this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
270 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4720 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
270
Stew Peters Advocates for a Violent Overthrow of the Government (www.rightwingwatch.org)
submitted 1 year ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why this is important:

Stew Peters is a far-right virulently anti-LGBTQ bigot who regularly uses his nightly “The Stew Peters Show” program, speeches, and social media accounts to promote white nationalists and antisemites and to spread wild conspiracy theories, bigotry, and calls for violence. Despite his bigoted views and unhinged rhetoric, Peters regularly manages to get Republican leaders, elected officials, and candidates for office to appear on his program. In addition, Peters has participated in ReAwaken America events alongside various Trump insiders and members of the Trump family.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 80 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought advocating the violent overthrow of the government was illegal? I have questions. It floors me when one side refuses to use the existing mechanisms to combat the illegality of the other as if it would be ill-mannered of them to quash murderous rhetoric.

They say it takes two sides to fight, and that's true. You have to cooperate with someone looking for a fight. But you also have to cooperate with someone trying to walk all over you. Fascism must be killed in the crib. We've seen what happens when you don't.

There is a war happening right now over the soul and future of America and one side has no idea it's even fighting. I love this country too much to see it fall to the wrong side of history. But things are looking bleak.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

It really depends how you say it. You can say things in such a way where you're covered under free speech. For example

Telling a mob to "go over there and attack all the dirty [racial group] to cleanse our city" is 100% incitement and you will go to jail, regardless of who you are

But going onto your podcast and saying "man, I really think the best thing for our society would be to get rid of all the dirty [racial group] so we can be cleansed" is protected under free speech

It really depends on what the man who's the topic of the OP said, to determine whether he said something illegal or not.

Keep in mind they tried to fight fascism in Germany too. They sent Hitler to jail. Eventually he got broken out and he became dictator shortly after. I think ultimately speech and hatred is not the problem - it's the symptom. As long as we have people suffering under an economic system that doesn't provide for all their basic needs, we leave the door open for people like Trump or Prager to sneak in and offer a solution.

Can censor, arrest, and deplatform all you want, won't make a difference.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Telling a mob to “go over there and attack all the dirty [racial group] to cleanse our city” is 100% incitement and you will go to jail, regardless of who you are

I'm very, very much not convinced that last part is true.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right? Since when have we seen laws enforced for the rich?

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

When they screw over richer people.

But only then, and only sometimes still.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I suppose I just don’t appreciate the nuance between “go do evil“ and “I think people should go do evil“.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

It got even narrower in [im terrible with case names]

The Supreme Court basically said unless there is imminent harm, it is free speech. Which is nuts when stochastic terrorism is rampant.

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

At least in the US, speech is a protected right. So protected that it's actually the first part of the bill of rights. So naturally, any limitations on speech must be limited. This changes from place to place. For example in Europe you don't have such strong speech protections so something like showing a Nazi flag can get you years in prison.

Having said that, I think speech is one of the very few things that the US actually does better than Europe. While it may allow for people to say obscene hateful things, I believe it is dangerous to give the government the power to interpret what is valid and non-valid speech. Right now the government, while having many problems, is more or less reasonable. It doesn't take much imagination, however, to envision a future where a couple radical strongmen politicians (or even just one) fundamentally changes the nature of the federal government to a point where any dissent can be considered "hateful"

I say "white families have 10x higher net worth on average than black families" and all of a sudden it's a hateful statement because some government official claims I'm trying to guilt all white people. I go to jail or otherwise get censored.

[–] BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How come Alex Jones was not allowed to state that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged?

[–] kava@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wasn't a criminal charge so he never was at risk of going to jail. He got sued for defamation.

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the news media — and claiming that it’s true. An opinion can’t be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation.

The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers.

Essentially if he had said "I think sandy hook was a hoax" he would have been fine. I think the judge also wanted to make an example out of him, given the nature of his statements.

[–] BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for explaining

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He was allowed to say that. It just turned out there were financial consequences for doing so.

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

Right. He could still say it. No one is stopping him. Speech is free, but it is not free from consequences.

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

My worry is that if we send trump to jail for any one of his felonies, he will get out somehow and lead a coup.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

yeah the historical record isn't great on this. I think Trump has realized he is at the point of no return. he's crossed the rubicon. at this point unless he wins this election he's going to jail for the rest of his life.

pushing an animal into a corner makes them desperate. i think he will attempt to take over the government or die trying. it's a very precarious position and the future is uncertain

[–] ilovesatan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep. But what else can be done? If we don't stand up and show them that we will not tolerate facists and we will prosecute them from their crimes, they will keep trying to weasel their way into elected positions.

At the end of the day, standing up for our democracy is of utmost importance. Even when they threaten us, we HAVE to stick to our ideals.

I believe if we got through the 60s without a violent uprising, we'll do it again today. We just have to show our strength. Facists rarely have the balls target the strong and organized.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yep. But what else can be done?

Like I said in the previous comment in this thread, there's only one thing we really can do. As long as there is this constant economic insecurity in the majority of the population, we will have growth of fascists. You can lock them up, censor them, beat them up, whatever. They will still grow and multiply.

This is the unfortunate nature of humanity. When people are insecure, they tend to lash out onto others. This works both on a personal level and a societal level. It's not a coincidence the Nazis came to power after a period of hyperinflation in the 1920s and then the Great Depression immediately after.

I support radical large scale economic reforms. Sort of a New Deal type of thing. Coincidentally, that happened around the growth of fascism last century. Back during that time period we were seeing Nazi rallies in NYC with thousands of people attending. Around that same time period we also saw a socialist/communist candidate for president get over a million votes 3rd party.

