LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Torrocca]

You can't necessarily blame Brown for fighting during Bleeding Kansas when it was the pro-slavers who began the violence. It's not like he was the only one fighting there, in any case; it pretty much was the common person's fight during that time.



I doubt any of Spronson's actions were aimed toward harming innocent people, most particularly the people he was openly attempting to save.

Bleeding Kansas as a whole was a big part of what caused the Civil War in the first place. Frontier violence was no joke.

Yes, I know. But that's irrelevant to it being used as an example of John Brown not being a common person of the era when he absolutely was.

But anyway, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, as they say. There were other ways he could have handled the issue.

Fair. Spronson could've probably found a way to free people from that corporate concentration camp without guns and molotovs.

[Proctopeo]

I believe Proct is trying to elaborate on the nuance of the situation. A peaceful resolution to the border crisis is far preferable to a violent one.

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.

You're looking really deep into this to find something where there's obviously nothing. Lay off.

Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

You're not making it look like you don't support state-sponsored tyranny when you continue to lambast a guy who objectively rebelled against such tyranny, y'know.

I'm lambasting him for being a terrorist. This has been made clear. Anything else is your imagination and/or you trying to shove words in my mouth. So, stop both of those things.

There's no need to dig for anything when you've made your position here abundantly clear.

To only yourself, and maybe partially Kowani, it seems. See a therapist? Your incredible zealotry definitely isn't healthy.

Also, it's really hilarious how you choose to devolve to namecalling and insinuating that I believe in supporting state-sponsored tyranny when you're openly supporting state tyranny. :^3

I'm literally doing what you're doing. Down to the namecalling.
Can't take what you dish out, huh?

It's also a riot to continue to insist that it is a dichotomy between "terrorism" and "tyranny" when there's clearly other possible options.

What's really a riot is that you see an act of resistance to state-sponsored tyranny as nothing more than terrorism.

It is objectively terrorism, there's no honest room for dispute. And it's not really """"resistance"""" either, unless the building itself was oppressing him personally.

The common person would generally not go out on the plains of Kansas and get into gunfights with people, nor are they expected to. Women’s groups, orators like Douglass and Sojourner Truth, poets like Whitman and Henry David Thoreau we’re writing and acting against slavery. Brown is an odd duck in history, one who DID fight people who were not innocent, but who also made questionable decisions (such as attacking Harper’s Ferry and promptly being captured). Brown is not comparable to Sporson, who attacked not only the police but innocent people, knowing very well he could kill them in the crossfire.

See, if that had been Proct’s response, it would’ve been fine. But it wasn’t.

Because I'm not ought to fall for tricks, and I had no reason to believe that it wasn't one.
Though the optimal solution would've just been to ignore your question entirely, and let your imagination go completely wild.

[Duhon]

It's not just "firebomb-throwing lunatics" and "Mexican-hating tyrants", stop with this false dichotomy crap you're trying to pull. You can hate terrorism without liking who they're being terrorists against, it's pretty fucking simple.

If those being harmed are merely exercising their free speech (extempore speeches, demonstrations, media appearances and citations, etc.) then the attacker is in the wrong.

If those being harmed are enacting policies that, while not harming anyone, do exclude certain classes from enjoying the full measure of their rights under the laws of the land, then the attacker is still in the wrong.

If those being harmed are enacting policies that harm anyone else... fuck them.

[Torrocca]

Proct's really not, though. If he was, he'd've made it clear a good deal back rather than go through the effort of defending his underlying support for state-sanctioned tyranny.

You're looking really deep into this to find something where there's obviously nothing. Lay off.

There's nothing for me to look deep into when you're shoving your support for state tyranny right out into the open.

You're not making it look like you don't support state-sponsored tyranny when you continue to lambast a guy who objectively rebelled against such tyranny, y'know.

I'm lambasting him for being a terrorist. This has been made clear. Anything else is your imagination and/or you trying to shove words in my mouth. So, stop both of those things.

And, again, you make it clear to everyone that you do indeed support state tyranny by acting like a man who tried to save people from being held in one of these concentrations camps is a terrorist.

There's no need to dig for anything when you've made your position here abundantly clear.

To only yourself, and maybe partially Kowani, it seems. See a therapist? Your incredible zealotry definitely isn't healthy.

I don't need to see a therapist to call out the obvious.

Also, it's really hilarious how you choose to devolve to namecalling and insinuating that I believe in supporting state-sponsored tyranny when you're openly supporting state tyranny. :^3

I'm literally doing what you're doing. Down to the namecalling.

It sure is weird, then, how my accusations of you supporting state tyranny lie in your own words whereas your "no u" has literally nothing behind it, and how I haven't called you anything.

