• Zorsith
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m okay with the entire party being labeled a domestic terrorist organization.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 months ago

          The communist party and participating in “Communist-actions” were banned in the 50s.

          Turns out you can just ban your opposition.

          • Zorsith
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            That did work surprisingly well in the long run (as a plan, not sure it’s really had much benefit to the everyday person)

            That said, not like plenty of Red team (domestically, everybody would for foreign) doesn’t already meet the definition of “terrorist”.

            ter·ror·ist noun

            a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
            
            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Honestly that’s not a very useful term, because lawful is determined by the political system. You’re creating a group that contains both non-police brownshirts going onto campuses to beat up students and any student protesters using violence to defend themselves.

              In practice, it just means enemy of the state.

              • Zorsith
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                That’s another thing, they make blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional (at a federal level) legislature at the local and state levels, and let it be fought over in courts, with the hope it makes it to the supreme court and maybe becomes legal. While they argue and fight over it, it impacts real people.

                Ergo, unlawful violence (arrests) and intimidation (suppression of rights) against civilians, for political aims

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Lawful is always going to be defined by whether the state likes you or not.

                  Whether the state likes you is the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.

                  It’s better to accept this and understand that using intimidation and violence, including state violence to suppress reactionaries is good, while using intimidation and violence to suppress the left is bad than to play games with what is and isn’t terrorism.

    • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You have to ask? If it passes an NC legislative body, it’s being pushed by the Magamonkeys.