this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
502 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19102 readers
3293 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don't see that he actually said that. At most, the article quotes him as asking if revolution is necessary:

“So that’s the question,” he tells Klingenstein. “Have the abuses or the threat of abuses become so intolerable that we have to be willing to push back?”

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable,” he said. “At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”

(From the interview)

As an explanation for his Jan 6 related activities, 'it was our duty to alter or abolish the existing government' is pretty close to 'hell yes'

[–] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I like how they say they're "suffering abuses" while trying to force religion on people, force LGBTQ back into the closet, while they resist police reform because it protects them and oppresses minorities, while taking away women's body autonomy, while they protect white supremacists and literal Nazis, while they support the big businesses killing us all with capitalism.

Their way of thinking is literally just DARVO on a national scale.

Do we have a c/lone of r/persecutionfetish yet? Because this Eastman statement belongs on that sub, what an asshole.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My right to exist is offensive to them.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, the problem with Jan 6 was the fascists were doing it, and sucked at it.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Their way of thinking is literally just DARVO on a national scale.

The narcissist's prayer is also relevant:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I would like to point out that from the perspective of the ruling class losing power is a type of "suffering abuse." So I don't think these people are lying per say. BUT they are obviously out of touch idiots who are pathologically incapable of understanding other people

[–] unconsciousvoidling@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

DARVO is the playbook of the GOP

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

DARVO is pretty much projection right?

[–] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 31 points 1 year ago

He also says

Our Founders lay this case out. There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.

But he's not just asking a philosophical question. He's one of the people at the core of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and keep Trump in power.

Here, he's providing his ideological underpinnings that he believes gave him the right to alter or abolish the existing government.

Sure, here he's just asking the question if revolution is necessary - but he already answered it in deed when he tried to keep Trump in power against the expressed wish of the electorate.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don’t see that he actually said that. At most, the article quotes him as asking if revolution is necessary:

Then you should pay greater attention to the context in which he said it.

Edit: corrected the omitted word "attention"

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

He was being asked about Jan6 and he brought up the language of the Deceleration that justified overthrowing British rule while describing Joe Biden's election as an existential threat.

If somebody is accused of murder, and when asked about the murder, they explain the legal and historical context of justified homicide, it'd be pretty obtuse to observe that they didn't explicitly admit they killed the person.

[–] goforliftoff@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know the answer would be ridiculous if we ever even got one, but I would love to hear about these intolerable abuses or threats of abuses these people were (and presumably still are since, you know, they weren’t successful) facing. That’s not to say there aren’t people in this country dealing with some pretty intolerable things, but I just don’t seem to see them (or hear about their issues) at Trump rallies.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

"the intolerable abuse of not letting me be a fascist dictator!"