This absolutely fits the criteria, well done. Doesn't marginalize people, because it hurts the majority. And they always keep their promises about this one.
Yeah, but remember the honey and vinegar metaphor.
Yeah drag, we probably should. More education is pretty much always good
Drug overdoses are not a democratic policy.
Military deaths are a policy of both major parties.
Afghanistan is not our country. If republicans were so concerned about the Afghan people, Trump shouldn't have pulled our troops out of Afghanistan.
Try again, maybe with something that is a democratic policy, and not just a lie that you've been fed.
They don't talk policies, huh?
Can you name one republican policy that's both not hateful and something they actually follow through on? Just one.
Edit: I like to think that they deleted their comment because they had no answer.
If you read their other posts, they're against huge corporations and for a planned economy, so they agree with leftists and just don't know it.
Words like psychopath have a common usage for people not in psychology/psychiatry. I'm sorry that we're not meeting the clinical definition that you want, but I don't think ranting about it all over Lemmy is going to help anything.
When the average nonspecialist individual thinks "psychopath" they think of someone like Hannibal Lecter, who is dangerous and must be locked up to prevent them harming others, and that's not going to change from a short form text post. It would take a semester of psychology.
In a perfect world, that would be ideal. But for at least 50 years, capital has been buying the legislators and we're backsliding even further from positive change. Without the threat, there's no reason for them to let things change for the better for the rest of us.
She wouldn't like it, but she'd understand.
I was just trying to show that taking the high road effectively does nothing, when the opposition is willing to stoop to any level to win.
And that, historically, whether we are non-violent or violent, both have been countered with violence.
You're absolutely right about the spillover violence, but I would contend that we're currently experiencing that anyway, as inequality runs rampant and people are forced to crime to survive.
We've been trying the peaceful way for my entire lifetime and made no real progress. Perhaps it's time for a different approach. I'm not really comfortable with it morally, but I'm also not morally comfortable with things staying the way they are for another generation.
But still not answered the question.
I'll reword it for you, since you want to be pedantic about it.
You're in the process of seizing the means. They see this and don't like it. They respond with overwhelming violence (as they have repeatedly in the past)
Now what?
Okay so once you've non violently seized the means, and they come to violently take them back, then what?
This would be ideal but I'm skeptical that it's actually possible. Bribes are cheaper than taxes, so I think they'd likely just prevent the taxes from happening by greasing the correct palms.
Nah, some of us just see that they buy the elections so that we can't vote for change. And they buy the judges so we can't sue for change. And they buy the media so we can't speak for change. So now we're exploring the extremely distasteful option because all other avenues for change have been blocked
I used to disagree with this concept, but then I discovered how Control implements difficulty. The game is hard, and that cannot be changed, but at any time one can pause the game, turn on assist mode, and become unkillable. And the key to this is after one gets past that really frustrating section, they can turn off the "cheats".
That would work for Elden Ring.
What's anarchy? If you're saying you're against it, you need to be able to say what it is. Otherwise your response is without value.