- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s— is out of control.”
“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”
We need a fucking purge. These people need to go.
You’re not helping
Why’s that? Because I’m not stupid enough, or in denial enough to see just how dangerous these people are? What, we’re supposed to sit around and laugh at them, and act like they’re nobody while they orchestrate another domestic terrorist attack?
Precisely because they are dangerous! They want to purge you, too; don’t escalate things and hand them an opportunity.
They’re talking about KILLING PEOPLE WHO ARE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS. We should absolutely NOT LEAVE THEM ALONE. They need to be treated like the terrorist filth they are and handled before innocent people get hurt.
The rhetoric of essentially suggesting someone do a mass killing is not helpful no matter how toxic those fucks are. How can you not see that?
So you’d rather we just ignore them, play nice, and then act all shocked when they start to kill people?
“I’m going to kill them before they kill me” is probably not the most ethical way to solve your problems.
You are using ethics as a valid argument about people who tried overthrowing our democracy, are threatening to kill innocent people and are actively pushing for a fascist regime taking over our country. Sure, let’s just sit around, mock them, underestimate them and meme them, that’ll surely stop them.
While I agree with you, I would also argue that you’re not dealing with ethical people. Ethics only works if it’s reciprocal.
No you idiot. What the fuck is so hard about understanding being as bad as your enemy? I didn’t invent the concept.
The personal insult diminishes the weight of your argument. I encourage you to reconsider your debate strategies.
I say this as someone who disagrees with your position. I strongly believe that the correct way to cure a deadly infestation of conservatism is with violence, based on what has and has not worked historically. Never in history have conservative oppressors been defeated by pacifism.
We didn’t ask to be put in this position, but here we are. We must choose to either defend our existence or allow the enemy to continue to slip the noose around our necks.
That’s exactly why we need to stop handling these pieces of shit with kid gloves. They are an active threat and they’re willing to resort to violence to install a fascist leader. It’s not just a difference of political opinion and we need to stop treating it like that’s all it is. These people are terrorists. It’s not if, but when their violence surfaces.
I seem to remember an old saying about blindness and an eye for an eye. Can anyone help me out?
Civil wars are good, and easy to win. It’s from the bible.
K. Batter up, champ.
I’m upvoting both sides of this because it’s a discussion that ought to happen. Everybody please stop downvoting topical discussion that you disagree with.
You will never convince people to do that. I generally reserve downvotes for when people are being assholes, but that doesn’t seem to be the consensus use.
We need a separate disagree button or people will continue to abuse the downvote
‘Disagree’ and ‘disregard’
For what it’s worth, I always upvote ya squid because you’re always making sense.
That’s very nice of you, thanks. Although I also don’t sweat it much when I get a bunch of downvotes. It’s all just internet points after all.
You could always use an instance without downvotes. It’s oddly liberating.