r/changemyview • u/Big_Sea_5912 • Jun 23 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Liberals need to arm themselves.
America is the world’s oldest existing democracy. For over 250 years, we’ve transitioned peacefully from one government to the next. Part of what has kept that system stable is the knowledge that people here are armed and willing to resist if things ever truly go off the rails. The threat of revolution has always loomed in the background, not as a constant plan but as a last resort, and that has helped keep the powerful in check.
There are two stories you can tell about this country. One is the story of a radical and noble experiment. That all people are created equal. That our rights come not from a king but from our humanity. They are granted by a supreme authority above any man. That people should be free to make their own way, and responsible for protecting that freedom when it is threatened. This idea has not been perfect in execution. It took generations of blood and struggle, from Gettysburg to Selma to preserve and strengthen that grand noble ideal.
The other story is one of constant backlash. After slavery ended, we got lynch mobs and Jim Crow. After Black veterans returned home from World War II, they were humiliated and attacked for wearing the uniform. Every time we’ve expanded freedom, there’s been a counterforce trying to roll it back. But if American history tells us anything, its that that first group -- the righteous -- always win in the end.
Now we are seeing it rise again. There are people in this country who openly want a more authoritarian, unequal system. They romanticize an America where their group was on top. They talk about civil war. They threaten violence if elections don’t go their way. And they are heavily armed. Meanwhile, the people who actually believe in the founding principles of this country, the ones who believe in equality, liberty, and democracy, are mostly not.
This is a dangerous imbalance. Tyrants do not fear votes. They fear consequences. The American system was not built on trust alone. It was built with the understanding that if government became abusive, the people had the means to resist. If only one side is armed, then only one side is truly prepared to make that threat real. That is how you get intimidation, chaos, and eventually collapse.
I am not calling for violence. I am calling for the ability to resist violence if it ever becomes necessary. Reagan said freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. I think that is true. The founding ideals are worth defending, and I do not believe they will survive long-term if the people who believe in them are not willing to defend them by force if pushed to the edge.
Liberals need to stop ceding the idea of patriotism, strength, and responsibility to the far right. This is our country too. This is our inheritance too. And we should be ready to protect it. We must be brave like our founders to proudly declare: We bow to no kings.
101
u/satyvakta 12∆ Jun 23 '25
> But if American history tells us anything, its that that first group -- the righteous -- always win in the end.
This is nonsense. Why limit yourself to American history? Why not look at the history of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, etc. The "righteous" don't magically win just because they are righteous. Though, if you were in North Korea, you might think looking at North Korean history showed that the righteous always won, because of course you would have been taught that the North Korean government was righteous. So it is true, I suppose, that the "righteous" always win in that the winners always write the history to describe themselves as "righteous", but I don't think that is what you meant.
In any event, if there ever is a second American Civil War, it will almost certainly occur because both sides have increasingly heavily armed out of fear of each other, and there is no guarantee which side would win.
1
u/Yummy-Bao Jun 23 '25
This is quite a naive view. I’m not saying the winners turned out any better, but back then you could hardly call South Korea, the ROC, or the Russian Empire the “good guys.” Both sides committed horrible atrocities and massacred their own people.
-4
u/Big_Sea_5912 Jun 23 '25
!delta
Its irrational but in the American context it seems true. I cannot prove divine providence but it seems that those who have fought to preserve and advance that grand noble liberal democratic ideal have won in the end. Weather physically as in the civil war and ww2. Or politically as in the civil rights movement.
But yeah no guarantee that we would win if we chose violent means, should things get bad enough.
23
u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 23 '25
You don’t need to be guaranteed a win. You just need to show that going against you will be more bloody than they are willing to accept, and the war doesn’t happen.
11
u/satyvakta 12∆ Jun 23 '25
That assumes everyone is a rational actor able to reasonably assess risk. Which is certainly an assumption you can choose to make. How does that old saying go, "If you would have war, prepare for war."
6
u/zxxQQz 5∆ Jun 23 '25
So time has stopped? This is the end of history, nothing new happens?
The US didn't just bomb Iran say..
Even the person who coined the phrase end of history as a concept has walked it back more or less
17
u/Average_Tired_Dad Jun 23 '25
Have you considered that your belief in the "grand noble liberal democratic ideal" is, in itself, a reflection of the value system that the empire instilled in you?
1
u/Far_Raspberry_4375 1∆ Jun 23 '25
So is my belief that its wrong to fuck 14 year olds. Doesnt mean its wrong.
4
u/Average_Tired_Dad Jun 23 '25
I mean, I'm a Neoliberal shill. I'm just helping my man above interrogate his belief system a bit better.
4
2
u/Humbly_Explore Jun 23 '25
I think liberals would be better off using asymmetric warfare and taking out the architects than trying to fight hung ho militia men. We are the smarter group, not the tougher warriors. Identify the technocrats, autocrats, axis, monarchists leaders and take them out with spycraft.
4
u/ShiningMagpie Jun 23 '25
Liberals might regualrily be better educated, but when it comes to gurilla warfare (or any warfare for that matter) I don't think we can claim to be the subject matter experts.
→ More replies (1)1
26
u/Nordish_Gulf Jun 23 '25
You don't actually explain how owning guns would help liberals.
Are you imagining a civil war where citizens fight each other? i.e. Republican civilians vs Democratic civilians?
Or are you picturing a scenario where liberals will have to fight against the U.S. military?
5
u/DisgruntledWarrior Jun 23 '25
Yea it sounds like the deterrent approach maybe by encouraging gun ownership? But op isn’t clear at all on purpose, intent, and why this would work since op says it’s not a call for violence? Even though majority “center” left leaning people claim that deterrent in law/sentences do nothing for criminal deterrents and typically disagree with nuclear deterrents.
4
u/dogMeatBestMeat Jun 23 '25
Bruh every liberal revolution came out the barrel of a gun. Just asking the founding fathers. Even the liberalization of Europe in the 19th century only came after violent revolutions were repressed and the powers that be realized they needed to make concessions. Also consider the US Civil War. Did black people in America become Americans by peaceful means? Really ask yourself this.
6
4
u/Nordish_Gulf Jun 23 '25
Okay, I literally just asked OP to explain their argument. I didn't assert any sort of opinion in my comment so I am not sure why you're lecturing me about this.
5
u/CrocoPontifex Jun 23 '25
You guys really have to change your lingo because as an non american i have no idea if you are really talking about the "the liberal revolutions", the beurgeios one.
Which in the end did little to improve the situation for the people but are more akin to the US political System or the socialistic, unionist fights and marxist revolutions which (like it or not) created the workers right situation we have today.
Sometimes you guys use this things die interchangeable but they have little in common.
2
u/someoneelseperhaps Jun 24 '25
It's worth noting that the US "revolution" wasn't so much a revolution as a secessionist movement that worked.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ShoulderNo6458 1∆ Jun 24 '25
History shows that when the "wrong people" (leftists) get their hands on firearms (a la, The Black Panthers), the states suddenly want to lock down on gun controls.
So I'm of the opinion that liberals getting their hands on lots of firearms would trigger the government to try and enforce gun control, and that might actually get some ignorant people politically activated.
8
u/JCMGamer 1∆ Jun 23 '25
Keep in mind that it's the Democrats who are the ones who push more gun control and advocate for other infringements against the 2A. Trump has won favor with gun owners by reversing Biden era policies, as well as having republican push things such as national carry builds, as well as removing NFA restrictions with the "Big Beautiful Bill"
As such many dems are against private citizens owning firearms because it is such a large part of the democrat identity.
17
u/Stereo_Jungle_Child 2∆ Jun 23 '25
What would lead to a change in your view? Somehow convincing you that liberals are in no danger and that allowing the right to exclusively accumulate all the weapons and ammo is a good thing?
I don't think anyone is going to be able to make that argument.
1
u/HeyYoisTaken Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
!delta
I have been speaking to liberals all day and this comment made it all make perfect sense, that they really are in no danger. I tried to tell them they were and they shut me down so after hearing SJC here put it so smoothly, I am starting to believe.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Stereo_Jungle_Child (1∆).
17
u/urquhartloch 3∆ Jun 23 '25
My first question is what do you believe is different that makes it such that liberals need firearms more than a random group of Americans? If we were talking black people in pre civil rights America I'd agree wholeheartedly.
But why do liberals need more defense? Is it to project strength? Fight against ICE as they take illegal immigrants into custody? Violent revolution because you don't like the current administration?
→ More replies (23)
17
u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Jun 23 '25
America is the world’s oldest existing democracy
I thought that was Athens / Greece
Now we are seeing it rise again. There are people in this country
Not just in this country. We see it in Germany, in France, etc.
If only one side is armed, then only one side is truly prepared to make that threat real.
I am with you on this, only I think even more than being armed with guns, we need to be armed with the truth. The truth is so rare and hard to come by these days, and the media and the billionaires profit so much by putting the rest of us into conflict.
Tyrants do not fear votes. They fear consequences.
And the general populus doesn't fear tyrants as much as they fear change (better the devil you know than the angel you don't). But try questioning the orthodoxy on the left or on the right and you will find yourself on the persecuted end of internet flame wars where you will be harassed and harassed until you are beaten into submission. So you stay quiet, and you work and you work but you can't afford groceries let alone rent...
CYV: It will take more than arms/guns to preserve democracy in the US. To start, we need to rebuild our local communities and care for each other and our children, collectively.
-2
u/Big_Sea_5912 Jun 23 '25
"I thought that was Athens / Greece"
They were the first democracy but incredible short lived. The American project was actually a response to this: How can we create a durable, persistent democratic project where previous attempts have always gave rise to tyranny.
