this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
949 points (96.4% liked)
People Twitter
4931 readers
1448 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmmm disagree. If someone's politics are violence, and they have a serious path to enacting them, it's self defense. Self defense is generally acceptable.
I don't want to politely walk into a concentration camp because a bunch of people in states I don't even live in voted to exterminate the queers and their friends.
Also anyone who's going to say "Gay marriage is violence against society" is an asshole and wrong. Anyone who says abortion is murder but isn't doing jack fuck to help living humans is not worth listening to. Just to preempt the "well they think the same about you!" nonsense.
Here's the thing: Trump's politics do not stop with Trump. Killing him does not kill the fascistic movement he's contributed greatly to, it has a life of it's own, and even had he died today, whoever replaces him would still be peddling the same kinds of things, except they'd now have a martyr to rally Trump's old fanbase around, one that, by virtue of being killed, many people are going to feel reluctant to criticize. As such, I feel that this attack, assuming it was politically motivated (and I figure the odds that someone shoots at Trump for reasons unrelated to his political agenda are quite slim, so it's probably a safe assumption) was a mistake- I fear that it will have helped Trump's agenda more than hurt it, and would have done so even if it was successful in killing him.
Now, Im not saying this to be one of those "violence is never the answer" types, I do recognize that there are situations where the only hope one has to survive an openly hostile political force is overwhelming violence; but it must be recognized that such an effort is extremely risky, it has significant drawbacks even if successful (such as setting a precedent legitimizing political violence, which anyone else may use, or causing collateral damage), and carries a significant risk that when the shooting stops, you'll be on the losing end. As such, it really should be a last resort, and seeing as Trump isn't even president yet, hasn't even been voted in, and doesn't yet have a legislature stacked up to ensure he can actually carry out his agenda, we're not yet at the point where it is the only option left to stop him. Employing it now makes it more likely that we reach that point.
Trump is enough of a cult of personality that I think if he died (either through violence or natural causes), it would limit the effectiveness of the right wing. You are correct that it wouldn't stop the problem. Project2025 wasn't written by just him. There's whole buildings full of assholes.
You may also be correct that this will motivate his fans, and that's a net negative.
Also, I think the genie's out of the bottle on political violence. There was already a coup attempt. If trump loses, I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't violence. If he wins, people will suffer and die through policy. We're not in a good spot.
Unfortunately, I cannot thanos snap away the far right.
Trump did kind of show Republicans that if you lean into your bullshit without flinching that no one will stop you. I think it's hard to pull off for non-narcissists, though.
Remember "grab them by the pussy?" We all thought he was done after that, the media started circling for the inevitable play of contrition, which... never came. He just kept spouting bullshit, and it worked
That and voter suppression and probably foreign interference to destabilise the US
No, being visibly neurodivergent is terrible for your chances in politics unless you can lean in to the ND image. Look at how many people call Zuckerberg a robot or a lizard because he has visible autism. Elon kinda got away with leaning into the autism ND image for a while, but it didn't do anything for him after he started openly being a Nazi, because the people who admire an openly autistic person aren't Nazis. As a right wing political figure, being openly neurodivergent is terrible for your image, and that's why Trump presents himself as a neurotypical. And while nobody can say for sure without actually evaluating him clinically, I think it's fair to say his neurotypical straight cis male persona is genuine. Trump is not a member of a socially disabled vulnerable minority.
You're not thinking evil and intelligent enough.
That cult propaganda is running full force. As a martyr Trump would shut the fuck up, making him much more useful, beginning with Republican reunification and spin at the convention next week.
The masses don't like anyone near as much as they like Trump. I'm not saying they couldn't find someone to rally behind, but there's no one that stands out yet. This would hurt them in the general election, because there would be in-fighting and competing, and some general disarray. It is possible someone could emerge before the next election. Maybe they'd give Pudding Fingers another chance.
If Trump were dead then the big money would choose the next candidate behind closed doors next week at the convention. It would reunite the current polarization of the Republican party. The "masses" that were so easily co-opted will be more easily misled with the symbol than the fallible man.
You're making the same mistake as the user above. Evil isn't stupid. You underestimate them even as they're nearing a milestone victory.
Evil isn't stupid, but no one else has been successful in wielding Trump's base like Trump. Yes, they will coalesce around some other turd, but that might not occur before the election. The organizers will be going full tilt, but just because they choose someone doesn't mean the herd will flock. The organizers tried to prevent Trump from winning the nomination during his first election. Their influence is great, but not as great as his. Who knows. Another attempt is unlikely at this point. So, it's all speculation.
