I think you may be the only commenter who actually read the post.

Ghandi loved Hitler, so how could his fans not?

I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.

To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.

Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.

Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.

The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.

You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.

The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.

So we can’t curtail the first amendment.

We can’t execute Nazis.

But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.

Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.

What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.

I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣

Everyone dies eventually

Yes, that’s technically true, but maybe not in the way you think.

Everyone dies from something. While yes, as you get older it’s harder to overcome things that seemed trivial when you were younger, in theory you could continue living indefinitely until something kills you. It’s just statistically very unlikely.

That is exactly what was on my mind when I wrote the comment.

While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.

Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.

What about people with terminal, genuinely incurable diseases? I understand not letting people kill themselves just because they want to (since mental illness can compromise your objectivity there) but sometimes it’s less about someone deciding if they’re going to die, and more about how.

Well obviously if you’re fully antinatalist you’re basically working towards human extinction.

But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people. In fact, as someone without kids, I’d happily pay a much higher tax rate so that parents can stay home with their kids. I doubt I’d be a good parent anyways, and so I’d prefer to contribute to society in ways people with families can’t.

The shitty part is that they win either way. Either they get an excuse to escalate or they get to kill a potential movement in its crib. The people aren’t exactly holding any trump cards here.

I recommend you read up on it then. You might find it interesting.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays

the vast majority of people realize what’s going on if an IP starts rambling on about freedom, Jesus, or the thin blue line.

The less subtle ones, yeah. There are more subtle ones, too.

Meanwhile up until recently that wasn’t really true with liberal pandering, and it still isn’t in a lot of spaces.

Maybe we’re just in different spaces then. There’s a reason “bury your gays” is a trope, and it’s not because the lgbt community ate it up. (For the unaware, it’s similar to “the black guy always dies first” but for gay people.)

Part of the problem there is that it’s transparently obvious that the establishment is complicit, regardless of whether they put D or R beside their name. One of the advantages of MAGA (from their perspective) is that you pretty much can’t call yourself a republican unless you’re on board. They’ve taken enough action and done enough bold and divisive things that they’ve forced everyone to make their allegiances crystal clear.

Dems, on the other hand, are (rn) a pretty loose coalition of “people who oppose Trump.” Dems aren’t really allies, they’re just people with a common enemy. And as we all know, “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy, no more and no less.” Those fragile alliances will break the moment anyone tries to challenge the status quo.

There’s a few different ways forward. Some would have been more effective before Trump and his cronies lit the constitution on fire, and some are better suited to the present moment. But we can’t seem to agree on what to do, or to work together to get anything done. Part of the problem is the uncertainty, not knowing where people’s loyalties lie. It’s easy to say in a vacuum that unwillingness to compromise is dumb, but it makes more sense when you realize we’re effectively playing Secret Hitler, and compromise makes you look like the enemy. That doesn’t make it the right call, necessarily, but I understand the impulse.

As for strategies, first and foremost we need to organize. Nothing happens without organization. We should also be reading up on political theory, especially from people we disagree with. (I don’t mean right wing stuff, I mean people with similar goals.) Anarchists should read Lenin. MLs should read Chomsky. Leftists should read liberal stuff and liberals should read leftist stuff. (I know that you think you understand the positions you disagree with. Read it anyways.)

As for strategies, there are several. Some want to reform the Democratic Party. Some want to start a new party. Some believe that insurrection is the only way forward, and that anything less will leave a corrupt system in place, as effective as removing only half of a tumor. All these approaches have drawbacks. All have some merit. Frankly, do whichever you can live with.

The important thing is: support the others whenever you can. Even if you think democracy is dead and there’s no point in voting, do it anyways. Until such time as we think the government will use our voting record against us, it’s only one or two days out of your year. It won’t hurt anything, and there’s a chance it could help.

If you can stomach it, vote tactically. Voting the lesser of two evils might only be slightly reducing harms done, but stalling for time can be really useful sometimes.

Take as much direct action as you can. Remember that while some people can be reasoned with, the people who are actually in power are operating on realpolitik. They will only listen to you if you give them tangible reasons to listen. Might doesn’t make right, but it does shut you up. Or if you’re being suppressed, fighting back will give you the leverage you need to be heard. Don’t let them silence you.

Above all, remember that everyone opposing the establishment (from the left) is your ally. Even if their chosen method is running for office and pushing more progressive legislation. Even if their method is armed resistance. You may not agree, you don’t have to help them, and you might even have to publicly disavow them. But don’t get in their way (as much as you can manage) and don’t rat them out.

Finally, remember what game we are playing. Remember there are traitors. Not everyone who claims to be a Democrat supports democracy. Not everyone who claims to be a Marxist or an Anarchist really is one. Don’t judge people by the labels they wear, watch what they do. If they’re acting in a way that helps you, they’re probably your ally. And if they’re sowing dissent or getting in the way, regardless of how loudly they claim to be on your side, they probably aren’t to be trusted. And definitely don’t draw conclusions about a whole political ideology based on a few people who claim to belong to that ideology, because bad faith actors have every reason to sow dissent in our ranks. Words are easy, don’t trust them.

