3 ms·
Pressing danger == immediate; near at hand. I’m not talking about the grand sweep of history, the all-time leaderboard. I’m talking about the present era we’re
by whynotminot 3y ago
Pressing danger == immediate; near at hand. I’m not talking about the grand sweep of history, the all-time leaderboard. I’m talking about the present era we’re living in.
In the future (or the past) of course it’s possible that the left wing could be (or was) more dangerous. I didn’t even think we had a truly dangerous problem with the far right in this country until Trump brought the crazy out of the shadows, and January 6th drove home the damage they were willing to do for him.
You alter priorities as conditions change. In this present era, we have a serious problem with a violent far right lead by a demagogue that has already shown a propensity for trying to overturn the results of legal elections. The far right has gone up several notches in my “we should be worried about this right now” list as a result. The more pressing danger to prioritize.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago> Pressing danger == immediate; near at hand. I’m not talking about the grand sweep of history, the all-time leaderboard. I’m talking about the present era we’re living in. For all those people in history, right wing *appeared* more dangerous years before the mass killings happened. That led to the far left capturing power and leading to disaster. Both extremes should be condemned irrespective of how likely we think they may act as we are all bad at predicting the future.
- whynotminot 3y agoAgain false equivalence. Both sides bad is so simplistic given what we’re facing right now. You can’t try to tell me the left is worse like you did in your first post, and then try to insist they’re actually equally dangerous when I say the right is the bigger problem. Pick a stance.