No one else has done so in a shallow enough manner for you to care to notice. Start with Reagan.
Trump doesn't only wield them in a subtle way, he wields like a mallet. Yes, there are successful patterns of manipulation probably going back to ape days or before, but those are not what you need for a candidate NOW. They need a whack-a-mole player. They just don't have one lined up.
Look up to meta tactics instead of down at muddy short term details. In this way we can vaguely understand and predict without specific facts and as things happen.
The apparatus of manipulation specific to Trump's cult will continue to exist, and in fact be amplified, by martyrdom of the fallible man. He didn't create it. He doesn't maintain it. He doesn't even benefit from it anymore beyond propping up his ego. A symbol is whatever you make it, eternal.
Many of his contrarian actions were and continue to be the input for exercises is doublethink: a useful tool. But, he'd make a shitty puppet dictator because he simply can't follow the script. Even an intelligent fascist wants literally anyone else, just as everyone left of them except the accelerationists.
I'm applying the basics of Bernays, Herman, and Chomsky. I'm not an expert. But, this isn't rocket science, either.
Nothing you are saying suggests that the manipulation you are loosely referencing would actually create the lightning rod they need in such a short period of time. Maybe they can find that person, but it would need to happen quickly--very quickly. They usually require a lot of trial and error, which they don't have time for. That's the problem the Dems are having with whether to replace Biden. Will Kamala be able to rally folks to the polls? It's all manipulation. The speed is the key here with such short timeframes.
Here, I'll do the hard one: Gary Newsom with AOC selling out principles for lifetime admission to the club as VP. If not AOC then another Justice Democrat will go for it. This would short term quickly and easily unify the big tent under a compromise platform with long term certainty of fully neoliberal outcomes. It's not much different than the last two cycles.
It'd be even easier for Republicans with a dead Trump as a symbol. Give it a shot. Show me you're worth engaging with.
Just with me, that's twice that you've repeated a shallow perspective, then ran away when it was time to learn.
In any case where the evil party is using their loss as a rallying cry, RALLY AND YELL LOUDER. Never give them any benefit of empathy.
Without offering any opinions, thanks for sharing your perspective.
Curious if you agree with / defend yesterday’s assassination attempt specifically?
If not, then ask the same about if it had been a successful assassination with no collateral damage? (e.g. no rally attendees hurt)
The primary problem with this attempt was Trump lived.
Republican policies are unacceptable. If someone rounded up all the republicans and shot them dead, I wouldn't be terribly upset. They are bad people doing bad things of their own free will. We could do so much more about climate change, for example, if we weren't being dragged down by conservatives.
I'd rather we have non violent paths forward, but I'll take what I can get.
You're probably the type of person who would end up being a shooter if this is your mentality.
This is political violence. Going around trying to assassinate people you don't like is not self defense. Your presumption of violence is NOT a justification of using violence. Two wrongs don't make a right, you're still in the wrong. This mentality that violence is a just mean to achieve political goals is quite literally what terrorism is. This is the exact line of logic that Hamas used to justify the Oct 7th attack against civilians or what the Turks used to justify the Armenian genocide or what Hitler used to justify the Holocaust. You have to be some type of soulless ghoul to think this type of behavior is acceptable in a civil society. The majority of Americans already don't support what Trump spews from liberals to independents to the apolitical to even some conservatives. If you criticize Trump and MAGA of being pro violence then you have to stick by your principles and be anti violence.
Bernie's response is without a doubt the correct one. Not only is condemning the violence morally correct, but it shows that he stand by his principles and his condemnation helps remove fuel from the fire by not encouraging more violence. Bernie is right, be like Bernie.
Do people think that forcing children to give birth isn’t violence? That having the bank seize your house isn’t violence?
Imagine the privileged delusion that you’re above all that — that you’ve transcended the zombie horde of apocalyptic subhumanity clutching at your ankles, literally trying to rob your children, to poison them, to end all life on earth. The treacherous religious maniacs, the ignoramuses, the money-hungry, fashion-obsessed, sports-car-maniacal narcissists who would eat a puppy alive for a Rolex. That these orc-like creatures aren’t here to torment and torture and pillage.
But sure. Let’s not stoop to their level by struggling too much as they eat us alive.
Cool. Maybe we'll end up being bunk mates in the concentration camp.
I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes politics are violence.