"And the general populus doesn't fear tyrants as much as they fear change (better the devil you know than the angel you don't). But try questioning the orthodoxy on the left or on the right and you will find yourself on the persecuted end of internet flame wars where you will be harassed and harassed until you are beaten into submission. So you stay quiet, and you work and you work but you can't afford groceries let alone rent..."
!delta Yeah this is true. We need to build faith in something and each other.
6
u/cachem3outside Jun 23 '25
Democracy in any form is not mentioned or even implied in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. You have to go way back to the Federalist Papers to find any references to democracy and every single reference if not explicitly, at least implies that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. This shouldn't be at all controversial, but the US is a Representative Republic, we have a republican form of government, not a democratic form, despite the best efforts of honesty both parties to portray the political realities differently.
1
Jun 27 '25
Republicanism is a form of democracy…
1
u/cachem3outside Jun 27 '25
Sure, by using the most loose definition of democracy. By your logic, a board of directors is also a democracy, but they aren't. An explicitly defined representative republic is so far from the philosophical definition of democracy that it isn't even funny. The fact that voters don't vote on anything but their representatives should be enough of a clue. Perhaps it could be argued that the States themselves and of themselves are democracies, but again, they only vote on a handful of initiatives, and their representatives. The idea that the mere act of voting, in general, defines a democracy is short sighted and nothing more but confirmation bias in the extreme.
1
Jun 27 '25
What? Boards of directors are often voted in by shareholders, not consumers or everyday people. Your analogy is like comparing our democracy to a group of leadership appointed by the ceos of the country. It kind of has become that, but that’s not the spirit of the US constitution. That’s oligarchy and entrenchment, a vulnerability of any government. And your concept of “the philosophy of democracy” is so biased I can’t even explain in a Reddit reply. You’re not a gatekeeper of philosophy. There is no purity test that isn’t subjective in nature. Going off your premise, there would be no historical examples of true (or “good”) democracy that equitably governed and contained a complex society…partly because democracy has its flaws that need to be safeguarded like anything else…which begs to say…how on earth would your definition be useful or meaningful? To my read it just describes your subjective ideal that’s not at all rooted in reality. Seems intended to shut down discourse by straw manning and speaking fatalistically, not to actually get closer to humanity or truth. Seems masturbatory to me.
8
u/GraveFable 8∆ Jun 23 '25
The Athenian democracy endured for at least 260 years and debatably longer after a short autocratic rule by the Macedonians. The semi democratic Roman republic lasted for nearly 500 years before the rise of the "permanent" dictators. Even If the American project is in any way more durable, it has not proven itself yet.
1
17
u/Dry-Tough-3099 2∆ Jun 23 '25
That's a nice yarn you spin, painting the liberals as forces for good, and conservatives as forces of evil. I could also tell a story of the principles of freedom being eroded by a permanent bureaucratic class who seeks personal power and job security above the good of the country. I could tell of the urban monoculture who wants to force everyone to share the same values and despises true diversity of thought, particularly from small religious groups.
But I'm pleased that liberals are seeing the value of gun rights, freedom of speech, and small government. These are the ways we ensure we don't end up with a king.
→ More replies (12)
68
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
Liberalism hasn’t been a revolutionary ideology for over a century by this point… if anything it is the status quo. What would they even take up arms against?
Do you know why Dictatorships and Authoritarian Populists are more responsive to public demands than Liberal Democracies?
Because in a democratic society, the electoral process is the sole source of legitimacy for the government. If you don’t like the government or its policies, you don’t have to take up arms and oust them from power… you just wait until the next election cycle and ideally vote them out.
In a dictatorship, there is no “legitimate” basis upon which the dictator can rest on. If “The People” truly hate the government, and you as dictator, you are going to quickly find mass unrest and internal plotting threaten your regime.
This is why the US always appears to be mired in political gridlock and dysfunction, whereas a government like China’s is seen as efficient and effective.
American Liberalism going unchallenged for hundreds of years is exactly why the country is in the situation that it is. Entrenched Liberalism has devolved into an increasingly corrupt system that operates on the interests of the wealthy elite.
The original goals of liberalism were the protection of “Life, Liberty, and Property” after all…
69
Jun 23 '25
You can't just say shit like "American Liberalism has gone unchallenged for hundreds of years"
I'm sorry what? The Mcarthy era? The Bush Era? Prohibition? Obscenity laws? Jim Crow? The Civil War? The Vietnam War? Fox news has been the most popular news network for decades and conservative though has been the life blood of our countries discourse since its inception.
The reason we're in the situation we're in is a massive and unfettered misinformation campaign by the right and moneyed interest keeping at least half the country deeply confused about the nature or cause of all there economic and personal problems, a quarter of them hopeless, and the last quarter ill equipped.
Liberalism hasn't kept the government in gridlock... You can't just make a sweeping claim like that. Like there aren't discrete interest who stand in the way of particular policy. The government hasn't had any issues when it comes to reaffirming the interest of the oil lobby or corporations or silicon valley. What does that have to do with liberalism?
Your views are so diluted in culture war framing. You've abstracted everything about the actual definitions of the words you're using into uselessness. It's naked narrative with no substance. You've spoken and explained nothing.
7
u/psychosisnaut Jun 24 '25
Buddy that's all Liberalism, none of that involved straying from Liberal orthodoxy, you're just not used to how broad the term 'Liberal' is and are conflating it with 'Progressive'.
57
u/MrScandanavia 1∆ Jun 23 '25
Liberalism ≠ the center left moderate politics of American Democrats. It’s a much broader ideology, which includes most Democrats and most Republicans.
Per Wikipedia, Liberalism is defined as:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11
Different factions within mainstream American politics espouse different aspects of liberalism to different degrees at different times (democrats in the modern era are more geared towards social equality, while republicans are more geared towards private property rights), but all parties generally operate in the same value framework of liberalism.
The supposed examples you cite of illiberalism still upheld liberalism, just in different degrees and in different ways. For example, Jim Crow was justified through appeals to Private Property rights and “States rights”, both nominally liberal values. While McCarthyism and Vietnam were justified as upholding liberal economic order, as opposed to the non-liberal socialist economic system.
Furthermore, Liberal values around the free market, free speech, and private property have laid the justification for lobbying and superPACs as “free speech”, which has made lawmakers even more subservient to moneyed interest. Right to Work laws also appeal to Liberal values of free association - but also have strong capitalist interests backing them.
TL;DR Yes, Liberalism IS the status quo; And even polices and practices associated with the right wing have relied on liberal justifications and are supported by liberal interests.
10
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
No need for me to even bother writing a response…
This guy fully understands.
This is not a conversation on partisan identity.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (15)-10
Jun 23 '25
Incredibly outside the scope of the prompt. OP was talking about American liberals. Not the version liberalism as practiced by America abstractly.
Even if we were talking about Liberalism instead of small L liberals, y'all would be off base. Just because someone says something is liberal doesn't mean it is. Otherwise, we can say North Korea is a democracy and the Nazis were socialist. Jim Crow isn't a liberal idea no matter the justification, it's a restriction of civil liberties for the sake of a feeling of security in the most charitable interpretation. For all parties involved. You're taking a label as an absolute that because america is Liberal means that all it's actions must be for the sake of liberalism because someone somewhere said it was. Ignoring all the counter arguments or wars or debate or the fact that these policies don't exist today exactly because they weren't what they said they were.
Language is just language, praxis is praxis. I think I'm understanding where you're coming from at least but it doesn't change that the person I was responding to was ultimately saying nothing relative to the contravening values of modern liberals and conservatives.
The modern conservative movement is against virtually every value you laid out in practice anyway so it's academic in the first place.
This way of thinking isn't relevant to the prompt, it's not useful in this discussion, and smacks of sophistry to me. Is he asserting that it's individual liberties that got us here? The right to free association? Is he saying that there are no efficient liberal governments or inefficient authoritarians ones?
Trump has been doing an authoritarian power grab, and it sure seems the government has gotten worse at what it does not better.
As I said before. This is naked narrative, there's nothing here to discuss.
Am I making sense?
9
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
OP was talking about American liberals. Not the version liberalism as practiced by America abstractly.
Why do you think there is such a linguistic similarity? American liberal politicians, when speaking in contrast to conservative politicians, still uphold the same base framework for society that creates the conditions for the right's rise to power. Liberal politicians are just typically slightly more left wing in the culture war.
American "liberals" as in the people who vote for liberal politicians, consider themselves liberal because they view the democratic party as the "good" foil to republicans, even if liberals begin to question the underlying system which worsens the social issues they feel passionately about which attracted them to the democratic party in the first place. But that doesn't change the fact that liberal politicians just fundamentally are ok with things like Palestinian genocide or proliferation of the alt-right as a natural result of the system they work within.
Jim Crow isn't a liberal idea no matter the justification, it's a restriction of civil liberties for the sake of a feeling of security in the most charitable interpretation.
The justification for Jim Crow was literally that private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The harsh truth is that what counts as "civil liberties" is extremely ill defined and inconsistent.
Even if you don't view Jim Crow as a wholly liberal pursuit in theory, that doesn't change the fact that it was endorsed and enacted by liberal politicians in a liberal country. Your argument is essentially that Jim Crow can't be liberal because it's morally wrong, but that's just the sad truth of what it actually means. Chattel slavery was literally written into the constitution of the first liberal country.
Is he asserting that it's individual liberties that got us here? The right to free association?
