Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Why Won't Media Call Pipe Bombs "Right Wing Terror?"" video.

@tims3712 that's a flat-out strawman. I presented you with the correct definitions. You claimed they were different here. I pointed out how that wasn't true. At least be honest.
2
Because the right wants authoritarian, not democratic, government by definition.
1
@tims3712 that's not what left and right actually mean in a political context though. The origins of the terms trace back to right=royalists left=favoring representative government. Out of that very specific historic context they broaden to mean right=supporting entrenched power, left=supporting populist power. Since markets naturally condense power, the right tends to want to let big buisness do whatever it wants (even Nazi Germany put many public industries into private hands and crushed unions as long as the owners were willing to play ball with the political establishment) but will simultaneously encroach on personal freedoms and expand other state powers as well as removing the power of the people to control their own government (which is the main tool the public has to fight against excessive growth of personal power and to protect individual rights, much like a larger-scale version of a union) Meanwhile the left only wants to get involved in things to stop abuses or excessive concentration of power. The extreme right is facism/dictatorship whereas the extreme left is anarchism. The moderates of both wings want government to get involved in things, but the right wants it to get involved to preserve/expand power hierarchies, whereas the left wants it to get involved to limit/dismantle said hierachies. The definitions you put forward are right wing propaganda designed to keep leftists from actually using the state to prevent unchecked consolidation of power and to paint the democratic state as an enemy of society rather than a tool so that other powers can grow. And, as we now have a defacto oligarchy, it has largely worked.
1
@tims3712 no significant amout of politics even in America fits your left-right description once you get past rhetoric because it's a lie. Stop repeating it for the politicians. And yes, we are a defacto oligarchy. Public opinion has zero statistical correlation with government policy. It's a proven fact.
1
@tims3712 wow, going from claiming to be using a special American definition, to stawmanning me, to claiming to be using a universal definition. You're a lying sack of shit. We're done here
1
Trump has moved past the normal Republican racist dogwhistles into defending Nazis. Of course they're emboldened to adopt the same tactics as right wing extremists normally employ (they're not exactly a creative lot).
1
Oh, I'm sure they'd call it terrorism if it were a socalist. It's reigh privilege.
1
Who else thinks getting a pipe bomb will change CNN's commitment to false neutrality? Me neither.
1
There are only 2 situations that can result in peaceful coexistence: 1-when both sides want it 2-when those that want it force those who don't into begrudging acceptance through threat or violence. Emboldening the right has upset the intimidation of the 2nd, so if we cannot get control back of our government and use the police to enforce actual law and order, a revolution will become inevitable. That is what is at stake in the next few elections.
1
@citrinedragon1466 my positions on gun laws are complicated and don't neatly fit in any standard box (and I don't actually own one, largely due to the fact that I have major depressive episodes and combining that with a gun in the house is something I would prefer to avoid if possible), though on the simple end I would absolutely support a universal background check because of common sense. I'm just stating the reality of human societies. There's not just one answer to that issue, though, but it's important to keep that fundamental truth in mind when thinking about such things as not everyone is well meaning. That said, total public disarmament when you don't have an incorruptible government (which has never been achieved yet) is incredibly foolish, so I do oppose that. I do agree that there are ways to reduce the prevalence of such extremism both through social changes and education, but many of them are long term, and don't help with the immediate problem so we may end up having to use force to buy the time needed to impliment such (which will take decades at minimum).
1