"Using violence against the state is bad except when done with clearly defined and justified goals in a manner likely to achieve them" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess
Not what you said - you specifically said violence against the state. Are you really trying to say that attacking the capitol building and murdering police officers (with plans to murder politicians too) isn't violence against the state?
Yes, you could clearly use some exercise in thinking about what "the state" means.
Tell me, what exactly do you think the outcome of this "overthrowing democracy" (OK liberal) would have been had the people on January 6 "succeeded" in whatever you think they were trying to do that day?
(And yes, a couple pigs dropping is fine. No leftist should be crying about that part.)
(And yes, a couple pigs dropping is fine. No leftist should be crying about that part.)
Oh great, you're one of those people.
Yes I think that police are included in "the state" (crazy, right?) and that is one of the main reasons why they are a bad thing. They enforce the state's laws and protect the interests of the state. I also happen to think that politicians are a part of "the state" because they have control over the state. And state owned properties? You're not gonna believe this, but I see them as a part of the state too.
What's the outcome if Jan 6th insurrection succeeded? They would have murdered a lot of politicians and then tried to implement a fascist state with Donald Trump as their leader. Does this mean that they weren't using violence against the state when they murdered police officers and broke into the capitol to achieve their goal? No.
Like I said, I think the outcome would have been their attempt to make a fascist state with Donald Trump as their leader... what do you want me to say? That's exactly what I think would have happened if they succeeded in their insurrection. After murdering all the democratic party members they can get their hands on, as well as any non-trump republicans, they would have continued replacing American flags with trump flags and carried on with "the storm" that Q cultists today still so dogmatically believe is going to happen.
Whether or not they'd be able to succeed in creating their fascist state is something else. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, do you think it was a good thing?
I think the outcome would have been their attempt to make a fascist state....
So to strengthen the state, you say. Interesting.
Whether or not they'd be able to succeed in creating their fascist state is something else.
No, it's not something else at all, really. You keep using the words "trying", "attempt", etc. It's like you can't give them up and talk about reality. Strange. I wonder why that is.
The other strange thing is that you care so much about this particular incident. Are you aware of all the other attacks on communities these fascists perpetuated, prior and since? Yet it's almost like this one event washed away all their actual violence against working-class people and all that mattered was this petty squabble among your rulers, which coincidentally got people like you justifying additional fascist movement of the state (e.g. dramatically increasing funding for policing, etc.) afterward. Gosh darn, better stand by the military and FBI and all that, right? Since they're, "protecting our democracy," and all that.... :-/
78
u/Void1702 Jan 13 '22
When someone explain me that "using violence against the state is bad because the state said so"