I never thought you were being inflammatory or attacking me, but thank you for an apology/clarification even if it wasn’t necessary. I thought your response provided valuable perspective, and reminded us all that people are a diverse group that defies blanket categorization. I asked for your feedback because I legitimately didn’t know how to fold that into my post, which as I said was the truth of what I experienced. I also wanted to help divorce criticism of people like Elon Musk from “accusations” of mental disability, which I don’t feel should be an accusation or “gotcha”.

After over 25 years of work of varying intensity with psychiatrists, I’m legally permanently disabled because of mental illness and I have lived on permanent disability for several years. I’m lucky in that I’m physically and mentally capable, so most people won’t even know until they are close enough to me to start learning about my lifestyle and day-to-day experience. Even so I’ve experienced a fair bit of both well-meaning and malicious misunderstanding. Those misunderstandings are of course worse and more consistent for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities, and I don’t want to be part of that. That’s why I’m taking our conversation seriously.

I’m not going to delete my post because I stand beside what I said, but I did include the following edit: “Edit: Following discussion below, I think it would be right and humanizing to add a reminder to myself and others. Although my time with that particular group was positive, the mentally disabled are people like any of us and each will be different in terms of friendliness, happiness, and social capability.”

I don’t think that short addition will interrupt the flow or message of my post, and will address some of the context you’ve provided.

That’s an interesting addition and I have no reason to doubt you. It’s quite possible the people I saw regularly were there exactly because they were inclined to be friendly and happy. It probably also helps that they were closely accompanied by professionals. I can only comment on my experience with them, and what I wrote was accurate to that. I mean, one guy who was more physically able would do curls with me and call me Superman and I called him Batman. The reason I started talking to them is one really thin girl stopped while doing laps in a group and told me she loved me. I still smile thinking about those moments.

I honestly don’t know if I agree that it’s harmful to relay my couple of years interacting with the intellectually disabled as I did. It’s definitely the truth of my experience. At the same time I can completely believe it’s not the whole truth, and varies by individual. After all, I would only spend 10-30 minutes working out while they were nearby before I moved on. I’d definitely continue to insist that even the nasty folks aren’t doing anywhere near as much damage to global society as Elon Musk though.

Do you think I should change my post? And if so - how, given what I’ve written in this reply? Edit: after thinking about it, perhaps your followup will be enough to provide context?

This is an insult to people that would have been given that label in those days. Those folks are some of the happiest, friendliest people I’ve ever met. Until a couple years ago I used to work out a gym and interact with a group of the intellectually disabled who would come in for exercise. They told me they loved me, worked out with me, laughed with me and they were one of the best parts of gym time.

Musk runs propaganda platforms, fights unions, visits Epstein islands, buys elections, and is THE example of the oligarchy that is in a very real way ruining the world and destroying hope. He has no right to be given a label that would historically would place him in the same category as the people I knew for years.

Bullet vending machines? Just in case you find yourself running low on bullets while out and about in the city? “Damn it. They’re out of Snickers bars so I guess I’ll just settle for some 9mm.”

Rebrand as oil and gas facility repair and you might get hired here in Alberta lol Our current Premier is very pro-fossil fuel.

Canada. Hope you’ve got a job considered valuable, because there’s a lot of Americans trying to get here apparently.

Yes if it comes to that, and kept bounded by rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The US isn’t there yet IMO, by which I mean a significant % of people willing to leave their lives behind to fight other Americans. There are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists. I don’t know how a 43-year-old Canadian could contribute, but I’d be willing to at minimum donate to things like humanitarian aid for sure.

It won’t be a few if that happens, it won’t be limited to those that chose to fight (on either side), and deaths won’t be the only serious consequence. That’s why other people are asking for level heads.

Pro-violence Lemmy users and power fantasies in magical worlds where they kill a few dozen people and the world is saved.

They probably want to stay and steer their fellow citizens away from violent crimes and towards resisting in ways that don’t make them look like murderous stalkers. Why don’t you leave? If the US has become enough to justify these crimes, you’re still free to do so. You said so yourself.

Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being a reprehensible bastard. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter there are serious similarities or even exact mirrors between groups. Both:

• I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.

• I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.

• Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.

• Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to Trump are happening at all levels of government, my way is better and we don’t even need to wait.

• I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.

• I’m actually going to sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill for me because it makes me feel good. Just daily indulgence in the worst brand of power fantasies.

For that last one: The doxing thread would have been hilarious if it wasn’t disgusting before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guys who pick fights at bars and stall until the bouncer arrives then tell everyone else, “You’re lucky I was held back”. If I was wrong they’d be doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not talking BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act, it should be incredibly obvious I’m saying not to. I’m also saying I don’t need to worry about 99.9% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are clearly all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will actually act so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.

If you mean the link I posted, that’s fair, it’s a long article. It’s #8 on the list halfway down if you want to skip to it to confirm.

I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).

That’s a wonderful compliment and I genuinely smiled. Everyone has their skills, and I’m 100% positive you exceed me in other ways. We all contribute.

one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.

A 2nd response after thinking about that part of your question: Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Demands that, if acted upon, will escalate into enormous bloodshed without giving less destructive, more legal barriers a chance. The people pushing violence are unrepentantly promoting the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.

Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?

I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot civilians they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries formally declared war (although it took several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.

I also wrote about the likely consequence of vigilante killings including handing Trump and the extreme right all the excuses they could ever want, sabotaging legitimate efforts opposing/delaying Trump by organizations like the Pentagon and state governments, and getting their lives ended/ruined. Some folks are trying to equate promoting assassinations with the Allies’ fight against the Axis, and it’s just not the same in characteristics or consequence. Please also bear in mind the killings they are targeted at podcasters and unknown civilians with the assumption that killing these “ground level” people will sort things out.

I sincerely apologize then - even if I didn’t resort to insults etc., please forgive my undeniably hostile tone. I’ll edit the response. I’ve been under a lot of fire in this thread for opposing vigilantes, and I mistook your position for one of theirs. I may be mistaken again, but you sound like a pacifist. That is a stance I can empathize with and respect, if not honestly espouse myself. I think sometimes violence is a necessary final resort. I believe in trying to reduce harm in those instances by constraining the violence as described above.

What examples do you mean? Public/media figures like Fuentes have been killed? I didn’t know that. I’m Canadian, but I didn’t even know that Republicans and Democrats were regularly killing each other based on political affiliation. And nothing happened? No court cases, no escalations in rhetoric, the murders just disappeared? I would have thought it would be big news.

If that’s not what you mean, what do you mean by proven examples of the things we’re talking about?

I guess if you guys kill just a handful of people it’s alright, yeah? I don’t know what it will accomplish given the millions of people that fall under the category of “should die” in this thread, other than ruining/ending lives (including your own). But if you’re right perhaps you can get away with a few before it really kicks off. BTW, in case someone reads this - don’t kill people even if you’re angry. I don’t actually think “just a few” murders are the right thing to do.

You will get hate for it, but not because you’re wrong. Also, while doxing is technically legal in the US if it’s just posting a person’s details like address, it becomes illegal “if it’s part of an effort to truly threaten or harm someone, if it intentionally inflicts emotional distress, or if it invades someone’s privacy by revealing a highly offensive personal fact about that person without providing the public information about a matter of public concern.” Courts have decided malicious doxing is not protected by the First Amendment.

I’m pretty sure the original doxing thread was removed, and I’m willing to bet there’s more to it than the admin who said “fuck reports, it’s staying up” having a change of heart regarding morality.

I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.