I tried to engage in good faith & provide an explanation, hoping you’d do the same. Too bad that this is the road you chose.

Removed by mod

You’re proving my point & proving his point as well. Your ideology is exactly why groups like AfD have grown significantly. Most people will eventually oppose censorship, because at some point they too will question a government-mandated narrative. Then people like you will immediately try to label them into some group for your Gestapo to go after.

I don’t believe that AfD has good ideas, but they are one group that people will turn to once they realize how totalitarian people like yourself are. Bad ideas don’t flourish in a vacuum. If someone expresses a belief or thought you disagree with, then provide a strong argument against it. When you turn to using force against speech, rather than debate, then you have lost the argument.

Additionally, you are giving the appearance of legitimacy to ideas you find to be controversial in many instances. Just as Netanyahu, while claiming to represent all Jews, shows how much power he (Israel) has over many politicians throughout the world, and the media frequently acts as their hasbara messengers.

Just stop it! You are what is causing those ideas to flourish.

Stop trying to be the thought police. Express the value & legitimacy of your ideas by showing others how they fruitfully impact your own life. If someone has beliefs you think are incorrect, then give them compassion, patience, and kindness. Good ideas spread through example, not force.

We all knew it was never about the hostages. It has always been about the land.

Apparently Newsom doesn’t even know who AIPAC is & Cory Crooker says his $800k AIPAC donations don’t matter.

Yes… Democracy Now for example, but they’d probably be considered even more left for reporting the truth.

I wish all I needed to tell me what to trust is a simple graph. According to that, I should be relying a lot more on CNN & NYT. If a majority of Americans don’t know at this point that MSM media outlets & politicians on both sides are highly influenced by the Israeli lobby, then they might as well start sending their taxpayer dollars to Israel themself.

I never read that Israel represents all Jews, nor how opposing genocide is antisemitic. I’d strongly argue that a country committing genocide while claiming to represent all Jews are actually engaging in antisemitism, especially since those they are genociding are semitic people.

You’re leaving out the most pertinent details, their bruh:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

If you’re going to steal land & displace a million people, don’t be surprised when they revolt. The whole world sees Israel as the colonizing imperialists they’ve always been, and the colonizing monarchy that claimed back then Zionists could steal the land have ragrets.

First, if you actually believe Trump has violated the constitution then this is how you do it, in court. Trump does not have the ability to impeach judges, and it requires 2/3 majority of Congress.

While the Supreme Court may overrule decisions in some instances, they’ve shown at least some indication that they have a redline that he’s too stupid to realize. All I have to say at that point, is good luck attacking your own appointed Supreme Court Justices. See how that plays out for ya.

Legal judgements & opinions—even the ones that are based on flawed theories—are not a simple waive of the pen. I imagine even with significant corruption, that a process of keeping it almost entirely secret while trying to warp law into something else entirely is such a significant undertaking, that it isn’t sustainable.

The second & most important part however, what Trump is asking is that they instead not even try that, but instead ignore even basic judicial standards. While that might fly in some red states where he’s got a majority of support, once any faith is lost in the Supreme Court by District & Circuit courts, then you’ll see how a breakdown in the judiciary would take down Trump. Congress would not have the votes to impeach. There is no disciplinary action if the District & Circuit courts decide to no longer rely on Supreme Court precedent.

The Supreme Court only hears about 100 to 150 cases out of the more than 7,000 requests it receives each year. It is not structured to hear every single case of defiance from lower courts. If they altogether stopped relying entirely on Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court simply has no authority other than reversal. Furthermore, this would create such a breakdown that Republicans would immediately be pressured into impeachment of the President, knowing that they wouldn’t have the votes to amend the Constitution or impeach the judges.

LOL… this is a new argument I’ve been noticing more & more. It goes something like this… “Hamas made Israel commit a genocide.” If I was paying $7,000 per comment on social media, I’d be asking for a refund for such low effort Israeli propaganda.

I began this discussion by voicing a difficult but genuine concern: that many self-described anarchist groups seem to end up supporting fascist tactics. I understand why that was met with hostility, but that concern is rooted in a pattern I’ve observed. This exchange, unfortunately, has served as a stark and unambiguous example of that pattern.

The approval of specific killings is disturbing, but the truly dangerous element here is the underlying framework that allows for it. It is a process of radical dehumanization. It begins by reducing a person—a citizen, a neighbor, someone with a family and a complex life—to a single political label. Once a person is nothing more than a label like “fascist,” their life is stripped of value, and their murder can be reframed as a righteous or necessary act.

The tragic killing of Aaron Danielson is a clear example of this. He was reduced to his political affiliation and a hat, and for that, he was targeted and killed. What makes this case even more damning is that his killer then fabricated a story of self-defense—a lie that the evidence does not support. This is a critical point. The lie itself is a confession that the murder could not be justified on its own terms. To champion this act is to align oneself not with a principled defender of justice, but with someone who murdered a fellow citizen and then lied to posthumously blame his victim.

I understand the anger fueled by political rhetoric from all sides. But there is a vast and sacred line between engaging in provocative speech and the final, irreversible act of taking a human life. To glamorize a murder built on a lie is to erase that line entirely. It is how movements, in their quest to fight monsters, become monstrous themselves.

This framework has no logical stopping point. If a political activist or commentator is a legitimate target, the circle of “legitimate targets” inevitably expands to include anyone who supports them or shares their views. It is a blueprint for civil war, not justice. Let’s call this what it is: an ideology that justifies terrorizing and eliminating citizens based on their political beliefs is, by definition, totalitarian and fascist. It does not fight fascism; it becomes a mirror of it.

For anyone reading this who is drawn to anarchism out of a genuine desire to challenge corrupt systems like corporatocracy, I hope this exchange serves as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates how a movement with understandable goals can be used as a vehicle for an ideology that justifies murdering political enemies.

I believe everyone has the potential to see through the tribal manipulation that pits us against each other. The genuine desire for a better world—one free from corporate control and injustice—is a powerful starting point. But true progress is achieved through the difficult work of persuasion, coalition-building, and creating systems so just and appealing that they win people over without coercion. That is the only path that leads to lasting change, rather than just another cycle of retaliatory violence.

No, the MSM media is dying & are just mad that they don’t have the authoritarian control.

It isn’t an entire side. You can’t just see people in black & white. Many of these people are like past versions of ourselves, the ones that need people to guide them. You can’t force everyone to see things from your point of view. A lot of times they just need good examples. If they aren’t arguing in good faith, then try a different strategy or call them out. Or change the discussion to how you feel they’re not being honest, and ask them why they feel the need to lie. Just be genuine but violence doesn’t solve things. It will hurt the causes you care about more than anything else right now.

The not arguing in good faith goes both ways, but people on the left & right can have good faith arguments while still disagreeing. Debates aren’t about making someone else agree with you at the end. It is about challenging each other’s ideas.

Why is it a problem for you to condemn political violence? Either you oppose it or you don’t, end of story. If someone asked you condemn sexual assault, would you do it or claim the prob with condemning it is people still voted for Trump?

Not here on Lemmy apparently, or at least not in this community especially.

And you point is? You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.

TYT didn’t coopt the entire progressive movement. They are a voice in the progressive movement, which anyone is capable of doing, including yourself. You claim Cenk is one of the biggest frauds on the entire internet but don’t provide any evidence to support that. Cenk has been consistent, honest & fair. He has shown strong moral character & that seems to make you mad.

The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can’t distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes ‘literally Hitler,’ then we’ve lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.

My concern isn’t about protecting Kirk’s memory - it’s about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.