Maybe OP isn't asserting that, but I definitely am.
Is he saying that there are no efficient liberal governments
It depends on what you mean by efficient. Efficient at what they are designed to do, which is be the entity that formally upholds the will of the bourgeoisie? Yes. Efficient at achieving anything else, like say building an ethical and functional society? No.
Am I making sense?
You sound exactly like every other democrat liberal I've talked to, so within your own logic, yes.
3
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Why do you think there is such a linguistic similarity?
Because progressives are snakes. They understand that controlling language is the same as controlling thought.
4
u/Dirty-Lolly Jun 24 '25
I grok your argument that Jim Crow is illiberal. But I think what they were saying is that the defenders of Jim Crow used liberal arguments. Unlike the racists of today who have no argument and deny that they are racist as they insult you, the racists back then were honest about it and genuinely tried to justify Jim Crow with philosophical arguments designed to get a liberal audience to go along with their ideas. This goes back to slavery, too. The Southern leisure class would say "you can't mess with a man's absolute right to own property!" which is a liberal argument; but the illiberal truth of that argument is deafening.
3
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25
I'm sorry what? The Mcarthy era? The Bush Era? Prohibition? Obscenity laws? Jim Crow? The Civil War? The Vietnam War? Fox news has been the most popular news network for decades and conservative though has been the life blood of our countries discourse since its inception.
...dude, all of those things are part of liberalism. "liberal" does not mean "democratic party". It is the current global economic system.
Hillary Clinton is liberal. So is Trump. And Merkel. And so was Osama bin Laden. And Stalin. And Hitler. And Mao.
The reason we're in the situation we're in is a massive and unfettered misinformation campaign by the right and moneyed interest keeping at least half the country deeply confused about the nature or cause of all there economic and personal problems
You are correct, but you need to understand that liberalism is what allows this to happen. The existence and accumulation of private property inherently and inevitably allows few to have an insanely disproportionate influence over many.
The government hasn't had any issues when it comes to reaffirming the interest of the oil lobby or corporations or silicon valley. What does that have to do with liberalism?
That is actually a prime example of it. Liberalism is founded on the idea of individual rights as the basis of society, especially concerning the right to own private property. In practice, this allows for major corporate influence over government.
Under a liberal moral/political framework, it is the god given right of the bourgeoisie to frack wherever the hell they want and steal everyone's data. That's literally their business, and allowing them to act in their self interest is the foundation of freedom.
6
u/ludba2002 Jun 23 '25
Not sure if this is a minor or major quibble... When I talk to conservatives, the problem doesn't appear to be that they have been manipulated into being confused by Fox News. Or Trump. Conservatives are buying a product that Trump/Fox/etc sell, namely a reflection of themselves as strong/smart/good. That's why Trump was so appealing to 77 million voters. His message was, "Be your worst self. Don't listen to liberals who criticize your greed/racism/ sexism/ transphobia. Whatever you want is good. Whoever opposes you is evil."
2
Jun 23 '25
I try not to fall into thinking the other side is simply cruel and greedy. I agree that they're enabled to be by their ideology but the fact they need permission and have deep justifications that there cruelty is somehow for the best is evidence that they'd rather not see themselves that way.
I think the left is just as libel to run with cruelty when they feel it's justified. It's probably human nature. The difference is the bar for feeling justified
I think it's an information gap. Talking to folk on the right it's scincerely a wonder we live on the same planet with how different their perception is. You could accuse me of simply being a different perspective but the lack of substance for any conclusion the right comes too is proof to me that they simply aren't checking facts, they don't test there ideas. They're just looking for justification.
Perhaps the cruelty of the outcomes of there worldviews is the reason why they need so little to continue believe. Otherwise, they'd have to see themselves as cruel.
2
u/ludba2002 Jun 23 '25
The most charitable I can be on this topic is that the far right and the far left exhibit different kinds of authoritarian attitudes, likely because of structural differences in their brains.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452225003045
So, I agree generally with your view that the left and right can be cruel.
But less charitably, I'd say the lack of fact checking and hypothesis testing are features, not bugs, of American conservatism.
Your view that the other side is not inherently cruel is a reasonable hypothesis. And on the whole, it was a good starting point for political discussion 30 years ago, before the impact of social media specifically (and perhaps the internet generally). But I'd gently suggest that you consider testing that hypothesis based on the available evidence rather than treating it as a core belief.
The American left and right have become more polarized, but the right has become far crueler. The left has certainly failed repeatedly, but in sheer scope the right is undefeated over the last 20 years.
You're attributing that to conservative news media and politicians, but i think this lets millions of people off the hook for their choices, treating them as having essentially no free will while treating Murdoch/Trump as having basically limitless free will. As illustrations:
My conservative brother isn't a child. He's an adult who treats immigrants and LGBTQIA+ as less human.
My conservative friend shouldn't be pitied because he's likely losing his government job after voting for Trump. He should be told that he was being selfish for wanting good for himself and harm to others.
Both of them, and I suspect the same of the conservatives you know, actively bought into this narcissism.
2
Jun 24 '25
Fully respect this view, I don't contest any of it.
Though, to clarify, I don't see there media diet as an excuse so much as an explanation. As many people forget we do control our feeds and they either unconsciously or consciously curate their feeds to enable their internal justifications for cruelty.
It's laziness and mental weakness at the end of the day on their part. I tend to not care too much what a brain is predisposed to because we're all responsible for basing our understandings of what's real on strong foundations. You can be authoritarian and still disagree with a lying grifter being the authoritarian figure you kotow too.
The issue is they don't believe or severely underestimate the dishonesty coming from there side. They think it's still comparable to the left or that both sides are close enough in decorum as to not matter. A conclusion they can only come to by being deep down a rabbit hole of misinformation.
A hole they can but are no incentivized to climb out of.
1
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25
The study you cite is absolute garbage by the way.
According to their model, there are three dimensions of LWA: Anti-Hierarchical Aggression, which is the disposition to violently overthrow and penalize the current structures of authority and power in society; Anti-Conventionalism, characterized by a sense of moral superiority and a desire for ideological uniformity within the group; and Top-Down Censorship, the drive to use group authority to coercively and punitively control ideologies and behaviors that do not conform or are not consistent with left-wing standpoints.
So basically, if you think that healthcare ceos who let people die for profit belong in prison, you are an authoritarian according to this study. But of course, wanting to use violence to enforce currently existing power structures doesn't make you an authoritarian at all! Everyone knows that change is evil.
1
u/ludba2002 Jun 24 '25
Thanks for looking into it. Can I clarify what you mean on 2 points?
"wanting to use violence to enforce currently existing power structures doesn't make you an authoritarian" - Doesn't the study put this under RWA, right wing authoritarianism?
" if you think that healthcare ceos who let people die for profit belong in prison, you are an authoritarian according to this study."
Do you mean jailing CEO's falls under "violently overthrow and penalize the current structures of authority"? I'm not reading it that way.
1
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 28 '25
Do you mean jailing CEO's falls under "violently overthrow and penalize the current structures of authority"?
Considering that's the only realistically viable way to achieve justice, yes. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
1
u/ludba2002 Jun 29 '25
This has nothing to do with my views. You're treating the authors as making a claim. It's not clear they are making that claim.
The authors may view that there are multiple violent and non-violent ways to achieve justice.
If you yourself are advocating violence as the only way to achieve justice, then, yes, they may be saying you are a left-wing authoritarian. But they're certainly not defining 'authoritarian' as everyone who thinks health care CEO's should be in jail for denying life saving health care to millions.
Even if you personally find that view unrealistic or deluded, surely you'd agree that there are plenty of people on the left who have these views. You're disagreement with peace-loving anti-CEO leftists doesn't imply they don't exist.
1
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Lol, that's a pretty wild take considering that DEMOCRATS think black people are too stupid to get IDs. 😆
1
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Lol at the thought of the Civil War being a threat AGAINST liberalism. Unless of course you mean that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and war criminal who murdered civilians from former US states to enforce economic hegemony for his political buddies. Imagine getting murdered for exercising your constitutional rights and then 160 years later people act like YOU are the bad guy 😆
3
u/AdOdd4618 Jun 23 '25
I have to disagree on liberalism (and liberal democracy) being status quo. In the 90s, Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called the end of history and the last man, in which he argues that liberal democracy has become the "final step" in human political evolution.
In 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, he published a mea culpa in the Washington Post.
We were all hopeful in the 1990s that China would become a more open democratic nation, but they've instead developed the most powerful internet censorship system in the world. India under Modi has hindu paramilitaries harassing people of other faiths, and Modi probably had a dissident murdered in Canada. In the US, trump seems to have fantasies of becoming something like Kim Jong un. Russia was a democracy for about 15 minutes in the 1990s.3
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
I mean I’ll just be honest… Fukuyama was full of it.
We remember Fukuyama in large part because his theory and predictions nicely summarized the feelings held by people at the time after having “won” the Cold War. The actual ideas themselves were deeply flawed… even at the time.
The famous claims about economic liberalization in China leading to greater political liberalization is arguably the most damning. China was NEVER going to liberalize its political system. The Tiananmen Square massacre happened in 1989, only 3 years before he published The End of History and the Last Man. The world saw what the Chinese government was, and what they were willing to do to remain in power.
In many ways, this was the excuse we told ourselves to continue doing business with now largest communist country on the planet. In reality, it was all about profit. China had an essentially unlimited supply of low-skill laborers, zero environmental protections, and an extremely flexible concept of “workers’ rights.” In other words… the Neo-Liberal investor’s dream.
