• FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    If they vote Republican, they condone the violence associated with it. There is no separation between the two.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        All of it. State violence against the poor and minority groups; corporate violence against the wage-earner; radicalized lone wolf violence against the public.

        • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          And you place the blame for all of that on Republicans? What a good little for soldier you are.

          • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Why yes…yes I do. The Republican Party is the home of conservatism now. Conservatism’s goal is to destroy our country and create an oligarchy. This is done through both active and passive violence.

            • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It’s in the name, and it’s the nature of people who are conservative. There’s nothing about “destroy” or “create an oligarchy” in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.

              I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.

              • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Beginning with Reagan declaring war on higher education by forcing debt to be incurred by it so that only upper classes could be educated and protect their wealth up to now; " think tanks" pushing public policy to ONLY serve the wealthiest while shitting all over the middle and lower class; to using religion to control women and doom them to being nothing more than incubators; to militarizing the police and cheering for every murder they committed, ALL THE VIOLENCE IS FROM THE RIGHT. NONE AT ALL IS FROM THE LEFT. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH.

                And now I know that you are part of the fascist brigade here.

                • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Perhaps you could define some terms for me, starting with “violence”, but also “fascist” and “brigade”, because it’s almost like you think violence is any policy or speech you don’t like, and a fascist is anyone who disagrees with your politics. It’s hard to have a discussion when the terms are so subjective, and the condition for civil discourse is that I agree with you.

                  • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    A classic radical fascist tactic is to claim that the other thinks fascism is “anything you don’t agree with”. Wrong. It has specific meanings demonstrated by specific policy positions.

                    “Violence” is anything that violates the rights of others. “States’ rights” is an excuse to allow violence through the tyranny of the minority, and us used to violate the rights of others. If the Constitution federallt protects the rights of an individual, “states’ rights” seeks to overrule those protections