Eh, I've seen almost all of those things on the front page of Reddit, too.

Just recently, on the front page of reddit, I've seen a headline saying to cut off a cop's dick because he tasered someone (I believe it said 'take his badge and his manhood'), ACAB types have been threatening to kill cops, Reddit has doxxed the wrong people for major crimes, etc.

It's particularly ironic because the original justification for the quarantine (which was then edited) was for threatening violence against cops, specifically due to wanting to protect some lawmakers who fled from a vote on cap & trade from arrest.

Looking back, that really seems inconsistent with the number of front page ACAB posts threatening violence I've seen on the front page this month. I mean, either it's okay to threaten violence or not, pick one.

Then again, maybe they did, because they edited that out of the quarantine reason for r/T_D.

"Take his badge and gun" is the typical expression.

That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons.

Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

One is defending yourself against bullying by standing up to it with comparable force. The other is bullying.

Is there nothing people like you won't "both side"?

> That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons.

That’s quite the convenient stretch. Pretty impressive how some people are amazing at reading subtext where non exists as long as it plays into their narrative.

> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

I mean... police going after law makers isn’t exactly peaceful. But again, whatever fits your narrative is true and everything else is fakenews(TM).

> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace.

So by that logic it was wrong for Twitter to sensor the President’s tweet regarding using force to stop vandals destroying monuments.

Well, but those rioters were protesting police violence, who get called to deal with people who react violently to their presence due to the history of other police reacting violently to other people they were arresting acting violently who...

Wait, wasn't this the whole theme of the song "We didn't start the fire"?

1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing.

2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following:

>Having been well after the events or the deaths of the figures commemorated >During periods of economic decline or uncertainty >Following periods agitation for civil rights, particularly by black Americans, and the subsequent spasm of anti-black violence or political jostling

In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response.

I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.

> 1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing.

They don’t have to be the same thing. It’s illegal activity and we shouldn’t have to wait for a person to be physically injured to stop a mob of maniacs.

> 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following:

It doesn’t matter if it’s a statue of Krusty the Clown. You can’t destroy public or private property just because you feel it shouldn’t exist.

This is why we have police. To enforce the rules that we as a society have agreed to live by.

The alternative is a bunch of vigilantes beating the rioters. I can assure you that nobody wants that.

> In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.

Then get public opinion to agree with you and have the city, State, or Federal government to get rid of them. Your misguided feelings, no matter how strong, do not supersede all others just because they’re not yelling loudly.

People have been trying to get the City, State, and federal government to acknowledge system racism for CENTURIES.

It doesn't work.

Protests and destruction may work.

You are showing that you are more committed to order than to justice, because it benefits you.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Why are conservatives so hell bent on equating violence against inanimate objects (property, monuments) with violence against other humans?

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Many people depend on their businesses to provide for their livelihoods. They may be put on the streets if their business is burnt down during a riot. Will you be there to help them pay to rebuild or to help them rehome themselves?

In this case I think manhood means his gun, not his junk, but maybe I'm just getting old.

> It is a common sentiment there that the only good Democrat is a dead one.

A similar sentiment is commonly expressed by far left individuals and groups on Twitter, Facebook and other mediums.

"the only good Tory is a dead Tory" has been the popular refrain for decades.

It's depressing these sentiments are carelessly amplified and approved by so many.

Edit: Apparently this has caused a stir. I encourage others to not read into this comment anything but disdain for the kind of discourse where "the one good BLANK is a dead BLANK" is accepted.

They're not.

Not only is "The only good Tory is a dead Tory" not a popular refrain at all [1], but a quick search for "The only good Republican is a dead Republican" returns a lot of hits for the "[...] dead Democrat" quote and almost none for the search phrase.

These attempts at false equivalence reliably appear in these situations, and there's reliably nothing to back them up.

The difference is the right is trying very hard to move the Overton Window and make "[...] dead Democrat" an acceptable mainstream sentiment suitable for national news.

[1] You certainly won't hear it from any left-leaning MPs or in Labour constituency meetings. And if that weren't true, recordings would be all over the media.

Republicans use "Democrat" as a swear word. Democrats more commonly resort to epithets to describe their opponents.

Relevant Google autocomplete for "the only good ...":

The only good cop is a dead one

The only good pig is a dead pig

The only good fascist is a very dead fascist

Nothing there referring to liberals/progressives/Democrats.

I also gave it "the only good c..." to see if it would give up "conservative" and it gave "christian" instead, so there's that.

for what it's worth "The only good fascist is a very dead fascist" is the title of a song by Propagandhi

Google autocomplete is not as reliable as you think it is. There have bbeen been many articles and complaints about the algorithm it uses to autocomplete, but one thing is clear - it is not mostly based on the popularity of what other users have typed.