Oh ffs, this is such a terminally online take. You're not the equivalent of a Jew during the Holocaust nor is Trump Hitler and MAGA Nazis. Don't get me wrong, Trump is vile person to his core. He has no redeemable qualities and his policies have done a lot of harm. His supporters are also brain dead morons who operate like a cult. I'm with you there, BUT despite that, we have to operate within the context of our reality.
The reality is that Trump and MAGA aren't the equivalent of the Nazis, not everything you don't like is Nazi equitable. This is the problem with modern discourse, our education system is rotten that people literally cannot comprehend history outside of WWII. History did not stop and end there, and the vast majority that happens in the world is not comparable to those specific time period. There are a lot of other wannabe dictators in history like Orban or Modi or Erdogan or Yeltsin or Haftar or whatever. Worst case scenario is that Trump does become a dictator, however, 99.99% of dictators of History aren't like Hitler, he was uniquely evil.
With that being said, Trump isn't a dictator now, and we have a very real chance of defeating him democratically. We have a very large and powerful coalition against him, we have all the dirt against him, we are using the national due process, and we are using legitimate means to achieve power in this country. All that political violence would do is give Trump and his supporters the rationale to justify that they are right, that Trump is a martyr, and that it is okay for them to use even more violence. We can't stoop down to their level and become like them. We have to shut down that type of behavior, not normalize it.
Do you know why? It's because we want to live in a civil society where peaceful democratic power transfers is the one and only legitimate means of gaining power. We can't go on self righteous moral crusades where we use violence on people we don't like to achieve political goals. Do you know why? Because that's terrorism by definition, and to use something you're familiar with, it's what the Nazis did. Political violence is wrong on principle. It's wrong when Trump and his cult do it, it's wrong when we do it, it's wrong when anybody does it.
The man himself is the sole person to have attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Sometimes there are exceptions to the 'don't stoop to their level rule', those times are usually life or death. Another Trump presidency would be catastrophic enough, purely going from his spoken intentions, to justify his murder an infinite number of times over.
You take him down either by defeating him through the election or by taking to trial via the justice system, preferably both. Assassinations are not a fucking legitimate means of achieving political goals in democracy. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills for even having to explain something this simple.
Wonder how countries sort out hard political questions
Well, sometimes when the hard political question is "Should we kill all of these people in our outgroups?" the answer is violence. Not always. Sometimes people just die in mass.
"En masse" -- it's borrowed from French. "In mass" means you're either talking about a Catholic church service or Massachusetts.
What does "en masse" translate to when translated to English?
Well, there was the whole second world war
So trump's fanbase using violence is completely fine then? It isn't a "presumption of violence." Maybe you haven't followed a single piece of history of the past 4 years.
Breaking into Nancy pelosi's house in an assassination attempt, physically forcing raped girls and women to risk their lives to bear a rapists child, beating up and sometimes killing trans people for using the "wrong" bathroom, hosting and rallying known terrorist groups against their political opponents, kidnapping the governor of Michigan and DNC vice chair??
Storming the fucking capitol of the US with gallows set up trying to kill politicians and the vice president??? What world do you live in where the MAGA cult is not using political violence? Seriously? Which was one of 11 damn republican terror attacks THAT MONTH.. In what world is there a "presumption of violence" when the right wing organizations have literally layed out a public plan for installing a fascist dictatorship and said that there will be blood if the rest of the country doesn't submit??
It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong we do it, it's wrong when anybody does it. That's because political violence is wrong on principle. I'm not exactly sure what you're goal is here, do you think two wrong would make a right? Do you perhaps think an eye for an eye is a good concept to live by? Stop trying to justify violence as a legitimate means of achieving political goals, that's literally terrorism.
How very 1932 of you.
I guess counterterrorism is just called terrorism now according to you. Looks like america, aost every every European nation, China, and many Asian nations are terrorists states to you.
There's a distinction between war and terrorism. Terrorism is done by non state actors, wars are done by states. For example, there's a very big difference between the democratic government of the Philippines voting to fight ISIS in their southern islands, and some random ISIS terrorist trying to kill the Filipino president to intimidate non muslim candidates from running for president.
no, but nothing is so black and white. do you perhaps think that bullies should always be acquiesced to? that defending yourself from attackers is inherently and unilaterally immoral?
i'm trying to mind my own business and live my own life peacefully. they're the ones constantly (publicly) cheering for me and my kind to be dragged out of our homes and shot for virtue of being born either non-white or non-straight (depending on flavor of republican, maybe both).
