Most Americans, no matter their political affiliation, do not believe that violence is a solution to domestic political divisions, according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll.
Republicans are horrible because of their core beliefs. That there is not good and bad, but strong and weak. That (paraphrasing a wise internet man here) “there are in-groups that the law must protect but not bind, and out-groups that the law must bind but not protect.” That they’re always right, and that others are always wrong. Rich people use this, but they cannot create it alone.
When you say “Republicans”, are you referring to politicians or to the roughly half of the country that votes Republican? Because I kind of agree with your take if it’s regarding politicians, but even then it should apply to all of them. If you are referring to everyone who votes Republican, then you are so far off base that I don’t even know where to start.
I’m referring to a large number of both politicians and voters who hold these sentiments, whether consciously or unconsciously. People who vote republican because of habit or whatever instead of ideology don’t count although I do think that’s shortsighted, and there are some republicans who genuinely believe in the fiscal or deregulation sides of things etc.
All of it. State violence against the poor and minority groups; corporate violence against the wage-earner; radicalized lone wolf violence against the public.
Why yes…yes I do. The Republican Party is the home of conservatism now. Conservatism’s goal is to destroy our country and create an oligarchy. This is done through both active and passive violence.
The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It’s in the name, and it’s the nature of people who are conservative. There’s nothing about “destroy” or “create an oligarchy” in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.
I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.
I get that the billionaires can’t do it alone, but my point is, without the elites the fascist/capitalist base by itself isn’t sufficiently organized or motivated to run an oligarchy.
My point is informed by hundreds of hours of discussion with republican individuals. If you think it’s stupid and ignorant then tell me with a straight face that republicans aren’t more hateful than democrats.
Republicans aren’t more hateful than Democrats. On a macro scale, the political party you most identify with says very little about your capacity to hate “others”. That capacity is instead part of human nature. If you think your party is above that, then you are deluding yourself or are not recognizing hate when it’s directed at the opposition. Either not recognizing it, or justifying it by first vilifying and demonizing the opposition.
It is true that many democrats also hate republicans, but that’s a paradox of tolerance. If you look at the policies each party supports, it’s pretty clear which one is more hateful.
Right, so hatred of Republicans is justified in your mind.
Edit: The paradox of intolerance can be used to justify intolerance just as easily as it can be used to justify not being tolerant of intolerance. So which is it? Most people who refer to the paradox of intolerance aren’t spending much time reflecting on that, and instead jump right to using it to feel good about demonizing their opposition.
You’re missing the fact that all those people are beholden to the rich and powerful and have only done their bidding for the last 80 years.
Sure, Republicans are fuckin horrible. But they’re this way by the design of the rich who really run things.
Republicans are horrible because of their core beliefs. That there is not good and bad, but strong and weak. That (paraphrasing a wise internet man here) “there are in-groups that the law must protect but not bind, and out-groups that the law must bind but not protect.” That they’re always right, and that others are always wrong. Rich people use this, but they cannot create it alone.
When you say “Republicans”, are you referring to politicians or to the roughly half of the country that votes Republican? Because I kind of agree with your take if it’s regarding politicians, but even then it should apply to all of them. If you are referring to everyone who votes Republican, then you are so far off base that I don’t even know where to start.
I’m referring to a large number of both politicians and voters who hold these sentiments, whether consciously or unconsciously. People who vote republican because of habit or whatever instead of ideology don’t count although I do think that’s shortsighted, and there are some republicans who genuinely believe in the fiscal or deregulation sides of things etc.
If they vote Republican, they condone the violence associated with it. There is no separation between the two.
Exactly what violence are you referring to?
All of it. State violence against the poor and minority groups; corporate violence against the wage-earner; radicalized lone wolf violence against the public.
And you place the blame for all of that on Republicans? What a good little for soldier you are.
Why yes…yes I do. The Republican Party is the home of conservatism now. Conservatism’s goal is to destroy our country and create an oligarchy. This is done through both active and passive violence.
The goal of any conservative movement is to resist change. It’s in the name, and it’s the nature of people who are conservative. There’s nothing about “destroy” or “create an oligarchy” in it. Conservative is closer to the opposite of those. Also, there is very little active violence coming from conservatives, especially compared to progressive movements, and passive violence is a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, according to your favorite niche cultural movement.
I feel like you are just throwing around terms without even understanding them or applying any critical thought to them.
The rich don’t just use it, they finance it and manage it.
Right, but I feel like you’re not getting my point here. They couldn’t do that if their supporters didn’t already believe in hurting people.
I get that the billionaires can’t do it alone, but my point is, without the elites the fascist/capitalist base by itself isn’t sufficiently organized or motivated to run an oligarchy.
The billionaires are the brain of that organism.
Dude, it’s because your point is stupid and ignorant.
My point is informed by hundreds of hours of discussion with republican individuals. If you think it’s stupid and ignorant then tell me with a straight face that republicans aren’t more hateful than democrats.
Republicans aren’t more hateful than Democrats. On a macro scale, the political party you most identify with says very little about your capacity to hate “others”. That capacity is instead part of human nature. If you think your party is above that, then you are deluding yourself or are not recognizing hate when it’s directed at the opposition. Either not recognizing it, or justifying it by first vilifying and demonizing the opposition.
It is true that many democrats also hate republicans, but that’s a paradox of tolerance. If you look at the policies each party supports, it’s pretty clear which one is more hateful.
Right, so hatred of Republicans is justified in your mind.
Edit: The paradox of intolerance can be used to justify intolerance just as easily as it can be used to justify not being tolerant of intolerance. So which is it? Most people who refer to the paradox of intolerance aren’t spending much time reflecting on that, and instead jump right to using it to feel good about demonizing their opposition.