@freemo you're shocked that there is intolerance for fascism? I find that bizarre.
@freemo most liberals are shocked to discover how much fascism there is. Only a tip of an iceberg was realised before Trump took power, and he showed us how big that iceberg really is.
🇳🇱
@koherecoWatchdog each side deals in a different flavor of facism. The left tend to be the ones who talk more about facism being an evil, but are also the ones using facism just as much, if not more so, than the right.
The rights sort of fascism is a sense of national pride, for example a requirement you must honor and respect the sacrafice of our military. If I were to say "people in the US military are immoral for their choice in jobs and are effectively murderers" this would be unacceptable to someone on the right and they would likely get very mad at you.
But on the flip side the right also believes more strongly in free speech, so they would be the last ones to want to see a law that would put you in jail for saying such nasty things about members of the military. So the offense would be limited to a personal one and it would not play out as fascism from a legal standpoint if they had their way.
However the liberal/lefts would exhibit the opposite sort of fascism. They might not care so much if you honor the military, in fact some of them might even agree with me that the military as a profession equates to murder. But they would be far more likely to argue for limiting my freedom of speech and might argue that it is ok to be arrested, or at the very least campaign for you to loose your job and all your livlihood, over something you said they may have disagreed with. Sometimes even taking action to physically prevent the speech. A prime example of this are the liberals who destroyed property and even incited a riot in one situation in order to prevent Ben shapiro from given a talk in a closed space at various universities
Both are fascist, both in different ways, but the liberal fascism to me seems far more dangerous.
@freemo "But on the flip side the right also believes more strongly in free speech" <= not in the slightest. It just appears that way because their extremist Alex Jones-esque posts are being censored (they call it a free speech issue but the censorship is actually happening on private property [which is sacred to republicans until it works against them])
@freemo liberals are the champions of civil liberties (check out aclu.org). US republicans value the 2nd amendment to an extreme, but not the other major parts of the bill of rights.
@koherecoWatchdog That is the view they want people to have, I do not feel it resembles reality.
Both sides try to be the "champions" of civil liberties in different ways, both sides tend to oppress civil liberties in different ways. Republicans certainly do a far better job at protecting our right to guns for self defense, that is true, but they are also much stronger on the first amendment too IMO. Meanwhile liberals seem to be more concerned with addressing the injustice against poor people where the right is more than ok to let them rot (and neither side actually does a good job at actually affecting it for the better but atleast the liberals WANT to help the poor, even if they tend to make matters worse with their policies).
So yea, sorry but not seeing the left as the champions of civil liberties they make themselves out to be.
@freemo "Republicans certainly do a far better job at protecting our right to guns for self defense" <= b/c this mention "self defense", it's inaccurate. Both sides of the spectrum vastly oppose prohibition of guns. The difference is US liberals want gun control to reduce chances of /attack/. It's a strawman that has ppl thinking "libs want to take your guns away". These are not EU
@koherecoWatchdog Not really, thats just how the politicians frame it so they can get away with it, because if they said outright their goal was to abolish them they couldnt chip away at it bit by bit..
This is evidenced by the nonsensical way they try to erode our gun rights. For example you often hear them talk about assault rifles, which are entierly an imaginary category of guns that have no meaningful qualities what so ever. They use the AR-15 as the posterboy of what is an assault rifle and ignore the fact that it is one of the least powerful rifles on the market and is used primarily to hunt small game on farms that destroy crops.
It is an attempt to have a "catch all" category they can make illegal with no real definition on what it is, at least not that is useful, that then can be used to basically make widespread guns of all sorts illegal, none of which has any relevance to protecting anyone.
If they were truly concerned about preserving gun rights the **last** thing they would do is be trying to make guns of any kind illegal. Instead they would be proposing more sensical and effective things like gun training, but of course thats never their focus, which shows their hand.
@freemo "the **last** thing they would do is be trying to make guns of any kind illegal" <= not if we're talking self-defense. Some guns get more use as an attack tool than as a /defense/ tool. "Instead they would be proposing more sensical and effective things like gun training never their focus" <= this is exactly why liberals stopped supporting the NRA.
@freemo the NRA was originally a gun safety org and it had support from liberals. It later became an anti-gun control org, stimulating quite the opposite of gun safety, which drove the org away from liberal interests.
@koherecoWatchdog NRA has not stimulated anti-gun safety, thats nonsense. Though you are right that they are against anti-gun legislation, and im damn happy they are. I support the NRA and have been considering donating a sizable amount to them this year for the first time.
@freemo I said NRA pushes "anti-gun control", but yes, anti-gun control is also anti-gun safety by extention. Over time NRA became reckless w.r.t safety and lobby to oppose gun control. They have no limits. They even lobby against common sense background checks that hinder nutters from being armed. The switch from gun safety to no restrictions is what drove liberals away from the NRA.
@freemo after the NRA became extremist, it only had conservative members at that point. So it also became a supporter of republican politicians, and in fact got caught helping Russia channel money into Trump's war chest.
@koherecoWatchdog Nothing extremist about the NRA in my view... they oppose restrictions on guns, thats supporting rights not extremism.
The only reasonable gun safety measures i could support would be anonymous licensingand/or training, but only if its free and paid for by the state. Something that I have never seen proposed by the left so i remain strongly against every non-sensical step the left has taken to erode personal gun rights.
@freemo NRA directly promotes violence. This video demonstrated it, until it was removed for that reason: https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=tOfLjGg5gP0
@freemo and IIRC, NRAtv is dead now, but it was full of violence inciting garbage.