What's really a riot is that you see an act of resistance to state-sponsored tyranny as nothing more than terrorism.

It is objectively terrorism, there's no honest room for dispute. And it's not really """"resistance"""" either, unless the building itself was oppressing him personally.

TIL'd you can't resist tyranny unless that tyranny is levied against you personally.

I guess nobody should make any effort whatsoever, then, to free these people from America's concentration camps.

[Duhon]

Torra, slow down. You're missing Proc's point. There are levels here, and while I support violence against state agents if they are found to be harming other people (as in the case you first found yourselves first arguing on), this is not applicable in all cases.

[Torrocca]

Torra, slow down. You're missing Proc's point. There are levels here, and while I support violence against state agents if they are found to be harming other people (as in the case you first found yourselves first arguing on), this is not applicable in all cases.

I know it's not applicable in all cases, but Proct's objectively wrong here and is underhandedly levying support for the state's tyranny in this case.

[Duhon]

Torra, slow down. You're missing Proc's point. There are levels here, and while I support violence against state agents if they are found to be harming other people (as in the case you first found yourselves first arguing on), this is not applicable in all cases.

I know it's not applicable in all cases, but Proct's objectively wrong here and is underhandedly levying support for the state's tyranny in this case.

No, he is not. Read again.

[Torrocca]

I know it's not applicable in all cases, but Proct's objectively wrong here and is underhandedly levying support for the state's tyranny in this case.

No, he is not. Read again.

I mean, he quite literally is, though. It's either that or an unbelievable amount of naivety when he's screaming about a guy who tried to rescue people from these concentration camps being nothing more than a "terrorist", and I'm pretty damn sure Proct's nowhere near that naive.

[Nakena]

The music tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic was originally dedicated to John Brown.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

the right: "stop calling everyone you disagree with a nazi. you're making it meaningless and everyone is going to think you're a crazy sjw who can't argue rationally"

also the right:

(Image)
(Image)

Tbf, baseless Godwinning is bad, regardless of who's doing it. And nowadays progressives are doing it a bit more than conservatives.

I am glad that this kind of "conservatism" is deader than disco by now.

The question is, what kind of conservatism will replace it? Because I can think of many kinds of conservatism that are far worse.

Honestly, that fake Russian text pisses me off way more than the rest of this. That reads "sndi[G]e", and the G there isn't even a letter used in Russian. Whoever made that couldn't even put in the effort to Google Translate "change".

Yeah. It's like "GrΣΣk." And I'm thinking, do you mean "Grssk?"

The Second Amendment failed to stop slavery. The Second Amendment failed to stop Jim Crow. The Second Amendment failed to stop Japanese Internment. The Second Amendment failed to stop any of the five* presidents who stole their election in plain sight. The Second Amendment has never succeeded in allowing an armed rebellion against any act of tyranny that the US government has committed. The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.

*John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush (first term), and Donald Trump.

The second amendment doesn't stop all tyranny, but it does seem to reduce it. And I don't like the electoral college either, but winning it whilst losing the popular vote isn't stealing, it is for better or for worse how the election process works.

Yeah, it is pretty fucking simple: you're choosing to side with tyranny. Thanks for taking the mask off for us.

That's quite the accusation. All Proct said was that he didn't support what he viewed as terrorism.

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

If he uses terroristic tactics then he's not doing the right thing.

What's really a riot is that you see an act of resistance to state-sponsored tyranny as nothing more than terrorism.

Are we talking about John Brown or the guy in 2019 who broke into an immigration detainment facility? And what exactly did they do? Because if what he did is terrorism, it's terrorism.

John Brown, as far as I'm aware, had no belief that Harper's Ferry was going to end slavery; his intent there was to seize the armory and arm slaves to cause a rebellion. In any case, I can understand why he wouldn't surrender to the authorities, but the fact that he killed civilians is ultimately utterly condemnable, even if he otherwise fought for a just cause.

If it's utterly condemnable, don't get mad at people for condemning him.

I mean, he quite literally is, though. It's either that or an unbelievable amount of naivety when he's screaming about a guy who tried to rescue people from these concentration camps being nothing more than a "terrorist", and I'm pretty damn sure Proct's nowhere near that naive.

When? His orginal statement was "he's long dead, so I don't feel the need to comment on him."

[Torrocca]

Speaking of John Brown and Frederick Douglass, since both were brought up, I found this quote of Douglass's that regards Brown in all sorts of praise, and I love it:

"John Brown’s zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light; his was as the burning sun. I could live for the slave; John Brown could die for him." - Frederick Douglass

[Torrocca]

Yeah, it is pretty fucking simple: you're choosing to side with tyranny. Thanks for taking the mask off for us.

