@freemo you're shocked that there is intolerance for fascism? I find that bizarre.
@freemo most liberals are shocked to discover how much fascism there is. Only a tip of an iceberg was realised before Trump took power, and he showed us how big that iceberg really is.
🇳🇱
@koherecoWatchdog each side deals in a different flavor of facism. The left tend to be the ones who talk more about facism being an evil, but are also the ones using facism just as much, if not more so, than the right.
The rights sort of fascism is a sense of national pride, for example a requirement you must honor and respect the sacrafice of our military. If I were to say "people in the US military are immoral for their choice in jobs and are effectively murderers" this would be unacceptable to someone on the right and they would likely get very mad at you.
But on the flip side the right also believes more strongly in free speech, so they would be the last ones to want to see a law that would put you in jail for saying such nasty things about members of the military. So the offense would be limited to a personal one and it would not play out as fascism from a legal standpoint if they had their way.
However the liberal/lefts would exhibit the opposite sort of fascism. They might not care so much if you honor the military, in fact some of them might even agree with me that the military as a profession equates to murder. But they would be far more likely to argue for limiting my freedom of speech and might argue that it is ok to be arrested, or at the very least campaign for you to loose your job and all your livlihood, over something you said they may have disagreed with. Sometimes even taking action to physically prevent the speech. A prime example of this are the liberals who destroyed property and even incited a riot in one situation in order to prevent Ben shapiro from given a talk in a closed space at various universities
Both are fascist, both in different ways, but the liberal fascism to me seems far more dangerous.
@freemo liberals are the champions of civil liberties (check out aclu.org). US republicans value the 2nd amendment to an extreme, but not the other major parts of the bill of rights.
@koherecoWatchdog That is the view they want people to have, I do not feel it resembles reality.
Both sides try to be the "champions" of civil liberties in different ways, both sides tend to oppress civil liberties in different ways. Republicans certainly do a far better job at protecting our right to guns for self defense, that is true, but they are also much stronger on the first amendment too IMO. Meanwhile liberals seem to be more concerned with addressing the injustice against poor people where the right is more than ok to let them rot (and neither side actually does a good job at actually affecting it for the better but atleast the liberals WANT to help the poor, even if they tend to make matters worse with their policies).
So yea, sorry but not seeing the left as the champions of civil liberties they make themselves out to be.
@freemo Most US republicans hate the ACLU and regard it as an enemy, which has free speech as a primary objective, along with the 4th amendment and right to vote. If the first amendment is your focus, ACLU is your org of choice, and you'd be a rare republican to support ACLU.
@freemo on aclu.org, hover over "issues" to see what ACLU focuses on.
@koherecoWatchdog Take the following polls as an example where republicans and democrats are asked about how strongly they would support free speech in their environment (their school, their city, their state, etc)... In every single poll republicans more strongly support freedom of speech as a matter of discourse in their environment than democrats:
@koherecoWatchdog I am well aware of what they focus on. Again, support for an organization is not a proxy for showing what side supports a particular right.
@koherecoWatchdog thats poor logic. Citing an organization where freedom of speech is simply one among many things they support, and then using that agency as a proxy for determining if a political side is for free speech or not totally misses the fact that the ACLU is for a **lot** of other things too that republicans may not be for (not saying thats right).. its an indirect way to get at the point and muddies the water to the point that we are no longer talking about if the republicans are more free speech or not but rather if they are more pro-ACLU or not.
@freemo ACLU is financed by liberals. If something is not aligned with the agenda of that demographic, ACLU risks losing funding. Imagine an anti-abortion org that is also anti-religion.. they won't be too popular. Even if something a doner is neutral on appears, it's a risk b/c they want assurances their money to goes toward what they value.
@koherecoWatchdog Regardless, there is no need, nor is it effectual to use support for the ACLU as a proxy for who supports freedom of speech more.. We have far more direct ways to measure that, and the polls alone clearly show a pattern where republicans prioritize freedom of speech to a far greater extent than liberals.
