i have no patience for people talking about violent rhetoric on the left really because every day i read the news and every politician in this country and in most others is saying ‘we gotta kill more people’. they use different words to say it. obviously you’re not supposed to just say ‘we gotta kill more people’. but there’s all kinds of polite and okay ways to say it.
‘we need to control our borders’ is a phrase which here means ‘we gotta kill more people, we gotta drown more refugees in boats, we gotta send more people back to warzones and governments that want them dead, we gotta make more camps and we gotta make the camps more fatal’.
‘we need to be tougher on welfare fraud’ is a phrase which here means ‘we gotta kill more people, we gotta make disabled people do more song and dance routines to convince some indifferent bureaucrat that they deserve to eat and we gotta make sure that the bureaucrats say ‘no’, we gotta starve those kids more, we gotta make sure families and kids and old people are freezing in the winter’.
‘we need to tackle violent crime’ is a phrase which here means ‘we gotta kill more people, specifically Black people, unless we said Terrorism instead of Crime, in which case it’s specifically muslims, shoot them, imprison them, surveil them, disappear them, brutalize them, whatever.’
and of course none of this is Violent Speech. this is Sensible Political Discourse. these are Common-Sense Policy Goals. we gotta kill more people: that’s an electable policy. you can always count on we gotta kill more people as a platform. we gotta kill more people is gonna sweep the nation baby. we gotta kill more people 2024 – vote now on your phones. now slow down. hold your horses. did that guy just say we gotta kill more people? well that just wont do. thats why im running on a platform of we gotta kill more people for cheaper, to stop this wasteful madness. and the people just keep dying but seems like there’s still some of them left so i guess we’re just circling back around to our main thing which is: we gotta kill more people
You must log in or register to comment.
Engels concept of social murder remains one of the most underutilized terms on the left despite its rhetorical potency.
Death to America means hunting down and mercing every current American citizen, not dismantling the structures that enforce American hegemony like the CIA or US Military (or internally, like the DEA, FBI, or border force)
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
I’ve said it elsewhere a few times, but this is a real problem a lot of liberals have, separating civility of language from civility of action, and it’s part of why they despise people like Trump so much.
Yes, they may desire the same goals, but from a politician they expect a certain veil of plausible deniability, like what Obama provided; delivering laws and actions about deporting people and blowing up others in dull, ‘professional’ terms, rather then being so crass and bombastic about it.
They venerate this sanctity of civil speech above all else, but they’ll never really admit to it. This worship of it I think is partly why you see so many bazinga brains being needlessly verbose.
A lot of being a leftist means spelling out just how grotesque and violent libs are to their faces because they can’t connect the dots by themselves. There are no constellations to these people, only twinkling lights.
a lot of the rest of is is libs getting mad at you and yelling at you red in the face OH YEAH WELL WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION HUH WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT IM WAITING IM WAITING YOU HAVE NOTHING SO I GUESS OUR CURRENT IDEOLOGY OF DEATH IS WHAT YOU GET
there will never be a moment of reckoning for them, never a moment of self reflection on any scale until the last moment when they realize that the people with power now absolutely hate them and they are the enemy and then they will flee to another country and talk about how awesome they were and how bad it actually was that they had to stop killing more people in their country and they better start killing more people in this country they are in now or they risk becoming like the country they fled who are worse than them, of course
tale as old as time
I remember talking to my dad about defunding the police and citing how one time simply not policing reduced crime reports. I noted things like giving people money, social workers, and addiction rehabilitation all lowered crime rates and kept people safer. I even conceded that sometimes you did need someone with a gun to arrest people but far less than the norm. His ass still did the talking point “what are we gonna do instead?” Cause I remember feeling so frustrated about how I had given him 3 or 4 things to do instead and with a budget the size of a police force, I’m sure you could get some neat programs going. This joker likes to do the “appeal to cinema” fallacy so I don’t know what I expected.
One of the easiest ways to counter this rhetoric is to point out that the violence is never gone in whatever state system exists. Any threat, from a historical pov, is met with real violence and the liberal idea of truly free speech only exists in a state where there exists little to no current threat to the underlying power structure.
For conservatives (especially the kind that believe that socialist/etc will concentrate too much power in the state, whi h will result in state violence) you need only dig down a bit to get them to admit that they believe that violence is appropriate so long as it targets the right people. At which point you can let them know you don’t give a shit about their opinions on it at all
i have no patience for people talking about violent rhetoric on the left
What violent left rhetoric is she’s even talking about?
Refuses to elaborate further.
Leaves.And anyway, what leftist response to fascism does she have patience for?
Wait, is she even talking about the left at all, or about liberals?
no she’s pro-violent rhetoric on the left, she’s against people who go “ahh the violence on the left… truly both sides are too radical”
She’s talking about liberals who decry the “violent rhetoric” of the left while openly praising the everyday violence of capitalism
You have her intentions backwards