Economic insecurity leads to radicalism - in both directions. Who wins first can be a bit random. But generally, people who are more brutal win. Look at the Spanish Civil War. Corporate greed is going to nose-dive our country. We can't seem to think further than the next financial quarter statement or the next election.

If we don’t stand up and show them that we will not tolerate facists and we will prosecute them from their crimes, they will keep trying to weasel their way into elected positions.

They will try forever. That is the nature of democratic systems. It's eternally vulnerable to these types of people.

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They will try forever. That is the nature of democratic systems. It’s eternally vulnerable to these types of people.

Which is why it is important to get out and vote at every opportunity and vote on every race. They will be looking for ways to get in through the cracks at every chance they can. Democracy demands eternal vigilance from its people.

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

No, I'm not saying we don't jail him. He's clearly guilty, come on.

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

guilty or not doesn't really matter here. i'm not saying we don't jail him either, but just because something is the right thing doesn't always make it the right thing. if that makes any sense

if you have the right of way and decide to go through that intersection consequences be damned, some of the time you're gonna get hit by someone who doesn't care about traffic laws

you're right - but you're dead

trump broke the law. but arresting him and not letting him flout our laws may end up causing more damage due to unforeseen consequences.

i'm not saying this is actually the case, but it's something to consider. and i'm sure the prosecutors in all of these cases have had some serious counsel from officials high up in the federal government

it's all uncertain and all paths are dangerous. who knows what's coming next, honestly. my hope is the guy just has a stroke and the momentum he's been building since 2016 peters out. i don't think there's another contender that can do what he's currently doing

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

🤮

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe if you're edgy enough people will assume you have the capacity for original thought

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

What's the alternative? Saying that politicians are free to rig an election, then stage a coup, and if it doesn't work you just get to walk away?

Not prosecuting Nixon was the biggest mistake this country made (hyperbole), and you can draw a straight line from that to where we are now.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Peters quote from the article:

“I think that these people need to be replaced,” Peters said regarding elected and government officials. “They need to be replaced, but by means of elections is not going to happen. So what we need to do is what the Constitution directs us to do, which is to abolish and tear down and dismantle a government that has become rogue and oppressive to our individual God-given, inherent rights. And then we need to replace it with a form of government that’s representative of the people.”

“If we do that,” Peters continued, “none of this song and pony show dance fake circus nonsense would even be in existence because the people that are perpetuating this and have openly declared war on the American people will be held to extreme accountability, and they will be gone.”

“It’s all fake. It’s all rigged. It’s all set up,” Peters declared. “It’s part of a Marxist coup. It’s the ushering in an authoritarian, oppressive one-world government and the only thing stopping them from completing it is 450 million guns in this country, so now we just need to talk about what to do with those guns and how to use them.”

"Marxist coup"? For some of us words mean things and we know those meanings. For the rabid right, certain words are divorced from meaning and made into Pavlovian triggers for fear and revulsion.

Words like socialism, Marxism, groomer, woke, and even names like AOC and Hillary.

Edited to add...

This is more dangerous rhetoric and it continues to escalate. I find it especially dangerous because parts of it appeal to anyone feeling disenfranchised and poorly represented.

Would I like to replace corrupt, corporate bootlickers in congress with people who are honest and want to make things better? Absolutely but through legitimate means. I feel dirty and 🤢 having any views even slightly agreement with this shitstain because this guy is clearly a fascist piece of shit (wait... that's redundant) and he can and should go fuck himself.

But I genuinely fear his rhetoric may entice those who are less woke (in the good sense of the word) and who are poorly inoculated against rhetorical manipulation and ignorant of the history of fascism.

Hopefully the Trump era left no fence sitters in the US and perhaps younger generations mostly reject this hateful bullshit. At the same time I feel we aren't out of the woods yet as far as rising fascism goes.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Call him what he is: stochastic terrorist.

[–] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Isn’t this like treason?

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By the common definition? Yes, for sure. But not by the legal definition. Per Article III Section 3 of the constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

This falls more under the category of Sedition.

The federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government...

[–] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for clearing this up!

[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I may have committed some light treason.

[–] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

To the gallows!

[–] ilovesatan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It's only treason if you lose.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Bro really thinks people on the left don't have guns lol

[–] SARGEx117@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine the outside of a planned parenthood, and add in a group of people screaming at anyone who even glances in it's direction. Throw in signs about how you're going to hell.

Now imagine all of their faces, when a van pulls up, and three large bearded gentlemen hop out, basically looking like a private military company, rifles slung and sidearm strapped, and they help a young woman out and walk her to the door.

And hear the silence when only minutes before, screams of hate filled the air.

No one dares to speak up, because their brains have broken at the sight of people with guns HELPING someone like THAT

It's priceless.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's wild.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Yep, you can support both gun ownership and gun control at the same time.

[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ukraine is showing us you just need drones and creativity

[–] Murais@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Syrian rebels took out a Russian airbase using nothing but gliders made of balsa wood strapped with improvised explosives and/or incendiaries.

Took out a multi-million dollar airbase with a few hundred dollars worth of materials.

[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah I guess it just comes down to ingenuity.

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

Human ingenuity is incredible.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Despite his bigoted views and unhinged rhetoric, Peters regularly manages to get Republican leaders, elected officials, and candidates for office to appear on his program.

More likely just because of it.

[–] Binthinkin@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It’s true the folks lying about the government and want to take it down are the criminals.

Been that way for a while.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I advocate for a violent overthrow of Stu piders.

[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He's another Russian stooge. So sad.