Also perpetual outrage is a manipulation tactic used by both sides. If you’re talking about a scenario of people on the left being outraged by behavior on the right, they both use it. The right uses it so people on the left get outrage fatigue and they get distracted from the more secretive corrupt actions because they’re busy focusing on the rage-bait, and the left uses it to drum up media views to increase ad revenue for content creators.
I mean, as long as you are voting, donating money, not cooperating with the system, etc there isn’t much else you can realistically do as an individual from what I can see.
I’m of the opinion that when someone has shown a history such behavior they grant license to interpret the question/comment in whatever way a respondent wishes.
Never. The stupidity of this statement is the fundamental moral flaw of all “revolutionary” thought. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of if you’re not with us, you’re against us. I don’t subscribe to it coming out of the mouth of TFG. I didn’t subscribe to it coming from Dubya. It wasn’t a moral philosophy coming out of the propaganda organs of the National Liberation Front, the Shining Path, the Pathet Lao or the Khmer Rouge.
Sorry, people are morally allowed to not give a fuck about your revolution without deserving to be lined up against the wall and shot because they wouldn’t pick up a gun to fight for you. But that’s the problem with shitty revolutions. They fundamentally can’t allow people to not pick a side, or they wouldn’t succeed.
So if you’re watching TV in unbothered bliss knowing full well that there’s a concentration camp on the other side of the woods, or that your neighbors are being dragged from their homes to be executed in one right at that moment, no level of moral judgment is appropriate? I find that a little hard to believe.
I think it’s a lot to expect individuals, much less entire populations to set aside their evolutionary instinct for self-preservation and invite terror and violence on themselves and their families by standing up for a cause for which they are sure to die.
When people do that kind of thing, we call them heroes. We marvel at their courage. Is everybody supposed to be a hero?
All Germans in 1945 deserved to be slaughtered because they did not fight the Nazis who wanted to slaughter them too but didn’t quite get around to it before the Allies stopped their clock?
When your enemies and your enemy’s enemies both want to kill you for your moral failings, you’re well and truly screwed.
Whenever I hear the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” I always think of the same scenario. I am walking down the street and someone attacks me. There are 19 other people nearby. Would I rather have those 19 other people do nothing and just watch, or the 19 other people join my attacker and have all 20 people attacking me at once? The difference between someone that watches and someone that actively participates in my assault is absolutely massive. To the point that the entire phrase “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” is clearly moronic. It exists entirely as a manipulation tactic. It is like saying, “If you don’t join my religion you are going to hell.” “If you are not with us, you’re against us” is a threat. The person saying it is letting you know that they will mistreat you if you don’t join their cause. The person saying it is showing their desire to be a tyrant and I usually worry far more about those people than whatever they are fighting against.
I think there could be a breaking point and have faith in the American People.
As long as his stupid horribly detrimental to the USA policies, which I oppose, are within his legal authority as the democratically elected President. Not much you can do. Of course vote for Democrats and peacefully protest.
Many of his stupidity is being challenged in the Judicial branch. What happens if even the Supreme Court decides against him and he says “Fuck off. I’m doing it any way”
What if the Legislative Branch grows some balls and tries to put the brakes on some of his most stupid things and he says “Fuck off, I’m doing it any way.
When he declares himself President for Life, cancels elections, orders the arrest of Democrat office holders, and orders the military to “ensure law and order “ in all the blue cities.
My faith in the American people, including rank and file federal law enforcement and military would tell him to Fuck off. And the Secret Service will remember they swore an oath the defend Constitution of the United States, not a person.
Wishful thinking maybe. Guess I’m an optimist. Coups have been foiled by the people just saying no. Well they fill the streets with protests etc.
Impressive misreading of what I wrote. Reread the OP. He is asking, and I quote:
Sorry, normal people who just want to go about their everyday lives instead of joining in on your revolution don’t become worthy of being lined up against the wall and shot when The Revolution comes.
They get it.
They get it.
They get it.
They get it.
Again, this is the tactic of shitty violent revolutions throughout history. There’s a reason why the National Liberation Front wouldn’t allow the leaders of villages in Vietnam to let their villages not take a side and would threaten them to pay taxes to the Viet Cong shadow government and execute them and their families if they didn’t. If you let people not take a side in your glorious violent revolution, odds are the revolution won’t succeed. It’s better that they are enemies worthy of extermination than to allow them to not participate. @Procacious has it spot on. “If you’re not with us you’re against us” is a threat, not a slogan. Sorry, I wasn’t pro-terrorist because I didn’t support the US invading Iraq in 2003 no matter how many right-wing nut jobs said I was.
And the OP is explicitly clear that his “if you’re not with us you’re against us” is a threat. What do fuck you think being deserving of being put up against the wall the Revolution comes means? It means deserving of being executed when the Revolution takes charge. Fuck that.
Once again, the language of the OP really ignores the huge realm in the middle between the two sides. I don’t ascribe to the POV where those who take no action are absolved of responsibility, nor do they carry the same guilt as those actively destroying Democracy. I do admit however, that the eventual winners of such conflicts will sometimes make such an absolutist judgement, causing much bloodshed.
We had a troubled thread with many similarities that began with the sparking point of Trump 2.0:
Repeating one of my quotes from the cited thread (I spell it out in more detail later, but this serves)
So yes, complacency can be an abrogation of responsibility. And that’s not consequence free, or judgement free (from me, others differ) - but it’s not in any way equivalent.
Yes, this. There’s an extremely large grey area between “don’t hold them responsible at all” and “mass murder them”.
Also as a practical matter, there’s few better reasons for supporting a regime against revolutionaries than “if the rebels win, they’ve said they’ll kill us all”.
In many societies in recent times the option that has often been favored in reconstruction/reform has been what’s called a “Truth and Reconciliation” process, which seeks to aim the reconstruction away from generalized mass revenge purges and scores-settling, and instead towards restorative justice. This Reconciliation however is NOT “forgive and forget”, because it demands the first part, the “Truth”, the recognition of what DID factually happen and how it WAS in fact WRONG and who was responsible. That, in order to prevent Lost Cause or Dolchstoßlegende narratives arising to deny that the old regime deserved to fall.