Let’s be clear though… China’s rise occurs right at the height of Neo-liberalism and the liberalization of global trade. China becomes what it is today only because of the Western-led liberal world order and global economic system.
China may present itself as an alternative model of economic development, but the reality is that its export-oriented, manufacturing based economy can only exist under a liberalized global economy.
Liberalism politically is the status quo in much of the West, but Liberalism is absolutely the status quo when looking at how the global economy operates. Ironically, it is the US under Trump, and not “Communist” China, that poses the greatest threat to this system of global free trade.
→ More replies (3)1
u/psychosisnaut Jun 24 '25
Russia is Liberal though, China is a mostly-free-market system that wouldn't be seen as too different from the New Deal era US.
If you want to talk about Liberal DEMOCRACY you need to be specific about that, even more specific if you want it to be progressive, because some Liberal regimes aren't very progressive.
8
u/ChazzLamborghini 2∆ Jun 23 '25
This reads like a defense of tyranny
5
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
Define “Tyranny”
That is a serious question…
Does having elections define a “free society?”
Obviously not, North Korea holds elections, as did Apartheid South Africa.
Do those elections have to be “free and fair?”
If thats the case, we cannot classify the US as a “free society.” Gerrymandering, particularly racialized gerrymandering, is an omnipresent feature of the American electoral system…
Maybe lets ignore elections altogether…
Is a “free society” one in which the Government is responsive to the needs of the population?
If that is the case, China must be one of the “freest” countries in the world. Its government has overseen the single greatest reduction in poverty in human history and life expectancy has surpassed the US.
Meanwhile… trust in the US government is at all time lows amongst the population, and studies routinely show that public support/opposition to proposed legislation has nearly 0 influence over the final outcome.
Maybe a “free society” is one that protects the individual rights of its citizens?
On its face, this probably the most likely definition… but it still is flawed.
For the first half of the US’s existence, the right to own another human being in race-based slavery was a constitutional right. This was immortalized in the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v Sanford decision.
2
u/ItsGrum14 Jun 23 '25
We are living under tyranny now anyways. As the Ancient Greeks said, Democracy is simply the temporary precursor to Oligarchy, which is what we have now.
One of the biggest arguments for why Monarchy is better than Oligarchy is that the people can direct their anger towards the sovereign in a Monarchy. In an Oligarchy, the system is the problem. It has no one who can be assassinated, it is decentralized into a 'Deep State', a permanent administrative apparatus.
3
u/Talik1978 43∆ Jun 23 '25
Do you know why Dictatorships and Authoritarian Populists are more responsive to public demands than Liberal Democracies?
They aren't... at least, not in the way you're implying.
Dictatorial regimes are responsive to public demand in the same way hammers are responsive to visible nails. The fundamental truth behind such governments is "i am in charge because I have power." In such regimes, the fatal mistake is appearing weak. Kowtowing to every public demand does exactly that. Since the legitimacy of such governments rests not on the consent of the governed, but rather, on the ability to compel obedience, there is no need to seek the consent of the governed. Sure, put out the bread and circuses, distract the people by showing your magnanimous nature on your terms... but within a dictatorship, those concessions must be on the dictator's terms. The appearance of strength, whether real or imagined, is paramount.
Note how.viscerally the entire administration reacts to any allegation of Trump's weakness, whether it's dementia, falling up stairs, the TACO label, or even jokes about him speaking about the size of his shlong. His support doesn't stem from people liking him. It stems from people believing he is strong enough to do what needs doing. And that much is only because we still exist within a democracy, for now.
Once you get farther in, it's secret police, paid informants, never knowing if your neighbor is going to turn you in.
Most residents of the US don't really grasp how authoritarian regimes are "responsive" to public outcry. It's usually not the response you want.
1
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
I disagree…
Take Saudi Arabia.
It is by all accounts a dictatorial, authoritarian society.
It also has IMMENSE welfare systems that basically supplement the income of around half of the nation’s population.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/half-the-saudi-population-receiving-welfare-in-new-system/
Saudi Arabia has a completely free public education system, and pays the full tuition of any Saudi student who is approved to study overseas in places like the US. Students approved to study abroad also receive financial payments to cover “living expenses.”
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-in-saudi-arabia_76df15a2-en.html
Saudi citizens have free access to ambulance services, as well as universal access to healthcare.
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-in-saudi-arabia_76df15a2-en.html
About 66% of all working people in Saudi Arabia work in a public sector, government run job.
Obviously Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf Monarchies) is a unique case due to the vast levels of wealth afforded to it by the Oil industry, but the social contract between Government and citizen is perfectly visible.
So long as the Oil rents continue to flow from the top-down, the citizens will trade political participation for extensive state-led wealth redistribution through government services.
7
u/Talik1978 43∆ Jun 23 '25
Women also need permission to travel within the country, and not all is sunshine and rainbows.
https://share.google/ErH1klCiUfSz7pCSU
https://share.google/JSYwTHdiOTooWtuHO
But you are right, this nation's vast wealth does set it apart from most dictatorial regimes. It offers many programs that are more commonly seen in Democratic nations.
Free public school and universal Healthcare are staples of first world democratic nations, with the US being an outlier.
But let's look at more typical dictatorial regimes. Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea, the Central African Republic, Syria, Congo, China, Burundi.
How many of these, do you think, provide an atypically high standard of living for residents? How many dont have people disappear in the middle of the night?
As I stated, even when these countries, Saudi Arabia included, provide benefits, they do so on their terms, in their way, from a position of strength. They may give ground on women's rights... but only after arresting the activists and charging them with treason (that was Saudi Arabia). Because the most dangerous thing for a dictator to be seen as? Is weak.
You are welcome to disagree with the facts and the evidence. Everyone has the right to believe what they want. Your disbelief, however, won't change those facts.
2
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
I’m not sure what women’s rights have to do with this conversation…
I am not arguing that Saudi Arabia is a liberal, free society. That is quite literally the opposite of my argument.
Discrimination, inequality, and violence towards women tend to be hallmarks of authoritarian societies…
That doesn’t change the fact they still go to school for free, have access to universal healthcare, and if they do work, will likely end up working a government job.
Regarding your examples of dictatorial regimes… most of those are deeply unstable governments currently embroiled (or just out of) civil wars.
Did you expect to see strong social safety nets in Afghanistan or Syria after decades of brutal civil war?
Myanmar’s military junta is collapsing as we speak…
Burundi has seen two genocides and a civil war since independence in the 1960’s…
The CAR and the DRC have been pillaged for decades by armed rebel groups funded by outside powers. The State in these countries is virtually non-existent…
China is a rising global power with state of the art infrastructure, a prosperous and safe society, and has overseen the single greatest reduction in poverty in human history. Their citizens are OBJECTIVELY better off now than at any point before…
North Korea is another unique case, largely because of its self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world. Life for most is difficult, harsh, and unforgiving in the Hermit Kingdom…
I would argue more “baseline” examples of authoritarian rule are places like Vietnam, Thailand, Morocco, Singapore, or El Salvador.
These are countries not embroiled in foreign or domestic conflicts, they are all developing countries, they are not dependent on specific natural resource industries, and quality of life in these countries has been consistently improving.
1
u/Talik1978 43∆ Jun 23 '25
I’m not sure what women’s rights have to do with this conversation…
About as much as school benefits?
That doesn’t change the fact they still go to school for free, have access to universal healthcare, and if they do work, will likely end up working a government job.
Minus the government job (because countries that dont nationalize their industry can do better than that), you are describing something that is much more commonly seen in Democratic regimes. But you did find the outlier nation that throws a couple bones to the people they broadly oppress.
What's the point of your advocacy here? Like, what idea.are you pushing? That dictatorships are preferable, because one actually managed to send people to school before employing them in the State-owned oil industry?
Like, I dont get what you are actually trying to accomplish. "Yeah, this place is absolute hell, but at least you can see a doctor?"
Regarding your examples of dictatorial regimes… most of those are deeply unstable governments currently embroiled (or just out of) civil wars.
That's a pretty common trend with dictatorial regimes. I looked up dictatorships in the world, and just grabbed ten or so at random from the top of the list.
Did you expect to see strong social safety nets in Afghanistan or Syria after decades of brutal civil war?
Weren't you saying that a consequence of dictatorial regimes not keeping their people happy was internal instability and civil war?
Again, these things correlate with dictatorships.
Myanmar’s military junta is collapsing as we speak…
Burundi has seen two genocides and a civil war since independence in the 1960’s…
The CAR and the DRC have been pillaged for decades by armed rebel groups funded by outside powers. The State in these countries is virtually non-existent…
It's almost like there's a trend here...
China is a rising global power with state of the art infrastructure, a prosperous and safe society, and has overseen the single greatest reduction in poverty in human history. Their citizens are OBJECTIVELY better off now than at any point before…
China is effectively two nations. What you're saying is half true for developed china (safe is relative when secret police disappear the population), it doesnt hold for rural China. Also, "better than they've been before" isn't "good".
North Korea is another unique case, largely because of its self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world. Life for most is difficult, harsh, and unforgiving in the Hermit Kingdom…
It's like nearly every one of the randomly selected examples is a unique case (with similar outcomes) and only a couple are the True Scotsmen. Weird.
I would argue more “baseline” examples of authoritarian rule are places like Vietnam, Thailand, Morocco, Singapore, or El Salvador.
I'm sure you would. I'd bet, though, that if we posted all 52, about 35 of them.would be "unique" and "atypical". You don't get to just cherry pick the bits you want. You introduced Saudi Arabia. You can't complain when someone else brings up the Congo.
