How would you feel if it was the government trampling on your rights yesterday, instead of the victims being people like me?
But nobody did nothin' to me yesterday.
Could the entire support base of the regime's bullshit really rest on retards with an IQ just too low to understand oppression as a conditional hypothetical? Since "nuthin' bad happened to me yesterday" is that why they excuse all this shit? Because they literally can't understand that it could happen to them later?
Some of it, maybe, but my issue with this line of thought (and with the poem quoted by u/SoctaticMethod1 ) is that they both work from an assumption that the government picks its targets with a dartboard. That it oppresses for the sake of oppressing, that it has no favored classes or people with motivations steering the ship.
Sometimes, that may be true, but in this case, you have to remember that you’re applying it as “hey, black guy, you know those other black people telling you you’re noble, whites are evil, and they’re gonna take everything from whites and give it to you? Imagine if they turned on you!” (And you can substitute “gays/straights,” “trans/cis,” or any such pairing here). The argument that “it could be turned on you!” entirely misses the friend/enemy distinction. The goal is to give these powers to your friends to use against your enemies so that your enemies can’t create similar powers to use against you.
Truthfully, I find myself more aligned with the more authoritarian forms of the right for exactly this reason. I don’t agree with the normiecons and the lolberts going “but if we use the power of government against them, what if it turns on us?” That philosophy of surrendering power is exactly what got us where we are today, and I have no desire for my side’s end goal to be “take out the current crop of bad guys, set us back to 1990, and say ‘pretty please, ideology that ruthlessly infiltrates, subverts, and seizes power, don’t do that this time around!’” It is necessary to crush communism, and no moralizing poems about “what if the people that crush communism turn on you" will change my mind. Likewise for the black supremacists or the LGBT identitarians or whatever—it is necessary for them to seize power out of the hands of their opponents, they’ve been doing a bang up job of it thus far, and of course they aren’t going to say “but what if my enemies use this power against me,” because they are killing their enemies. Their enemies will be dead.
Good luck with that lol. As soon as you have violent powerful governance you engage in power plays within your own camp, even if the ideology seems cohesive. Who's gonna lead this campaign? What happens when their peers disagree? You just get coup after coup
The logic that that is inevitable would preclude any group with power from ever ruling anything, which is retarded on its face.
No, you're advocating a government with less checks and balances to enable them to 'deal with' enemies of the state as they see fit.
Again, who's gonna lead it? What happens if their peers label the leader as an enemy of the state? Can you name a single authoritarian society that hasn't descended into a coup?
Considering that this would include all monarchies and chiefdoms and similar, I would have to say “the majority of governments throughout human history.”
You are playing some very nice “what if” games that fail to interact with reality as it is. Our “representative republic” has been almost entirely captured, such that it is an oligarchy with a thin veneer of freedom over it. Almost every institution that wields power—the educational, the media, the financial, the megacorporation—has become captured by this same ideology. By which means would you fix this overwhelming ideological imbalance that does not include, at minimum, a governmental equivalent firing key people across the board and instituting different people who would neither continue their predecessors abuses of power, nor—crucially—allow their own predecessors to simply resume the same evil game?