@koherecoWatchdog youll have to link me to it if you want me to evaluate such claims
@freemo It was Dana Leosche (not sure on the spelling) giving a hyperbole & propaganda-rich commercial to demonize liberals, appeal to fear, and then told viewers to use force to fight back, comparable to Trump's speech that got a mob to attack the capitol bldg. I didn't get a copy of it b/c youtube-dl didn't work on all videos. It might still be out there if you search around.
@koherecoWatchdog Trumps speech never asked anyone to be violent (I watched it)... so if you think trumps speech was calling for violence i am pretty skeptical your interpritation of Dana's video is actually accurate. That said, if you find a link I'd be happy to view it and decide for myself.
@freemo her exact phrasing was calling for action "with a clenched fist". It can't be "go shoot someone" precisely, b/c the backlash would be too immediate and impossible to defend in court. But the NRA is the highest funded lobby in the US, so they can push limits and hire the best lawyers. "Clenched fist" is euphemistic enough to get away with it legally yet still signal for vionlence.
@koherecoWatchdog Again, I'd have to see it in context to form an opinion.
@freemo it doesn't play for me. But if it's fear mongering to stir up emotions, then a call to act with a "clenched fist" then that's probably it.
@freemo again, they don't have to spot-on call for violence in a literal interpretation of words. Just like Trump's dog whistling, it just has to be enough of a signal to get effect, particularly with an audience that is just waiting to be called to action (e.g. Proud Boys who were told by Trump to "stand by").
@freemo truth doesn't need a "clenched fist" in any non-violent sense.
@koherecoWatchdog You do realize the clench fist is a symbol of the BLM as well... Now I know it to mean solidarity and unity just as Dana used it, and thats how BLM uses it.
By your argument "clenched fist" implies violence. So your saying the BLM is a group calling for violence because it uses that exact same symbology as central to its movement?
@freemo words are metaphoric, not so much that pic which doesn't show a fist that's about to hit someone.
@koherecoWatchdog the words dont show a fist that is about to hit someone too..
Did you read the wikipedia article "clenched fist" is a symbol that goes back hundreds of years... why are you arguing its a symbol of violence when its meaning is well known?
@koherecoWatchdog It is literally called "the clenched fist" when used as a non-violent symbol... it has had one meaning for 200 years "solidarity and unity"
Her wording was "The clenched fist of truth" which makes it **extremely** obvious this is the symbology she meant..
Look if thats the hill you want to die on, go for it, like i said, its not a good look for your credibility and your ability to accurately judge what you see when you have biases going in.
There was nothing remotely violent or suggestive of violence about what she said.. she DID however point out the rampant violence of the left, which is and has been very real. I've witnessed it myself more times than I'd like to admit.
@freemo Wrt credibility, you said Trump's pre-capitol attack did not call for violence, yet violence is exactly what it triggered. You're not seeing how the dog whistle's work.
@koherecoWatchdog No Trumps speech didnt trigger the violence. What trigged the violence was the cops who were pulling people out of the growd while they were still contained behind barricades and beating them in plain view of the crowd even after they were handcuffed.
You can literally see in videos from before the crowd surged and became riotous how the cops are beating them and the crowd is screaming in objection and threatening to beat the cops in return... then after some time of beating protestors the crowd surges and breaks through the barriers.
Trumps speech that never actually called for any violence is not what caused violence. The **literally** violence carried out in front of the crowd pulling victims from the crowd is what triggered the initial violence.
You dont need to blame dog whistles when there is literal and actual violence to point to as the cause.
@freemo the bats, guns, pipe bombs didn't appear after a scuffle with a cop. they were already there. it was a planned attack
@freemo there is also no reason to penetrate the building if a cop scuffles with someone close to the barracade.
@koherecoWatchdog Thats not how riots work.. there is no need for the riots that led to countless cop stations and cop cars being burnt down over a single cop that killed george floyd either.. but riotous mobs dont think with reason. When they see numerous people from their own group being beaten repeatedly in handcuffs in plain view you get a riotous mob, once a riotous mob starts it tends to spread and be indiscriminate, thats how it works.
@koherecoWatchdog I am done with this conversation. Please do not continue it further but feel free to reach out to me on other conversations or in general in the future.
If you really think what she said was a call to violence when she literally used a symbol of peace by name and added qualifier "of truth" to it doubly ensure it couldnt be confused with violence, and you are going to claim it must be violent anyway because all the liberals said so .... well I cant argue with that, to me it seems that you have lost all sense of objectivity in making that argument and I cant argue against dogma, so im going t have to exit the conversation, its a dead end.
@koherecoWatchdog umm you do realize that a **ton** of people carry rifles in their car, that is hardly unusual, same with bats.. that isnt evidence anything is planned. I literally have a bat sitting in my car right now from a baseball game months ago.
Man your just stretching it more and more. The pipebomb you **might** be able to make a case on but at worst thats a single nut job, at best it was a prop made to scare and wasnt a live bomb (it looked pretty fake honestly)... we would need more evidence to really know but again your talking about one wakadoo in that case regardless
@freemo it's already been determined and made public that the pipe bombs were real
@koherecoWatchdog No they sprayed the pipebomb with a water canon to destroy it and as such were unable to actually confirm if it had explosives in it. They were deemed to be real in the sense that there was something that looked like a pipebomb and had what looked like a timer on it. But it has not been determined if it was live and able to explode.
but as i said thats a moot point anyway, if it was or not we are talking about a single crazy person in that case
@freemo it has different meanings, depending on the context and usage. A raised fist is clearly the non-violent meaning. Other fists, not so much.