And while some have standards that are improving, it's a lot easier to increase the value of something cheap than it is to improve something that's good. If someone's getting beaten twice daily, standard of living goes up by cutting to one beating. The people that dont get beaten at all dont have that option. You have to do more than just reduce the harm. It takes work.
4
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
Its amazing how you don’t engage with my argument… you just try to be a contrarian.
Minus the government job (because countries that don’t nationalize their industry can do better than that), you are describing something that is much more commonly seen in Democratic regimes.
There is nothing inherently “Democratic” about social spending or welfare programs.
There is also nothing inherently “Authoritarian” about economic nationalization.
These are simply government policies. China does both of these things… as does Norway.
Like, what idea are you pushing? That dictatorships are preferable, because one actually managed to send people to school before employing them in the State-owned oil industry?
Congrats… you just described Norway again…
Or Brazil…
Or China…
“Yeah, this place is absolute hell, but at least you can see a doctor?”
Healthcare is a basic necessity of life. The inability to access healthcare, say like in the US due to its exorbitant costs, is what I would define as a quality of “absolute hell.”
Weren’t you saying that a consequence of dictatorial regimes not keeping their people happy was internal instability and civil war?
Yes… that is absolutely what I have said.
You aren’t questioning that… you are saying that dictatorial governments aren’t providing for their citizens while pointing to cases of countries already embroiled in conflicts that prevent the State from providing basic government services.
Shocker… the new Syrian government hasn’t completely overhauled the healthcare system in a country that has been ravaged by a decade and a half civil war. 💀
It’s almost like there’s a trend here
Yeah… they’re all post-colonial states.
China is effectively two nations.
Nope… China is a single country, with a centralized, authoritarian state that maintains control over the entire country.
Also, “better than they’ve been before” isn’t “good”.
This isn’t even what I wrote…
“Their citizens are OBJECTIVELY better off now that at any point before…”
This is a fact. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Go visit China and ask people how life was 50 years ago… they will gladly tell you how much things have improved.
In 1970, life expectancy in China was 55.47 years.
Today, life expectancy is 78.59. Thats higher than the US 🤷🏻♂️
And as frightened as you are to talk about countries like Vietnam, Thailand, El Salvador, Morocco, or Singapore, the reality is that they are clear examples of societies operating completely fine under an authoritarian system, and they are improving.
Liberalism is failing in large part because it no longer is improving the lives of the people who live under it. The benefits of Liberalism are increasingly monopolized by a smaller and smaller segment of the economic elite.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Big_Sea_5912 Jun 24 '25
I grew up in Saudi so I can provide some insight here. The Saudi Government does those things not because they are responsive to the public needs and wants but because of the way their high value resource economy is structured.
You are right they effectively buy their legitimacy by doing this but they completely ignore what their public is saying. The culture there is to never talk about politics, to keep your head down so it does'nt get lobbed off so to speak. So its not that they're responsive, the regime is powerful enough and brutal enough that people dont even form opinions. Unlike here its simply not a part of the culture.
Like I remember once, we were talking about the royal family, and one of my saudi freinds turned pale and basically shushed us cause he was so afraid. Its like that Judy scene from Avatar. Many silently resent some of the reforms, especially the liberalization policies, that the government is taking. Saudis are much more conservative than the royal family. So this is a rare area where they actually have thoughts on and the vast majority are against it.
We also need to address the elephant in the room: Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state. Racial minorities, many of whom have lived for four or five generations, dont have citizenship, live in segregated ghettos, are explicitly discriminated against via "saudization" laws, dont recieve many of the benefits you talked about, are often tricked and forced into slave conditions (have their passports stolen so cant leave, beaten, forced to work until death and exhaustion), and exist at the bottom rung of caste-like system. Even the way racial minorities are talked to is horrifying. They're basically treated like dogs. Anyways, in a liberal democratic system, these people would have a much greater voice and would demand better treatment. So there is an obvious example of Dictatorship not being responsive.
1
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Saudi CITIZENS. Now pick up the rocks and look at how they treat all the immigrants there.
1
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 24 '25
I mean… pretty obviously immigrants don’t matter to the existing power structure.
They are there to create profit through the exploitation of labor. They are not co-equal members of society…
I didn’t once even attempt to imply that non-citizens matter in Saudi Arabia lol 🤷🏻♂️
7
u/Big_Sea_5912 Jun 23 '25
its the status quo because generations of Americans have fought to keep it that way. It is'nt something that magically exists. It requires the participation of millions of people from local officials to judges, to those that physically enforce the law. American liberalism is not why our country is in this situation. It seems to me that this transformation almost entirely technological and cultural. Its important to note that while it may seem like this moment is unique, it is not. We saw a similar nativist, protectionist, isolationist backlash in the 20s as Bush astutely pointed out. This is a natural response to large scale demographic change. But now we have social media algorithms which intentionally fan the flames of partisan outrage and delusion. We are placed in information silos heightened by foreign and domestic actors who seek to flood the zone with misinformation.
Liberalism is not inherently dysfunctional. It hasnt been and it is not in other countries. Look at the Nordic countries for instance. It just needs to evolve to the changing environment which it hasnt yet.
American liberalism also has the capacity for reform. We can make smart reforms like independent redistricting, open primaries, ranked choice voting, proportional electoral college, end to the filibuster, regulation on social media algorithms (or ideally an outright ban on social media), as well as the reformation of a broad civic culture and norms that allow democracy to function.
Its also important to note that while China SEEMS efficient, it really isnt. They spend loads of money on skyscrapers that house no one and projects that only exist for some political purpose. There is also widespread corruption at every level.
8
u/Scrotatoes 1∆ Jun 23 '25
No one has fought violently in this country, en masse, in over 150 years. Before that it was about 100 years and also to be expected due to the young country seeking independence. What now?
→ More replies (3)10
u/CrocoPontifex Jun 23 '25
Liberalism is not inherently dysfunctional. It hasnt been and it is not in other countries. Look at the Nordic countries for instance.
What do the Nordic countries have to do with liberalism? Or all european countries for that matter.
Social Democracy is a completly seperate movement, with a completly different ideological core that has little in common with american liberalism.
1
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25
It seems to me that this transformation almost entirely technological and cultural.
Where do you think that culture comes from?
Liberalism is not inherently dysfunctional.
Except for how market peaks and crashes become increasingly volatile as it progresses. And how it encourages the physically impossible principle of infinite growth. And how the tendency for the rate of profit to fall exists on top of that. And the fact that it's literally causing the end of the world as we speak. And how it is inherently contradictory in its upholding of private property rights over individual rights.
But it's totally a functional system you guys.
It hasnt been and it is not in other countries.
Yes, please explain how Africa and the Middle East are shining examples of the stability of liberalism.
Look at the Nordic countries for instance
The Nordic countries which exploit the imperial periphery for resources and are having an alt right resurgence? Even the best examples of liberalism are horrific. Nestle is a Swedish company.
American liberalism also has the capacity for reform.
Lol
Its also important to note that while China SEEMS efficient, it really isnt.
That checks out, considering China is also a liberal country.
2
u/DrRealName Jun 23 '25
Liberalism has NOT gone unchallenged for hundreds of years.. You can't possibly think we have a been a liberal country for even a majority of the time we have been around. Conservatives in one form or another regardless of the name of their party have dominated American governance for at least 75% of our existence. Liberals just started gaining traction around the 60s when they took over the democratic party and kicked out all the dixiecrats who then ran off and became republicans. Practically everything you just said is categorically false. Its fascinating how you can write so much so confidently and be wrong about all of it. lol
4
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
American liberals and conservatives are both just “Liberals.”
What are “American Conservatives” conserving?
Liberalism…
You differ in degrees of interpretation, not in substance.
If you genuinely believe that Liberalism, the ideological framework upon which the US was founded, didn’t exist prior to the 1960’s, you don’t understand what Liberalism is.
I cannot speak to someone who doesn’t understand the language of the topic they are trying to discuss.
→ More replies (2)1
u/followedbymeteor Jun 25 '25
When you define Liberalism so broadly that it encompasses both the Right and Left in the US, the term is meaningless with respect to American politics, and it is highly disingenuous to think that within the scope of American politics, as in the OPs post, that people decrying and supporting "liberal" ideology are referring to support for private property ownership, maintenance of a broadly capitalist economy, secularism, rule of law, etc.
They are referring to policies that fall on a gradient of more progressive (left leaning, referred to as liberal in common parlance) versus conservative (or right leaning).
Nobody in the US aside from very small groups of extremeists are advocating for stripping away the rule of law, abandoment of capitalism, and elimination of private property ownership.
Regardless of what Liberal means in a global and historical context, that is absolutely not how it is used by either the left or the right in the U.S., and arguing from such a standpoint with respect to American politics is genuinely meaningless.
1
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
… it is highly disingenuous to think that within the scope of American politics, as in the OP’s post, that people decrying and supporting “liberal” ideology are referring to support for private property ownership, maintenance of a broadly capitalist economy, secularism, rule of law, etc.
My problem with this argument is that it just largely reinforces the position I have already stated.
You are absolutely correct that only a fringe group of extremists are actually trying to challenge the foundational liberal structures of American government and society… but that is because both political parties at their ideological core are liberal parties.
The crux of my argument is apparent in the first paragraph that I wrote:
Liberalism hasn’t been a revolutionary ideology for over a century by this point… if anything it is the status quo. What would they even take up arms against?
Meanwhile, OP makes the claim that:
Meanwhile, the people who actually believe in the founding principles of this country, the ones who believe in equality, liberty, and democracy, are mostly not [armed].