A quick note: Anti christian sentiment is very much not a left wing stance. Quite the contrary, I’m more like to find crap like that in libertarian circles. The left wing are often the ones jumping in to defend religious tolerance.

About the dead cops and dead fascists... sure I’ll admit to that. However that is very much not the same. Fascism is an ideology that is a direct threat to a large number of people’s livelyhoods. To declare militant intentions against such an ideology of hate is a matter of self defense. The same applies to cops (albeit to a lesser extent).

> Quite the contrary, I’m more like to find crap like that in libertarian circles.

Libertarians with philosophical disagreements with Christians are perfectly entitled to them. "Libertarians" who murder Christians are, by definition, not actually libertarians. See also non-aggression principle etc.

Also of note, libertarians are not "left" or "right" -- see that political compass thing they're always using -- because "left" is economic restraints with social freedom while "right" is economic freedom with social restraints and libertarian is both economic and social freedom.

Christianity is quite pro-social restraint, which is adverse to both the left and libertarians, but the libertarian position is something like "you can believe whatever you want but don't pass any laws forcing it on others." Which, of course, becomes a conflict if the Christians want to pass laws forcing it on others. But ask a Democrat what they think about a law prohibiting contraception.

> Fascism is an ideology that is a direct threat to a large number of people’s livelyhoods.

There is another thread in here about how there aren't that many real communists in the US and the people who get described as such aren't literally communists. You could easily say the same thing about fascists.

Opposing fascism is very different than opposing "fascism" while defining it as anything to the right of Bill Clinton.

Libertarianism literally started on the very far left - an anarcho-communist named Joseph Dejacque. Right libertarianism is about a century younger, and the main distinction is view on property rights, which left libertarians tend to see as oppressive government overreach. (Dejacque enthusiastically supported Proudhons famous 'property is theft')

Left libertarianism and right libertarianism agree on nearly everything. It's not like "left" and "right" which are effectively polar opposites.

Right libertarianism has an antitrust problem -- if the state establishes corporations and enforces property rights then corporations can become powerful enough to be de facto governments. Left libertarianism solves it by deleting property rights, which of course has its own drawbacks.

A middle ground that might work is to allow humans to own property but not corporations, because the largest accumulations of capital have always taken corporate form.

Obviously the non-purist can also solve it by having government-enforced antitrust laws.

> You certainly won't hear it from any left-leaning MPs or in Labour constituency meetings. And if that weren't true, recordings would be all over the media.

I didn't/wouldn' claim we would hear it from left-leaning MPs.

> a quick search for "The only good Republican is a dead Republican" returns a lot of hits for the "[...] dead Democrat" quote and almost none for the search phrase

This is muddled by one particular incident with a video Trump posted. Searching the "democrats" phrase in quotes gives 160,000 results. Searching it with -trump -president gives only 4,000 results, and even then some (maybe most) of those results still seem to be about the incident (but spelling his name as "Dump" for example).

In my experience edgy calls for violence are indeed more common from the right than from the left, but this is a bad way to try to measure it.

The overwhelming majority of terrorism in the United States is committed by right wing extremists.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-...

The anti-gun, peace-loving left may not be the most polite online, but they emphatically are not as violent. Not by a long shot.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either uninformed or lying through their teeth to push an agenda.

Cops.

I see someone isn’t a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

What’s your evidence that left wing violence exceeds right wing?

By the by, a lot of the “left wing” violence recently was caused by right wing militia “boogaloo” people.

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/17/far-right-boogaloo-boy-kill...

> I see someone isn’t a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

Organizations change.

In the same way that just because the democratic party has a horribly racist history doesn’t make the current party horribly racist.

> By the by, a lot of the “left wing” violence recently was caused by right wing militia “boogaloo” people.

The “boogaloo” are a conspiracy theory.

Which is more believable:

1) A far-left wing group that has been around for decades and part of many violent protests across Europe and has branches in the US is involved in another set of left wing violent protests.

Or

2) A right wing group that nobody has heard of and doesn’t seem to be associated with any of the exisiting far-right movements has deeply infiltrated left wing protests and is causing trouble.

Since I’m partial to conspiracy theories (2) might be possible if it’s actually the feds.

I guess the far right activists on trial for the murders of both the law enforcement and security personnel killed during the protests can try the 'actually we don't exist: it was the left or the Feds' defence but I'm not sure it'll work out for them...

I was referring to the language used in the press during the civil rights era, which referred to the protests led by MLK as “riots” as well.

I posted a link to a reputable news source. The right wing militias are well known, and the “boogaloo” has been well documented.

You have presented no evidence whatsoever.

Who is the far left wing group you speak of? These folks? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism

I’m on their side, 100%. You?

> which referred to the protests led by MLK as “riots” as well.

Were there riots along with the protests? Because there are now.

> I posted a link to a reputable news source. The right wing militias are well known, and the “boogaloo” has been well documented.