the reason violence is no longer acceptable as a mechanism for political change is that we built a system to address grievances without it: our representative democracy. we rose above the need by using the law to ensure everyone can be heard. Indeed the very system republicans are attempting to dismantle and replace with autocracy; they've already thoroughly corrupted the highest courts in our country to do so. they intend to continue to close all reasonable avenues of political resolution specifically for the purpose of being able to call any resistance to their rule "terrorism", as you just have. this itself is an act of political violence.
if I corner you in an alley with a gun so you have nowhere to run and tell you to give me your wallet, but I haven't shot at you or even aimed it at you yet, does this make me non-violent? is it acceptable? would you fight back, or capitulate? how about if I then tell you to leave but not your partner? would you fight back then, or just leave them to whatever fate might befall them? be careful with your answer: if you say anything other than "I'd leave them with you and continue about my day like normal", you will be seen as a dangerous criminal. the police won't help you, they don't help your kind, and you probably brought it upon yourself in their eyes.
You tell a teacher or parent on a bully and they'll punish them accordingly, or if you're an adult you report them to your HR department or whereever. You don't go and fucking shoot dead a bully. That's not a sane solution to anything.
I understand they're discriminatory bigots, but Jesus are you overexaggerating. Like who is advocating for this? I want specific names and sources if you don't mind, bonus points if they're from prominent politicians.
Exactly, that's the point, we have a functioning system, so why are you trying to justify terrorism?
Assassinations aren't resistance, what in the fuck are you talking about? Do you seriously not see the problem with self righteous assholes going on terrorism crusades killing political candidates they don't like? That's how we move from a stable democracy and into a failed state.
What? These situations aren't even remotely comparable. You're trying so hard to justify terrorism that you're not even being logically coherent. No, somebody shooting someone who's directly threatening them in person as an act of self defense is vastly different from some rando shooting political candidates they don't like.
Idk what alternative reality you live in, but here in the real world, terrorism is condemned and legitimate peaceful avenues are pursued. Trump should be prevented from becoming president again, but this is done by defeating him in the election, not by fucking killing him and turning him into a martyr. Trump should be brought to justice via the criminal justice system, which has already found him guilty of a crime, not by some self righteous rando shooting.
i was considering how to more fully reply to all this but it just seems more and more like you're either intentionally being disingenuous or are maybe too oblivious to see that being put in the crosshair of 150+ million people's violent, purity-obsessed, hate-driven political ideology is itself a mortal threat. i'm suspecting the prior given how clearly you muddy the analogy to insinuate that i somehow think it's reasonable to shoot a schoolyard bully dead for pushing me on the playground, as though any sane human wouldn't think that an overreaction.
but sure, a public plan to eliminate the political voice of any "woke enemies" (that's anyone LGBT or non-servile women btw) by replacing public servants with staunch ideologically-aligned republican loyalists and leave us with no options to resist except violence definitely deserves no second thought. definitely should not be considered a threat, sure, ok.
a non-violent system of addressing political differences only works if everyone's voice can be reasonably heard. the system is barely doing that now, and will shortly be stifling a lot more voices that aren't ideologically aligned with nationalistic christian conservatism the moment they get the power to do so. if they're shutting down the system that prevents violence, the result should seem obvious. violence is happening now because people are trying to use the system, and it's failing, and it's getting further disassembled and stacked against them right now. that alone is directly threatening - but the fact that they couple this with loud fear-mongering intended to stoke people into a fearful, hateful panic over the particular group of people (who are also simultaneously getting silenced) should worry you even more, because this circumstance is actually threatening.
there was anti-asian violence (and worse) during ww2 when the rhetoric was "dirty japanese people are going to kill you and your family". there was anti-muslim violence after 9/11 when the rhetoric was "dirty brown people are coming to kill you because they hate america". there was anti-asian violence (again) during covid when the rhetoric was "dirty asian people are intentionally bringing the wuhan virus over to kill you and your family".
now the rhetoric is "lgbt people are coming to shoot your schools up and rape your kids" - and wow i sure wonder what will happen next. those gays better not feel threatened or it'll ruin my peaceful sunday, right? with the planned republican loyalist capture of government and the justice system, i also sure wonder what will happen the first time some poor gay guy is stupid enough to defend himself from an "in person" (seemingly this matters to you) attack by hitting back at the american pure-blood super-straight patriot actively assaulting him. will the (gay-hating christian republican) system work to exonerate him (a disgusting gay man who probably rapes kids according to our news and politicians) before a (gay-hating christian republican) judge and a jury of his (gay-hating christian republican) peers? lol hmmmm no you're right there's no threat at all.
King George approves of your comment.
A more accurate comp would be some American trying to assassinate George Washington because he didn't like him.