Which is a shame, because outright violence isn’t the only way to fight back, it’s just the easiest to understand.

deleted by creator

The justice system, from the government perspective, is primarily a guard against vigilantism. Once enough people lose faith in the justice system’s ability to enforce the law with at least some degree of honesty and fairness, then the only option people see is to take justice into their own hands.

Goddamn horseshoe theory skewing this metric

That’s exactly how they want it to feel. I don’t think the USA will get out of this unscathed.

That’s why I am okay with the idea that T Rob is liberal.

The Handmaid’s Tale is really happening.

Unfortunately that appears to be the only way to get rid of them. They continually ignore the established laws and protests and " sternly worded emails/letters/phonecalls.

Ohh no, the people have an increasingly hard time to buy the propaganda that keeps them docile and compliant?

Nobody, absolutely nobody could have seen that coming. The democracy looked so healthy just a year ago. /s

The Rest of The World: “duh!”

Its way worse now than when the weathermen were a thing.

Pick up a history book.

Fascists don’t allow fair elections.

Fascists don’t stop when asked politely.

Unfortunately, that 30% is correct.

Arm yourselves and everyone you know. Form networks. Communicate via encrypted messaging apps.

It’s worked to found the nation and gain independence. It worked to ensure slavery ended. It worked in both world wars. Americans have no problem using it in every single country in Latin America and the middle east. What’s good for the goose…

I mean it’s just a poll, but: what kind of violence? Hopefully organised? And what does “back on track” mean anyhow? The past years have shown us that the problem is systemic. Going back means the option for the next asshole to do the same is still there.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

• Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, c. 1787

Not that I think political violence (or violence of any sort, for that matter) should be our first, second, or even thirty-fifth resort, but at a certain point I think one must come to grips with the fact that - whether it fits in with their delicate sensibilities or not - when confronted with an existential peril it does sometimes become necessary to defend oneself. (Fun fact: This is why self-defense can be presented as a valid defense against murder charges!)

Sure, we should absolutely make any and all attempts to be inclusive (Republicans HATE this!) and tolerant (GOP: hiss IT BURNS!) and attempt to reach solutions through education, research, negotiation, compromise and all that lovely (woke?) stuff, but… For some reason, it seems like there’s consistently only one side that ever shows up to the table willing to actually do any of that. And that’s just how it’s been for fucking DECADES now. There’s probably a lot of you (just generally speaking, not necessarily meaning Lemmy’s demographic per se) who aren’t even old enough to remember a time before the GOP began using “government shutdowns” and “debt ceilings” and “literal fucking coup attempts” as part of their standard, day-to-day politicking. Believe it or not (and I know this will probably be the hardest one to buy, but I swear it to be true) there was a time when the Republicans would - even if they WERE NOT in power at the time - STILL SHOW UP AND DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS. I know, what a concept, eh? Imagine going to work every day and just… doing your job, like a fucking idiot, instead of throwing absolute meltdown tantrums over your lack of control over other people’s genitals.

Does any of this strike you as the behavior of (an) entity(ies) engaging in anything even remotely resembling something that could be construed as “good-faith negotiation” - let alone even approaching something as audacious as “compromise?” This isn’t a willing, eager party to an arbitration, quite, is it? No… Something more akin to an assailant with a knife at our throat(s) demanding to inspect our genitals to make sure we’re where they think we should be at the moment certainly sounds more apt to me…

I don’t want there to be violence. Any. At all, really. But at what point does the moral imperative toward nonviolence get outweighed by the moral obligation to the people being kidnapped by masked (supposed) government agents and disappeared to very real, literal concentration camps? How many genocides at once do we need to hit the tipping point where it’s finally acceptable to stand up and say, “That’s enough. This far. No farther.” But actually back that up, for a change.

If that means by force, then unfortunately, so be it. Might doesn’t make right, but that certainly doesn’t preclude it from enforcing it, does it?