this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
137 points (92.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13461 readers
903 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!

https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Whilst it's an amusing thought, I really don't think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they'll likely be eliminated in short order.

The US omniparty already murders its political opponents. It murdered sitting politicians, it murdered political candidates, it murders the leaders of political parties, it murders non-electoral political pressure groups, it murders loose-knit groups of single-issue activists, it murders outspoken critics of its policies, it murders union leaders, it murders union members, it murders foreign heads of state, it murders foreign political figures, it murders members of NGOs that counter its interests.

This is the factual, repeated, and continued to this day, history of the United States of America.

And, admittedly depending on what you believe, its possibly murdered a sitting president.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That fair, although I do think that the president marching into the supreme court, armed with his choice of automatic weapon, and just gunning them down might be a little too extreme even for the USA. The Dems like to, at least be seen to, play fair.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ah yes, retreat to a jokey cartoon straw man instead of addressing the point.

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If Joe Biden were cool he'd do it.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

Agreed. But he's not. Even driving a car in shades he just talked about how cool his dad was when he drove a car in shades.

Man, my dad was so good at spraying the supreme court with Tommy Gun fire. That was the generation that knew how to get things done, am I right jack? biden

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I thought the entire concept was jokey, but OK, let me restate my point: Yes, the US government has killed many people, though typically individually and discretely. The president personally shooting multiple supreme court justices as Sickos suggested would be seen to be several levels above that and probably be too extreme for even democrat supporters to stomach. The dems also seem to like to be seen to be playing fair, which suggests they wouldn't even contemplate that approach.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden gunning down supreme court justices is of course a jokey image, presented by you.

My point was that the idea that political violence doesn't occur is counter-factual. It is deeply ingrained in the history and present of the United States as a country. Therefore the idea that any sort of armed resistance or defence, or anything else the state regularly demonises as violence such as property damage or sabotage, is a bad idea because it might lead to the start of the state using violence in retaliation is moot. The state already does, even sometimes against itself.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Biden gunning down supreme court justices is of course a jokey image, presented by you.

This was the exact statement Sickos made at the top of the thread: 'Bro Biden is going to die in the next four years regardless; he could personally shoot every conservative supreme court justice. He chooses not to. How can you respect that?' I thought it was posted in a jokey way, and so engaged with is as such. It seems I was wrong in that, for which I apologies to both you and them.

Furthermore, given the latest supreme court ruling regarding presidential immunity, it seems I was wrong in assuming such an action it would be too extreme even for the US. I retract my statements to that effect. Seen as he's been given a green light to do anything that could be considered an official act, this would now seem like an entirely feasible approach to the problem.