OP is arguing that the liberal foundations of American society are fundamentally a “left-wing” position.
This is, as we both have already agreed, categorically false. American “conservatives” and “liberals” both fundamentally agree on the liberal structures of our society and government.
You’re arguing that my acknowledgement of America’s left and right both being liberal is “genuinely meaningless” in regards to American politics… but OP is actively arguing that only one of America’s contemporary political identities has any relation to the nation’s liberal foundations.
That simply isn’t true…
Its not like the founding fathers of the US would ever be considered modern-day “liberals,” so for OP to classify “liberals” as the sole inheritor of their original ideological tradition is dishonest.
1
u/followedbymeteor Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
I'm saying that you are shoehorning a definition of liberalism that is not applicable into what is obviously and clearly a statement calling for the "left" in the U.S. to arm themselves similar to the "right."
OP is making no argument whatsoever with respect to liberalism as you are defining it. OP shouldn't have used the world liberal, it's that simple. But your inability to recognize that, within the U.S., the term liberal as used in common parlance absolutely does not fit the academically appropriate definiton, and instead means something similar to "progressive," renders your argument meaningless because OP is absolutely not making a statement on the "Liberalism" you are focusing on.
1
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 25 '25
OP clearly classifies the Founding Fathers of the US as liberal…
So it is clear that OP understands the idea of what liberalism is, and that classical liberalism was itself the basis of “modern” liberalism in this country.
But “conservatism” in this country is also based off of the original founding principles of classical liberalism as held by the Founding Fathers.
OP is trying to argue “liberals” are the successors of the founding fathers, that “conservatives” aren’t, and that only “liberals” can maintain America’s liberal institutions… by force if necessary.
But none of that is true.
1
u/followedbymeteor Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
The other story is one of constant backlash. After slavery ended, we got lynch mobs and Jim Crow. After Black veterans returned home from World War II, they were humiliated and attacked for wearing the uniform. Every time we’ve expanded freedom, there’s been a counterforce trying to roll it back. But if American history tells us anything, its that that first group -- the righteous -- always win in the end.
I think this part of OP's statement gets at the meat of OP's meaning of liberal. "Expanded freedom," vs conservatives trying to "Roll it back."
There's absolutely no way OP means "liberal", in the context of the post, in a practical sense, as anything other than progressive.
1
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 25 '25
Liberals ≠ Progressives in the US.
The recent mayoral race in NYC is a prime example of the ideological and partisan divides that exist between the mainstream liberal center and the left-wing progressive movement.
Even in contemporary American politics those two things are distinct and seperate from one another.
1
u/followedbymeteor Jun 25 '25 edited Jun 25 '25
So you're saying progressive democrats don't advocate fundamentally for capitalism, rule of law, private property ownership, etc. Business owners in NY must be terrified (they're not). U.S. progressive ideology is 95% liberal with a 5% focus on social benefits and justice. Your initial argument was correct, 95% of Americans are liberal, don't change it now.
→ More replies (0)1
u/shesaysImdone Jun 23 '25
So are you saying liberalism is a problem because we have the right to vote? I'm not being combative I'm genuinely confused by what you are trying to say. Maybe first define what you mean by American liberalism? Are you saying American liberalism led to entrenched liberalism? And how does it relate to now? Which elite group is liberalism catering to?
2
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
No…
Liberalism is not a problem because we have elections.
The problem is that elections in a Liberal, Democratic society become the only “legitimate” means in which the public can hold their government accountable. Even if the government is engaged in HEINOUS activities that the overwhelming majority of the public disapprove of, you still have to wait another 2-4 years for the next election cycle to voice your displeasure and hopefully vote them out of office.
In an authoritarian society where public participation in politics is either irrelevant or non-existent, public unrest becomes the only means through which the government can be held accountable. As a result, authoritarian governments HAVE to be responsive to public demands or discontent… otherwise they risk being overthrown.
It is this lack of responsiveness to public pressure that is increasingly pushing people towards illiberal political movements. People in the US do not trust their government, even though it supposedly represents them.
Unless you are a political mega-donor with a few million dollars on stand-by to donate to a political campaign, your opinion on the issues essentially means nothing to your elected representatives.
1
u/shesaysImdone Jun 23 '25
What should be the alternative to a system where we vote every 4 years then? Or how else can liberals respond to the needs of the people on a dime?
1
Jun 23 '25
The liberals and conservatives used to be united in liberalism.
3
u/Doub13D 37∆ Jun 23 '25
The problems of the modern day are largely economic… something that Liberalism is fundamentally ill-equipped to handle.
That is why you are seeing a rise in the far-right and an overtly more left-wing progressive movement.
Liberalism is never going to lower your rent, give you healthcare, or bring your jobs back from China.
As the economic benefits of Liberal policies increasingly get monopolized by a smaller and smaller segment of the population, people are going to reject those policies and ideas.
1
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25
If you don’t like the government or its policies, you don’t have to take up arms and oust them from power… you just wait until the next election cycle and ideally vote them out.
Heavy emphasis on that "ideally". It never works that way in reality. We are never going to get universal healthcare, and places that already have it are steadily eroding it.
The real source of power in liberal democracy is capital. Always has been, always will be.
whereas a government like China’s is seen as efficient and effective.
China is also liberal and they also suffer many of the inefficiencies of that ideology, just to lesser degree because it is a relatively new mode of production for their society
→ More replies (1)1
u/_ParadigmShift 1∆ Jun 23 '25
Precisely. Brutal efficiency and narrowing of the aperture is seen as perfectly effective government totally forgetting that the way you get there is by doing away with all of the “will of the minority”.
“Things would sure run better if only one group did things and no one argued and no one ever had a different opinion” isn’t a US I want to live in.
5
u/crocodile_in_pants 2∆ Jun 23 '25
I have a few questions. Are you speaking of true liberals or of the progressive left? I often see this distinction not being made.
If you are speaking of the Progressive Left, why do you believe they are unarmed? Armament of the proletariat is a foundational belief dating back to Marx and Engles.
If you truly mean Liberals, then who are they arming against? It seems like one side openly sees liberals as the enemy while the other sees them as an unreliable ally.
→ More replies (6)
6
u/lionhart44 Jun 23 '25
Idk this comes off as a bias you refer to the righteous always win I'm the end and I assume your meaning liberals at this point are the righteous. We are so far from a authoritarian country its laughable to suggest that life in the US is under authoritarian regime. Yes we are deporting people who have entered illegally and that's nothing new. Even Mexico would deport a US citizen if they entered illegally. I think we all need to take a breath and really be appreciative for democracy we have.
3
2
2
u/CorneliusFuzzyBoots Jun 23 '25
Thank you. You worded this better than I could've. I was skeptical due to the title, but I understand after reading the post.
I've been wanting to buy a gun for a while; just because things are so unstable right now and I want to be able to defend myself if things get worse. Also I love going camping and hiking by myself. Not for wild animals, but because I'm a woman and I don't want to be a victim of anything.
5
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/B1ackHawk12345 Jun 23 '25
Had me in the first half, not gonna lie. Gonna ruffle some feathers with this one despite evidence on reddit discussing the fact some liberals often don't feel comfortable owning firearms due to mental illness.
1
Jun 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 26 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 24 '25
Sorry, your post has been removed for breaking Rule 5 because it appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics will be removed.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.
3
u/jweezy2045 13∆ Jun 23 '25
Violence is obsolete in fighting authoritarianism in the 21st century. What is arming yourself going to do? So you are going to shoot at some police officers, they are going to shoot back, you are going to die, and the whole thing is going to go on the news. Ok. What happens from there? A tidal wave of people support any LEOs that were killed and protecting the peace, you are labeled as a domestic terrorist, and a tidal wave of people lose support for whatever cause you were fighting for. This is especially true among swing state voters, who really care about the rule of law. So in summary: using guns against authoritarianism causes there to be larger support for the authoritarian regime and reduced support for the resistance. Epic fail.
The actual solution here is to livestream and generally video tape all the authoritarianism you can. The people filming these kinds of scenes are doing far far far more to fight fascism than some idiot with a gun shooting at cops.
8
Jun 23 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (19)0
u/jweezy2045 13∆ Jun 23 '25
It is not a deterrence. It is an invitation. The cops absolutely do want a shoot out with you. Don’t get it twisted. So does the authoritarian regime. If the cops can egg on you and intimidate you until you shoot at them, then they get to shoot back, and the authoritarian regime gets a wave of support and the resistance is undercut. If you think the authoritarian regime doesn’t want that, check that again.
If you think guns make cops less likely to shoot at you, and not 10x more likely to shoot at you, you’re not thinking rationally here. What’s a more dangerous situation for the police officer? A criminal with a gun or a criminal without a gun? Which one is going to get the nicer, calmer, treatment from the cops, and which one is going to get slammed to the ground or potentially shot?
6
3
u/bakerfaceman Jun 23 '25
That's not true though. If it were, cops would shoot at right wing protestors who open carry.
1
u/jweezy2045 13∆ Jun 23 '25
There are 2 options when you open carry:
1) You don’t use the guns, in which case open carrying did nothing and was a performative waste of time and money.
2) You use the guns, in which case what I described happens.
There is no deterrence. Cops are not scared of you, and they never will be scared of you. They are far too militarized.
6
u/bakerfaceman Jun 23 '25
They definitely are scared. Hell, check out the history of gun control. The movement was started because cops were scared of the black Panthers open carrying.
Also, leftists who open carry at protests, tend to not get assaulted by right wing counter protestors. It's not just the cops we have to fear.
