's not as if they would ever retaliate in some way.

[Camicon]

Because suppressing "subversive" information always works out so well, right? Fuck letting people form their own opinions, they'll think what the state tells them and damn well like!

Yes.

That's what our states already do.

What they should be doing is using it for good.

What state do you live in? Saudi Arabia?

States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold.

[Trotskylvania]

Yes.

That's what our states already do.

What they should be doing is using it for good.

What state do you live in? Saudi Arabia?

States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold.

So basically your idea of democracy is a suicide pact then?

[Camicon]

What state do you live in? Saudi Arabia?

States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold.

So basically your idea of democracy is a suicide pact then?

And how did you get "suicide pact" from "governments shouldn't tell people what to think"? That's one incredible leap of logic, or rather, lack thereof.

[Valystria]

Yes.

That's what our states already do.

What they should be doing is using it for good.

What state do you live in? Saudi Arabia?

States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold.

No, if I did I likely would have been executed by now.

But they do suppress opinions that they disagree with. The war on drugs is an excellent example.

[Kanadorika]

This is literally no different than the "TUFF ON CRIME" nonsense you complained about earlier. This shit doesn't work, it just builds up resentment against society. I would expect you to be more supportive of rehabilitation, but apparently not.

And if you can, please prove to me how the state sanctions violence against gays.

Social authoritarianism also breeds resentment. Enough that a majority in this thread are prepared to at least tolerate a military coup to see the end of it. The coup policy would be no different in terms of breeding resentment.
The only functional difference is that we'd stop abusing people for no rational reason, and remove the right of people who want to continue to use the state to abuse people to do so.
If those regressives then want to flip their shit and arm themselves, or independently enact their oppressive notions, that's when the state sanctioned violence would kick in.

Instead of just pointlessly fucking with people minding their own fucking business, we'd be defending innocents against irrationally violent thugs.
Those who can keep their shit to themselves are welcome to continue to hold nonsense opinions.

Funny thing is, if you look at the nation as a whole, most people don't completely resent how things are done. Even those who do resent the government are limited to babbling about it on blogs or marching through a street every once in a while. Resent is a strong word, and the populace generally isn't feeling it.

A belief that "it doesn't matter if people arm themselves against the government because we have more guns anyways and can shoot them easily" is awful domestic policy.

[Dooom35796821595]

Considering the fact that militaries are often conservative and only change with or after society does, the fact that the area where democratic governments do the most damage is in economic "policy" (economic Ideology over reality = bad) and the tendency for soldiers to follow orders rather then the law (the ethics and interpretation of law isn't taught at boot camp)... I'd have to go against military coup d'etat.

[Trotskylvania]

So basically your idea of democracy is a suicide pact then?

And how did you get "suicide pact" from "governments shouldn't tell people what to think"? That's one incredible leap of logic, or rather, lack thereof.

You made a blanket statement. I want to know if you're actually willing to accept the logical consequences of making such a bold universal claim.

You say that "States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold."

Let's say there is a Neo-Nazi insurgency in the United States. They are planning to eventually seize power through whatever means expedient, legal or illegal, they can get away with. And once they take power, they'll establish a totalitarian nightmare regime that will destroy all of our cherished freedoms and a whole hell of a lot of people too.

If you truly hold to what you say, then you must conclude as well that the government would have no right to stop them, because that would constitute suppressing opinions they disagree with.

[Camicon]

What state do you live in? Saudi Arabia?

States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold.

No, if I did I likely would have been executed by now.

But they do suppress opinions that they disagree with. The war on drugs is an excellent example.

Clearly, you are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Re-read the second sentence of my former post.

[Camicon]

And how did you get "suicide pact" from "governments shouldn't tell people what to think"? That's one incredible leap of logic, or rather, lack thereof.

You made a blanket statement. I want to know if you're actually willing to accept the logical consequences of making such a bold universal claim.

You say that "States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold."

Let's say there is a Neo-Nazi insurgency in the United States. They are planning to eventually seize power through whatever means expedient, legal or illegal, they can get away with. And once they take power, they'll establish a totalitarian nightmare regime that will destroy all of our cherished freedoms and a whole hell of a lot of people too.

