In this particular case? Maybe. But the line gets drawn somewhere, and I hope it's before the doorknockers start patrols. Pretty sure I'll be having cake the day Matt Gatze drops dead, regardless...
In this particular case? Maybe. But the line gets drawn somewhere, and I hope it's before the doorknockers start patrols.
Pretty sure I'll be having cake the day Matt Gatze drops dead, regardless of how that happens.
Will you and those like you apologize to those that die if you get your wish? Will you be eating cake if he’s taken out in a bomb blast? What about a mass shooting? What about the retaliatory...
Will you and those like you apologize to those that die if you get your wish?
Will you be eating cake if he’s taken out in a bomb blast? What about a mass shooting? What about the retaliatory violence that follows?
There’s lots and lots of history of all sorts of political violence, and almost none of it is “And then they died and everything got better”. Often it’s the start of a very long period of very violent actions leading to the deaths of at last thousands, and then, usually after a few of the batards that started it and thousands more who would have given anything to not be involved are dead, it might get better.
Political violence of this nature is not “winning”. It’s watching the wheels fall off. I don’t give much of a damn if Matt has a stroke and drops dead and may not even feel that bad for the people who did love him and have to deal with the consequences, but the moment people are dying from political violence EVERYONE should be damn worried.
If you’re suggesting that we’re in the verge of patrol’s then I hope you realize Matt going out in a fireball is only accelerating that path.
I read an interesting comment once somewhere to the effect that failing to defend yourself against an aggressor is not non-violence, but in fact enables and encourages further violence.
I read an interesting comment once somewhere to the effect that failing to defend yourself against an aggressor is not non-violence, but in fact enables and encourages further violence.
I don't know how I feel about the specific actions that we're discussing in this thread, but here's my way of framing it like you asked: If you know that what they've said they're going to do once...
I don't know how I feel about the specific actions that we're discussing in this thread, but here's my way of framing it like you asked:
If you know that what they've said they're going to do once they're in power will lead to great suffering for you and yours, disrupting their rise to power is defending against their promised actions.
I can see that under a dictatorship, but under a democracy I can’t accept that as reasonable. The place to “disrupt their rise to power” is at the voting booth. Under a democracy, where a majority...
I can see that under a dictatorship, but under a democracy I can’t accept that as reasonable. The place to “disrupt their rise to power” is at the voting booth.
Under a democracy, where a majority of voters have freely elected a government? That argument is just a justification for terrorism.
Also, is this actually disrupting their rise to power? I don't think so, any more than Hamas lobbing rockets over the wall is doing anything to defeat Israel.
Even ignoring effectiveness or morality, a violent change in status quo seldom give place to democracy. These groups are structured through violence and, if successful, they will have learned that...
Even ignoring effectiveness or morality, a violent change in status quo seldom give place to democracy. These groups are structured through violence and, if successful, they will have learned that violence works. They're not giving it up.
Intentions are almost irrelevant. A coup will lead to more coups, violence will lead to more viiolence and instability. Anyone thinking otherwise should take a look at Latin America.
Once democracy is out of the picture, all bets are off.
Just because the majority wants something doesn’t make it right. You seem to be arguing that if the majority has voted to violate the rights of some group, that group is obligated to accept it.
Just because the majority wants something doesn’t make it right. You seem to be arguing that if the majority has voted to violate the rights of some group, that group is obligated to accept it.
I never said it made it right, and I never said that anyone is obliged to accept it. What I said is that the only legitimate way to change it is at the voting booth, not through violence. This...
I never said it made it right, and I never said that anyone is obliged to accept it. What I said is that the only legitimate way to change it is at the voting booth, not through violence. This doesn't preclude lobbying, protesting, or other non-violent political activities. It precludes terrorism.
Since when is terrorism in a liberal democracy considered to be a reasonable option? I'm fairly distressed at some of the opinions in this thread.
I’m not sure why you think the US under Trump is going to be a liberal democracy. He and his gang have made no secret of their intention to ensure that it is no such thing.
I’m not sure why you think the US under Trump is going to be a liberal democracy. He and his gang have made no secret of their intention to ensure that it is no such thing.
I’m not sure how a government that is formed by terrorism is going to be somehow better than anything Trump could create. Put another way, we can’t save democracy by abandoning democracy.
I’m not sure how a government that is formed by terrorism is going to be somehow better than anything Trump could create.
Put another way, we can’t save democracy by abandoning democracy.
I know we're on the verge of patrols. They've told us as much. A literal white supremacist is heading up the deportation effort. It's only a question of who they're rounding up first, and in what...
I know we're on the verge of patrols. They've told us as much. A literal white supremacist is heading up the deportation effort. It's only a question of who they're rounding up first, and in what order. Immigrants of all flavors are likely at the forefront, but gays and Jews aren't far behind.
EVERYONE should be damn worried.
We are. The problem is that there are idiots like my brother welcoming the patrols with open arms.
The "no political violence" ship sailed on Jan 6th. The fact that nothing tangible came in the wake over the course of 4 years shows that we're already a failed state.
Frankly, if political violence is what it takes so my grandkids don't need to do monthly active shooter drills the way my kids do, I'm all for it. Because what's been happening "peacefully" for the last 20 obviously hasn't been working.
Peaceful resolution of conflict can only occur if both sides are coming to the table in good faith.
As of right now, I mostly see what's happening as them getting a taste of their own medicine....see 'your body, my choice'.
I'm seriously conflicted. I feel like I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance, but I'm not, it's more that I'm seeing a complex situation in which two things which oppose each other are true at the...
Frankly, if political violence is what it takes so my grandkids don't need to do monthly active shooter drills the way my kids do, I'm all for it.
I'm seriously conflicted. I feel like I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance, but I'm not, it's more that I'm seeing a complex situation in which two things which oppose each other are true at the same time.
Political violence leads to a downward death spiral, or at least an escalation of violence-begets-violence in a society. Civil war is has gone from a fictional notion to a legitimate fear. At the same time, if one faction is willing to threaten, break the law, use intimidation and even kill while the other faction sticks to the moral high ground and does not 'do unto others'... if the violent faction feels no compunction or shame over their actions, if they are not going to self-limit, then... I guess just look to the historical imagery of Tienanmen Square. Tanks crushing student protesters into meat paste to obscure the number of casualties, then re-writing history under penalty of whatever it takes to make people fear to even mention the location or the date of June 4th.
As to this:
It's only a question of who they're rounding up first, and in what order. Immigrants of all flavors are likely at the forefront, but gays and Jews aren't far behind.
It isn't like we don't have a great big glaring historical precedent.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
-Pastor Martin Niemöller, a eulogy of past silences, Germany, 1946.
Americans have this romantic idea of violent revolutions because we had one of the few successful ones but the vast majority just lead to just endless cycles of violence and death until a...
Frankly, if political violence is what it takes so my grandkids don't need to do monthly active shooter drills the way my kids do, I'm all for it. Because what's been happening "peacefully" for the last 20 obviously hasn't been working.
Americans have this romantic idea of violent revolutions because we had one of the few successful ones but the vast majority just lead to just endless cycles of violence and death until a strongman steps in to stop the chaos. Nine times out of 10 you don’t end up with a nice liberal democracy, you end up with something worse than what you started with.
Political violence will not give your grandkids peace.
If nothing is done to stop the current path to Dictator Trump, you're definitely right. At this point, the rule of law is eroding. The courts have been replaced with a circuit of cronies whom have...
If nothing is done to stop the current path to Dictator Trump, you're definitely right.
At this point, the rule of law is eroding. The courts have been replaced with a circuit of cronies whom have given the president nearly unlimited authority. If Congress does not oppose him, democracy is dead. Peaceful resistance has failed.
The choice then is revolt or complacence. And at least with revolt, there is a chance to undo the damage when the violence is over.
Congress just killed the gaetz nomination. The Republican majority is tiny. Trump is old and lazy. You are correct that we are on a precipice but there are some steps yet to go before fascism....
Congress just killed the gaetz nomination.
The Republican majority is tiny. Trump is old and lazy.
You are correct that we are on a precipice but there are some steps yet to go before fascism. Hitler relied on the enabling act that gave him dictator authority.
The big question is will the courts protect constitutional rights like habeus corpus.
People like you are asking the question of how far they will go to fight fascism and that is important. However it will be simpler and less costly to deal with if the current maga faithful get a taste of tariffs and vote the bums out.
I'm reminded of the incident where the Soviet missile commander didn't authorize retaliation for what looked like a US missile strike and it turned out that it was not a missile strike.
We can see big trends in history but we can't predict the details and those details matter a lot.
And that's about half of the goal of Project 2025: to further empower the executive branch to "drain the swamp." As I saw on Mastodon: People don't write a 900+ page manifesto then add "just...
Hitler relied on the enabling act that gave him dictator authority.
And that's about half of the goal of Project 2025: to further empower the executive branch to "drain the swamp." As I saw on Mastodon: People don't write a 900+ page manifesto then add "just kidding" at the end. The explicit goal is to give Trump dictatoral powers.
They're using doublespeak where the problem is that the federal agencies are not beholden to Congress, so therefore the Executive Branch needs to overpower Congress to fix it.
The courts have already decided that the president can't be prosecuted. There is little standing in the way, and I'm doubtful any of the rest of Trump's nominees get tanked, especially if Congress goes to recess.
They haven't introduced the equivalent enabling act because nobody has been sworn in yet. That's why there has been a long-overdue rush to get as many judges in place as possible. It won't get introduced until Trump is sworn in because otherwise it would die on the spot.
All hope is not lost, but if saving democracy relies on Republicans breaking party lines then it is a very, very frail hope.
The president and his cronies are malevolent, no question. The next six months are critical and you are right it could all go to hell. Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party left him...
The president and his cronies are malevolent, no question.
The next six months are critical and you are right it could all go to hell.
Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party left him with a lot of enemies. He made more enemies during his first presidency.
I am waiting to see how the Senate responds to him. Those guys have 6 year terms and when Trump dies maga will lose focus and coherence as a movement.
The supreme court is another wild card.
Another wild card is the fact that members of the military swear to defend the constitution.
Sometimes when you have a losing hand you have to play it out anyway and hope something changes or that you don't have all the facts.
I kinda agree with you and the guy pointing out political violence just leads to more violence. But I'm leaning more towards at some point the side that is trying to persecute a large amount of...
I kinda agree with you and the guy pointing out political violence just leads to more violence. But I'm leaning more towards at some point the side that is trying to persecute a large amount of people keeps pushing it, there is no real avoiding a shitty situation either way and people need to be able to defend themselves.
It is better to do a peaceful resolution. But it comes a point where that is impossible without just allowing many innocents to suffer at the hands of tyrants. And sadly we are very close to the point that the only way out is violence. But I really don't want that to be the case :(.
That being said, I see nothing good out of bombing the politicians. This will only create martyrs and give them more excuse and push more the populace to agree with them. Which means even less chance of a peaceful resolution and not going into full facism complete with internment camps.
In general yes, it is far far better to find a peaceful resolution. But when one side is determined to bring violence to other groups and they have the power... you get to a point that you cannot...
In general yes, it is far far better to find a peaceful resolution. But when one side is determined to bring violence to other groups and they have the power... you get to a point that you cannot get a peaceful resolution without just allowing other groups to be killed off. At some point people will have to fight back if one group is totally not interested in that peaceful resolution and is determined to kill them off.
But I do agree with you that Matt or whoever going out in a bomb blast at this point is just going to accelerate that path and give them more excuse. I don't think it will do anything to stop it.
As usual, it's all complicated and messy and there are no definitive right answers. The big problem is violence is the perfect excuse to ramp up the dictatorship. There's a reason the False Flag...
As usual, it's all complicated and messy and there are no definitive right answers.
The big problem is violence is the perfect excuse to ramp up the dictatorship. There's a reason the False Flag is a tried and tested successful strategy politically and militarily. If you want an excuse to go hot and bring the big guns to bear, you just take one in the gut, then straighten up and gasp "see, see what they did? Get'em!"
It rarely doesn't work. At least in the near term, it usually does work.
But, after the fact (which doesn't often help the present much if at all), the truth can trickle out. History can sometimes find that truth, even if it takes a long time.
A false flag might buy enough confusion and cover to go hot and heavy and roll the big guns, but in a few months, maybe a year, if it starts to become more obvious it was a false flag, that can have tremendously dangerous implications. Always better for the truth to be on your side. If you can actually have them hit you first, why, you're the defender. You're the righteous one! Easy narrative, very clear.
There are people thinking about False Flag scenarios. Some of them are smart enough to realize it's a risk, that the truth could leak and turn things against them. They might win the battle, but lose the war, if they use a False Flag to kick things off en route to a dictatorship.
For example, there might be scenarios where other governments will be appalled and very eager to offer help, if political violence by "the minority" targets "the sitting American Government". But some of those governments might withdraw their support if it comes out that the whole thing was a lie. That's the easy example.
Where does that leave us if Project2025 isn't a lie? If they are planning to run the table with their list and implement an autocratic oligarchy?
Well, to play the "good guy game", to maintain "the high ground", you have to do something very hard. You have to let them punch you in the gut.
Except, it's not you. Probably not me. But it'll be someone. Somewhere, some group, some town, some court, some something, will be targeted. It'll be obvious. It'll not be a secret. Lots of people will know it's coming. It'll be something like a standoff. Maybe, for example, over a court.
As the example, Trump might target the New York courts that have hounded him unsuccessfully since 2020. He might get to the point of ordering troops in to arrest judges or jurors, to round up district attorneys, that kind of thing. He'll probably be loud and proud about it. "Kneel to me, turn them over, or I'll send people to just take them by force."
It could be an immigrant group, or a Leftist group, a "hotbed of filthy traitorous commie liberals", something like that. They warn, they'll probably warn a few times, they'll stage troops or showcase the bombs or whatever. It'll be real obvious. They'll want the fear to kick in. They'll hope for everyone to bend the knee and just take it. To just say "okay, take them, not us." For everyone to stand aside and let that kind of shit happen.
And before it actually has started happening, the tough impossible strategy will be to let it happen. Military strategy is to strike first, to minimize damage. If you know the enemy is going to attack, you don't just sit there waiting.
Unless you need cover. Deniability. The high ground. Then you have to sit there and take it. You have to let them cross the border. Or, here, the line. It won't really matter to everyone, especially on the world stage but also internally on the domestic front, how clear and obvious it might be that Trump and the P25 douches were going to start committing war crimes, start ignoring the rule of law at the barrel of a gun.
It should, but it won't. Not to all of them. Not to everyone. Some people, some governments, if it's not crystal clear that the dictators initiated the violence, will decline to help. Will decline to join the fight against the dictators.
That's the long term need. Win the war, not the battle.
If the P25 douches are serious, they'll push it through, and probably pause to see how stupid their enemies are. If those enemies do the tactically expedient thing and strike first out of defense, that could very well lose the war on the strategic front. Because it muddies everything up.
When they start rolling hot, someone somewhere is going to have to take that first gut punch. It's going to suck, totally suck. People will die, who knew they were likely to die, and they'll still die anyway. They'll have to let the troops fire into the crowd before they open up in return, they'll have to let the bomb go off, they'll have to let the missile launch. Whatever it is, they'll have to sit there and wait for the dictator douches to swing first.
Once they do, all hell breaks loose and who knows what'll happen. Definitely a historical moment, and living through history always sucks. It's neat and interesting to read about after the fact, but when you're in the middle of it there's no fun for anyone. But in this modern age, with people who like to play multidimensional chess with everyone's lives simply over politics and power, swinging first could very likely lose the war.
If things are as messy as they probably will be, the "good guys" will want all the truth there is to muster as support. Striking first just creates the excuse the dictators want. If they're going to go hot, make them go hot. Make them prove they want it.
I worry about harassment of government officials happening more often. Democrats get harassed too. Without getting into what started it, it would be bad for it to become normal. It's not a good...
I worry about harassment of government officials happening more often. Democrats get harassed too. Without getting into what started it, it would be bad for it to become normal. It's not a good trend.
I don't know what sort of lines can be drawn. Hopefully law enforcement will have some effect?
That'd be great. But what I see is the natural progression of what happens when the legigislature and the courts care more about ideology than practicality, and thus we have a swath of...
That'd be great. But what I see is the natural progression of what happens when the legigislature and the courts care more about ideology than practicality, and thus we have a swath of appointments specifically tasked with dismantling most of the government.
It doesn't help that the DOGE twins are trolls with a habit of stochastic terror. There's also the chilling effect on privacy and anonymity online - expect more calls for real IDs, secret ISP...
It doesn't help that the DOGE twins are trolls with a habit of stochastic terror.
There's also the chilling effect on privacy and anonymity online - expect more calls for real IDs, secret ISP warrants, permalogging, etc. "Good citizens" are going to be living with their curtains open, while the shitty ones hide in plain sight.
Trump heavily invested in political violence. He's getting returns on his investment. Which sucks, because it is possible this will end up as a 'new normal'.
Trump heavily invested in political violence. He's getting returns on his investment.
Which sucks, because it is possible this will end up as a 'new normal'.
Political violence is not new, but I 100% agree that each additional instance sucks for the reason you mentioned: violence normalizes violence. Somewhere I read a really good analogy of how our...
Political violence is not new, but I 100% agree that each additional instance sucks for the reason you mentioned: violence normalizes violence.
Somewhere I read a really good analogy of how our minds go wrong with this. When we think of violence, we're wired to think of good versus evil, knights slaying dragons, stuff like that. When a dragon kills one of the townsfolk, that's because the dragon is evil. And when a knight kills one of the dragons, well, the dragon had it coming. Killing the dragon solves the problem.
But in reality, violence is less like a dragon and more like Godzilla. It's not glamorous. Every day he shows up and tramples several city blocks. Some days he tramples more, some days less. Sometimes a different giant monster shows up and fights Godzilla, and even more of the city gets destroyed than usual. Your life is now all about surviving between monster attacks. That's the new normal.
And the problem is whenever people commit violence, they think they're killing an evil dragon, when they're actually waking Godzilla.
I do love your analogy, however history shows time and again that if only one side perpetuates the violence, they win. I liken it more like fire. You can choose to not fight the fire, but then...
I do love your analogy, however history shows time and again that if only one side perpetuates the violence, they win.
I liken it more like fire. You can choose to not fight the fire, but then you're at the mercy of it.
From the article: ... ... I'd guess that many police are pretty skeptical about swatting by now? But besides the danger to its targets, this is effectively a denial of service attack on law...
From the article:
Several of Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees and picks for his White House team have been targeted by bomb threats.
The FBI said it was aware of "numerous bomb threats" as well as "swatting incidents", in which hoax calls are made to attract a police response to the target's home.
Threats were made against Trump's choices to lead the departments of Housing, Agriculture and Labor, as well as his pick for US ambassador to the United Nations.
Police are investigating the incidents, which happened on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.
...
None of those targeted this week were protected by the US Secret Service, according to media reports.
...
Similar hoax tactics have been recently used against other high-profile political figures, including against the judges and prosecutors who oversaw the criminal cases against Trump.
Last year, US politicians around the country were swatted over Christmas. Most were Republican, but some Democrats were targeted as well.
I'd guess that many police are pretty skeptical about swatting by now? But besides the danger to its targets, this is effectively a denial of service attack on law enforcement.
I agree that making stuff up is a key pillar of the Republican strategy, but that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter. I would also argue that sending bomb threats (in addition to being wrong)...
I agree that making stuff up is a key pillar of the Republican strategy, but that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter.
I would also argue that sending bomb threats (in addition to being wrong) has no strategic upside.
That is under the (not unreasonable) assumption that this wasn’t the work of Trump supporters or bored teenagers just causing trouble. If it was opponents of Trump, I agree that this is at best...
no strategic upside.
That is under the (not unreasonable) assumption that this wasn’t the work of Trump supporters or bored teenagers just causing trouble.
If it was opponents of Trump, I agree that this is at best useless and more likely, highly counterproductive.
I think we’re agreed, but “don’t give them another excuse” is exactly the kind of thing I’m seeing from centrists re: trans rights so I wanted to nip that one right in the bud. That kind of...
I think we’re agreed, but “don’t give them another excuse” is exactly the kind of thing I’m seeing from centrists re: trans rights so I wanted to nip that one right in the bud. That kind of thinking is a losing battle.
I fear Alex Garland's Civil War from this year will become increasingly prophetical.. Are there much if any instances in history where political violence did not beget more violence?
I fear Alex Garland's Civil War from this year will become increasingly prophetical..
Are there much if any instances in history where political violence did not beget more violence?
Yes. Wars do end. Another example is that the frequent bombings in the US in the 1970s by groups like the Weather Underground eventually just died out. (I read an article about that once but can’t...
Yes. Wars do end. Another example is that the frequent bombings in the US in the 1970s by groups like the Weather Underground eventually just died out.
(I read an article about that once but can’t find it now.)
It's what keeps entering my mind as well - specifically the point that the girl makes about her parents pretending that there isn't a civil war happening. When they enter that hunky dory police...
It's what keeps entering my mind as well - specifically the point that the girl makes about her parents pretending that there isn't a civil war happening.
When they enter that hunky dory police state town, I got the same goosebumps. Why people see micro-feifdoms as more desirable than a functioning federation is always a mystery to me
It’s indefensible no matter who the target is — I would like to think that goes without saying but I am seeing a lot of victim blaming.
In this particular case? Maybe. But the line gets drawn somewhere, and I hope it's before the doorknockers start patrols.
Pretty sure I'll be having cake the day Matt Gatze drops dead, regardless of how that happens.
Will you and those like you apologize to those that die if you get your wish?
Will you be eating cake if he’s taken out in a bomb blast? What about a mass shooting? What about the retaliatory violence that follows?
There’s lots and lots of history of all sorts of political violence, and almost none of it is “And then they died and everything got better”. Often it’s the start of a very long period of very violent actions leading to the deaths of at last thousands, and then, usually after a few of the batards that started it and thousands more who would have given anything to not be involved are dead, it might get better.
Political violence of this nature is not “winning”. It’s watching the wheels fall off. I don’t give much of a damn if Matt has a stroke and drops dead and may not even feel that bad for the people who did love him and have to deal with the consequences, but the moment people are dying from political violence EVERYONE should be damn worried.
If you’re suggesting that we’re in the verge of patrol’s then I hope you realize Matt going out in a fireball is only accelerating that path.
You're still in a spiral of violence if your side just sits there and lets the other side do violence to you.
I read an interesting comment once somewhere to the effect that failing to defend yourself against an aggressor is not non-violence, but in fact enables and encourages further violence.
Is there any reasonable way to frame making bomb threats against cabinet appointees as "defending oneself against an aggressor"?
I don't know how I feel about the specific actions that we're discussing in this thread, but here's my way of framing it like you asked:
If you know that what they've said they're going to do once they're in power will lead to great suffering for you and yours, disrupting their rise to power is defending against their promised actions.
I can see that under a dictatorship, but under a democracy I can’t accept that as reasonable. The place to “disrupt their rise to power” is at the voting booth.
Under a democracy, where a majority of voters have freely elected a government? That argument is just a justification for terrorism.
Also, is this actually disrupting their rise to power? I don't think so, any more than Hamas lobbing rockets over the wall is doing anything to defeat Israel.
Even ignoring effectiveness or morality, a violent change in status quo seldom give place to democracy. These groups are structured through violence and, if successful, they will have learned that violence works. They're not giving it up.
Intentions are almost irrelevant. A coup will lead to more coups, violence will lead to more viiolence and instability. Anyone thinking otherwise should take a look at Latin America.
Once democracy is out of the picture, all bets are off.
Just because the majority wants something doesn’t make it right. You seem to be arguing that if the majority has voted to violate the rights of some group, that group is obligated to accept it.
I never said it made it right, and I never said that anyone is obliged to accept it. What I said is that the only legitimate way to change it is at the voting booth, not through violence. This doesn't preclude lobbying, protesting, or other non-violent political activities. It precludes terrorism.
Since when is terrorism in a liberal democracy considered to be a reasonable option? I'm fairly distressed at some of the opinions in this thread.
I’m not sure why you think the US under Trump is going to be a liberal democracy. He and his gang have made no secret of their intention to ensure that it is no such thing.
I’m not sure how a government that is formed by terrorism is going to be somehow better than anything Trump could create.
Put another way, we can’t save democracy by abandoning democracy.
I doubt that letting fascists do as they please will save democracy.
Seems like a bit of a strawman. There’s a vast gulf between “letting them do as they please” and becoming a terrorist.
I know we're on the verge of patrols. They've told us as much. A literal white supremacist is heading up the deportation effort. It's only a question of who they're rounding up first, and in what order. Immigrants of all flavors are likely at the forefront, but gays and Jews aren't far behind.
We are. The problem is that there are idiots like my brother welcoming the patrols with open arms.
The "no political violence" ship sailed on Jan 6th. The fact that nothing tangible came in the wake over the course of 4 years shows that we're already a failed state.
Frankly, if political violence is what it takes so my grandkids don't need to do monthly active shooter drills the way my kids do, I'm all for it. Because what's been happening "peacefully" for the last 20 obviously hasn't been working.
Peaceful resolution of conflict can only occur if both sides are coming to the table in good faith.
As of right now, I mostly see what's happening as them getting a taste of their own medicine....see 'your body, my choice'.
I'm seriously conflicted. I feel like I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance, but I'm not, it's more that I'm seeing a complex situation in which two things which oppose each other are true at the same time.
Political violence leads to a downward death spiral, or at least an escalation of violence-begets-violence in a society. Civil war is has gone from a fictional notion to a legitimate fear. At the same time, if one faction is willing to threaten, break the law, use intimidation and even kill while the other faction sticks to the moral high ground and does not 'do unto others'... if the violent faction feels no compunction or shame over their actions, if they are not going to self-limit, then... I guess just look to the historical imagery of Tienanmen Square. Tanks crushing student protesters into meat paste to obscure the number of casualties, then re-writing history under penalty of whatever it takes to make people fear to even mention the location or the date of June 4th.
As to this:
It isn't like we don't have a great big glaring historical precedent.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
-Pastor Martin Niemöller, a eulogy of past silences, Germany, 1946.
Americans have this romantic idea of violent revolutions because we had one of the few successful ones but the vast majority just lead to just endless cycles of violence and death until a strongman steps in to stop the chaos. Nine times out of 10 you don’t end up with a nice liberal democracy, you end up with something worse than what you started with.
Political violence will not give your grandkids peace.
If nothing is done to stop the current path to Dictator Trump, you're definitely right.
At this point, the rule of law is eroding. The courts have been replaced with a circuit of cronies whom have given the president nearly unlimited authority. If Congress does not oppose him, democracy is dead. Peaceful resistance has failed.
The choice then is revolt or complacence. And at least with revolt, there is a chance to undo the damage when the violence is over.
Congress just killed the gaetz nomination.
The Republican majority is tiny. Trump is old and lazy.
You are correct that we are on a precipice but there are some steps yet to go before fascism. Hitler relied on the enabling act that gave him dictator authority.
The big question is will the courts protect constitutional rights like habeus corpus.
People like you are asking the question of how far they will go to fight fascism and that is important. However it will be simpler and less costly to deal with if the current maga faithful get a taste of tariffs and vote the bums out.
I'm reminded of the incident where the Soviet missile commander didn't authorize retaliation for what looked like a US missile strike and it turned out that it was not a missile strike.
We can see big trends in history but we can't predict the details and those details matter a lot.
And that's about half of the goal of Project 2025: to further empower the executive branch to "drain the swamp." As I saw on Mastodon: People don't write a 900+ page manifesto then add "just kidding" at the end. The explicit goal is to give Trump dictatoral powers.
They're using doublespeak where the problem is that the federal agencies are not beholden to Congress, so therefore the Executive Branch needs to overpower Congress to fix it.
The courts have already decided that the president can't be prosecuted. There is little standing in the way, and I'm doubtful any of the rest of Trump's nominees get tanked, especially if Congress goes to recess.
They haven't introduced the equivalent enabling act because nobody has been sworn in yet. That's why there has been a long-overdue rush to get as many judges in place as possible. It won't get introduced until Trump is sworn in because otherwise it would die on the spot.
All hope is not lost, but if saving democracy relies on Republicans breaking party lines then it is a very, very frail hope.
The president and his cronies are malevolent, no question.
The next six months are critical and you are right it could all go to hell.
Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party left him with a lot of enemies. He made more enemies during his first presidency.
I am waiting to see how the Senate responds to him. Those guys have 6 year terms and when Trump dies maga will lose focus and coherence as a movement.
The supreme court is another wild card.
Another wild card is the fact that members of the military swear to defend the constitution.
Sometimes when you have a losing hand you have to play it out anyway and hope something changes or that you don't have all the facts.
I kinda agree with you and the guy pointing out political violence just leads to more violence. But I'm leaning more towards at some point the side that is trying to persecute a large amount of people keeps pushing it, there is no real avoiding a shitty situation either way and people need to be able to defend themselves.
It is better to do a peaceful resolution. But it comes a point where that is impossible without just allowing many innocents to suffer at the hands of tyrants. And sadly we are very close to the point that the only way out is violence. But I really don't want that to be the case :(.
That being said, I see nothing good out of bombing the politicians. This will only create martyrs and give them more excuse and push more the populace to agree with them. Which means even less chance of a peaceful resolution and not going into full facism complete with internment camps.
In general yes, it is far far better to find a peaceful resolution. But when one side is determined to bring violence to other groups and they have the power... you get to a point that you cannot get a peaceful resolution without just allowing other groups to be killed off. At some point people will have to fight back if one group is totally not interested in that peaceful resolution and is determined to kill them off.
But I do agree with you that Matt or whoever going out in a bomb blast at this point is just going to accelerate that path and give them more excuse. I don't think it will do anything to stop it.
As usual, it's all complicated and messy and there are no definitive right answers.
The big problem is violence is the perfect excuse to ramp up the dictatorship. There's a reason the False Flag is a tried and tested successful strategy politically and militarily. If you want an excuse to go hot and bring the big guns to bear, you just take one in the gut, then straighten up and gasp "see, see what they did? Get'em!"
It rarely doesn't work. At least in the near term, it usually does work.
But, after the fact (which doesn't often help the present much if at all), the truth can trickle out. History can sometimes find that truth, even if it takes a long time.
A false flag might buy enough confusion and cover to go hot and heavy and roll the big guns, but in a few months, maybe a year, if it starts to become more obvious it was a false flag, that can have tremendously dangerous implications. Always better for the truth to be on your side. If you can actually have them hit you first, why, you're the defender. You're the righteous one! Easy narrative, very clear.
There are people thinking about False Flag scenarios. Some of them are smart enough to realize it's a risk, that the truth could leak and turn things against them. They might win the battle, but lose the war, if they use a False Flag to kick things off en route to a dictatorship.
For example, there might be scenarios where other governments will be appalled and very eager to offer help, if political violence by "the minority" targets "the sitting American Government". But some of those governments might withdraw their support if it comes out that the whole thing was a lie. That's the easy example.
Where does that leave us if Project2025 isn't a lie? If they are planning to run the table with their list and implement an autocratic oligarchy?
Well, to play the "good guy game", to maintain "the high ground", you have to do something very hard. You have to let them punch you in the gut.
Except, it's not you. Probably not me. But it'll be someone. Somewhere, some group, some town, some court, some something, will be targeted. It'll be obvious. It'll not be a secret. Lots of people will know it's coming. It'll be something like a standoff. Maybe, for example, over a court.
As the example, Trump might target the New York courts that have hounded him unsuccessfully since 2020. He might get to the point of ordering troops in to arrest judges or jurors, to round up district attorneys, that kind of thing. He'll probably be loud and proud about it. "Kneel to me, turn them over, or I'll send people to just take them by force."
It could be an immigrant group, or a Leftist group, a "hotbed of filthy traitorous commie liberals", something like that. They warn, they'll probably warn a few times, they'll stage troops or showcase the bombs or whatever. It'll be real obvious. They'll want the fear to kick in. They'll hope for everyone to bend the knee and just take it. To just say "okay, take them, not us." For everyone to stand aside and let that kind of shit happen.
And before it actually has started happening, the tough impossible strategy will be to let it happen. Military strategy is to strike first, to minimize damage. If you know the enemy is going to attack, you don't just sit there waiting.
Unless you need cover. Deniability. The high ground. Then you have to sit there and take it. You have to let them cross the border. Or, here, the line. It won't really matter to everyone, especially on the world stage but also internally on the domestic front, how clear and obvious it might be that Trump and the P25 douches were going to start committing war crimes, start ignoring the rule of law at the barrel of a gun.
It should, but it won't. Not to all of them. Not to everyone. Some people, some governments, if it's not crystal clear that the dictators initiated the violence, will decline to help. Will decline to join the fight against the dictators.
That's the long term need. Win the war, not the battle.
If the P25 douches are serious, they'll push it through, and probably pause to see how stupid their enemies are. If those enemies do the tactically expedient thing and strike first out of defense, that could very well lose the war on the strategic front. Because it muddies everything up.
When they start rolling hot, someone somewhere is going to have to take that first gut punch. It's going to suck, totally suck. People will die, who knew they were likely to die, and they'll still die anyway. They'll have to let the troops fire into the crowd before they open up in return, they'll have to let the bomb go off, they'll have to let the missile launch. Whatever it is, they'll have to sit there and wait for the dictator douches to swing first.
Once they do, all hell breaks loose and who knows what'll happen. Definitely a historical moment, and living through history always sucks. It's neat and interesting to read about after the fact, but when you're in the middle of it there's no fun for anyone. But in this modern age, with people who like to play multidimensional chess with everyone's lives simply over politics and power, swinging first could very likely lose the war.
If things are as messy as they probably will be, the "good guys" will want all the truth there is to muster as support. Striking first just creates the excuse the dictators want. If they're going to go hot, make them go hot. Make them prove they want it.
Make them show the color of their flag.
This goes for the supreme court also. Make them demonstrate that they are giving legal cover to dictatorship and abandoning the constitution
Good points. Though hard to take if you are one of the ones in line to be punched first :(.
I worry about harassment of government officials happening more often. Democrats get harassed too. Without getting into what started it, it would be bad for it to become normal. It's not a good trend.
I don't know what sort of lines can be drawn. Hopefully law enforcement will have some effect?
That'd be great. But what I see is the natural progression of what happens when the legigislature and the courts care more about ideology than practicality, and thus we have a swath of appointments specifically tasked with dismantling most of the government.
It doesn't help that the DOGE twins are trolls with a habit of stochastic terror.
There's also the chilling effect on privacy and anonymity online - expect more calls for real IDs, secret ISP warrants, permalogging, etc. "Good citizens" are going to be living with their curtains open, while the shitty ones hide in plain sight.
[No, I'm not okay.]
Hang in there.
You are not alone.
Absolutely. For a society to work, people (even shitheads) need assurance that their and their family's safety isn't in jeopardy.
Trump heavily invested in political violence. He's getting returns on his investment.
Which sucks, because it is possible this will end up as a 'new normal'.
Political violence is not new, but I 100% agree that each additional instance sucks for the reason you mentioned: violence normalizes violence.
Somewhere I read a really good analogy of how our minds go wrong with this. When we think of violence, we're wired to think of good versus evil, knights slaying dragons, stuff like that. When a dragon kills one of the townsfolk, that's because the dragon is evil. And when a knight kills one of the dragons, well, the dragon had it coming. Killing the dragon solves the problem.
But in reality, violence is less like a dragon and more like Godzilla. It's not glamorous. Every day he shows up and tramples several city blocks. Some days he tramples more, some days less. Sometimes a different giant monster shows up and fights Godzilla, and even more of the city gets destroyed than usual. Your life is now all about surviving between monster attacks. That's the new normal.
And the problem is whenever people commit violence, they think they're killing an evil dragon, when they're actually waking Godzilla.
I do love your analogy, however history shows time and again that if only one side perpetuates the violence, they win.
I liken it more like fire. You can choose to not fight the fire, but then you're at the mercy of it.
Trumpites: "We're gonna sic the military on Democrats!"
Also Trumpites: "Why are you threatening me?"
From the article:
...
...
I'd guess that many police are pretty skeptical about swatting by now? But besides the danger to its targets, this is effectively a denial of service attack on law enforcement.
This is not the way. It's just going to provide justification for their next round of crackdowns.
No need for justification when you can just make it up (see also: everything the right has said about trans people).
I agree that making stuff up is a key pillar of the Republican strategy, but that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter.
I would also argue that sending bomb threats (in addition to being wrong) has no strategic upside.
That is under the (not unreasonable) assumption that this wasn’t the work of Trump supporters or bored teenagers just causing trouble.
If it was opponents of Trump, I agree that this is at best useless and more likely, highly counterproductive.
I think we’re agreed, but “don’t give them another excuse” is exactly the kind of thing I’m seeing from centrists re: trans rights so I wanted to nip that one right in the bud. That kind of thinking is a losing battle.
I fear Alex Garland's Civil War from this year will become increasingly prophetical..
Are there much if any instances in history where political violence did not beget more violence?
Yes. Wars do end. Another example is that the frequent bombings in the US in the 1970s by groups like the Weather Underground eventually just died out.
(I read an article about that once but can’t find it now.)
It's what keeps entering my mind as well - specifically the point that the girl makes about her parents pretending that there isn't a civil war happening.
When they enter that hunky dory police state town, I got the same goosebumps. Why people see micro-feifdoms as more desirable than a functioning federation is always a mystery to me