3
I wish these vile people would just crawl back into the holes they crawled out of.
I rarely agree with or endorse or agree with violence. But the rise of the far-right shitbirds has really led me to believe that perhaps General Sherman really should've gone all the way to the sea.
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they're always going to be a problem. It's better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
edit: I also won't fall victim to the paradox of tolerance. Punching Nazis is a net good. Superman does it, after all.
Get money out of politics. The Republicans fund these groups so they can push hate while maintaining plausibile deniability. Moms for Liberty can't exist solely on grassroots funding. They are being paid by the richest among us to spread hate and keep us distracted from class warfare.
Replying to your edit:
edit: I also won’t fall victim to the paradox of tolerance. Punching Nazis is a net good. Superman does it, after all.
You're literally "jokingly" advocating for GENOCIDE!! What is wrong with you? Can't you tell the difference between punching someone in the face, and murdering an entire population over a political disagreement?
And instead of at the very least qualifying your statement saying "It's a joke, obviously I don't mean this should be taken literally and I'm just venting without really noticing the full ramifications of what I'm saying". Or something to that effect. You just double down on defending your statement.
At least when the Moms of Liberty were accused of supporting the Hitler quote, the modified their news letter to be double extra clear that they were condemning the Hitler quote. You can't even do that much...
Lol he really hit a nerve😂 General Sherman is dead geniuses.
TLDR: If you find yourself defending the person hyperbolically calling for genocide against the person condemning it. It might be time to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"
I can't bring myself to give an actual example. But imagine this scenario, I'm hanging out with a couple of work colleagues. Let's call them fixtionalJake and BroBroBro. Now were just chatting something comes up about all the vandalism that black people did during the BLM protest and fixtionalJake makes an obviously hyperbolic comment proposing that all black people should get murdered or that their ancestors should have. But the comment is a little bit indirect, and clearly absurdly impossible to implement. BroBroBro is laughing along.
I'm standing there thinking, that is some seriously messed up racist stuff right there. For sure fixtionalJake is a least a little bit racist, but maybe he didn't quite understand how it came across.
So I say dude that was f'ed up that the most racist thing I ever heard, what the hell is wrong with you? His response is: "I'm not gonna get caught by this dumb rhetoric, if someone commits a crime, you put them in jail don't you?"
Everyone in the company up to the vice precident smile, and agrees. BroBroBro, knows which the tide is turning and he wants to fit in, so he adds: "Yeah dufus, that thing he said is obviously impossible to do, what are you, 'stupid'?"
I suspect that if you were in my place you would just conclude that both those guys and pretty much the entire company are at the very list raging racist assholes.
But not me, I have faith in humanity. Yes, every single thing they've done is consistent with raging racist assholes. It's even consistent with the behavior of people who are genuinely hoping to find a way to genocide every black person.
But BroBroBRo's behavior is also consistent with that of someone who's just a little bit clueless and just a little bit too desperate to fit in. It's probably consistent with many other kinds of behavior.
fixtionalJake is 99% chance a raging racist asshole, but maybe not really a genocidal one though. I mean he could, but it's also possible that he's not.
Either way, I'm quitting my job, working triple time for the competition at half pay. Just in case. just to make sure they don't get the to snowball the funds to actually do it.
And that's how I justify my behavior of posting all over this thread. Just in case. I want everyone to understand that indiscriminately killing all far right wingers is an abhorrent and evil thing to do. And I don't want this to be a place where you can dog-whistle-advocate for such killings without getting called out on it.
It occurs to me there is no precedent for you to infer genocide from this joke, though. Sherman committed no genocide.
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
That's genocide.
That's not what he suggested to be done in real life. That's a point about being unable to strike a balance between two groups who do not see eye to eye. His only real life suggestion was that a general should've continue his efforts further towards the sea. That's not genocide, that's simply war.
That’s a point about being unable to strike a balance between two groups who do not see eye to eye.
Yes, it's a fundamental problem of life. Some people suggest compromise. Some people suggest a different kind of solution. A "final" solution so to speak.
Now you read this quote again and you tell me: Which of these solution does he suggest is best?
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
He was speaking in context of the game.
No one is calling for actual genocide. You're condemning a joke, not the actual act. It's not that serious, thus I truly can't bring myself to read this fully.
Your hypothetical is racist. I would take issue with the racism.
Your comment which kinda jockingly advocates for genocide is one of the top voted comments on this thread.
Personally, I think you should be ashamed of this. And of this community.
I propose that to help make things better, you should perhaps apologize.
I agree. Based on your downvotes though, it seems the Reddit-liberal-never-does-wrong echo chamber persists.
Bro literally called for genocide, on a post about Hitler (someone hated for genocide), where the people quoted in the article said to not let the government indoctrinate your children, as it was a strategy Hitler used.
It literally cannot get any more ironic.
It literally cannot get any more ironic.
You missed the part where this particle gripe is how someone is refusing to apologize for wrongdoing. And they be out here doubling down on their stances that calling for genocide is perfectly fine if you label the people you want to genocide as Nazis.
