3 ms·

This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this wa

This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this was just a tiny "salami slice": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... You want to have all the political capital left when that law happens, instead of wasting it defending rotten scraps. Wasting so much energy and political capacity on scraps means there is no energy left when the big things hits, that is exactly where your current strategy is taking you. > Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time? People killed Nazis before they came to power, they weren't using legal or nice strategies as defense back then either. That was the wrong way, it only increased support for the Nazis.

hayst4ck 2y ago
By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought. That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice. You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight. Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity. What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?
- Jensson 2y ago
  > What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism. People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger. > Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them. My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy. Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market! Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
Let me summarize what I'm hearing and you tell me where I get it wrong. We should hold back, let the authoritarians do their thing, until there is critical support against an authoritarian power grab and then act when we have overwhelming strength?
- Jensson 2y ago
  When fighting back helps your enemy, then yes then you shouldn't do it. That is pretty obvious. Don't fight back when the terrain favors your enemy even if it is your land, you fight where you can win. War isn't won by who holds the most land, but by who defeats the enemy troops. You need to build support from the people, not do things that lose support.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Can you sketch out the type of person who see fighting back over these things as an over-reaction? Who are they? I've never met one, so it's hard to imagine they're real.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Your average Fox News reader. You might not like it but they also get to vote. And no, even the people who watches Fox News do not want USA to become a fascist state, they like their democracy.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        And I'm trying to not provoke them so that they reach a point where we lock arms and resist authoritarianism together?
        Jensson 2y ago
        Yes, as long as they hate fascism more than they hate you they will help you defeat fascism when the time comes. But if you have built up enough resentment over the years then they will pick fascism over you. It happened in Germany and could happen in USA.

hayst4ck 2y ago

By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought. That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice. You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight. Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity. What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?

Jensson 2y ago
> What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. What do you mean "act now"? Do you want more people to go out and key tesla cars? You think that is going to make fascism less likely? No, stuff like that only strengthens fascism. People fought Hitler at every turn in his rise to power often using less than legal means and violence, that only made him stronger. > Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? Except that country is selling you the bullets, and they say they need to produce more bullets to win even though you just buy them. My advice: Stop selling bullets to your enemy. Your response: But they have so many bullets, we need to make more to defend ourselves, and of course we can't stop selling bullets since that will crash our market! Like, each of those positions are fine in themselves, but the combination is devastating.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

Let me summarize what I'm hearing and you tell me where I get it wrong. We should hold back, let the authoritarians do their thing, until there is critical support against an authoritarian power grab and then act when we have overwhelming strength?

Jensson 2y ago
When fighting back helps your enemy, then yes then you shouldn't do it. That is pretty obvious. Don't fight back when the terrain favors your enemy even if it is your land, you fight where you can win. War isn't won by who holds the most land, but by who defeats the enemy troops. You need to build support from the people, not do things that lose support.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Can you sketch out the type of person who see fighting back over these things as an over-reaction? Who are they? I've never met one, so it's hard to imagine they're real.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Your average Fox News reader. You might not like it but they also get to vote. And no, even the people who watches Fox News do not want USA to become a fascist state, they like their democracy.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      And I'm trying to not provoke them so that they reach a point where we lock arms and resist authoritarianism together?
      - Jensson 2y ago
        Yes, as long as they hate fascism more than they hate you they will help you defeat fascism when the time comes. But if you have built up enough resentment over the years then they will pick fascism over you. It happened in Germany and could happen in USA.