That's quite the accusation. All Proct said was that he didn't support what he viewed as terrorism.

Except Proct knows as well as anyone what the popular connotations around the word "terrorism" are, and it's detestable bullshit that he'd try and paint a man who tried to free people from concentration camps in the same light as somebody from, say, ISIS, who're the poster boys for terrorism.

John Brown is the perfect embodiment of the common person doing the right thing and resisting state-sponsored tyranny (in this case, chattel slavery) by any means necessary.

If he uses terroristic tactics then he's not doing the right thing.

I really wouldn't say attacking a concentration camp is terrorism.

What's really a riot is that you see an act of resistance to state-sponsored tyranny as nothing more than terrorism.

Are we talking about John Brown or the guy in 2019 who broke into an immigration detainment facility? And what exactly did they do? Because if what he did is terrorism, it's terrorism.

He stormed in, set a car on fire, and fired some shots when police arrived before getting killed. So, technically, he wasn't able to do much in the way of setting people free before he died.

John Brown, as far as I'm aware, had no belief that Harper's Ferry was going to end slavery; his intent there was to seize the armory and arm slaves to cause a rebellion. In any case, I can understand why he wouldn't surrender to the authorities, but the fact that he killed civilians is ultimately utterly condemnable, even if he otherwise fought for a just cause.

If it's utterly condemnable, don't get mad at people for condemning him.

There's a difference between condemning a horrible act committed by a person and condemning a person wholesale, regardless of any act that they took.

There's nothing condemnable about John Brown taking up arms against slavery; there is, however, something completely condemnable about shooting unarmed civilians.

I mean, he quite literally is, though. It's either that or an unbelievable amount of naivety when he's screaming about a guy who tried to rescue people from these concentration camps being nothing more than a "terrorist", and I'm pretty damn sure Proct's nowhere near that naive.

When? His orginal statement was "he's long dead, so I don't feel the need to comment on him."

Right here, when he opened up with calling Spronson a terrorist:

So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really wouldn't say attacking a concentration camp is terrorism.

It 110% was, you're just apprehensive to call it such because you support the action.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I really wouldn't say attacking a concentration camp is terrorism.

It 110% was, you're just apprehensive to call it such because you support the action.

Depends on the definition of terrorism. Some definitions of terrorism require it to be against civilians to be counted as such.

[Torrocca]

I really wouldn't say attacking a concentration camp is terrorism.

It 110% was, you're just apprehensive to call it such because you support the action.

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It 110% was, you're just apprehensive to call it such because you support the action.

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

Sure, but other people do see it as a terrorist act, including more than a few of us locals. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

Sure, but other people do see it as a terrorist act, including more than a few of us locals. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Are you sure? I always thought that if you attack civilians, you're a terrorist, and if you don't, you're not.

[Torrocca]

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

Sure, but other people do see it as a terrorist act, including more than a few of us locals. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Good for you. I disagree with that assertion.

[First American Empire]

Terrorism is the use of violence specifically aimed at causing terror in the civilian population for political purposes. The guy who tried to rescue the children kidnapped by ICE obviously doesn't fit this definition no matter what your politics are. ICE is a de facto paramilitary organization, and the goal of the rescue attempt was obviously not to scare the civilian population.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure, but other people do see it as a terrorist act, including more than a few of us locals. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Are you sure? I always thought that if you attack civilians, you're a terrorist, and if you don't, you're not.

If I storm ATF headquarters and try to kill everyone am I not a terrorist because they're not civilians?

[North German Realm]

It 110% was, you're just apprehensive to call it such because you support the action.

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

I mean, it's not the freeing people that's the terrorist act part, it's the means that the guy used for that end.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

I mean, it's not the freeing people that's the terrorist act part, it's the means that the guy used for that end.

Bingo^

[Torrocca]

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

I mean, it's not the freeing people that's the terrorist act part, it's the means that the guy used for that end.

Well, yeah, obviously, but I still inherently disagree with the notion that it's terrorism.

[Duhon]

Nah, I'm apprehensive of it partly because of the usual popular connotations surrounding the word "terrorism" but mostly because I don't see freeing people from concentration camps to be a terroristic act.

I mean, it's not the freeing people that's the terrorist act part, it's the means that the guy used for that end.

I can think of instances where "guy goes violent to save people" is not an act of terror.

[Nakena]

Sure, but other people do see it as a terrorist act, including more than a few of us locals. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Good for you. I disagree with that assertion.

You realize what would have come onto Antifa if that guy were more sucessfull and had managed to kill some ICEd fellows?