Could You Imagine the Outrage and the Resulting Sh*t Storm This Would Create ??😵💫😳🤨
(media.greatawakening.win)
LET'S GOOoOoooo!!!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
What you are proposing prevents me from looking at the Crusades as a cool thing that the religious right needs to do again, because it involved disrespectful "force" which you say is "leftist".
You are wrong, of course. Sometimes force is necessary. The founding fathers used force, Hitler used force, and the Crusades used force. It has nothing to do with "forced destruction" being an inherent property of leftism. This is your personal loony invention.
I said the initiation of force. Of course violence can be the proper reaction to others’ initiation of force. The crusades were supposedly to “reclaim” the holy lands, not to claim them for the first time. Islam only started several hundred years after Christianity did. Muslims taking the holy land was the initiation of force. Fighting back isn’t leftism. It’s respecting property rights in the rightwing tradition.
Most groups feel they are justified in their actions of using force, and are "responding". By your definitions there they must all be rightwing.
BLM riots were justified with the claim that society is against them and they are actively being oppressed, which might be true that society oppresses druggies and store thieves, perhaps with disproportional punishments to what was done (ie. years imprisonment for a reoffending drug charge or petty theft charge). They have a justification that they are being legitimately attacked and are responding. Those must be rightwing heroes according to your definition.
Obviously BLM riots are not "rightwing" and you are incorrect. Even if you are justified and are responding to an attack, you are not right wing. The Right chiefly refers a specific ideology, not the things you are making up.
“Most groups feel they are justified in their actions of using force, and are "responding".”
Ever heard the phrase “he cries out as he strikes at you”? What people claim or even feel doesn’t make their claim true. And even if people are truly retaliating against someone else’s initial aggression, it doesn’t mean the retaliators are necessarily right wing or any other political bent. You’ve provided an example of the rhetorical fallacy known as:
In your case, it’s ‘some retaliations have been carried out by right wingers, therefore all retaliators are right wingers’
WWII is complicated and its causes go back to before WWI, so I’m not getting into it. The point is that just because some German socialists were traditionally religious, it didn’t make them rightwing. Some American churches are swamped with leftists who advocate for the bureaucratic extortion of their own countrymen.
Haha, after I replied to you, you went back and edited your comment and changed an entire paragraph from WWII crap into BLM crap. realeagle? More like realweasel.
“(BLM) have a justification”
No they don’t. It was all a grift.