link the comments have more takes from the "historian"
maybe its the effects of white boy summer :thinkin-lenin:
also john brown didnt go far enough :john-brown:
link the comments have more takes from the "historian"
maybe its the effects of white boy summer :thinkin-lenin:
also john brown didnt go far enough :john-brown:
"Murdering your political opponents"
And he calls himself a historian? That's what his take on "Bleeding Kansas" is?
Just some light political sparring with my opponent who's spent their whole life oppressing me and raping and murdering my friends and family (for political reasons).
That's basically the liberal discourse on violence against white people. You can only kill people when it's on behalf of the legitimate liberal government. All other killing in history was immoral, except for when the Americans did it (and we're just going to avoid talking about the bit where they were convinced to do it because Britain said that they weren't allowed to go genocide any more Indians, it was Canada's turn).
The best possible way to avoid realizing the obvious contradictions of this is to never try to answer the question "when is political violence necessary?"
when your political opponents are slave owners, i don't give two shits
It was just a civil disagreement between gentlemen until mean old John Brown came along.
IMO if you arnt serious about this as a potential consequence of having and using power, you dont actually have any politics.