To be fair, most of those oblivious, politically divested real world people eventually just tend to do what they're told by whichever small group is willing to play the game of political king of the hill and is currently winning.
They might not want people dead themselves, but if the media propaganda machine tells them it's necessary often enough, the vast majority won't do anything to stop it and a disturbing number will even help in small logistical ways whilst claiming they still don't like it.
And they all started out and made it to the period where they could try to live by those standards, by fighting a war and killing a lot of people who wanted to stop them. Every single one. Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty. They gave them the bayonet. And both sides understood that no matter which principles either side were fighting for, it was a war and the principles that would win would be the principles of the side that killed more of the other. Rule number one in war is Win. There is no rule number two. Every other rule comes after the war. Including quibbling about morals and principles and who looks good and had the moral high ground.
Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty.
One did: John Adams, who represented the Redcoats who instigated the Boston Massacre. Because the rule of law matters he defended them.
So while I agree that the friend/enemy distinction needs to be drawn, there are traditional, civilizationally-important controls around the violence which threatens to be unleashed. There are forms of process and warrants for actions, especially violent actions, which are to be taken against your enemies-- and this is baked into the American Tradition. If you resort to unrestrained violence, you undermine your Causus Belli. You lose the support you'd have if you fought a Just War.
Differences in opinion should not result in violence. Ever.
Unjust action without the option for recourse is a different matter entirely.
Side note: a healthy fear of assassination in all politicians is a good thing.
Someday how the real world works is going to smack you really hard in the face, and if you survive it, you're going to be really surprised.
This is how the common nigger acts. Its why we cant have nice things.
In the real world, barely anyone wants other people dead over differences of opinion.
The real world is not 4chan and politicians. The real world is people whose lives don't revolve around politics.
To be fair, most of those oblivious, politically divested real world people eventually just tend to do what they're told by whichever small group is willing to play the game of political king of the hill and is currently winning.
They might not want people dead themselves, but if the media propaganda machine tells them it's necessary often enough, the vast majority won't do anything to stop it and a disturbing number will even help in small logistical ways whilst claiming they still don't like it.
Normies revolving around the gibs isn't much better.
Ahem, I live in Europe. These people pay for the gibs.
Idk man the best countries in history were built on a foundation of TRYING to live by those standards.
And they all started out and made it to the period where they could try to live by those standards, by fighting a war and killing a lot of people who wanted to stop them. Every single one. Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty. They gave them the bayonet. And both sides understood that no matter which principles either side were fighting for, it was a war and the principles that would win would be the principles of the side that killed more of the other. Rule number one in war is Win. There is no rule number two. Every other rule comes after the war. Including quibbling about morals and principles and who looks good and had the moral high ground.
One did: John Adams, who represented the Redcoats who instigated the Boston Massacre. Because the rule of law matters he defended them.
So while I agree that the friend/enemy distinction needs to be drawn, there are traditional, civilizationally-important controls around the violence which threatens to be unleashed. There are forms of process and warrants for actions, especially violent actions, which are to be taken against your enemies-- and this is baked into the American Tradition. If you resort to unrestrained violence, you undermine your Causus Belli. You lose the support you'd have if you fought a Just War.
Sic pacem, para bellum.