Great article! Knew about inRange already but this was a fascinating deep dive into one of the events. I've wanted to do a brutality match for a while, seems like a good physical challenge.
Great article! Knew about inRange already but this was a fascinating deep dive into one of the events. I've wanted to do a brutality match for a while, seems like a good physical challenge.
When inside of a genocidal regime, the end result is only two groups: perpetrators or victims. Better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state.
When inside of a genocidal regime, the end result is only two groups: perpetrators or victims.
Better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state.
I don't think one should be so cavalier about calling for civil war. Also: better to fight the (supposed putative) perpetrators before they even do anything?
I don't think one should be so cavalier about calling for civil war. Also: better to fight the (supposed putative) perpetrators before they even do anything?
It's not calling for civil war. It's seeing the inevitable endgame and knowing that people who are prepared tend to fare much better than those whom are not. Not sure if you've noticed, but...
It's not calling for civil war. It's seeing the inevitable endgame and knowing that people who are prepared tend to fare much better than those whom are not.
Also: better to fight the (supposed putative) perpetrators before they even do anything?
Not sure if you've noticed, but they've certainly been doing things. Auschwitz wasn't built in a day. And ours is selling commemorative t-shirts.
The end state is when the current crop of victims runs out and the perpetrators switch to a batch of bystanders that was just previously quietly avoiding them.
We're already at the point radio genocide could kick on at any moment.
The RTLM reported the latest massacres, victories, and political events in a way that promoted their anti-Tutsi agenda. In an attempt to dehumanize and degrade, the RTLM consistently referred to Tutsis and the RPF as 'cockroaches' during their broadcasts.
Sounds a lot like Fox News and the ilk doesn't it, if you just sub out Tutsis and RPF with Immigrants and Palastinians.
Okay, but you didn't say "be prepared," you said "better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state." (Emphasis in the original.) More broadly I really struggle with figuring out how to...
It's not calling for civil war. It's seeing the inevitable endgame and knowing that people who are prepared tend to fare much better than those whom are not.
Okay, but you didn't say "be prepared," you said "better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state." (Emphasis in the original.)
More broadly I really struggle with figuring out how to respond to some of this. Like, are you arguing that radio genocide might actually happen in America at any moment or are you just expressing (justified) frustration at the state of American discourse?
Yes. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that if Trump said on his social media "$5,000 and a pardon to anybody who kills a Mexican or a trans groomer" today, that there wouldn't be a...
Like, are you arguing that radio genocide might actually happen in America at any moment
Yes. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that if Trump said on his social media "$5,000 and a pardon to anybody who kills a Mexican or a trans groomer" today, that there wouldn't be a pile of bodies tomorrow?
The followup being, how far fetched from reality is that post. And given his administration's respect for the law, and the rhetoric so far, I bet we got 2 years at most.
Yes, I expect there would be murders if the President of the United States offered cash rewards and criminal immunity for murdering people. What on earth does that prove? It’s a completely...
Yes, I expect there would be murders if the President of the United States offered cash rewards and criminal immunity for murdering people.
What on earth does that prove? It’s a completely fabricated scenario. It’s like in your other post when you wrote that history has shown that civil war is preferable to genocide. I agree! But fortunately those aren’t our options.
More specifically, let’s talk about the radio genocide analogy. I don’t know why it irritated me so much, I’m probably taking it far too seriously. But claiming radio genocide could start broadcasting any day in America only makes sense on the most superficial reading of the Rwandan genocide, one in which one hasn’t taken much away other than “the guys on the radio in Rwanda called an ethnic group cockroaches, and it’s true that far-right media personalities in America call immigrants bad names, so… I guess it could happen here!”
