jorp

"a bunch of conditionals for my statements" are also known as weasel words. You don't seem interested in learning from this experience.

The issue is that you're constantly asserting your statement without evidence and when people are offering up contradictory ideas you're asking them to present evidence ("that doesn't mean that he's NOT from a billionaire family") which is shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, you have to prove it, if people put out other explanations also without evidence then they still don't have the burden of proof since the point under debate is the claim that you made. As the person making the claim you must prove it.

It's not meant to be harsh since this is a very low stakes conversation and topic but what you're doing willingly or unwillingly is exactly how misinformation spreads on more important topics, so it's important that you be aware and correct your behavior.

You can't just move the burden of proof on to others like this. You're just spreading misinformation, even if you ultimately turn out to be right what you're doing is unproductive and harmful.

Thanks for the civil response. I can see how you came to that conclusion and to be clear I think violence can become necessary in order to defend a free and fair society but I don't believe that it should be common or expected by default.

Democracy has its problems and my critiques of it come from an egalitarian "left" perspective rather than the might-oriented perspective others espouse here.

The only point I meant to make is that American democracy isn't fair and even its ideal state leaves some people at the margins. In that system violence will always have a place.

The only alternative to democracy is assassination and barbarism? What about consensus building and federation?

Once again you're making a straw man.

And yes, sometimes fascists need to be dealt with with violence, whether the figurehead alone or all of them. I'm not advocating for that to happen today but history teaches us this.

American freedom is the freedom to oppress people on your property. It's individualist freedom not collectivist freedom

Do you expect to have a productive conversation when you frame things this way?

Anyway I'm sure if you vote hard enough the US Empire won't collapse as a fascist echo of itself. Make sure you put your back into it.

This ignores the unfair elements of American democracy including gerrymandering and the electoral college. It also highlights a flaw in democracy, because a fair and equal society wouldn't permit fascists to be elected.

Democracy shouldn't be limited to the dictatorship of the majority, there need to be other ways to ensure fairness

they certainly aren't, right?

Your perspective is normal and common and you might therefore not question it, but if you want to understand where these people are coming from look into prison abolition, police abolition, and anarchism.

The idea is that policing itself is not "innocent" or necessary. When you think that way (agree with it or not) the position you're putting forward sounds to them like "there were good Nazis too not all Nazis are bad" sounds to you

WE HAVE TO STOP CHILDREN FROM GETTING NON-BINARY SURGERY

Big tough guyyyyyy. Get a load of this stud everyone. He's so masculine he needs to convince himself.

It's like Israel as a person