I’m guessing (hoping) you’re joking here and having a laugh at us all taking you too seriously. But I’ve seen enough of lemmy to doubt that.

If your accelerationist ideology is unironically promoting nuclear holocaust as its self-evidently ideal endgame, you’re long overdue for your “are we the baddies” moment. Maybe (definitely) stay off social media for a bit as you re-examine how you got here and who’s lied to you along the way.

Disagree. Every state will characterize the violence it receives differently than the violence it enacts. Even a well-intended egalitarian state can never equivocate acts of violence against its officers with those done by its officers, because if the state fails to produce an immune response against one attack, it will soon find itself overwhelmed by more. The state has to treat vigilante justice and especially attacks against its officers as illegitimate on principle, or else it will cease to be.

States claim a monopoly on legitimate violence, and I’d even say that’s what makes a state a state. If a given geographic region has a hundred different entities that can enact violence without each others’ permission, you don’t have a state, you have a hundred states.

You cannot ask officers of the state to equivocate violence by and against the state. That’s not their job. That judgement is our job.

(You can also argue that the state shouldn’t exist, but that’s a different and far more interesting discussion than the one the article poses.)

Not gonna lie, that was my first thought when seeing the news. The only legitimate course for absolute power is to destroy itself.

Gotta do the same for the senate and state legislatures (including governors). Redrawing state lines is not simple.

Maybe THIS will get the Dems to ditch the filibuster and pack the court. Of course, that would require the Democratic party as a whole to show some fight, something they refuse to do for some reason.

To pack the court, Democrats need to secure:

• A House + Senate majority (something they haven’t had since 2009-2011)
• A wide enough majority in both that no small caucus could hold the vote hostage for a personal agenda (something they haven’t had since Jimmy Carter)
• A president with a platform built on disruptive change rather than stability (which they haven’t had since FDR)
• A plan to keep Republicans out of office permanently so that they can never wield this new power in retaliation (even Lincoln messed up on that one)

They need more than just a git-r-dun attitude. Remaking the SCOTUS (rather than waiting it out) means throwing the old government away and starting over.

You know, it’s always bothered me that we put so much stock in debates.

The ability to verbally humiliate your opponents is not a good indicator of the ability to recognize good policy.

Biden and Trump are not equivalent.

To convince us that Democrats and Republicans are equivalent, you must first explain why LGBT+ equality, workers’ rights, freedom of religion, the ability to vote, and the actual existence of science are all insignificant.

I’d argue your SO might not be displaying neurotypical behavior.

Between 50-85% of autistic spectrum people (plus a significant portion of people with PTSD or depression) experience Alexithymia, or significant difficulty in recognizing and analyzing their emotional state.

When I’m feeling bad, my SO frequently assumes I’m withholding the reason from him in some sort of passive-aggressive mindgame, and I have to remind him that I barely know what my mood is, let alone what’s causing it.

I’m getting better at it, but it’s a lot of work and I still regularly mistake stomachaches for anxiety.

Kill Six Billion Demons.

For a spoiler-free sampling of why:

http://killsixbilliondemons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/throne.jpg

https://killsixbilliondemons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/WON10r.jpg

https://killsixbilliondemons.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/KSBD55color.jpg

https://killsixbilliondemons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SOT32-33.jpg

The artist presumably survives on a diet consisting entirely of heavy metal and Adderall.

I always like to say everyone should have a zombie survival plan. Is there any possibility of zombies? No. But there’s a lot of overlap between prepping for the exciting, fictional disaster and boring, real-world natural disasters.

• Having a fireaxe in your trunk might not let you chop off zombie heads, but it’ll sure be useful for clearing road debris after a hurricane.
• Having a bug-out-bag with important documents and bottled water is also great for wildfire preparedness, even if that bag also has a spiky leather jacket in it.

I encourage people to have a civil war plan. Do I expect we’ll have one? Not really, it wouldn’t be a two-sided conflict. But we can expect to see domestic terrorism (see also: insurrection) and potentially police riots (the police enacting organized violence as they did in 2020). If you’re ready for a civil war, you’re ready for the more mundane breakdowns we’re more likely to see.

• Knowing first aid and how to treat a gunshot wound might not find use on a battlefield, but it could easily save someone’s life in a mass shooting or isolated hate crime.
• Having ad-hoc or peer-to-peer communications is useful during riots and power outages.
• If you can move ordinance discreetly across state lines, you’ll probably find the skillset applies to moving red state refugees as well.
• Building a network of people you trust to band together when SHTF? Brother, you just invented a mutual aid network.

So yeah, if you feel anxious about the possibility of a civil war (or zombies), channel that energy into prepping for it, and you’ll find that even if your predictions were wrong, your effort will not go to waste.

Anderson v Griswold (this case) is a civil lawsuit that started Oct 30 in CO district court under judge Sarah B. Wallace. This case involved opposing arguments over whether or not Trump engaged 8n insurrection. There was no jury.

Judge Wallace ruled (and CO supreme court later upheld) that Trump engaged in insurrection. The standard for burden of proof in this ruling was “clear and convincing,” (see supreme court ruling) which is somewhere between “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the standard for criminal cases) and a “preponderance of the evidence” (>50% chance of the accused being responsible). Clear and convincing evidence is typically used in discrimination and fraud lawsuits.

Trump’s latest comments about “vermin,” “retribution,” “day-one dictator,” and “poisoning the blood” have hit Associated Press, NPR, Reuters, and BBC, who have responded matter-of-factly by comparing to it to the rhetoric of Nazis and Mussolini. Mein Kampf got name-dropped more than once.

I am also seeing coverage from CNN, ABC, USNews, USAToday, and NBCNews.

Now, which media you consider mainstream, and what kind of coverage you consider adequate can change the answer. I don’t know what they’re saying on TV, for example. But when even Forbes runs a front-page article which compares Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler’s in the first paragraph, I’d say there’s no lack of mainstream coverage, and they’re not dancing around the issue anymore.