189
Far-right extremism is thriving in rural areas. Here's what it looks like in Upstate NY
(www.northcountrypublicradio.org)
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
189 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19090 readers
3987 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
It's weird that self-defense has this time limit on it's validity. Like if someone tries to kill you and you kill them while they're in the action of stabbing you it's self-defense, but if a few minutes have passed it's murder.
If someone has made their intention to kill you clear, self-defense is a valid response, no time limit, no need to wait for triggers to be pulled. This is a group of people making their intentions clear walking down the street.
I really don't want to live in a world where feeling threatened grants a person all the powers of judge, jury, and executioner. Do you want lynch mobs? Because that's how you get lynch mobs. And minority groups, however much more justified they are in feeling threatened, have historically not been nor will they ever be the ones doing them.
We have this now but worse because it's organized against specific groups.
We are simply propagandized to think this is the right way and every other way is wrong. Humans have been around for 2-300,000 years, 99% of that time with no state and it was sustainable. Now we have state and shit is being destroyed in a few generations. The state is the problem, not a few lynch mobs.
EDIT: I want to add, if you don't defend yourself from fascists, you end up in their world. This world of fascists will certainly grant effective judge, jury, and executioner status (i.e. they won't get in trouble) to any privileged person over any unprivileged person. Choose your future.
I’m curious what you define as “the state.” Government? Government essentially evolved with writing, in Sumer (that we know of historically)
Sure
State - An organized group of people who claim exclusive acceptable use of violence within a claimed geographic region and use violence to ensure this monopoly continues.
Within a state most self-defense or community-defense is denigrated as "vigilante justice".
A government typically is also a state but it's not necessary for a polity that is focused on say community coordination to claim exclusive legality to the use of violence.
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but that doesn't make it right to murder people just because you felt threatened by them. This isn't a kill or be killed society, there are alternative means to deal with threatening. If those means are insufficient for you, then you should want to create better ones long before you want the state to start sanctioning vigilante executions without any form of trial. You also seem to have missed this part of my comment
That's just the nature of being part of a minority. It's a lot more difficult to organize a mob, and even if you manage to do it you're just going to be met with a bigger mob on the other side cause you decided to go and kick the hornet's nest of bigotry.
Edited - reworded
Totally depends on the threat. If the threat is real and mortal, I'd say it sure does give one the right to defend themselves in a way that eliminates the threat. On the other hand, a vague feeling of being threatened does not give one the right to harm others. If it's not your life or something critical to your life being threatened a lesser response is probably more appropriate. I'm not saying shoot someone for stealing your Amazon package. Like every other situation, there is nuance.
Also, your quotation is not from me.
lma fuckin o. No. No, its not. It's from me. Two comments ago. In reference to lynch mobs.
Now I KNOW you don't read my comments very thoroughly.
And no, when you usurp due process and leave it to individuals to decide when a crime worthy of execution has been committed against them, you are inherently throwing any and all nuance out the window. Nuance in these situations is quite literally the reason we have due process in the first place. Punishment in general, but especially the punishment of death, is just not something that any one person or private group should be allowed to enact at their sole discretion.