WiLiV

joined 1 year ago
[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Oh, ok, so then it is in fact an incitement to violence. Isn't that swell, we aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Then what's the way forward? Jan 6 V2 but this time it's left wing people instead? Ok, then what? You can storm in and overthrow all the evil geriatrics and install the utopian government of your dreams, but then what do you do about the 50% of constituents who oppose that move?

The bedrock of democracy is compromise. If you seize power and install a government that works to further your interests and not strike balance between your interests and their interests, you're an authoritarian in disguise.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

What "grand action" do you suppose is appropriate in this scenario? I seem to recall some people taking a grand action on January 6, 2021 also. What separates them from you, besides their radically different ideology?

That's not the right way.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read "I'm all for imprisoning people who don't call me by the names I want them to."

That's a dangerous line of thinking, friend.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I have three words for you: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To refresh your memory, Obama asked her to retire so that he could appoint a young liberal justice who could sit the court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, that geriatric bag of bones clung to power until her death. Guess who's term she died under, and who got to appoint her replacement? Oh yeah, the big Don. So now because of that we have a conservative court for the foreseeable future.

This is a smoke and mirrors political move.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Because of the Implication!

Police are people too, but even on a subconscious level no one in the public is really going to treat them that way. It's impossible to treat someone who can theoretically decide your fate on a whim as an equal. The badge gives them control over you, to the extent that it's difficult to even have a casual conversation with them for fear of accidentally revealing something about yourself that you don't want them to know.

When it comes to de-escalation, it's even harder, since someone who is in a highly aggressive or stressful situation understands their freedom or even life may be on the line and is that much more likely to act in an irrational way. It's the same effect you see when you back an animal into a corner. They'll snap at you and fight for their life even if it's obvious they won't come out on top.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Moral righteousness has never been a consideration, militarily speaking.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (13 children)

So the solution is to rear a generation of children who believe violence, riots, revolutions, and coup-d'etat is the solution for social change? Because the big problem you are glossing over is that these changes throughout history essentially all involved violence to some degree.

[–] WiLiV@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

As horrible as that seems, at least the AI might be impartial and non-partisan when it comes to levying bans, unlike Reddit admins who will ban you even if you didn't break any rules at all, as long as they disagree with your opinion.