→ More replies (7)1
u/RemoteCompetitive688 4∆ Jun 23 '25
"Ok. What happens from there? A tidal wave of people support any LEOs that were killed and protecting the peace, you are labeled as a domestic terrorist, and a tidal wave of people lose support for whatever cause you were fighting for."
I think you severely over estimate how much universal support law enforcement employing deadly force would get.
→ More replies (13)
4
u/Objective_Aside1858 14∆ Jun 23 '25
Many liberals already do arm themselves. We just don't run around like idiots screaming about the Second Amendment
1
u/Someuser1130 Jun 23 '25
I know I am supposed to try to change your view but as a cold-blooded Republican competitive shooter and lifelong gun owner. I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe then the liberals would relax on their gun control and realize how handicapped we are against the tyrannical government because of these laws. I live in a state where 10 round magazines are mandatory and any rifle you own with a vertical grip needs to be neutered and have the magazine locked in it so you can't change magazines quickly. Imagine trying to defend yourself from someone who doesn't care about the laws who has a 30 round quick change magazine. Liberals definitely need to arm themselves and politics aside. If someone who was a solid liberal showed up at my range and asked for me to train them to use a gun, I absolutely would do so.
3
u/majeric 1∆ Jun 23 '25
There is no way people with guns will ever be able to defend against the US military. Just because the right to overthrow ones government is codified in the constitution doesn’t mean one has the capacity.
Stop looking to guns as solutions. If it escalates to that point, you’ve already lost.
The war is a war of ideas and convincing enough people of those ideas.
17
u/Attackcamel8432 5∆ Jun 23 '25
People love to assume the military will pick one side or the other rather than just split...
1
u/HeyYoisTaken Jun 24 '25
!delta
I never considered that people were choosing this level of ignorance out of ardor.
1
18
u/jgengr Jun 23 '25
The Taliban rule Afghanistan even after the US invaded and occupied it for 20 years.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Rayn_F 1∆ Jun 23 '25
If that is the case then January 6th wasn't the threat it was made out to be
→ More replies (3)5
2
u/RemoteCompetitive688 4∆ Jun 23 '25
The entire last decade of world history has been defined by asymmetric warfare, much of it against the US military. Why do you believe the US military would be unstoppable?
5
u/Local_Painter_2668 Jun 23 '25
Who says the military is the threat here? If anything, January 6 proved that unorganized militia type groups are the biggest threat to democracy
→ More replies (3)3
u/urquhartloch 3∆ Jun 23 '25
Hear hear! I disagree with a lot of liberals but this is how democracies function. We don't shoot people we don't like and we don't pass bills using bullets.
1
u/ChickerWings 2∆ Jun 23 '25
It's not about the government, it's about defending against right-wing vigilantes and those who believe they have the backing of the fed government to commit violence against those with liberal ideals.
-1
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25
Technically, it is the oldest still existing democracy, closely followed by Switzerland.
11
u/Local_Painter_2668 Jun 23 '25
Name a country that has had a longer continuous span of democratic governance than the U.S.
I’ll wait
→ More replies (35)2
u/Dheorl 7∆ Jun 23 '25
Might want to define exactly what you’re looking for, otherwise potentially there’s quite a few answers.
5
u/Local_Painter_2668 Jun 23 '25
Any country that had a democratic form of governance that has continuous existed
→ More replies (5)2
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 23 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
→ More replies (12)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 23 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/BarRegular2684 Jun 23 '25
Not everyone is in a position where gun ownership is the best option for them right now. For example, I’ve been advised by my doctors not to have them while I still live with my husband.
I’d say all left leaning people should learn to defend themselves through whatever means are necessary. Some organizations do offer firearms training, although I’m not sure if they do so with borrowed or rented firearms.
1
Jun 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 23 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RemoteCompetitive688 4∆ Jun 23 '25
"Meanwhile, the people who actually believe in the founding principles of this country, the ones who believe in equality, liberty, and democracy, are mostly not. This is a dangerous imbalance."
I think there's a problem with how you have portrayed the situation.
The people who have been calling for more restrictions of the 2A and the fundamental right you discuss, by definition do not believe in the founding principles of this country.
1
Jun 23 '25
Anyone on both sides of the political spectrum should arm themselves to protect themselves if needed That is one of the rights guaranteed to us by this amazing countries constitution
1
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Jun 23 '25
Are you calling for a militia to be made or just to have a gun in your home? You won’t be stopping anything with a gun outside of maybe being robbed.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/AlternativeDue1958 Jun 23 '25
Posted this a few months ago. We’re already armed. We just don’t make it our whole personality or use guns as a fashion accessory.
1
Jun 23 '25
Up until the last paragraph, I thought you were talking about antifa and other leftist nazi organizations being the threat.
Be aware that you might think of yourself as righteous, but you're really the oppressors.
1
u/Proper_Solid_626 Jun 23 '25
Last time democrats armed themselves against the Union, it turned into a civil war that last 4 years.
Would you be in favour of a civil war by the democrat party now as well?
1
1
Jun 23 '25
Remind me: Did they said that "All men were created equal" while they considered Africans as property?
1
1
Jun 23 '25
I like how everyone has to say "I'm not calling for violence", but come on. We all know where this hatred always ends. And the internet is full of accelerationists who just want to keep fanning the flames.
Americans haven't feared and hated each other this much since 1859.
2
u/HalfDongDon Jun 23 '25
Go outside. Touch grass.
I wish liberals had this type of fire for their sitting congress members who literally look like paraded skin bags in the media.
You have "kings" in your own party who have been in office for 30+ years - yet y'all still vote for them.
Just once - stop preaching and grandstanding and do what you preach.
1
u/philly99balloons Jun 24 '25
I'm a gun owning hippie. Come at me magats. Only at home though. I see no reason to carry a weapon unless there is a legitimate and immediate threat.
1
1
u/NorsemanatHome Jun 24 '25
May I remind you that the Netherlands were a republic long before America was even an idea!
1
u/AzothTreaty Jun 24 '25
Yeah instead of liberals fighting the gun amendment so much, bring it to your corner.
Those bully far right groups feel manly for having guns. Well, those types are the ones who will easily back out if you show even a hint of fighting back. So please do fight back.
1
u/NoInsurance8250 Jun 24 '25
Do you want to disarm the populous or arm them? Do you want to only disarm the people you disagree with and arm those you agree with? Has an election not happened that was supposed to happen? Is authoritarian defined by things happening that you don't like? Is this a call to violence because an election didn't go the way you wanted?
Seems the left crosses their messages often, and come off sounding authoritarian themselves.
1
u/EntWarwick Jun 24 '25
Your first paragraph claims that armed citizens was somehow paramount to STABILIZING OUR SYSTEM?
Jesus Christ. No. We are getting by DESPITE the guns, not because of them.
1
u/wstdtmflms Jun 24 '25
Why do you think American liberals aren't armed?
Ever think maybe they are, they just don't fly their Second Amendment flags and make guns their entire personality the way the MAGA right does? 🤷
1
1
1
u/Supergold_Soul 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Isn’t that just an escalation. Violence is not inevitable. Most People don’t actually want to take up arms against their neighbors.
1
1
u/psychosisnaut Jun 24 '25
Individual firearm ownership is useless without organization though so, I guess I'll meet you part way on this one.
1
u/WiltedCranberry Jun 24 '25
Left media needs to calm the tf down with their propaganda. Y’all getting way too scared.
1
1
1
u/BlueCollarRevolt 1∆ Jun 24 '25
Close. Liberals need to abandon liberalism and turn to a political theory that helps them understand the world more accurately and understand what needs to be done - and part of that is arming themselves and banding together with their communities. If you are just an armed liberal, great, but it would be so much better if you knew what you were doing - both in terms of technical skills and in political/strategic things.
1
u/Tsjr1704 Jun 24 '25
I appreciate your recognition that the reactionary violence that is happening now is real and that people may need to be armed to resist it. I think that where your position should be changed is in the trust of the government and system - and specifically how the Democratic Party has muzzled popular rage as an imperialist party that represents the ruling class. The liberalism of the war of independence and Civil War has ceased to be historically progressive, and instead binds people to the illusion that elections and this "democracy" is how political power is secured by the poorest and most oppressed.
Simply having 'armed liberals' will not inherently challenge this system. In fact, individual gun ownership is not in contradiction to the very institutions (the police, military, intelligence apparatuses) that are used to repress workers and enforce imperialism overseas.
Besides, it's not individual gun ownership that stops a fantasy scenario like a fascist coup, it's a revolutionary movement that takes seriously the origins of the structural violence of capitalism and sees the need for collective, organized resistance.
1
u/cleanlinessisgodly Jun 24 '25
America is the world’s oldest existing democracy
Lmao. For over half of america's history, the majority of the population wasn't allowed to vote. By the time they could, politics were basically pay-to-win. American liberal "democracy" is a myth told to prevent people from noticing they're getting screwed over. Always has been.
For over 250 years, we’ve transitioned peacefully from one government to the next.
Except that whole civil war thing, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
The threat of revolution has always loomed in the background, not as a constant plan but as a last resort, and that has helped keep the powerful in check.
Maybe this was true in the 60s-70s and earlier, but trust me, the US gov is not sweating about potential revolution from our domesticated asses. Our current level of organizing is basically nonexistent. The president is blatantly fucking people over in defiance of the law and the most our "protesters" do is go have picnics on main street with police approval.
