I empathise completely, but adventurism is not the answer. Our strength lies in unity and organising the working class.
You're right, but i still go to sleep every night pretending that John Brown arrives from the past riding a T-rex.
I’ll feel hope when we are abolishing the State, which I admit doesn’t seem particularly likely to happen in my lifetime.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't expect revolution in their lifetimes either.
True, but their revolution was to seize and transform the State, which is a very far cry from abolishing it. I can easily imagine revolution occurring in the US in my lifetime, but I’m very pessimistic about it resulting in any kind of abolition of the State.
Oh, well that's a totally different thing then. Yeah, there's no one alive today that will witness the abolition of state because we were all raised and conditioned under a state. It'll have to be a new generation raised under a withering state that abolishes it
Give every homeless person a car with a M60 machine gun in the trunk.
It's about your God given right to self defense, unless you're a black teenager who might hove stolen some skittles. Then it's about the God given right of any asshole with a gun to kill you in the street
Right-wing violence will always be treated more gently than left-wing violence, even if the leftist violence in blatantly in self-defense. If a leftist ends up in that sort of situation, they're basically fucked no matter what -- either going to prison or killed by a death squad, if they even survive the initial violence -- so the incentive at that point is to just make sure their enemy is dead.
Leonard Peltier is still in jail even though he probably didn't shoot that fed. A couple of black panthers are still in jail because someone else killed a cop.
It really says “you aren’t allowed to even get near a right-winger unless they’ve already shot you multiple times.”
Right-wing ideology is inconsistent if you go by what they say. If you track the behavior (in this case, white people and institutions are above all else), you find it's a lot more predictable.
KR walking is going to set a really fucking dangerous precedent. It's going to embolden the chuds to really go to protests armed looking for an excuse to kill.
The perceived legitimacy of this state is spiraling down the shitter and turning China inso an existential threat is the only short/medium term plan they have. No matter how fascist America gets, the blood libel will always portray them as being worse so liberals like Vaush can hang around and explain why it's essential to uphold the same institutions supporting domestic death squads.
Nah nah nah, you gotta say it right. It's not 'vote,' it's :vote:
I did it in 2020 and it's my god given right to do it again in 2024
And this is without considering any "new" crises/emergencies appearing, climate or otherwise.
The course we're heading on yeah things are going to get bad. Honestly my hope now is with the working poor out there who haven't radicalized yet. The contradictions getting to these dizzying heights has to shake some of them awake.
I wonder how much the average white moderate can take before they drop their politeness fetish and admit the terrorists are terrorists. Of course, that would require ceasing to be a moderate.
They'll get mad at the victims, as usual.
"Why are they going to the protest where they know there are gunmen? They should just go to brunch and stop talking about it."
Yes, that's what I said. I'm wondering what their breaking point is. When does it become THEIR problem? What would be the equivalent of an oil tanker spilling directly into the Exxon CEO's boardroom?
And when they get betrayed, because fascists always betray the moderates?
The fascists will be in power then, so they'll try to keep their heads down and survive.
KR walking is going to set a really fucking dangerous precedent.
It's been a mixed bag, what with Derek Chauvin getting 22 years for Floyd's death. There doesn't seem to be any kind of firm precedent. It's just a question of who you get as a lawyer, how badly you perform on the witness stand, which media-backed partisan group gets behind your cause, and how zealous the local DA feels in a given moment.
It’s going to embolden the chuds to really go to protests armed looking for an excuse to kill.
Maybe. But I don't see them demonstrating exceptional shyness prior to this incident. Rittenhouse was as much the product of radicalization as the source of it. If he walks, all I'm really going to take from the story is that when you have a guy on the ground with a gun, don't stop hitting him until he stops moving.
This is literally the kind of post that a leftist recently went to prison for. I know that hypocrisy criticisms are impotent, but this just irks me.
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/daniel-baker-anarchist-capitol-riot/
Sounds legit. The only thing that can stop a bad militia with guns is a good militia with guns. Only problem I see is that he cares to defend this state.
If you watch some of his standup (I did via somemorenews which I watch for laughs) he's so hilariously bad he would have been booed off a open mic night
What makes this worse is that Ahmad Arbery's killers are going to walk at that same time
While fucked, it couldn't be a better encapsulation of America
Ahmad Arbery’s killers are going to walk at that same time
Are they? It seems like the defense is doing a far shittier job at that trial. The judge isn't a shameless chud. And I'm not seeing any serious self-owns by the prosecution, so I have to assume they're just working this by the numbers.