If you truly hold to what you say, then you must conclude as well that the government would have no right to stop them, because that would constitute suppressing opinions they disagree with.

Re-read the second sentence of my former post. Taking up arms and forming an insurgency against a lawful government, and then said government responding by breaking up said insurgency with force, is an entirely different situation than the government trying to legislate what opinions people can have in the first place.

[Valystria]

No, if I did I likely would have been executed by now.

But they do suppress opinions that they disagree with. The war on drugs is an excellent example.

Clearly, you are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Re-read the second sentence of my former post.

And I disagree.

A government has a place in telling people forms of discrimination such as homophobia and transphobia are wrong and that they should not hold those opinions. To not oppose such discriminatory opinions would be unethical.

[Trotskylvania]

You made a blanket statement. I want to know if you're actually willing to accept the logical consequences of making such a bold universal claim.

You say that "States should not be suppressing opinions that the current government disagrees with. The government has no place telling people what opinions they can and cannot hold."

Let's say there is a Neo-Nazi insurgency in the United States. They are planning to eventually seize power through whatever means expedient, legal or illegal, they can get away with. And once they take power, they'll establish a totalitarian nightmare regime that will destroy all of our cherished freedoms and a whole hell of a lot of people too.

If you truly hold to what you say, then you must conclude as well that the government would have no right to stop them, because that would constitute suppressing opinions they disagree with.

Re-read the second sentence of my former post. Taking up arms and forming an insurgency against a lawful government, and then said government responding by breaking up said insurgency with force, is an entirely different situation than the government trying to legislate what opinions people can have in the first place.

It's a difference of degree, not of kind. The state is still forcibly circumscribing what opinions are and are not acceptable

[Camicon]

Clearly, you are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Re-read the second sentence of my former post.

And I disagree.

A government has a place in telling people forms of discrimination such as homophobia and transphobia are wrong and that they should not hold those opinions. To not oppose such discriminatory opinions would be unethical.

The government can tell people what is and is not legal; in other words, it tells them that they cannot act on opinions which run counter to the law. What it does not do is tell people that they cannot think those opinions.

No to the thought police, thankyouverymuch.

[Camicon]

Re-read the second sentence of my former post. Taking up arms and forming an insurgency against a lawful government, and then said government responding by breaking up said insurgency with force, is an entirely different situation than the government trying to legislate what opinions people can have in the first place.

It's a difference of degree, not of kind. The state is still forcibly circumscribing what opinions are and are not acceptable

In one situation the government is trying to stop illegal actions, and in the other they are trying to stop people from having thoughts that they (the government) don't like. That's not a difference of degree, those are entirely different situations. Actions and opinions, while not divorced from each other, are not the same thing.

[Daburuetchi]

MFW

[United Marxist Nations]

And I disagree.

A government has a place in telling people forms of discrimination such as homophobia and transphobia are wrong and that they should not hold those opinions. To not oppose such discriminatory opinions would be unethical.

The government can tell people what is and is not legal; in other words, it tells them that they cannot act on opinions which run counter to the law. What it does not do is tell people that they cannot think those opinions.

No to the thought police, thankyouverymuch.

That is literally every dictatorship ever as well.

[Valystria]

MFW

(Image)

Right on.

And I disagree.

A government has a place in telling people forms of discrimination such as homophobia and transphobia are wrong and that they should not hold those opinions. To not oppose such discriminatory opinions would be unethical.

The government can tell people what is and is not legal; in other words, it tells them that they cannot act on opinions which run counter to the law. What it does not do is tell people that they cannot think those opinions.

No to the thought police, thankyouverymuch.

These are good thought police that exist for the purpose of preserving civil freedoms and suppressing bad opinions.

[Camicon]

The government can tell people what is and is not legal; in other words, it tells them that they cannot act on opinions which run counter to the law. What it does not do is tell people that they cannot think those opinions.

No to the thought police, thankyouverymuch.

These are good thought police that exist for the purpose of preserving civil freedoms and suppressing bad opinions.

The stupidity of that statement is staggering. I'm going to sleep; hopefully, by the time I wake up, you'll have figured out why.