Let me get this straight, it’s somehow the progressive rhetoric of universal healthcare and free education that caused a Republican voter to shoot the Republican presidential candidate?
Make that make sense.
They keep saying we need to tone down the rhetoric. But the rhetoric is all true. It’s directly based on what the conservatives do and say. So maybe they should stop doing and saying things that are so horrendous.
Two things can be true at once:
Yes, they should stop doing and saying things that are so horrendous.
Yes, we should not sink to their level with similarly violent rhetoric thus justifying their “see? The other side is just as violent as we are”.
Oh, look at that: Denouncing violent rhetoric on Lemmy gets met with a lynch mob of downvotes. I’m shocked!
Jokes aside you need to look up the concept of the paradox of tolerance. Only people lacking reason and centrists (but i repeat myself) would see “both sides” as being the same
The paradox of tolerance is almost universally misunderstood. It means that we need to have strong legal guarantees of human rights and punish those who violate those rights. It does not mean that we should try to violently or extra-legally suppress the right when it tries to gain power legally.
The paradox of tolerance is not about laws which are distinct from morality. It’s not a legal concept at all
The immorality that it seeks to avoid is the elimination of tolerance. You can achieve that through strong laws without stooping to the level of fascists themselves. I’m not saying it’s a legal point, but that it has a legal solution.
Well you certainly proved that it’s misunderstood
Why engage someone on a discussion board if you’re not actually willing to discuss the subject…
At least you understand now that I wasn’t saying the paradox of tolerance is “about laws.”
at least we didn’t stoop to their level right?
gets repeatedly clubbed for talking in the labor yard
Smith is quoted here as saying:
“Have you not looked at the headlines about how Pierre Poilievre is described as dangerous?” the premier said. “How the leader of the Opposition in Alberta has described me as dangerous? When you start using that kind of rhetoric, that ends up creating an elevated risk for all of us.”
She’s complaining about being called “dangerous”. That’s hardly violent rhetoric and certainly no worse than the language they use to describe their opponents.
Sure, there are some individuals on the internet spreading violence, but you cannot equate the non-conservative media rhetoric with the violent and dishonest rhetoric coming out of conservative sources.
‘You want kidnappers arrested? Wow, hypocrite.’
deleted by creator
I meant on Lemmy in general.
Point out the elected democrat official who was openly calling for violence against republicans? What rhetoric are they even talking about? Us calling them an existential threat to our democracy? If it wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say it. Saying that isn’t calling for violence, and proposing that it does is engaging in the same whataboutism that republicans always do. It’s BS. Republicans shooting republicans and somehow it’s progressives fault 🙄
A proviolence right wing nutjob was shot by a proviolence right wing nutjob and it’s the “anti-gun” left that did it?
I’ll give you a hint: people without guns aren’t the ones shooting people.
And decided to save on education and mental health care.
It’s like leaving dynamite and matches everywhere and being shocked when stuff blows up.
This country will using anything as a reason to tell progressives to stop being progressive.
Which country?
Take your pick honestly. Like many things it’s worse in American though.
Yes, America is a dying Empire, and the Capitalist class is desparately trying to maintain it’s grip.
This is a story about Canada
It’s also a story about America, unless for some reason Trump is running for Canadian Presidency too. Plus, Canada faces much of the same issues as the US.
I don’t disagree. I probably should have replied to the OP instead of you.
The very premier who wanted Tucker Carlson to put a minister in his crosshairs? That one? The same premier who called other politicians radicals?
They’re just really surprised a shooter came for them instead of a Democrat first. That’s the only thing they’re surprised about. They’ve been trying to make something exactly like this happen since Trump exhorted the “second amendment people” to “do something about Hillary” before the 2016 election.
One of those was for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who later on was shot in the head…
Immediately after the list was posted, the front door of Giffords’ office in Tucson was smashed. Asked about Palin’s map, Giffords said at the time, "When people do that, they have to realize there are consequences to their actions.”
It’s a hard line to ride in describing my hatred for this vile, shit stain of a human being… Whilst also not being put on an RCMP watch list because of what I believe she deserves.
Here in the US it’s perfectly legal to describe what you think a public figure deserves, but it gets censored on any website people bother to use. Sick to death of “civility” meaning assholes can endorse pogroms but “spit on that guy” is over the line!
It’s Def not perfectly legal to vocalize death threats that are even just fantasies or ‘in Minecraft’.
I’ll hold my tongue
My guy, people assembled a mock gallows for Mike Pence in front of the US Capitol.
A lot of them are in prison now - but none of them for that reason.
You can mutter “shoot the fucker” at any bar in the country. You can be specific. But not here. Here, it’s kum-buh-yah, or else.
What are the odds that smith isn’t a dip shit conservative?
former columnist and media personality who has been serving as the 19th premier of Alberta and leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP) since October 2022.
Less than 0% lol
Pot meet kettle
Thanks, Karen.
Smith: I always stay focused on issues
Reporter: Smith says she only meant that Guilbaut (?) should be fired…
So, no capability of self-reflection or consistency. Stereotypical populist.
Free speech, amirite.
Is there a link to a transcript or what they actually said? That “article” is 2 sentences and doesn’t detail it.
(I realize there’s a video. Not everyone can/wants to watch it, plus you can’t skim or copy/paste to quote anything.)
Fuck off, Dani. The right talks about bloodshed, revolution, vengeance, blah blah blah, and you want to whinge about metaphors for voting someone out.
Fascist enabler.
