3 ms·
What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?
by NewJazz 1y ago
What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?
- mvdtnz 1y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 1y agoOverplayed the card should read "warned early and were proven correct", right?
- eYrKEC2 1y agoA guy who gathers large groups of people to talk with them and persuade them on political topics is the _essence_ of democracy. Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.
- p_j_w 1y ago[flagged]
- sethammons 1y agoreal question: what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
- eYrKEC2 1y agoThen I guess you become a monarchist, like Curtis Yarvin. But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".
- the_gastropod 1y ago[flagged]
- billy99k 1y ago[flagged]
- Cornbilly 1y ago[flagged]
- infamouscow 1y agoUnless you actually have the ability to deploy the military, it's genuinely stupid to leap to this conclusion. To be clear, this is not an insult or ad hominem. You have to actually be stupid to think random citizens can magically deploy the military just by saying so. This is personal moral failure on your part, no different than being a liar, thief, murderer.
- alessandru 1y agoand you're just stupid. like reading is the first part before those other things.
- infamouscow 1y agoYarvin has written at length about how his monarchy vision isn't even possible within the USA today. A stronger statement is: you have to actually be stupid to think POTUS can magically deploy the military just by saying so. Virtually all of Yarvin's work is systematically breaking down all of the barriers even if one has that power.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 1y ago
- swader999 1y agoThen you answer that with more discourse. This is basic.
- cryptonector 1y ago> what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda The answer to bad speech is more speech. If you refuse to do that then you are not convinced of being right -- you lose the argument when you resort to violence or justify resorting to violence over speech.
- dgb23 1y agoThat’s a strawman. They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified.
- cryptonector 1y ago> They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified. It had better be. All claims so far do not stand up to scrutiny -- they are all exaggerations, therefore they incite unjustified violence.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y agoAfter evaluating the claims, I have concluded that they do, in fact stand up to scrutiny, and are not "all exaggerations".
- selfmodruntime 1y agoThe loss of your way of life has little if anything to do with „democracy“.
- 8note 1y agoif somebody is a threat to democracy just by talking, your democracy is probably already dead
- NewJazz 1y agoThe comment I replied to was making a blanket statement that could be extended to more than just Charlie Kirk, including folks who do things that undermine democracy beyond just fearmongering.
- cryptonector 1y agoMaybe you are a threat to democracy. Hmm, not nice, right? Please let us all apply the golden rule. Violence should be limited to stopping violence.