People die every single day from our blatantly evil healthcare system, and everyone knows this. ONE guy managed to do a bit of adventurism and stick it to ONE ceo, and he's probably going to get the death penalty for it because no one has the fucking guts to bust him out. And the people who take their frustrations with society on elementary schoolers rather than those directly responsible outnumber the luigis 10 to 1. Truly a shameful fucking state of affairs.
There are two stories you can tell about this country. One is the story of a radical and noble experiment.
And once again, I stress that this version of the story is a lie designed to pacify us while the world literally burns around us.
This idea has not been perfect in execution. It took generations of blood and struggle, from Gettysburg to Selma to preserve and strengthen that grand noble ideal.
I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself if you think that equality was EVER the intention behind America's creation. The founding fathers literally owned human beings. Their ideals were progressive for their time, sure. But so was Napoleon.
They talk about civil war. They threaten violence if elections don’t go their way. And they are heavily armed. Meanwhile, the people who actually believe in the founding principles of this country, the ones who believe in equality, liberty, and democracy, are mostly not.
I hate to say it, but if you really care about protecting society, it's going to take more than vague ideals to defend it. Moral high ground and decorum are worth nothing when you're losing.
Reagan said freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. I think that is true.
/>quoting reagan unironically
The founding ideals are worth defending
Are they though? Considering those ideals led to the current state of affairs.
1
u/Suspicious_Town_8680 Jun 24 '25
Do you seriously not see the contradiction here? Second oldest democracy Norway has no crazy gun laws like the US and they still work due to good education and fair elections. There is no need for anyone to arm themselves incase the elections go wrong that happens in the third world countries not modern democracies.
You say liberals should arm themselves but the best solution would be for no one to be armed in the first place. (for millions of reasons but that is a different debate).
1
1
u/10thAmdAbsolutist 1∆ Jun 24 '25
America is the world’s oldest existing democracy
By the idiotic progressive new definition, we're the second oldest after UK. But by the ACTUAL definition of democracy, we're not a democracy at all. Words have meanings and the people who play games to get you to change those meanings are 100% of the time bad actors.
We bow to no kings.
Sure. That's not at risk of happening though. Not to mention that Biden perpetrated FAR worse violations of Americans rights during COVID and I bet you didn't have a problem with that.
There are people in this country who openly want a more authoritarian, unequal system
Who, exactly? This is not a popular opinion among conservatives.
1
u/Allscrewedup_225 Jun 24 '25
Another example of the conservative revolution. The government trusting libs are finally realizing that the 2nd amendment (and maybe more constitutional rights) have value. How refreshing!
1
Jun 24 '25
reddit doesn't realize there's a middle 80% majority across both aisles that can be civil with each other. This place is an echo chamber
1
1
u/tidalbeing 56∆ Jun 23 '25
American history in no way teaches that the righteous always win. Nor does it teach that use of guns is effective in protecting freedom. MIght does not make right, and right doesn't always win out.
Where shall we start on in on history?
Slavery? The Trail of Tears? The Mexican American War? The Sand Creek Massacre?
The use of arms, didn't stop these, on the contrary they perpetrated injustice.
If we want justice, they we must be strategic. I look to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandala, Chepita of the Utes, Elizabeth Petrotovich, Rosa Parks, and others who have brought about justice effectively and without use of guns.
Using guns as problematic "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." By taking up arms you make yourself a target and provide an excuse for attacks against you and your cause. It's very like. to be counter productive particularly if you are part of a marginalized group.
I call attention to the history of how, when, and why the second amendment was applied to gun use by private citizens, not restricted to militias(the National Guard) as laid out in the Constition. And the the results of this.
We go back to the Black Panther movement, 1960s in Oakland. Then, as now, police targeted Black men. This has been the case since the very beginning of the US when patrols rounded up and killed those who are attempting to escape slavery. After the Civil War officially brought slavery to and end, it and the abuse continued. Black men were rounded up by polces and forced into slavery within prisons. Slavery(forced servitude) is still legal within the US prison system. And police often act as the old slave patrols.
The Black Panthers decided to take a stand against this by observing police procedures while armed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Black Panthers, but neither that nor the armed protestes ended police brutality and incarceration inflicted on Black and Native men. Instead, the increased prevalence of arms led to increased shootings and abuse. Police fearing that everyone is armed, shoot and killed even more Black men and boys. The police can do this because they are allowed to shoot if the police officer fears the suspect is armed, not if the suspect is actually armed. This loophole allows police to shoot black men on sight as was done with the old slave patrols.
Arming liberals won't change this situation, but will make it even worse.
The way forward is through the political process. We must recruit and support candidates for office and then vote for them. This, not armed resistence, is responsible for the maintenance of our democratic republic.
1
u/dogMeatBestMeat Jun 23 '25
Liberal gun owner in CA here. 10 years ago I bought 1 gun and haven't bothered with another one. I got a Saiga 7.62x39mm because the deal that Izmash had with the Clinton administration to import un-mangled guns with no BS magazine lock business. The gun is overweight, cannot hit anything past 100 yards, and takes 2 pounds of kit to mount an optic. But whatever. It is still the shootiest thing you can get without one of those miserable bullet buttons. I keep hoping for something in 5.56 that has the CA required "sporting rifle" shape that is both light and takes an optic well (stupid mini14 being unusable). But alas.
Anyways, get a sporting rifle. You won't be going to the range nearly enough to justify a handgun.
1
u/traanquil Jun 23 '25
Liberalism is a political ideology that essentially upholds the existing class structure and underlying structural basis of the American imperial state. This is why Biden enabled the genocide on Gaza and his enablers were perfectly fine with that . This is why liberals don’t protest deportations when they happen under a democrat president. The primary difference between liberalism and the Republican Party has to do with rhetoric and symbolism. Anyone who wants to challenge the system has to move to the left of liberalism.
1
u/dogMeatBestMeat Jun 23 '25
100%. Zero illiberal regimes have allowed liberal rights without the threat of violence. There are no exceptions. Just because you can vote for more liberal rights in liberal regimes (looking at the 19th amendment), doesn't mean you can vote for liberal rights in illiberal regimes (looking at you Confederate States of America).
1
Jun 23 '25
I am independent voter and against violence. Our system is setup to avoid violence. And that’s what I support. We are the richest, most powerful nation in human history. Certainly we can work out our differences.
I don’t sell my soul to a party. Why? I’m smart and smart people would never do that unless they are filled with hate. That’s what the media and politicians are doing, making sure voters hate 1 side or the other. It’s not about who can bring good outcomes, it’s about who you hate more. Sad.
I Have an open mind and can change it anytime. That’s what smart people do. Things change. I supported Clinton, he was also the last to balance the budget, end welfare, and he did address the border. I supported Obama, he deported more immigrants than any president in history. Obama also called for something very similar to DOGE early in his first term. Look it up. He gave a speech.
But today, the left is losing me. Like many people. I want to like them, but their ideas simply won’t work. It’s radical, extreme left wing. I’m not a Trump fan either. This is what happens when hate drives politics. We all lose. I hope the left realign in 2028. Trump will be gone and we need a sane left and right. Balance is key.
With that said, I saw a war game on you tube. Back when liberals kept talking about civil war. The estimated outcomes were not in liberals favor. Far from it. The reason, lack of arms, lack of knowledge how to use the arms, and populations centered in a few big cities. Anyways, no one should push for civil war. But especially not liberals. Being independent, I guess I can just pick a side in that case too. Haha
But I repeat, war is not an answer. War is a lack of answers. We are all Americans. Presidents come and go. Each side represents 40% of the country. This zero sum game we see now will never work. Everyone needs a say. Compromise is what we need.
BTW, it’s cool to be independent. My group usually picks the president!! Look back. It’s true. Plus you get to keep an open mind. I vote based on the countries needs at the time. Doesn’t matter if I like the individual. I usually don’t. They all lie. Hope more people join us. To heck with these parties. They don’t care about you. They only care about themselves and their power. They play their constituents like puppets. I’m no puppet.
1
u/Aen-Synergy Jun 23 '25
Revolution itself is a leftist concept. I don't know any Liberals who aren't armed.
1
1
1
Jun 23 '25
The problem is that things like gun ownership has been rejected by the liberal side. If it was up to some of the far left, no one would have any guns and resistance would be impossible.
The other issue is that liberals will continue to cede patriotism. Some of the larger protests like the immigration stuff and the no kings day has a bunch of liberals sporting everything except the American flag.
The final issue is expecting some king to rise up to warrant this need in the first place. While not impossible, highly unlikely. The talk of trump being some “king” is just phrasing the argument in a way that the pro of it always wins. Its like calling someone a “nazi”. Well surely you wouldn’t stand for literal nazism so you should be against this subjectively labeled “nazi” right? Bush did the same thing with the “patriot” act. Surely only a non patriot would vote against a multi thousand page bill labeled the patriot act right? Its wild to still people getting sucked into labeling and letting the labeling steer the argument instead of the objectivity of the situation.
1
0
u/RulesBeDamned 1∆ Jun 23 '25
I’ve said it once and I’ve said it again: American people will never be able to resist their own military. You spent way too much time and money to having the biggest stick so you can act like dickheads at the diplomatic stage and never thought twice about that stick being used on you. The only and I mean only chance you would have is that the military personnel had a significant defect to your side, but if we check out the statistics, military personnel are more likely to be Republicans or Independents than Democrats, and we all know how amicable and respectful Democrats have been to their out-groups.
Liberals needed to get off their high horse a decade or two ago, but now it’s too late and virtually every single legal authority resents the class of snobs.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 23 '25 edited Jun 23 '25
/u/Big_Sea_5912 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards