5 ms·

Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. I won't hold my breath though.

by allthetime 7mo ago

joe_mamba 7mo ago
>Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. How?
- allthetime 7mo ago
  Use your imagination, or, read some history.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.
    - hananova 7mo ago
      Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
    - kgwxd 7mo ago
      That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
      - gruez 7mo ago
        >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
        kgwxd 7mo ago
        > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
        gruez 7mo ago
        >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
    - tombert 7mo ago
      Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
    - tryauuum 7mo ago
      to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.
- fn-mote 7mo ago
  Telling your senator and representative would be a logical starting place. Then organize like every other movement; study the US in the 1960s.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >study the US in the 1960s. The US was a vastly different country in the 1960's than today from all points of view. Plebs had way more social cohesions and unity, and lot more bargaining power over the wealthy and politicians, when communism was the main enemy and all working class jobs hadn't been yet shipped abroad and PE hadn't yet monopolized ownership of housing and everything else and the US industrial elites didn't have doomsday bunkers in Hawaii and New Zealand. What I'm saying is what worked then won't work now because the context is completely different.
    - roughly 7mo ago
      The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        and that is supposed to mean what in this context?
        roughly 7mo ago
        It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You are a participant, not an observer.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You keep avoiding to answer the main question: How? And when you answer how, answer why that hasn't already worked.

Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. I won't hold my breath though.

joe_mamba 7mo ago

>Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. How?

allthetime 7mo ago
Use your imagination, or, read some history.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.
  - hananova 7mo ago
    Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
  - kgwxd 7mo ago
    That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
      - kgwxd 7mo ago
        > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
        gruez 7mo ago
        >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
  - tombert 7mo ago
    Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
  - tryauuum 7mo ago
    to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.
fn-mote 7mo ago
Telling your senator and representative would be a logical starting place. Then organize like every other movement; study the US in the 1960s.
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >study the US in the 1960s. The US was a vastly different country in the 1960's than today from all points of view. Plebs had way more social cohesions and unity, and lot more bargaining power over the wealthy and politicians, when communism was the main enemy and all working class jobs hadn't been yet shipped abroad and PE hadn't yet monopolized ownership of housing and everything else and the US industrial elites didn't have doomsday bunkers in Hawaii and New Zealand. What I'm saying is what worked then won't work now because the context is completely different.
  - roughly 7mo ago
    The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      and that is supposed to mean what in this context?
      - roughly 7mo ago
        It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You are a participant, not an observer.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You keep avoiding to answer the main question: How? And when you answer how, answer why that hasn't already worked.