Typical privileged liberal response. For people target by ICE, they are already in the reign of terror. For women losing their rights, they are already in the reign of terror. For lgbt having their rights removed, they are already in the reign of terror. For those with families in Palestine, they are already in the reign of terror. I’m happy for you, you don’t know any of these groups, you have no empathy for these groups.
Those people being terrorised, no reign of terror. Alex pretti being shot, no reign of terror. A rich cishet white pedophile male being shot? Now you’re terrorised.
Wanna deal with my premises and conclusions now? Would you like to disagree with P1, P2, P3, C1 or C2? Or just tell me your terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them?
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice […] - MLk letter from Birmingham jail
What do you disagree with? P1, P2, P3, C1, or C2? Or do you want to keep telling me how you’re not terrorised by the current regime, but would be terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them.
You want to learn from history? Historically, how have fascists successfully been handled?
I just also recognize your suggestions are equally shit and reductive.
Tell me the difference between fascists and those who fight fascists? You: “I can’t”
Saw this after I sent my reply? Want me to delete it? I tried to stay level, for what it’s worth, while being called stupid, an idiot, and being told to go fuck myself.
No, I’ve just deleted when it got bad. I realise the chain of affairs, but I thought it was just best to purge it all as I’ve been down this road before and more new chains kept popping up. I’m sure you realise you do have highly contentious views on this topic that will rile some people up.
Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?
Also also, I don’t think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don’t agree with their reasoning )
Edit : wait, no it’d need to just be fauxchotomy or that’s a double negative
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably. Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.
I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.
If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.
So I’m going to break this in to two sections.
The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn’t really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.
The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it
FIRST SECTION
Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here’s a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.
A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.
I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.
Speaking of the options:
You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.
You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).
Neither of these make sense.
Nobody was arguing that all US citizens had to fall on their sword.
Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.
For this to be true you’d have to argue that no-one outside of the US is affected by anything happening inside the US.
I think we can both agree that you can’t possibly justify that claim.
SECOND SECTION
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
Ok, so firstly that’s a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.
Secondly the killings weren’t exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.
Regardless of any of that, unless you’re about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn’t satisfy the word indiscriminate.
Just because it doesn’t fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn’t mean there wasn’t discrimination.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably.
If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that’s your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn’t true.
Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that’s some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.
Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
i wasn’t arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don’t have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.
Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
I wasn’t implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you’ve said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won’t hold my breath.
Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.
By the way, don’t comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.
Edit: By the way 2 electric boogaloo, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum. Your choice, all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.
While we’re in this hypothetical, JD Vance would have lost the 2024 election. For the most part the current GOP is a cult centered around Trump’s personality and showmanship.
Also something to consider is that if the risks of being a piece of shit like Trump are so high then selfish people will be less inclined to try it. The USA was built around the concept that leaders should fear the public.
No man. In that hypothetical, you would have had a civil war on your hands with Trump as a martyr.
All of his devout cultists would have gone out to actually just murder every “lib”. If you think his cult is a terrorist organisation now, you can’t imagine how bad it would’ve been with him dead.
Murdering the figurehead of a violent movement doesn’t dissipate the impetus, it causes it to explode in every direction.
Look up the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, or Inukai Tsuyoshi, hell even Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The death of an evil figurehead is not always the best path forward, because ideally we would want to avoid generalised death, destruction and bloodshed as much as possible.
A civil war might have had less casualties than ending USAID, putting Hegseth in charge of Israel and Iran, and the potential end of US Democracy as a whole. Russia and China aren’t any calmer or less bold by the Trump admin obtaining power, we’re a step closer to widespread war and potential global nuclear annihilation every passing moment.
Clearly the examples you gave aren’t worse outcomes than the Weimar Republic bending over and letting the Nazi Party take power.
This is complete conjecture, you might have just ended up with President JD Vance and no civil war, but a deeply - if not-more authoritarian US administration driven by vengeance that is also more capable.
I really can’t imagine any timeline where Vance is popular. Even republicans think he’s a fat dumb baby. He has less support from Republicans than Hillary had from democrats, which is a pretty stark departure from their usual fall in line behavior. Either way, as I stated, if they knew they weren’t bulletproof it might put a little more caution in their step. For all we know, the attempt’s on Trump’s life and the protests in DC and other cities are what has kept Trump and the SCOTUS from pulling a complete coup.
The Presidential candidate being shot changes thing up quite a bit in this scenario. And I see nothing in how they behave to think they would rein anything in as a response to this beyond not appearing in public themselves personally.
deleted by creator
The world has one fewer asshole in it.
Taken to the extreme, the next asshole steps up, and gets his head blown off. This continues until the person who steps up isn’t an asshole.
Instead what happened was Trump didn’t get his head blown off, and Alex Pretti did.
P1 trump is an asshole
P2 fewer assholes in the world is a better world than one with more assholes.
C1 Had trump been removed from the world, there would be fewer assholes and as such been a better world.
