Redneck Revolt: Communist Rednecks

[SeventhSandwich]

No one here said anything about preventing Redneck Revolt from arming themselves, but you go ahead and go for that strawman buddy
All anyone is saying that a group with a precedent for violence against innocents arming themselves with guns should be cause for concern.

I'm operating off of this thread's implication. But yes, nobody here is explicitly calling for people to stop Redneck Revolt.

All I'm saying is that I see no difference between this new brand of stupidity and those idiots in Oregon who seized the federal building.

[Ad Bot]

[Krupp Lancaster]

Reporting Deus Ex to the NSA and THOUGHTPOL for un-American activities and speech committed online in the virtual lego forum. Your local THINKPOL Agency Response Unit will be at your door in 20 of your locale time minutes. Have a good day and try harder to be a good patriot in the future, citizen.

[Tactical Nuke]

the implication was more that they were communist rednecks, which is a loving hilarious contradiction

I'm probs gonna change the title to reflect that

[PhantOS]

Shut the forget up

[PhantOS]

Protesting =/= Rioting

apparently believing in the right to arm yourselves is rioting

[(or nal?)]

hidey ho were gonna kill the mondayos

[Damp]

hidey ho were gonna kill the mondayos

i havent kept up with the times. are you nal?

edit: sorry for asking this in this thread im curious

[Maxwell.]

i havent kept up with the times. are you nal?

edit: sorry for asking this in this thread im curious

no

[Damp]

no

thank you!!!!!!!!!!

[Tactical Nuke]

who is he then

[ultimamax]

i think the reason the democrats lost the last election is because they've alienated working class rural white people. leftism is about empowering the weak/poor so its kind of amazing that democrats have such a hard time selling it to poor white people lol

[Tactical Nuke]

i think the reason the democrats lost the last election is because they've alienated working class rural white people. leftism is about empowering the weak/poor so its kind of amazing that democrats have such a hard time selling it to poor white people lol

That belief is exactly what does them in. If they stand for the underdog, then they have to repeatedly figure out who the underdog is in every scenario. Sure, poor people are in a low spot, but black people are marginalized systematically!!11!111! so they're the underdog and not the white poor people, they have inherent privilege and are tribal by default!!!1!1!!11!

Want a better example? Leftists support gays, lesbians, transgenderqueernormativenonc onformativemcgoos. A terrorist attack happens. Immediately rush to support Muslims, whose religion is markedly homophobic, even by standards set by Christianity. In Islamic countries, they will throw you off the roof of a skyscraper for being gay. Whether they like to admit it or not, it throws gays under the bus, which is why you have all the Milo Yiannopoulos's.

It's a belief system that basically sets groups up to be dumped later on. It's why they keep losing, and it's why people are better off just getting a system of values that stands for everyone rather than just a few people.

[Conan]

uh, ok

thats an interesting way to put it, i dont agree with the point that libs just rush to protect anything currently the underdog, but i can see why it looks like that

id write something about republicans but i dont trust my understanding of politics like some people here do, but im fairly sure they can bring up similar arguments about how they dont have anyones true interests at heart

[PhantOS]

That belief is exactly what does them in. If they stand for the underdog, then they have to repeatedly figure out who the underdog is in every scenario. Sure, poor people are in a low spot, but black people are marginalized systematically!!11!111! so they're the underdog and not the white poor people, they have inherent privilege and are tribal by default!!!1!1!!11!

Want a better example? Leftists support gays, lesbians, transgenderqueernormativenonc onformativemcgoos. A terrorist attack happens. Immediately rush to support Muslims, whose religion is markedly homophobic, even by standards set by Christianity. In Islamic countries, they will throw you off the roof of a skyscraper for being gay. Whether they like to admit it or not, it throws gays under the bus, which is why you have all the Milo Yiannopoulos's.

It's a belief system that basically sets groups up to be dumped later on. It's why they keep losing, and it's why people are better off just getting a system of values that stands for everyone rather than just a few people.

i agree with a lot of this. i don't think dems should cold turkey stop supporting muslims because of their beliefs but if you're going to support people who religiously think gays are bad, you should also support people who hate black people or think jews should die. it's just fair to respect other people's opinion no matter how different their beliefs are

that being said, it also goes for immigration and nobody should be denied the right to enter or gain citizenship just because of their beliefs

[ultimamax]

That belief is exactly what does them in. If they stand for the underdog, then they have to repeatedly figure out who the underdog is in every scenario. Sure, poor people are in a low spot, but black people are marginalized systematically!!11!111! so they're the underdog and not the white poor people, they have inherent privilege and are tribal by default!!!1!1!!11!

i think the problem is more to do with how centrist democrats are compared to the past/the center-left in other countries. there is currently not much focus on economic leftism in the democratic party (although bernie pushed them left somewhat)

it feels to me like the right was effective in convincing the white working class that their problems and problems worth discussing are being caused by immigrants / people of color / feminists / etc

furthermore the democratic party has really hesitated to actually have stances on stuff because they don't want to alienate potential voters that are formerly republican or otherwise confused about social issues, and so they come off as very bland, unprincipled, and wishy-washy

Want a better example? Leftists support gays, lesbians, transgenderqueernormativenonc onformativemcgoos. A terrorist attack happens. Immediately rush to support Muslims, whose religion is markedly homophobic, even by standards set by Christianity. In Islamic countries, they will throw you off the roof of a skyscraper for being gay. Whether they like to admit it or not, it throws gays under the bus, which is why you have all the Milo Yiannopoulos's.

ill just say its because as a leftist islamophobia seems just like a veil for racism. you can still be critical of islam while not supporting the actions of muslim theocracies. also the terrifying scourge of muslim immigrants / refugees is largely overblown and not an actual issue, its just xenophobia rearing its ugly old head for the 300th time in history.

It's a belief system that basically sets groups up to be dumped later on. It's why they keep losing, and it's why people are better off just getting a system of values that stands for everyone rather than just a few people.

i dont really buy the idea that democrats are having trouble picking "one underdog" - the narrative among the left is that there are multiple axises on which you can be underprivileged (economic status, race, gender, loveuality, etc) and theres not really a way to compare "oppression"
 between them (as in theres no telling whether being gay is worse than being black, and its a pointless question anyway)

i think you may be confusing liberals' neglect of considering economic status as an actual way to be oppressed as them being unable to focus on more than one issue at once