I don't get what argument you're making. Because our enemy would behead us, let's behead them first? If that sounds better to you than Trump's "retribution", sure. But to me it's retribution with extra steps, not justice.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We're just saying Trump doesn't deserve sympathy and Kyle Gass doesn't deserve ostracism for a bad joke.

You're the one arguing that we need about how we need to treat them equitably. I just am responding to your argument. I certainly don't think we should be advocating extra-judicially assassinating Trump, but we could stop playing these games where we act in any way that these people are acting in good faith and start actually treating the corrupt parts of the legal system like they are, at the very least. Fuck, we could have done that twenty, thirty years ago, too.

We're four months out from this, from real despotism truly coming to roost in the US, the real issue is the fact that it's even gotten to this point at all.

So argue all you want about equitable treatment, but all any of us were saying was it was a dumb thing that Jack turned on a friend of decades over this, all because Kyle spoke his mind in a joking fashion, especially because of how violently retributive Trump is. He has made it his whole personality and cult for nearly a decade now. It's exhausting. It wears people down. I forgive them for running out of patience with it. It doesn't mean we actually think that Trump getting shot by some crazed gunman is the best solution. It does mean, though, that sometimes, because of the mountains of undue stress that Trump causes people, they might get fed up and say something stupid, sinking to Trump's level. I'm willing to forgive that. That's all I'm arguing, which is why it's so confusing that you came in here to argue that if we show no sympathy we're no different than Trump.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You said yourself man: I'm arguing for treating everyone equally. If you don't like that, sure bro, you do you. I'm sure you'll find a million ways to justify treating people differently, just like those you hate so much do.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Treating people badly based on intrinsic traits is bad. That's what the people we abhor do.

Treating people badly because of their actions and choices is not only good (otherwise you can't reward people for doing well), but necessary.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People are not dogs. Punishment/reward conditioning leads to the greedy short term thinking that put the US (and arguably the world) in the situation it is right now. Also, who gets to decide what must be punished and what must be rewarded? The state? God?

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are you arguing against laws or rules in general, or just ones that have punishments?

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think you're responding to the wrong one here buddy. I'm the one arguing for the rule of law, people above me are arguing for extra-judicial assassinations. Might want to read the whole thread. Lol

[–] prole@beehaw.org 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Learn about fascism. Please. If we don't stop this before it's too late (might already be), we are in for a very very bad time.

I truly don't think most people can grasp just how fucked we will be if the Republican party accomplishes its stated goal of "dismantling the administrative state."

It will be interesting to see how they pin it on the left when all these idiotic welfare -receiving Trump voters inevitably lose their benefits.

Unfortunately, we will never have a fair election or peaceful transfer power ever again if he wins.