P3 trump would have probably been succeeded by another asshole.
C2 had that asshole been removed from the world, the world would have fewer assholes still, and be better for it.
Instead we have fewer nurses.
Ah yes, the reign of terror — that worked out so well last time.
Typical privileged liberal response. For people target by ICE, they are already in the reign of terror. For women losing their rights, they are already in the reign of terror. For lgbt having their rights removed, they are already in the reign of terror. For those with families in Palestine, they are already in the reign of terror. I’m happy for you, you don’t know any of these groups, you have no empathy for these groups.
Those people being terrorised, no reign of terror. Alex pretti being shot, no reign of terror. A rich cishet white pedophile male being shot? Now you’re terrorised.
Wanna deal with my premises and conclusions now? Would you like to disagree with P1, P2, P3, C1 or C2? Or just tell me your terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them?
So, let’s examine the possibilities:
You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.
You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).
Robespierre was killed by the end of the reign of terror. Maybe you should look at what happens when we indiscriminately kill people*.
Edit: because I don’t just disagree with them, fuck the conservatives — I just also recognize your suggestions are equally shit and reductive.
What do you disagree with? P1, P2, P3, C1, or C2? Or do you want to keep telling me how you’re not terrorised by the current regime, but would be terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them.
You want to learn from history? Historically, how have fascists successfully been handled?
Tell me the difference between fascists and those who fight fascists? You: “I can’t”
Purging comments. It’s clearly got heated, so I’m just purging the chain.
Saw this after I sent my reply? Want me to delete it? I tried to stay level, for what it’s worth, while being called stupid, an idiot, and being told to go fuck myself.
No, I’ve just deleted when it got bad. I realise the chain of affairs, but I thought it was just best to purge it all as I’ve been down this road before and more new chains kept popping up. I’m sure you realise you do have highly contentious views on this topic that will rile some people up.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
A false dichotomy? In this economy?
Also neither of them make sense.
Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?
Also also, I don’t think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don’t agree with their reasoning )
Edit : wait, no it’d need to just be fauxchotomy or that’s a double negative
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably. Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
TL;DR;
You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.
I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.
If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.
So I’m going to break this in to two sections.
The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn’t really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.
The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it
FIRST SECTION
Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here’s a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.
A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.
I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.
Speaking of the options:
Neither of these make sense.
Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.
I think we can both agree that you can’t possibly justify that claim.
SECOND SECTION
Ok, so firstly that’s a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.
Secondly the killings weren’t exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.
Regardless of any of that, unless you’re about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn’t satisfy the word indiscriminate.
Just because it doesn’t fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn’t mean there wasn’t discrimination.
If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that’s your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn’t true.
Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that’s some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.
i wasn’t arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don’t have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.
I wasn’t implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you’ve said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won’t hold my breath.
Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.
By the way, don’t comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.
Edit: By the way 2 electric boogaloo, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum. Your choice, all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.
While we’re in this hypothetical, JD Vance would have lost the 2024 election. For the most part the current GOP is a cult centered around Trump’s personality and showmanship.
Also something to consider is that if the risks of being a piece of shit like Trump are so high then selfish people will be less inclined to try it. The USA was built around the concept that leaders should fear the public.
No man. In that hypothetical, you would have had a civil war on your hands with Trump as a martyr.
All of his devout cultists would have gone out to actually just murder every “lib”. If you think his cult is a terrorist organisation now, you can’t imagine how bad it would’ve been with him dead.
Murdering the figurehead of a violent movement doesn’t dissipate the impetus, it causes it to explode in every direction.
Look up the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, or Inukai Tsuyoshi, hell even Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The death of an evil figurehead is not always the best path forward, because ideally we would want to avoid generalised death, destruction and bloodshed as much as possible.
A civil war might have had less casualties than ending USAID, putting Hegseth in charge of Israel and Iran, and the potential end of US Democracy as a whole. Russia and China aren’t any calmer or less bold by the Trump admin obtaining power, we’re a step closer to widespread war and potential global nuclear annihilation every passing moment.
Clearly the examples you gave aren’t worse outcomes than the Weimar Republic bending over and letting the Nazi Party take power.
This is complete conjecture, you might have just ended up with President JD Vance and no civil war, but a deeply - if not-more authoritarian US administration driven by vengeance that is also more capable.
I really can’t imagine any timeline where Vance is popular. Even republicans think he’s a fat dumb baby. He has less support from Republicans than Hillary had from democrats, which is a pretty stark departure from their usual fall in line behavior. Either way, as I stated, if they knew they weren’t bulletproof it might put a little more caution in their step. For all we know, the attempt’s on Trump’s life and the protests in DC and other cities are what has kept Trump and the SCOTUS from pulling a complete coup.
The Presidential candidate being shot changes thing up quite a bit in this scenario. And I see nothing in how they behave to think they would rein anything in as a response to this beyond not appearing in public themselves personally.