Some Random Political Ranting

[Arnox]

"We can't let the other side win."

Shut up. I'm so FUCKING sick of this extremist take. (And yes, it is an extremist take. If you have this Sith attitude of, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," in politics, you flat out have extremist views. That is pretty much the textbook definition of extremism.) The majority of the US people act like a battered and abused housewife. They'll only vote for the party they think is gonna win, get inevitably fucked by them, and they'll vote for that party again and say one of two things.

1. "Oh, they're not that bad. Not as bad as the other side. I have to vote for them. I have no choice. See, I know that the political party I voted has so much good in them. Why can't you see that? Stop bringing my party down."

2. "Oh, that bad stuff didn't actually happen. lol I bet you got that information from THE OTHER side. They're always lying. They want to kill us/kill America. Why can't you see that? Stop bringing my party down."

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

The only way to stop some people from doing something you don't want, is to fight them. Not necessarily physically, as there might still be 2 boxes left..

"Silent is assent...". "First they came for...". "All it takes for evil to win...". Have you heard these?

I agree with not having a black and white outlook though, but when push comes to shove, you need to know where you stand. While also being aware of the shifting of the overton window, and the slippery slope (which is rarely a fallacy).

I'll also agree that when it's gray vs gray, professing to stand with this or that gray alone is rarely accomplishing any goals. Sadly, people seem to gravitate towards dualism, whatever the political landscape is. Be it kings and peasants, nobles and republicans, dictators and revolutionaries, rich and workers, or left and right-wing. That doesn't mean some groupings or organizations aren't totally evil. They are. Rarely if ever do the opposite occur, when an entity is entirely good. Nuance shouldn't be lost, but neither should one stop weighing the scales. Preferably without considerations towards a risk-averse strategy.

 

[Signa]

Ok, I guess I'm a proud extremist then. The thing is, I see it as a battle between people that want to be left alone and leave others alone in the process, vs people that want to meddle in everything and control what every person does at all times. The first group let the second group alone and the second group took the opportunity to seize control of basically everything they could until group 1 was under their thumb.

The first group is now starting to realize that "live and let live" doesn't work when there's people that disagree, and so you will hear messages such as "We can't let the other side win" from them now. They literally can't let them win, because they will be eradicated if they do. Group 2 doesn't have to worry about losing, because they can always come back and apply pressure later once Group 1 feels they can go back to living and letting live. Once they win, it's checkmate and they only have to hold onto the reigns of power and control to get what they want.

 

[Arnox]

Ok, I guess I'm a proud extremist then. The thing is, I see it as a battle between people that want to be left alone and leave others alone in the process, vs people that want to meddle in everything and control what every person does at all times. The first group let the second group alone and the second group took the opportunity to seize control of basically everything they could until group 1 was under their thumb.

The first group is now starting to realize that "live and let live" doesn't work when there's people that disagree, and so you will hear messages such as "We can't let the other side win" from them now. They literally can't let them win, because they will be eradicated if they do. Group 2 doesn't have to worry about losing, because they can always come back and apply pressure later once Group 1 feels they can go back to living and letting live. Once they win, it's checkmate and they only have to hold onto the reigns of power and control to get what they want.

There are major outside factors here as well though that you are not considering. For one, due to declining living standards, rising prices on the lower and middle class, and the decline of the family unit, there are now a LOT more people than there were that are both easier to push into radical actions and easier to use lies to convince them. There's also simply just a lot of pent up anger in general. People angry at their non-existent or abusive parents, angry at their employers, angry at the shitty way they need to apply for jobs, angry at all the debt they have to accrue just to go to school, angry at the completely ridiculous medical costs, of which over 50% of are probably going to "administrative costs"... And when people get this angry, they're going to look for a target. And, oh look, these two political parties just happen to offer one! "It's that OTHER political party. THEY'RE trying to destroy everything, see?"

Under normal conditions (which we are definitely not in), radicalization isn't really a factor. It's a numbers game. If, say, over 90% of people in the country are living comfortably, then they're generally not going to be vulnerable to radicalization. But as times worsen, a population will begin to want to resort to violence and more radical means of change. But as Roger Zelazny would say, "Personal feelings don't make for good politics, legal decisions, or business deals."

 

[Houseman]

Ok, I guess I'm a proud extremist then. The thing is, I see it as a battle between people that want to be left alone and leave others alone in the process, vs people that want to meddle in everything and control what every person does at all times. The first group let the second group alone and the second group took the opportunity to seize control of basically everything they could until group 1 was under their thumb.

The first group is now starting to realize that "live and let live" doesn't work when there's people that disagree, and so you will hear messages such as "We can't let the other side win" from them now. They literally can't let them win, because they will be eradicated if they do. Group 2 doesn't have to worry about losing, because they can always come back and apply pressure later once Group 1 feels they can go back to living and letting live. Once they win, it's checkmate and they only have to hold onto the reigns of power and control to get what they want.

Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral, so they don't vote. This could lead to us being in unfavorable conditions if laws were passed against us, laws that they could have stopped if we had voted according to our interests (such as self-preservation).

We do, however, fight in court. We have won landmark, precedent-establishing cases regarding freedom of speech. Of course, that only works when there is a law that we can use as a defense.

So if we do nothing, politically, and let others extinguish us, that's fine. We'll carry on our activities in secret and risk jail, or we'll move elsewhere. We have it as a prophecy that the governments of the world will turn against religion anyway, and then the end will come.

But for others who don't have such a hope, I can understand why they'd take it upon themselves to defend themselves, politically or otherwise.

 

[Signa]

There are major outside factors here as well though that you are not considering. al means of change. But as Roger Zelazny would say, "Personal feelings don't make for good politics, legal decisions, or business deals."

Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral, so they don't vote.

Good replies, both of you. I don't think I have much to add, but I didn't want them to go unacknowledged either.

 

[Arnox]

Good replies, both of you. I don't think I have much to add, but I didn't want them to go unacknowledged either.

<3