The levels of irony here are shooting through the roof. And they seem to be doing it all with a straight face too.
I'm searching so hard for the slightest whiff of sanity and I've found absolutely nothing yet.
Edit: I want to add that I honestly can't tell. Do they not realize that they're essentially doing most of the most egregious things that they accuse their political opponents of doing? Or are they just trolling me?
Now I'm doing a triple reply but I think it needs to be said.
There's a huge difference between tolerating intolerance and tolerating the intolerant.
Right now I'm doing the best I can to be tolerant of you. But I will not tolerate your intolerance. It is utterly unacceptable.
They won't. Fascists have to be beaten back into these holes with the biggest, thorniest stick one can find.
They never learn, they infest innocent minds and laugh in your face when you call them out.
More importantly this:
This is my view. Other people have different views on this. I think apologizing makes you weak.
This is what cultivates the "never admitting wrong and always attempting to be right" on literally everything. Making people afraid or scared to be "wrong" is absolutely the most incorrect thing possible. We learn best when we self identify our own mistakes.
This whole mentality is literally the number one thing I hear people hate the most on the Internet. Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem solving and if you teach people that being wrong is "weak" then you literally subvert the most basic ability to problem solve.
There could not have been a more wrong bit of advice this person could have given. This is literally the number one thing that makes public discourse even harder to do. My bit of free advice is to literally NOT view apologies as weakness. You will always be an infinitely better person if you just simply DO NOT DO this one thing that Christian Ziegler has indicated.
apologies are strength. admitting you were wrong is strength. changing your mind when new facts are available is strength.
it’s easy in the short term to not apologise. it’s easy to just say no. it’s short sighted, it’s incredibly dumb, and it shows how weak you truly are: unable to display even the most basic of human decency.
I hate to admit it but from an amoral point of view this seems to be something Trump really showed that shamelessness is a virtue in politics. Never apologize just keep plowing forward with whatever your bullshit is seems to be for the most part the way to go especially on a right-wing group. Left wing groups have to deal with more diversity and you probably can knock some support off that way, whereas RW groups are hurt by the apology more than the outrage.
This is indicative of a shitty rhetorical strategy. Really, the only way to hold someone accountable when they use this strategy is to insist on continuing to talk about your main issue, not whatever they want to say.
So, if they pivot to making a point against Hitler's indoctrination of children, then take it back to their use of a Hitler quote that makes that point relevant in the first place.
I may be butting into a topic I don't understand. I don't know much about these Moms for Liberty except that I thing I've heard that they support trump.
The quote in question is: "He alone, who OWNS the youth, GAINS the future.”
It's pretty ambiguous in its meaning and intent. In the context where it was used: advocating for parents to have more control over their children's education: aka decentralize control of children.
But let me point you to a less catchy but far more horrifying quote:
I rarely agree with or endorse or agree with violence. But the rise of the far-right shitbirds has really led me to believe that perhaps General Sherman really should’ve gone all the way to the sea.
If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighboring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.
It has 2 upvotes and I'm the only downvote ...
You talk about bad faith actors using shitty strategy to derail the debate. They're affirming that parents should have more control over their children's education, they unwisely used a Hitler quote without enough context in one of their publication and now that's all you want to talk about.
I haven't looked into it but I'm pretty sure that the greater context here is that these parents don't want their kids to be taught that "it's ok to be gay" and "kill the trans" is a bad thing to say. They probably won't say it publicly, but that's what I suspect is really going on.
And if I see them on the fediverse making these kinds of statements I might call them out on it. If I see them accusing the other side of acting in bad faith by acting in bad faith themselves, I might call them all on it. And if I see them almost directly calling for armed conflict, you bet your ass I'll DEFINITELY call them out on it.
But guess who it is that I see acting in bad faith right now? You.
And guess who it is that I see kinda, "but really just joking", advocating for armed conflict / quasi genocide? Someone on this thread getting upvoted that I won't even give the respect of directly responding to.
No one is getting genocided because a guy on lemmy suggested a dead general should've done more. To everyone but you it's obviously a hyperbolic statement.
Fuck Moms for liberty, they are a hateful and harmful group and do not deserve any measure of tolerance or respect.
You know there are entire instances devoted to people who love right wing pieces of shit, maybe join one of those and be happy
load more comments
(8 replies)
"I may be butting into a topic I don't understand. I don't know much about these Moms for Liberty except that I thing I've heard that they support trump." I mean, it doesn't take that much effort to go to wikipedia, but here, I've even done it for you:
Mom's for Liberty is so much worse than what you're implying here. They're not some innocent gathering of parents who don't want certain things taught in schools. They're an astroturf, highly GOP connected, right wing campaign that has supported many things like anti-vax propaganda, book bans, anti-LGBT legislature, and the rest of the "normal" GOP stuff. They have an extensive history of getting caught calling for violence against those they disagree with. They have 3 separate sections on Wikipedia about the different people they have been caught threatening with violence.
They were literally labeled an extremist group recently.
From the very few references to them I've seen, that's exactly what I assumed them to be.
That doesn't excuse the behavior I see in this thread. By not addressing their points from a charitable perspective, you're playing right into the astroturfer's hands.
