I said something along the lines of:

“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”

Along with

“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”

In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.

Good ole’ civility clause.

Whats the paradox of tolerance?

.world mods have never heard of it I guess.

  • weker01@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 days ago

    Great cherry picking. They did continue that statement. And these other people still have agency. Nobody says there are no reasons why the people agree who is in charge but in the end it is still the people from whom all power originates.

    Nobody can rule alone.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yeah. I don’t think it’s any kind of malicious misunderstanding or anything, he’s just set in his thinking, as are a lot of people on the internet. But yes it’s pretty funny to cut off the “nothing” statement right before the “other than” part, and then bring up as the first two examples stuff that was included in my “other than.”

      Maybe the root cause is that he doesn’t think of the military or police as being made of people, which is an understandable but critical error. He thinks of him and his friends as “people,” but people in other walks of life as some type of robot or different species entirely maybe, which if so, isn’t a good way to look at it.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        No, my problem is that your analysis/prescription is entirely vibes, entirely thought-form based.

        Oh and thanks for pathologizing me like an object while claiming that that’s actually what I do, very charismatic and reasonable approach to try to sway another person’s opinion.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          14 days ago

          I spent a while trying to explain to you what I was saying. It seems like you’re not into it. That’s okay.

          Now I’m talking to someone else, who also noticed you being resistant to picking up what I’m saying, about why that might be. I get that the presentation is kind of insulting to you. But I don’t know, that’s how I see it. I’m not trying to sway your opinion in any respect. I’m presenting what I think, and spent a decent amount of time on it, and what you do with it from here on out is completely up to you.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      The rest of the statement doesn’t matter as it is even more absurd.

      Everyone who works every position in all those systems agree, like, affirmatively consent and endorse that the people in charge deserve to be in charge, and all they need to do is change their minds, not actually do anything, and then the people in charge, the system itself changes?

      This isn’t even true, tons of people often work jobs they hate, do things in those jobs they regret, things they wish they did not have to.

      They are coerced by their situation in society into doing so, these people do not ‘agree’ with the structures they are forced to be a part of to survive.

      And saying that all thats needed is for wvwryone to magically agree in their minds on some other societal structure is just manifesting, power of positive thinking, mind over matter nonsense.

      Its like saying politics would be wonderful if everyone agreed.