In practice it doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint (the bad part wasn’t “they’re cockroaches,” the bad part was “go outside and kill them right now, kill them with machetes, kill them now,” which is… rather illegal in America); from a practical standpoint (RTLM was the news source in Rwanda - listened to by an absolute majority of the population, who were mostly could not read, mostly did not have televisions, and overall had no other sources of information); or from a historical standpoint (the Tutsis, who were the victims of the genocide, were a numerical minority but had been placed in power over the Hutus by colonial administrators. This was particularly important because the Hutu and Tutsi had been feuding for hundreds/thousands of years prior to external overlords putting the Tutsi in charge. The genocide was sparked immediately after the ethnically-Hutu postcolonial president of Rwanda was assassinated, probably by a Tutsi rebel group based in neighboring then-Zaire).
Obviously I’m not going to convince you. This post is primarily for others who might be reading it. If President Trump orders a Rwanda-style genocide to begin in America within the next two years, I will come back to apologize, though I doubt that’ll mean much to either of us.
While I understand there are substantial differences, I do not think they obviate the very real possibility of it happening here. In a sane world, if the POTUS did that, he would be...
While I understand there are substantial differences, I do not think they obviate the very real possibility of it happening here. In a sane world, if the POTUS did that, he would be instantaneously removed from office and very few people would die. I'm more confident Elon Musk would setup a leaderboard and Fox News would be sharing heartwarming stories of brave heros shooting up gay nightclubs instead.
If you had told me in Jan 2011 that in 10 years the president of the USA would have been found to be trying to defraud an election, stage a coup when that failed, serve no real punishment, then 4 years later get elected because the world'a richest man setup an outright bribery scheme, promptly pardoned all insurrectionists, and setup concentration camps in El Salvador and Flordia, I'd have looked at you like you had 12 eyes. And then you'd have to tell me how they're just nabbing people off the streets, talking about suspending habeous corpus, and calling their moderate political opponents 'the enemy within.'
It hasn't even been 1 year. There are 3 more to go before we have complete constitutional crisis.
It is a hopeless misjudgement to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the [German] nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.
Those were the infamous words of Benno Reifenberg, said less than a year before Hitler completed his seizure of power.
(Also while I would prefer the genocides don't occur, if they do; everyone who is currently being told they're being hyperbolic would certainly appreciate an apology)
Judging from history, if the choice is between civil war and genocide, civil war is exponentially better. Reminder that our presidential cabinet is full of white supremacists.
Judging from history, if the choice is between civil war and genocide, civil war is exponentially better.
Reminder that our presidential cabinet is full of white supremacists.
To be very very clear. Are you or are you not advocating for violence against supposed perpetrators. Because "they've" is a really really really dangerous and important definition once you are.
Not sure if you've noticed, but they've certainly been doing things. Auschwitz wasn't built in a day. And ours is selling commemorative t-shirts.
To be very very clear.
Are you or are you not advocating for violence against supposed perpetrators. Because "they've" is a really really really dangerous and important definition once you are.
They've, in this context, is the people committing genocide. The Trump regime hasn't (to the best of our knowledge) pulled the trigger on any genocide. But all of the groundwork has been laid. I...
They've, in this context, is the people committing genocide.
The Trump regime hasn't (to the best of our knowledge) pulled the trigger on any genocide. But all of the groundwork has been laid.
And those are? Who are you actually going to start shooting, because you seem to refuse to say you're not advocating for that? How easy is it to spot? What about people who disagree with you? What...
They've, in this context, is the people committing genocide.
And those are? Who are you actually going to start shooting, because you seem to refuse to say you're not advocating for that? How easy is it to spot? What about people who disagree with you? What about people who don't know better? What about people just trying to keep their head down? What about their parents/spouses/children?
Violence does not believe in nuance and these caviler casual fantasy revolution calls disgust me. You are calling for the deaths of thousands if not millions of innocents should something like this occur, and the best you can give me is some "well obviously the bad guys" answer.
When people with guns show up planning to kill people, NO ONE is certain they're not going to somehow fit the definition they've supposedly decided on in their head of who deserves to die.
And to be absolutely clear I AGREE that people should probably arm and train themselves at this point because even if unlikely it will be horrible if something goes wrong, but I think it's dangerous and naive to be talking about it so casually and cleanly as if its not going to wind up with a shitload of blood in the streets. Its the same propaganda the military will use to make you think that combat is going to be some clean surgical "only bad guys die" thing and its just not reality.
That is kind of the point of what I meant about the end state of a genocidal state. The only safe people will be those committing the genocide. Anybody not actively doing it will become a target...
NO ONE is certain they're not going to somehow fit the definition they've supposedly decided on in their head of who deserves to die.
That is kind of the point of what I meant about the end state of a genocidal state. The only safe people will be those committing the genocide. Anybody not actively doing it will become a target when the current victimized group runs out. I was using state like "state of matter."
The first state is laying the groundwork, by dehumanizing an other (immigrants and LGBT). The second is the actual start of the genocide. There will be perpetrators, observers, and victims. The end state is they run out of victims and the perpetrators set sight on some observers to be the new ones.
FWIW I never said to go out and start shooting people. Fighting does not exclusively mean shooting. It also means preventing secret masked police from snatching people off the street. It means preventing the actual genocide from starting or continuing.
It would be preferable if the legitimate military/police would stop the secret police. But based on our trajectory that's probably not happening.
The only explicit advice I have: If you're in a group that's likely to get the old snatch and grab, better to learn to shoot now.
Great article! Knew about inRange already but this was a fascinating deep dive into one of the events. I've wanted to do a brutality match for a while, seems like a good physical challenge.
When inside of a genocidal regime, the end result is only two groups: perpetrators or victims.
Better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state.
I don't think one should be so cavalier about calling for civil war. Also: better to fight the (supposed putative) perpetrators before they even do anything?
It's not calling for civil war. It's seeing the inevitable endgame and knowing that people who are prepared tend to fare much better than those whom are not.
Not sure if you've noticed, but they've certainly been doing things. Auschwitz wasn't built in a day. And ours is selling commemorative t-shirts.
The end state is when the current crop of victims runs out and the perpetrators switch to a batch of bystanders that was just previously quietly avoiding them.
We're already at the point radio genocide could kick on at any moment.
Sounds a lot like Fox News and the ilk doesn't it, if you just sub out Tutsis and RPF with Immigrants and Palastinians.
Okay, but you didn't say "be prepared," you said "better to fight the perpetrators before it hits that state." (Emphasis in the original.)
More broadly I really struggle with figuring out how to respond to some of this. Like, are you arguing that radio genocide might actually happen in America at any moment or are you just expressing (justified) frustration at the state of American discourse?
Yes. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that if Trump said on his social media "$5,000 and a pardon to anybody who kills a Mexican or a trans groomer" today, that there wouldn't be a pile of bodies tomorrow?
The followup being, how far fetched from reality is that post. And given his administration's respect for the law, and the rhetoric so far, I bet we got 2 years at most.
Yes, I expect there would be murders if the President of the United States offered cash rewards and criminal immunity for murdering people.
What on earth does that prove? It’s a completely fabricated scenario. It’s like in your other post when you wrote that history has shown that civil war is preferable to genocide. I agree! But fortunately those aren’t our options.
More specifically, let’s talk about the radio genocide analogy. I don’t know why it irritated me so much, I’m probably taking it far too seriously. But claiming radio genocide could start broadcasting any day in America only makes sense on the most superficial reading of the Rwandan genocide, one in which one hasn’t taken much away other than “the guys on the radio in Rwanda called an ethnic group cockroaches, and it’s true that far-right media personalities in America call immigrants bad names, so… I guess it could happen here!”
In practice it doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint (the bad part wasn’t “they’re cockroaches,” the bad part was “go outside and kill them right now, kill them with machetes, kill them now,” which is… rather illegal in America); from a practical standpoint (RTLM was the news source in Rwanda - listened to by an absolute majority of the population, who were mostly could not read, mostly did not have televisions, and overall had no other sources of information); or from a historical standpoint (the Tutsis, who were the victims of the genocide, were a numerical minority but had been placed in power over the Hutus by colonial administrators. This was particularly important because the Hutu and Tutsi had been feuding for hundreds/thousands of years prior to external overlords putting the Tutsi in charge. The genocide was sparked immediately after the ethnically-Hutu postcolonial president of Rwanda was assassinated, probably by a Tutsi rebel group based in neighboring then-Zaire).