If you have real evidence to present of their true agenda, then present it. Otherwise, fight their presented agenda directly and advocate against their hidden agenda indirectly.
But most importantly there's a comment on here jokingly kinda calling for armed genocide with as of writing SEVETEEN upvotes. There's something deeply wrong with this community and that's what I object to the most.
"By not addressing their points from a charitable perspective, you're playing right into the astroturfer's hands."
That's the exact opposite of how this works. The GOP astroturfers want the conversation to be about "addressing concerns of these poor mothers, whose innocent children are being subjected to XYZ" meanwhile they get to keep fear mongering and raising money. You can tell these people that book banning isn't a good idea for thousands of reasons but that'd be meaningless. They don't care about book banning in the first place. They care about raising money and fear mongering as a way to do so.
And now you're accusing them of being Nazi's. But THEY know they're not Nazis (well those of them that aren't nazis think they're not nazis). So who are you trying to convince? Yourselves? Now they're worried because people are lying about them and what they want and then they'll just donate to the astroturfing organization that's protecting them from the unhinged lunatics accusing them of being nazis.
You need to fight on both fronts, you have to use a charitable approach to slow down grass roots recruiting. AND you attack the values and falsehoods behind the hidden agenda.
They have their public claims and they have their behind closed doors claims. You combat their public claims directly and proactively promote the counterarguments to their behind closed doors claims.
You also indict them for ACTUAL poor behavior that they've done.
This is the best source I could find for the original context for the Hitler quote. Sticking strictly to the context of that image, it's classic: Hitler did this thing that the government is doing, that's why we have to fight against it.
I don't have the actual original before the yellow box was added, so I can't say if the yellow box was the only change. But now all you're doing by attacking them on this nothingburger of a Hitler quote, is you've given them ammunition to talk about how irrational and unreasonable the people opposing them are.
The accusation of ambitions similar to that of Hitler could be true, but your evidence doesn't support it at all. All you're doing is whipping up your side to an irrational fervor which will get noticed by the other side and then they'll do the same thing.
You're making things worse, not better.
I don't know. That's how I do advocacy, maybe it's ineffective. I think it works on the people where something can work and doesn't work on the people where nothing worse. This more unhinged kinda of advocacy is pushing away the people on whom it can work, helps turn the people on your side into lunatics and helps to turn people on the other side into even worse lunatics.
And now you’re accusing them of being Nazi’s. But THEY know they’re not Nazis (well those of them that aren’t nazis think they’re not nazis).
Well then maybe they shouldn't intentionally cough over moments of silence for Holocaust victims.
And excusing that sort of behavior by claiming it's not the group it's just individuals is nonsense. The group encourages it. The group supports it.
Just from a couple of passing references in the passed, I already basically assumed they were far right anti lgbtq+ pieces of shit.
It's just now when I see all the "evidence" you're giving in support of that I'm almost reconsidering my original position... Ok, but not really.
They coughed during a moment of silent purportedly to be in recognition of the victims of the holocausts but the context is clear that the intent was just to humiliate this particular political group.
That's not evidence of anything. It's just another nothing burger.
How is the context clear there? It sure isn't clear to me. And isn't there a better way to "humiliate" someone than mocking a Holocaust remembrance? Especially after quoting Hitler?
I can see that very little is ever clear to you except your preconceived notions.
Obviously, I meant that it was the opponents of the Moms for Liberty that were attempting to humiliate the Moms for Liberty by calling for a moment of silence.
And you keep saying "quoting Hitler" as if that was an indictment on their (the Moms of Liberty) character. They were quoting Hitler in condemnation to his statement, not in support of it.
The opponents were not the ones coughing. Don't gaslight.
And their quote was in big letters in a box by itself with no context, so yeah, it is an indictment of their character. Then they did a half-apology. Then they walked it back. They're proud of their Hitler quote and they happily interrupted a moment of silence for Holocaust victims by coughing through it.
The opponents were not the ones coughing. Don’t gaslight.
How can you be this dense? Where did I say that the opponents were coughing? Nowhere. So try again to understand what I'm saying because you clearly didn't understand and I don't know how to make it any more clear. Read what I said again and I recommend you try to use your brain this time.
And their quote was in big letters in a box by itself with no context
There was context: the content of the article calling for increased ability for individual parents to have control over what their kids are taught. This opposes the concept of centralized control over what children are taught which is what the Hitler quote was promoting.
The weird thing is that I'm still fairly confident that the Moms of Liberty do have as their end goal to gain control over education curriculum and make it heavily ideologically based on their own anti-lgbtq+, pro religious and eventually racist ideology. But all this "evidence" you're giving me is starting to make me wonder if I've been bamboozled.
None of this changes the fact that you still have failed to condemn a comment on this very thread that is part of your community, supported by your community and is calling for genocide. Which is IMO still far worse than anything I've seen you (possibly falsely) accused the Moms of Liberty of doing.
The comment was deleted. Which you've already been told. Also, why are you acting like one excuses the other when they're unrelated?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19087 readers
3288 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS