this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
243 points (98.8% liked)

politics

25208 readers
2880 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The party of "law and order" and "just comply" have no issues with assaulting and killing police officers?

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Very shortly after 01/06, a man met me at the house to get something I'd advertised on Nextdoor.com.

"Hey, I've seen you on there! You've made a bunch of comments about the riot. My brother is a cop."

(Take my word or not, that statement was not confrontational, more like, "I've seen you and I might not agree.")

"Those scum overran the cop's barricades, beat them with an American flagpole, injured hundreds of cops and 2 more suicided directly after. Fuck them and their "we love cops" bullshit."

(That was the gist of it, I can hardly remember the actual words, but everyone clapped.)

You could see the gears turning, see him truly thinking about the thing. It was certainly the first time he was hit with cognitive dissonance on that particular issue. I could see him getting a bit angry thinking on the "riot" from a new perspective.

He got what he came for, we shook hands, parted amiably. But at least he was thinking.

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That slogan only counts when they're not breaking the law, then they're making things right.

The sad part is the second part could be taken from freedom fighters under a repressive regime and be thought of as a good fight, not that I think this is comparable but I'm sure people that are getting prison sentences and many of their friends do. It'd be nice if they at least had a coherent argument backed up by facts but I haven't seen much so far. Just parroting talking points by right wing shills out to make a buck.

[–] Bizarroland@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean I think the play was to justify it after the fact.

"We were fighting for America" is what they told themselves.

And had they won, and had they dragged all of the senators and Congresspeople out onto the public square and executed them and forcibly shoved Trump back into office they would have told themselves that they did a good thing and made sure they had a nice juicy write up in the history books for their successful coup and "the protection of the American way of life".

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

I think it can show that everyone needs critical thinking skills, which unfortunately is what some don't want as opposed to blind followers. Like you can pull one lever (religion, race, etc) it means every action is justified.