Obviously I’m not going to convince you. This post is primarily for others who might be reading it. If President Trump orders a Rwanda-style genocide to begin in America within the next two years, I will come back to apologize, though I doubt that’ll mean much to either of us.
While I understand there are substantial differences, I do not think they obviate the very real possibility of it happening here. In a sane world, if the POTUS did that, he would be instantaneously removed from office and very few people would die. I'm more confident Elon Musk would setup a leaderboard and Fox News would be sharing heartwarming stories of brave heros shooting up gay nightclubs instead.
If you had told me in Jan 2011 that in 10 years the president of the USA would have been found to be trying to defraud an election, stage a coup when that failed, serve no real punishment, then 4 years later get elected because the world'a richest man setup an outright bribery scheme, promptly pardoned all insurrectionists, and setup concentration camps in El Salvador and Flordia, I'd have looked at you like you had 12 eyes. And then you'd have to tell me how they're just nabbing people off the streets, talking about suspending habeous corpus, and calling their moderate political opponents 'the enemy within.'
It hasn't even been 1 year. There are 3 more to go before we have complete constitutional crisis.
Those were the infamous words of Benno Reifenberg, said less than a year before Hitler completed his seizure of power.
(Also while I would prefer the genocides don't occur, if they do; everyone who is currently being told they're being hyperbolic would certainly appreciate an apology)
Also, it's a deterrent. No one wants war, but it won't even be one if targeted minorities do not know their way around a weapon.
Judging from history, if the choice is between civil war and genocide, civil war is exponentially better.
Reminder that our presidential cabinet is full of white supremacists.
To be very very clear.
Are you or are you not advocating for violence against supposed perpetrators. Because "they've" is a really really really dangerous and important definition once you are.
They've, in this context, is the people committing genocide.
The Trump regime hasn't (to the best of our knowledge) pulled the trigger on any genocide. But all of the groundwork has been laid.
I highly reccomend The Unforgivable Sins of Ms Rachel.
And those are? Who are you actually going to start shooting, because you seem to refuse to say you're not advocating for that? How easy is it to spot? What about people who disagree with you? What about people who don't know better? What about people just trying to keep their head down? What about their parents/spouses/children?
Violence does not believe in nuance and these caviler casual fantasy revolution calls disgust me. You are calling for the deaths of thousands if not millions of innocents should something like this occur, and the best you can give me is some "well obviously the bad guys" answer.
When people with guns show up planning to kill people, NO ONE is certain they're not going to somehow fit the definition they've supposedly decided on in their head of who deserves to die.
And to be absolutely clear I AGREE that people should probably arm and train themselves at this point because even if unlikely it will be horrible if something goes wrong, but I think it's dangerous and naive to be talking about it so casually and cleanly as if its not going to wind up with a shitload of blood in the streets. Its the same propaganda the military will use to make you think that combat is going to be some clean surgical "only bad guys die" thing and its just not reality.
That is kind of the point of what I meant about the end state of a genocidal state. The only safe people will be those committing the genocide. Anybody not actively doing it will become a target when the current victimized group runs out. I was using state like "state of matter."
The first state is laying the groundwork, by dehumanizing an other (immigrants and LGBT). The second is the actual start of the genocide. There will be perpetrators, observers, and victims. The end state is they run out of victims and the perpetrators set sight on some observers to be the new ones.
FWIW I never said to go out and start shooting people. Fighting does not exclusively mean shooting. It also means preventing secret masked police from snatching people off the street. It means preventing the actual genocide from starting or continuing.
It would be preferable if the legitimate military/police would stop the secret police. But based on our trajectory that's probably not happening.
The only explicit advice I have: If you're in a group that's likely to get the old snatch and grab, better to learn to shoot now.
https://archive.ph/ctdYa
We’re going on year five of this huh
Meaning what?