@freemo "Republicans certainly do a far better job at protecting our right to guns for self defense" <= b/c this mention "self defense", it's inaccurate. Both sides of the spectrum vastly oppose prohibition of guns. The difference is US liberals want gun control to reduce chances of /attack/. It's a strawman that has ppl thinking "libs want to take your guns away". These are not EU
@freemo also worth noting that nothing about 2A is about self-defense. The purpose of 2A is actually to prevent tyranny.
@koherecoWatchdog Not really, thats just how the politicians frame it so they can get away with it, because if they said outright their goal was to abolish them they couldnt chip away at it bit by bit..
This is evidenced by the nonsensical way they try to erode our gun rights. For example you often hear them talk about assault rifles, which are entierly an imaginary category of guns that have no meaningful qualities what so ever. They use the AR-15 as the posterboy of what is an assault rifle and ignore the fact that it is one of the least powerful rifles on the market and is used primarily to hunt small game on farms that destroy crops.
It is an attempt to have a "catch all" category they can make illegal with no real definition on what it is, at least not that is useful, that then can be used to basically make widespread guns of all sorts illegal, none of which has any relevance to protecting anyone.
If they were truly concerned about preserving gun rights the **last** thing they would do is be trying to make guns of any kind illegal. Instead they would be proposing more sensical and effective things like gun training, but of course thats never their focus, which shows their hand.
@freemo "the **last** thing they would do is be trying to make guns of any kind illegal" <= not if we're talking self-defense. Some guns get more use as an attack tool than as a /defense/ tool. "Instead they would be proposing more sensical and effective things like gun training never their focus" <= this is exactly why liberals stopped supporting the NRA.
@freemo the NRA was originally a gun safety org and it had support from liberals. It later became an anti-gun control org, stimulating quite the opposite of gun safety, which drove the org away from liberal interests.
@koherecoWatchdog NRA has not stimulated anti-gun safety, thats nonsense. Though you are right that they are against anti-gun legislation, and im damn happy they are. I support the NRA and have been considering donating a sizable amount to them this year for the first time.
@freemo I said NRA pushes "anti-gun control", but yes, anti-gun control is also anti-gun safety by extention. Over time NRA became reckless w.r.t safety and lobby to oppose gun control. They have no limits. They even lobby against common sense background checks that hinder nutters from being armed. The switch from gun safety to no restrictions is what drove liberals away from the NRA.
@koherecoWatchdog I know what you said, and anti-gun control is already equivelant to anti-gun legislation... "controlling guns" is a fancy way of saying "lets ban certain types of guns"... and yes that absolutely needs to be opposed and I am behind the NRA on that.
@freemo anti-gun control is not necessarily "anti-gun legislation". E.g., a law that would make it illegal to leave a loaded gun lying around children would be a gun control that is not anti-possession.
@koherecoWatchdog fair, that wouldnt be anti-gun in that case.
@freemo after the NRA became extremist, it only had conservative members at that point. So it also became a supporter of republican politicians, and in fact got caught helping Russia channel money into Trump's war chest.
@koherecoWatchdog Nothing extremist about the NRA in my view... they oppose restrictions on guns, thats supporting rights not extremism.
The only reasonable gun safety measures i could support would be anonymous licensingand/or training, but only if its free and paid for by the state. Something that I have never seen proposed by the left so i remain strongly against every non-sensical step the left has taken to erode personal gun rights.
@freemo NRA directly promotes violence. This video demonstrated it, until it was removed for that reason: https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=tOfLjGg5gP0
@koherecoWatchdog I cant view that video so I cant judge your claim.
@freemo and IIRC, NRAtv is dead now, but it was full of violence inciting garbage.
@koherecoWatchdog youll have to link me to it if you want me to evaluate such claims
@freemo It was Dana Leosche (not sure on the spelling) giving a hyperbole & propaganda-rich commercial to demonize liberals, appeal to fear, and then told viewers to use force to fight back, comparable to Trump's speech that got a mob to attack the capitol bldg. I didn't get a copy of it b/c youtube-dl didn't work on all videos. It might still be out there if you search around.
