Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It would be sad but I think most will vote R again because what’s the alternative?
Things not getting actively worse is still a pretty big win in the post-2000 era.
Violence. Grabbing your buddies and your guns, forming a RWDS and shooting every Blue Triber you find.
Would it work? Almost certainly not, but its odds of success, however small, are still better than those of "voting harder" — which are effectively zero.
If you wanted to post this, just post it, don't ask a stupid question so you can give your own brain dead answer.
What an amazing species of black piller, so allergic to winning that upon appearing to win you go back to fantasizing about losing.
More options
Context Copy link
This is getting pretty close to fedposting. If you are sending out feelers to organize a "gun club," do it elsewhere.
I've seen at least 3 posts by @Capital_Room advocating mass murder of this sort fwiw. Hyperbole?
More options
Context Copy link
Nope, not my intent. And for clarification, at what point does comparing the relative odds/effectiveness of various methods go from allowed "discussion" to "advocacy" — and thus edge against the "discussing the culture war, not waging it" rule? (Which is the rule which "fedposting" violates, yes?)
I can't give you hard rules on exactly how to word posts that amount to an argument for killing your political opponents. We are not mind-readers and cannot tell whether you are just speaking hypothetically ("I'm not saying we should murder all Blue Tribers, just that realistically the only way to prevent our civilization from collapsing into an apocalyptic nightmare is to kill all Blue Tribers") or seriously arguing for this, but we do factor in the poster's history, and if the overall impression is that it looks like you are nudging the line with your toe, I am going to say something. Other mods are probably calibrated to slightly different degrees.
Thanks for the clarification.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This kind of cell-based violence would be phenomenally stupid, so we can rule it out. ANTIFA might do it if Trump racks up major victories. But the path to total red victory is not individual level violence, it’s inter-institutional warfare that devolves into kinetics.
With what institutions?
I see little evidence that there's any path to red victory, and as for "individual level," that's why the "organize into groups" part was there.
Law enforcement, the military(generals are empty suits- field grade officers decide what happens in a crisis, and those are still pretty red), state governments, etc.
I know, you’re an unemployed mentally ill doomer with SAD acting up this time of year.
When Greg Abbott told the feds he rules the border now, he got away with it, and the border patrol refused to contest this- even while heavily outnumbering him. The Malheur occupiers and the truckers got what they wanted.
Reds win regularly. Those victories do not look like random terrorist attacks.
Controlled by blue. Because it doesn't matter how red the rank-and-file are, they will always, always, always put obedience to the chain of command ahead of their personal political views. Just ask them: colonels leading coups is something that only ever happens in other countries, but the US military is different — the military is "apolitical," and no US serviceman would ever dishonor himself and the Armed Forces by putting his personal politics ahead of that.
I also remember a forum post online by a Chicago cop, in a 2nd amendment/gun control conversation, saying it doesn't matter how much he might personally support gun rights, if he gets the order to go door-to-door confiscating everyone's guns, he's doing it. First, because 'try telling your boss "no" to a direct order to do something, and see if you still have a job. I have my pension to think about and bills to pay.' And second, since most known, legal gun owners are older and highly law-abiding, he'd be safer and less likely to get shot taking their guns away than he was when he worked dealing with the gangs in the worst parts of Chicago.
Because what difference did it make?
Funny, everything I remember reading on the topic said the truckers lost badly, Trudeau won, the precedent for "debanking" was set, and remains ready to be used to crush future dissidents.
No, we don't. And those "victories" you speak of are nothing of the sort.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if this is true, this is an unnecessary ad hominem.
On the contrary- it’s an entirely necessary ad hominem. The post I was replying to is based on a doom loop fantasia driven by his frequently-posted about lack of productive activity and depression.
That's kind of like claiming you are calling a fat person a lazy, obese pig because you are concerned about their health and want them to lose weight for their own good. I suppose it's possible someone might believe this, but if you are really trying to break him out of his "doom loop" there are kinder and more polite ways to do it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link