Defense is arguing in favor of self-defense and that the guys "feared for their lives"
Doesn't make me hopeful
That's pretty much the only defense they've got. I'm not in the jury box, so I have no idea how well the idea is floating. But it didn't save Derrick Chauvin.
But you're right. It woupd make sense for some sort of lib situation where the killers in the Arbery situation to get convicted even though Rittenhouse walks to quell unrest
I doubt they'll walk. Those guys weren't cops, and that killing wasn't nearly as politically charged. You'll be hard pressed to find people defending them (not saying they don't exist, but they're not as prominent as Rittenhouse defenders).
God's given right to self defence:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Wonder if Shapiro, Prager etc. consider this as part of their "Judaeo-Christian" values/heritage.
It's the new testament so it's not reasonable to hold them to it as they have an actual different religion.
this however is in the old testament
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and accepting no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and widow, and He loves the foreigner, giving him food and clothing. So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
There was a lot of competition for the title at the time so they wanted to make sure everyone knew that their guy was the guy.
You’re right that several passages absolutely contradict their beliefs, but I used to be Evangelical and the sort of fundamentalists that support Rittenhouse really aren’t phased by any of this. They just claim the first one is specifically referring to insults and non-threatening violence, and therefore should be responded to with humility and grace, because being slapped is a painful insult and not a dangerous attack. They then point to all the times God tells people to buy swords and kill people to show that obviously God has no problem with murder in “self defense”.
And for the second, they believe that God is all-loving and that He chooses to kill people and torture them for eternity if they don’t literally beg His forgiveness before dying, so they see no conflict in loving someone while murdering them. Or as my parents are fond of saying, “We love you unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean we have to like you.”
Pointing out their hypocrisy and contradictory beliefs is still fun and all, I just don’t want people to think that fundies are unaware of these passages or anything. Christians have been twisting their Scriptures to justify their violence for around 1,500 years now, so simple gotchas like this don’t tend to do much.
On the other hand it can be embarrassing and it's not an argument they can immediately dismiss out of hand it sort of forces them to engage with you and it helps make the case to anyone who's on the fence nearby. Which if you're arguing with chuds is generally the goal
I agree somewhat, but in my personal experience they usually love the opportunity to move the conversation away from concrete details of the subject at hand (like the facts of the Rittenhouse case) and onto Biblical interpretation instead. They’re experts at the theological equivalent of pigeon chess, get dopamine from defending Christ online, and think that people giving them shit for it are just getting them eternal rewards in Heaven. Or at least that’s basically how it was for me when I was an young Evangelical chud.
That said, I do think it’s definitely useful when you want a chud to shut up about something and spend all their time writing bullshit about theology instead.
This passage owns when you add in context. "Turning the other cheek" is some complex Roman social thing where if you hit someone a certain way it says you view them as an equal, so you're basically forcing them to look you in the eye.
The shirt/coat thing is shaming people for abusing the legal system. Something about how you can't legally sue for certain posessions and turning over your coat makes them look like a bastard.
And the go to miles thing is because legionaires could force you to carry their kit for one mile. Going two would shame them and make them look bad.
It's all ways for people with little social standing and power to punch up.
Unless I've missed some key nuance, at this point, it seems like either verdict is going to be full acceleration mode into the Cool Zone.
If he is convicted, far right billionaire dark money will be paying chuds to basically riot and/or be open carrying all over the country, and they will start putting pressure on other societal mechanisms like they have been to the school boards recently; and if he walks, a ton of chuds are going to just shoot at people next time there is a protest
Yeah that's true, I recall seeing evidence that a bunch of recent events were astroturfed. I'm imagining money flowing out at an unprecedented scale though if Kyle takes the L
It will also be flowing at an unprecedented level if he takes the W
If he walks, honestly I don’t think there will be hardly any protests sadly
After Rittenhouse walks, it will be common for protestors to be murdered in the streets. Clear acceleration.
Couple this with the ongoing GOP project to make running protesters over legal, and the state of cops generally.
If Crowder starts the modern brownshirts I'm going to be weirdly disappointed