@koherecoWatchdog Trumps speech never asked anyone to be violent (I watched it)... so if you think trumps speech was calling for violence i am pretty skeptical your interpritation of Dana's video is actually accurate. That said, if you find a link I'd be happy to view it and decide for myself.
@freemo her exact phrasing was calling for action "with a clenched fist". It can't be "go shoot someone" precisely, b/c the backlash would be too immediate and impossible to defend in court. But the NRA is the highest funded lobby in the US, so they can push limits and hire the best lawyers. "Clenched fist" is euphemistic enough to get away with it legally yet still signal for vionlence.
@koherecoWatchdog Again, I'd have to see it in context to form an opinion.
I also watched the speech live, and as someone with an appreciation for Trump, while entertaining, it left me mostly deflated
The narrative is a lie
Liberals have went so extreme down the path of fascism that they call everything violent or nazis or whatever extremist term they can find the second they disagree with something. They are seeing ghosts of injustices that dont even exist at this point (and there is plenty of legit injustice one could find in the world).
@Atlas @freemo some ppl showed up to the "peaceful protest" with armor, zip ties, helmets, gas masks, a hang noose (and framework for it). Who keeps a hang noose in their car? To try to blame a cop at a barrier for that violence is so profoundly absurd, I don't even see how right-wing nut jobs cling their own narrative on this.
You realize you just listed a whole bunch of things people brought not one of which is a weapon right? ... maybe because they were expecting to be shot, beaten, gassed, and attacked by police at their peaceful protest as the police tend to do, exactly as the police did?
Maybe the liberals should start bringing gas masks too instead of complaining why they get tear gassed?
It is hardly a show of violence to wear a gas mask to ensure you are protected...
As for the noose.. clearly symbolic, and its the same symbology the liberals have used on trump multiple times (do you not recall kathy gifford holding a mock severed head of trump for example?)
I dont know what your point is dude.
You seem to be obsessed with ensuring compliance to the narrative or something.
Normal people were horrified all summer as leftists applauded much MUCH worse than what you're fixated on. Awful stuff. People literally being murdered for no reason, small businesses ruined, and us normal people wanted it to stop, but the media and leftists cheered it, facilitated it, and allowed it.
So Americans learned. And Americans are becoming violent. This is what we didnt want. This is what the media cheered.
Well now you got it. So go pound sand.
@koherecoWatchdog Sadly thats how the world works this way.. republicans and democrats can never support the same things, even if they happen to agree on some of the same principles..
The same reason ACLU became a leftist organization simply by the support of the left even when the organization theselves has a good purpose, the NRA did the same, republicans supported it, liberals werent big on guns, so it quickly became 100% republican... its more due to republicans and democrats dont get along more than anything else.
I will happily support the ACLU, I will also happily support the NRA, at least until there are better options on either side.
@koherecoWatchdog Yes even if we are talking self-defence.. there are many types of self defence.. against a robber or raper in the street you'd want a hand gun, against the governement or an invading force you'd want a accurate rifle, again a home intruder you would want a shot gun.
Liberally every single type of legal weapon today fills one of many very important self-defense roles.
@koherecoWatchdog No im not just talking about private entities not wanting to carry someones nonsense.. thats somewhat concerning but not the examples I am considering. In fact I gave you one such example and it didnt related to that at all.. liberals physically disrupted ben shapiro's right to freedom of speech in a private space that permitted him to talk , liberals on **many** occasions would go to such events and use various tactics to prevent him from speaking (including destroying equipment). I have never witnessed such a thing out of the right.
I have also heard a great many people justify Europes tendency to outlaw certain forms of speech (for example it is illegal in the netherlands and Germany to make the hitler salute), it is always the liberals supporting these violations of freedom of speech.
@freemo "But on the flip side the right also believes more strongly in free speech" <= not in the slightest. It just appears that way because their extremist Alex Jones-esque posts are being censored (they call it a free speech issue but the censorship is actually happening on private property [which is sacred to republicans until it works against them])