Liriena wrote: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:
Tbf, baseless Godwinning is bad, regardless of who's doing it. And nowadays progressives are doing it a bit more than conservatives.
Nakena wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote: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?"
First American Empire wrote: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 The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.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.
Torrocca wrote: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.
Torrocca wrote: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.
Torrocca wrote: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.
Torrocca wrote: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.
Torrocca wrote: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."