Yeah, I think you grossly exaggerate your fellow posters' views.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:31 amWe’re not talking about real terrorists.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:42 pm"Dissented"???kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:55 pm The left considered those who “Dissented ” 4 years ago patriotic.
Now they are being labeled as “anti-vaxers,” and “Domestic terrorists.”
Who are you talking about, Kram?
Want to dissent?
Go ahead, march, wear fuzzy pink hats, whatever...
But threaten to kill my family, name my children, publish my address, name of their school, pictures...different story.
Go into a black church or a synagogue or a ballfield and mow down people with a gun or set off a bomb to kill people, for some sort of angry, hate-filled ideological reason?
Yeah, that's domestic terrorism.
Doesn't matter whether it's left or right...it just happens to be mostly from the whack job right this past decade and right now, but that could well change.
We’re talking about bs claims being made to label and silence critics.
Much of it we see here at fanlax. On a daily basis:
All of Brookie and the fake Dr’s greatest hits:
The right are nazis.
People who complain about school policies are terrorists.
Those who don’t wish to be forced to take an unstudied medicine (or submit their medical history to HR) are antivaxers.
All whites are racists.
It’s all the same move- say it enough to brand someone with an offensive term. Wipe out opposition.
Complaining at a BoE meeting doesn’t make one a domestic terrorist. But the left will say it enough times to paint that picture.
They will even bring in the feds to “investigate.”
It’s the left’s current favorite game. Has been for at least a decade now.
You're focused on just two as the most egregiously strident, but I don't think even our most strident such left posters have made the blanket statements you claim. Close, sure, but IMO you exaggerate., and thus undermine your fundamental point about 'labeling'.
and the question is why do you exaggerate?
Do you really believe they've made those explicit claims?
Or is that a rhetorical exaggeration on purpose?
Seems to me, for instance that you would be more persuasive if you said something like 'it's important to differentiate between protesters at a school board meeting who simply want to be heard and those actually threatening violence, don't label them all 'terrorists' '...and that would be persuasive.
Or say 'not all conservatives want any form of fascism' to make the point that indeed, lots of conservatives support democracy and are uncomfortable with those on either side of the political spectrum who don't...that would be a reasonable and true statement.
Or 'lets differentiate between 'racist' and 'privileged'; all whites are clearly not 'racist', but may well not understand the inherent, race based advantages that white people in America have historically had and continue to have. The latter doesn't make them 'racist', simply not fully understanding...big difference" Again, a persuasive rejection of any notion that "all whites are racist" which would indeed be an extreme fringe rhetorical position...a dumb one at that.
On your vax one, you begin to lose me as well, when you say "unstudied medicine" as if that's factual, which it most certainly is not...but if you said, "we should better understand how ill informed, but well meaning, some people are in order to better accomplish the goals of public health" I'd be right there with you in any discussion of how to be more empathetic towards those resisting getting the vaccine...but yeah, if you're refusing to take the vaccine because you think it's "unstudied medicine" I don't think it's inaccurate to say of that person that they're "antivaxer'.