If we could all coalesce around that basic gameplan, I think we’d have a lot more unity than we do now. You just have to remember we’re playing a social deduction game, and everything becomes an awful lot clearer. At least I think it does.

Honestly? I kind of see it.

Not to be confused with art where the “culture war shit” (as you put it) is central to the project. See: the new She-ra. Celeste. The Owl House. In these projects, the story is actually about marginalized people.

But other times? It’s pretty easy to make your movie, show, game, whatever and then add in some token representation at the end. Rainbow capitalism at its finest. And then people will take sides, not based on the merits of the thing itself, but based on what “team” it looks like they’re on when they defend or criticize the thing. See: Starbucks. Disney. Target.

Or, on the other side of the aisle: Christian music. Christian movies. Literally all of the Trump merch. Black Rifle Coffee. Chick-fil-A. Every Christian college ever founded. Whatever fucking show Tim Allen is in this year, they’re basically all the same. Any cop show.

… still racist to review bomb something just because a black person is in it. But I do see your point - capitalism be pandering. To both sides, usually in different ways.

Not the person you replied to, but…

When the sequel trilogy first came out, I was upset because it could have been a lot better. Looking back on it, though, I think that was a combination of nostalgia and high expectations. That’s the problem all sequels struggle with, really, and the sequel trilogy didn’t hit the mark.

Of the three, The Last Jedi was actually my favorite. I didn’t particularly like what Abrams had done with the first one, and while I didn’t think switching directors in the middle of a trilogy was a terribly good idea, I felt like I could kind of see where Johnson was going with it.

With Abrams, I felt like he was trying to recreate the original trilogy. Use a tried and true formula that worked and not scare the audience too much. It was bland. Uninspired. Corporate. Johnson seemed like he actually had a story to tell. It might not have sit well with the fans - he might take a big swing and miss - but at least I felt like he was trying to create art instead of merely making money.

Honestly I kind of would like to see Johnson’s take on a full sequel trilogy.

Obviously if I could have picked anyone to take on the chief creative direction on the sequel trilogy I’d pick Dave Filoni, but that’s neither here nor there.

That’s certainly part of it. I think another part of it is that political theories are nice and sanitary in a vacuum, but once nation states co-opt them and use them to further their interests things get a whole lot messier.

The statement is that it isn’t a statement. An understatement, if you will.

It’s a big part of looking classy. Why wear a diamond studded gold watch when you can wear a normal looking watch that those in the know will recognize as expensive?

Same principle. You don’t necessarily notice the bag immediately, so when you do notice it you get to appreciate the outfit a second time. There’s layers, which makes it sophisticated. Classy.

Thanks!

I also feel like I might as well fight. I’m single and I don’t have a family (or not really - they’re on the other side and pretty fanatical about it). And I have more to lose than others do. More reason to be angry.

I think it is. Not in a nationalistic sense - we’ve done a lot of harms in the world. Maybe more harm than good, even. But there’s still a lot worth saving here. (USA)

If you just walk around and talk to people on the street, we’re still one of the most progressive people around, despite everything. The US is a melting pot, a country of immigrants, and therefore a fierce battleground for ideas and ideologies. Right now the fascists are in power, but that doesn’t make them the majority.

I really do think that if we get past this, we’ve got the “bones” to create something really great.

And that doesn’t even include American culture. Sure, there’s things I don’t like, but there are some really good parts, too.

We’re loud. Gregarious. We’ll strike up conversations with complete strangers. Most Americans are culturally curious, too - we like to try foods from other places, we’re fond of foreign movies and media, and we have a weird fascination with people who speak other languages (even though most of us only speak English).

Many of us see ourselves as citizens of the world, not just our own country. We like the idea of the US being a “global superhero” standing up for democracy and human rights. I know that’s mostly propaganda, and the real history of US intervention is more about maintaining global capitalism. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We could actually help the UN, defend Ukraine, defend Palestine, push for peace. The cultural groundwork is already there, we just need a more democratic system so that the will of the people is actually followed.

If you look at US history, you’ll see a lot of bad. That’s the nature of the two party system. But we have had some really good times, too. We have had leaders like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Jimmy Carter who have done a lot of good. And that’s just presidents, we’ve also had activists and leaders fighting for what’s right throughout our whole history.

They didn’t spring up from nowhere. Those people have always been here, and they’re just as “American” as the bad ones. In a sense there are two "America"s. There always have been. And, as in every generation, it’s worth fighting for.

I usually write in pen, only reason I’d use pencil is if I know I need to erase.

So… #5 I think. Simple, reliable, easily replaced.