Fabulous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being reprehensible bastards. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter the groups are super close. Both:

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

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

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

• Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to my enemy are happening at all levels of government, my way is better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, neither side is going to kill millions unless their actions incite a civil war. Neither side is going to have the public support they think they do. What they will do is make sure things like martial law happen. If you think enough New Yorkers, Californians, etc are marching to Illinois and Florida to kill all the fascists then you’re mistaken. The US outside of Lemmy and other forums may be angry, but they aren’t anywhere near that mindset of “uproot my life and kill other Americans”. I’m Canadian and I don’t want to see the US military devolve into the mess of full-on civil war, but some people either dismiss the possibility or actually want it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think that “they could be killing us” will get the same response as “they ARE killing us”? Trump and supporting militias are going to have a field day if people like you get their way. If you think it’s bad now, wait until the 134 million American gun owners on both sides are enraged by proven examples that make them fearful of being murdered by their fellow countrymen.

The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who are “the enemy within”. You are proving each other’s point, two sets of extremists advocating for whatever it takes, with both POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.

Edit: I misunderstood the person’s position. I think others might have as well, so I’m leaving up my response to an idea that unjust wars make vigilantism necessary/moral. However, as near as I can tell that their actual position isn’t “people should be able to kill outside a war”, it’s “why should people ever think killing is moral”.

Russia IS being opposed by to the tune of billions of dollars of support and widespread condemnation for their war of aggression including meaningful economic sanctions and asset seizures. It’s facilitated the killing of just under 700,000 Russian soldiers and tons of equipment according to the Ukrainian government. The only reason NATO won’t deploy troops is because no one wants WW3. Nations are even now considering escalating their support following the deployment of North Koreans.

Israel IS being opposed by huge swathes of the world. If the US (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) weren’t providing diplomatic and military cover for them, they’d have been censured in the UN for decades now and potentially stopped. Long story short, the US is just as at fault for the genocide as Israel due to providing the diplomatic/military means via decades of “blank check” support. US policy doesn’t mean that civilians should start killing Zionists in America and abroad.

I’m not a warmonger, quite the opposite. I won’t take the stance that civilians should believe they have the moral obligation to murder other civilians because wars are sometimes unjust. There are unjust trials. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to a trial before they’re killed. There are bad politicians, doesn’t mean all politics should be banned. There are bad marriages. There are bad police. There are bad doctors.