Can you show me a reputable news source with an exposé on them before 2019? I can for example with other far right groups like the proud boys.

> I’m on their side, 100%. You?

I’m not on Antifas side - I don’t condone political violence.

A salon.com piece isn't exactly a credible source. Salon.com is an extremely biased leftist online medium.

There is also no organic 'Boogaloo movement'. The general consensus inside right wing circles (chans & discord) is that the MSM here attempts to create a bogeyman out of thin air to explain away the intrinsic violence of the racial BLM movement and these revolutionary 'Antifa' types. exercising the cognitive dissonance of "violence is the language of the unheard" and "all violence is a right-wing militia 'false-flag' attack".

The overwhelming opinion (inside those right wing circles) is that it isn't necessary to do anything at all, for the Marxist Left is shooting their own knee by showing their true face through wanton violence, riots and the excesses of 'cancel-culture' witch-hunts, for which deplatforming is the 'dog-whistle'

The credo is:

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." — Napoleon Bonaparte

""the only good Tory is a dead Tory" has been the popular refrain for decades."

I haven't followed British politics much. The only thing I can find for your popular refrain is

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-47853588

Could you provide some sources?

Sure, here are some DDG results. You'll find the phrase used in various contexts.

- https://www.facebook.com/theonlygoodtoryisadeadtory/

- https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/e9dlk8/a_g...

- https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/04/my-husb...

- https://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/bath-man-unde...

- https://twitter.com/killallt0ries

- http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1190

I have to say, I'm saddened that bringing this up has caused such a fuss and has caused others to make assumptions on my position. That these sentiments are common is not a new development but it is depressing.

The difference* of course is that none of those people have real political power, Democrats are not trying to appease them. The far left aren't the force behind a Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. Those on r/the_donald are Trump's base, the one's that he tries to appease.

*US centric view only, don't know enough about European politics to have an informed opinion.

The fact that Biden still hasn’t picked a VP is pretty good proof that you’re wrong.

This isn’t even about picking a political side. Being racist, misogynist, or calling to violence is not an opinion, it’s even downright illegal in some countries. There are plenty of subreddits on the political spectrum for example on economic theories, socialistic or capitalistic, or the pro/limiting immigration. But the line is clear with hateful content.

Of course it's not about picking political sides. I certainly did not intend to do so, if that's the impression you have taken. The sentiment is universally contemptible.

On principle yes. But I don't know where you live where this is commonplace, do you really see that in your daily life in the real world? There are misandrist feminists, but look further than Twitter drama, most feminists in real life are pretty compassionate with men. For example the concept of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity despite what you may think is mostly about psychological distress and suffering on men. Same with anti-racists activists, it's mostly about compassion for other human beings in real life, anti-white racism is a fringe thing.

You mean like

https://thedonald.win/p/GIEYMyjj/steven-huffman-the-most-col...

Is there a real discernible difference between that and efforts on politics to label trump a rapist. Both are false allegations that haven’t been proven. At least this t_d post is very clearly fake/satire. While the stuff that gets up voted on /r/politics tries very hard to take itself seriously even as they push lies.

Folks like to drawn in people with discussions about how some views aren't allowed on reddit and tales of political persecution ... but that there is a good example of a lot of TD's content.

It wasn't a place that was about conservative views, or a political party or politician ... it was mostly just fear, hate, and lies.

And for a place with lots of defenders crying out over censorship, any wiff of a differing opinion in their sub was met with a ban...

Have you ever been to any of Reddit subs?

It isn’t perfect. Most major subs uphold a reasonable measure of decorum. It’s a big place, I am sure you can find examples of everything you see on TD.win. The point is Reddit is trying to enforce its rules and maintain reasonable standards (IMO)

> Reddit is trying to enforce its rules and maintain reasonable standards

From Reddit:

https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

> Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

> While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

Just visited the site. Looks like you need to go through capticha/cloudflair wait and then you have to create an account. I never got that far.

But you went through all of that and verified your email. Now you are reporting it is full of [insert trending bad words]. Are you part of that community? A reporter?

Were there any upvotes on comments you approved of?

I have never created an account. As far as I know you don’t have to. I am very curious. I like to peek in and see where the most extreme Trump supporters are at these days. It’s not pleasant and I tolerate it in small doses only, but I think it is important to understand them, even if I strongly disagree.

Edit: it’s currently going direct to a login screen. That’s not normal.

I made an account on thedonald.win today, just to try and understand what other people's opinions are. You don't need an email ID for signing up, so it's pretty easy. That being said, yes, quite a few people in the community are toxic. However, I don't see any activity that would cause them to be removed from Reddit altogether.

Keep lookin. There are plenty of occasions where there will be posts and memes with a lot of upvotes that have things that would get you banned from most any other site: calls to violence, outright support for white supremacy, etc. They are cleaning things up some lately, but it’s all still there. It’s abundantly clear to me, at least, why they got banned.