/townhall/ - Townhall

because they're not actually anti-government. they're just pro-resentment.

I think they think everyone else is stupid. Authoritarianism is fueled by arrogance and narcissism on one hand a wild paranoia about hypotheticals of indeterminate probability on the other.

One of those groups wants to convince everyone that freedom is slavery and vice versa for the sake of power while the other group doesn't care, they're just happy to have what feels like an easy answer to how best to quell their constant low-level existential dread and fear of losing their material comforts.

Authoritarianism is just an anxiety disorder turned into a political disposition by people who refuse to accept that the root of their anxiety is ultimately a matter of their attitude and refusal to accept that the power of an authority is ultimately an illusion, as is 'social order', as well as a constant fear of loss of those material comforts they earned.

A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be called anarchists/[insert label here], while still benefiting from government programs and protected under the police

>>15546
Folk with such things are usually either cops, or those who have cops in their family.
Or boomers. But boomers are retards all around.

Giving this thread a gold star for being the best this week

>>15546
The serious response is that the right-wing in America thinks in terms of tribalism and identity politics. Not absolute principle.

And so it makes perfect sense to both:

>Want an all-powerful government to make it harder and harder if not impossible for gay couples to send their children to public schools.

>Think that LGBT+ marriage should still be illegal.

While you also both:

>Want to encourage the use of taxpayer money of religious private schools as much as possible.

>Talk about individuals who're not-LGBT+ getting married as a beautiful act of personal liberty that makes somebody's life much better.

Right-wing thinking is not at all about "the state is inherently right / wrong" or "the individual expressing their freedom is inherently right / wrong".

It's about "earned liberty". "Earned freedom". "Earned rights". The right-wing believes that human freedom is basically a finite resource like there only being so much copper to mine on the Earth's crust or such. And if Jews, gays, transgender people, atheists, etc get more liberties, then there's less for me (as a conservative).

Probably the best kind of litmus test an objective observer can run is to ask a Trump voter this: "If you believe in 'earned liberty', then please tell me who exact sits on high above the human race telling which single person 'you've learned this form of liberty' versus who's 'not earned it yet'? Who gets to be that God?"

>>15595
I've grown very tired of asking this question because the answer always ends up being "oh that's easy, it's white people" followed very quickly by "wait that's not actually not what I meant stop putting words in my mouth"

>>15596
Ideological tribalism as a way of thinking is by no means isolated to modern America.

If anything, I'd say that what I'm describing has been standard across the Middle East for decades, especially going back to the very racist, sexist, and even actively genocidal Ottoman Empire that crushed innocents like a child stomping on ants.

>>15596

So why the hell do you keep asking the question if you hate the answer? Are you just wanting someone to tell you what you want to hear? Gifted Dove here hit the nail on the head (without even mentioning white people specifically). And yeah ypu are putting words in Gifted Dove's mouth here, and implicitly attacking all white people in the process.

>>15600
Agreed.

>>15595
>Right-wing thinking is not at all about "the state is inherently right / wrong" or "the individual expressing their freedom is inherently right / wrong". It's about "earned liberty". "Earned freedom". "Earned rights"
...No, it's most certainly not.
At least it isn't in America.
The view on rights is that they are inherent. It's quite literally the foundational principle of the country itself.
They are not "earned". You just have them.

The right does not believe human freedom is a "finite resource". That's absurd. Again, the view of "rights" even if you want to be literal about it is that they come from God.

>Probably the best kind of litmus test an objective observer can run is to ask a Trump voter this:
Alright, let's go through it.
>"If you believe in 'earned liberty',
I don't.
You've already faltered by espousing a faulty premise.
But let's continue.
>then please tell me who exact sits on high above the human race telling which single person 'you've learned this form of liberty'  versus who's 'not earned it yet'?
I assume that's supposed to be "earned", but as we have already established, I do not believe in "earned" rights nor does a single person I have ever encountered despite living my whole life in a deeply red state.
But let's assume it's replaced with "given", for the sake of argument, here;
God.
That is the rhetoric of the majority of right-wingers. That these rights are inherent, to all mankind.
Now, some are literal about it, some are using it in a more philosophical context, but none the less, it isn't any politician as you seem to presume.
>Who gets to be that God?"
God gets to be that god.
Again, as you would know if you actually discussed these philosophical concepts with right wingers instead of making up your own interpretation online, they believe by large these rights are inherent. The core philosophy of this nation is built upon that. The idea of "natural rights".

>>15606
Amazing. Basically every single statement that you've made is objectively, factually incorrect. It's as if you live in an alternate dimension with no relationship to reality.

Do you even understand what the term "earned liberty" is? Do you even have even the remote understanding of its use by authors across Anglosphere history, including by those who were publishing books before my f--king parents were born (let alone before I was born)?

Are you even willing to Google terms that you don't know? Apply the bare minimum of effort?

I'll start for you, say, by quoting American conservative hero and influential intellectual figure Robert A. Heinlein:

> https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184153-liberty-is-never-unalienable-it-must-be-redeemed-regularly-with

>>15608
I can't say I'm exactly shocked, but I certainly am disappointed.

Ah well. It's what I deserve for engaging with an insane, utterly moronic, tribalistic psychopath.

>>15611
Are you genuinely mentally ill? I'm asking seriously.

Not only are you an insane, utterly moronic, and tribalistic psychopath with beliefs having no relationship to reality, but you're also amazingly projecting your own pathologies into normal people.

I'm kind of at a loss as to how to even talk to you. Do you believe that the Holocaust didn't happen as well? Do you think that the Earth is flat? Is homosexuality caused by contagious viruses? Is Judaism among children caused by secret conspiracies among adults? What other MAGA doctrines would you like to go into?

What else is going on in that brain of yours?

I'll say it once again: tribalism as a very ideology from its core is an enemy of civilization itself and ought to be gotten rid of, whether in the form of MAGA or Nazism or Islamic terrorism or whatever else.

Individuals who can't judge others on their merits but instead have to obsess over their race, their gender identity, their religion, and so on are mentally sick and need help progressing, not praise.

>>15615
>bunch of random nonsense totally unrelated to anything I've said
Cry more, loser.

>>15618
How wonderfully Christian of you. I'm sure that Jesus Christ is very proud. You truly do uphold His life and legacy.

>>15620
>
>>15623

Cry more.

>>15624
I'm trying really, really hard from a Christian perspective to forgive you. Regardless of whether or not I can, I'm asking you once again to please seek help in terms of your mental illnesses. I'm also going to state that if you accepted authentic Christian thinking into your heart and believed in the vision of Jesus Christ that everybody are all brothers and sisters with Him as their spiritual father that you'd be a much happier, healthier, and all-around better person. The MAGA way-of-life centered around violent political extremism and the hatred of others due to them just being born slightly different is no way to function. I really don't think that it is.

>>15627
I do not have a desire for your forgiveness. There is, after all, nothing to forgive; The slight doesn't exist in reality. It exists only within your own deluded mind.

> violent political extremism
Funny how you always try to say this shit, and yet every time, it's the left running around burning cities to the ground, shooting people in ambush, doxxing and threatening families, and so on and so forth.

But I guess "No bad tactics, only bad targets", so it's okay when you guys do it, right?

>>15633
Yeah, yeah, the Jews are the real Nazis, the gays are the real Nazis, etc

You as a straight white Christian cisgender men have to live in fear of minorities being out to get you, etc

Isn't it exhausting for you to boil your brain in your identity politics? Does this make you sad all the time? Angry all the time?

I get to go out to eat or otherwise live a life without being required to care about the skin color of the guy serving me or the religion of the woman cooking the food. It feels good. Not having to care about ideology all the time.

I get to live next to Black neighbors, White neighbors, and others without being required to think that they're all inherently opposed to each other. It's not a utopia. But it's a fuck of a lot better than MAGA life and having to see a communist Jew trying to rob me behind every lamppost when I walk around at night.

>>15640
As usual, not an iota of relevance to anything I've said.
I'm not even straight, you raging retard.
How are you this dense?

>>15641
There are no evil minorities out there trying to get you, my guy

I don't know how to get you to understand this fact about reality

>>15647
I've not suggested there was, you illiterate tragically failed abortion.

>>15650
God, I hope you keep getting prevented from trying to hurt and kill people so badly.

Why is it that the liberal lefts are literally addicted to the humiliation ritual that is their daily life?

>>15758
At least they (mostly) aren't Russian bootlickers

>>15546
You're right.  Far left trigger happy "peacekeepers" with zero training shooting and killing innocent people in the streets is the best solution to ensuring public safety.

>>15821
Relative to how many trigger happy far-leftists have killed innocent people, trigger happy police killing innocent people have them beat immensely. Mind you I think both are a bad idea but this is a terrible counter to a valid point from the OP about Right-Libertarians being bootlickers ironically.

>>15822
In total numbers maybe but as a proportion of population definitely not.
Maybe you didn't see the OP picture or are just willfully ignorant but it specifically depicts a Thin Blue Line which refers to support of the police, i.e. that thing that enforces public safety in the civilized world.
Wanting to not be tread on and support of a thing that keeps people from treading on you are not mutually exclusive positions.

>>15824
>Maybe you didn't see the OP picture or are just willfully ignorant but it specifically depicts a Thin Blue Line which refers to support of the police, i.e. that thing that enforces public safety in the civilized world.
I have no idea what makes you think this considering I was directly referencing what the op's image represents.
>Wanting to not be tread on and support of a thing that keeps people from treading on you are not mutually exclusive positions.
They are an arm of the state and are bound to enforce the laws of the state, authoritarian or not. and tread on people wrongly (even in an extralegal sense but not just that at all) all the time. It at least makes more sense that a true libertarian would be more skeptical of them than not. The saying "don't tread on me" is very obviously about resisting authoritarianism in the state or from a authoritarian occupier. Literally just look up the gadsden flag for 2 minutes and you'd realize this. To be unconditionally in support of the police force as a libertarian is at least questionable. Especially with how the police force in the US can be. Your mileage may vary elsewhere but most sane people can agree that our police are in need of at least some kind of reform. The thin blue line is usually used to show support for the police and resistance to any sort of change or criticism of them.

>>15825
I'm not concerned with what you personally think the OP image represents.
The Gadsden flag is used to show opposition to anything that is considered to be "treading" to the person who is flying the flag.  Clearly what you consider to be "treading" or rather what you wish others to consider to be "treading," vs what the individual who is displaying the flag considers to be "treading," are two different things.  And frankly your imposition is meaningless.
It can't even be asserted that the flag belongs to a dyed in the wool libertarian, much less an ancap type who is opposed to the very concept of the police, which is what is being implied.  Even if they were just a regular small l libertarian, support of the mechanism of maintaining order within a limited government is not mutually exclusive with being a libertarian.  Therefore   we can conclude that the individual who created this flag is not concerned with being treaded upon by the police, making the entire OP as well as your boot-licking assertion meaningless.

>>15826
>I'm not concerned with what you personally think the OP image represents.
That makes two of us I guess.
>The Gadsden flag is used to show opposition to anything that is considered to be "treading" to the person who is flying the flag.  Clearly what you consider to be "treading" or rather what you wish others to consider to be "treading," vs what the individual who is displaying the flag considers to be "treading," are two different things
More often than not it's referring to what I'm saying and it is heavily associated with what I am saying even from a right-wing or libertarian perspective. Yes technically that's accurate but it's more likely than not what I'm saying because that's what most people used it for and what it was used for originally historically.
>which is what is being implied.
I didn't imply this, but the thin blue line is again used to show support and resistance to any criticism of the police.
>Even if they were just a regular small l libertarian, support of the mechanism of maintaining order within a limited government is not mutually exclusive with being a libertarian.
Would you call the current US a limited government? I certainly wouldn't. Sure I guess you can make some sort of pragmatic argument for it but as I said it's at least questionable.
>Therefore   we can conclude that the individual who created this flag is not concerned with being treaded upon by the police, making the entire OP as well as your boot-licking assertion meaningless.
We can't. Maybe you can but I can't for how many self-identifying right-libertarians I see borderline contradicting themselves in ways like this all the time.

>>15827
Let's be honest here. The OP image makes perfect sense in the context of current day America. This individual is concerned with being treaded on by leftists and Democrats. And those same leftists and Democrats are the ones who demonize the police that this individual clearly has no problem with. It's no deeper than that. This person just doesn't like you or what you stand for. That doesn't make him a hypocrite even though you want to ascribe additional meaning to the flag and symbolism he is using. He  doesn't have to assume the entire history of the flag and what it meant in colonial America to make his point.

>>15828
>This individual is concerned with being treaded on by leftists and Democrats.
Which is a largely irrational fear especially in as you said current day America where republicans control congress and the presidency and corporations have been shifting their approach to the right because they were never legitimately interested beyond the bare minimum pandering to the "left". Meanwhile there has been a lot of treading done by the right-controlled state and the right-wing, hell did you not hear about the MAGA guy who killed a democrat? Meanwhile the democrats are spineless as ever and even if they had power they'd do basically nothing other than maybe reverse a lot of decisions made by republicans again.
>And those same leftists and Democrats are the ones who demonize the police that this individual clearly has no problem with.
And what are they effectively doing to him by either A) funding and supporting the police by and large even during protests against the police like democrats have always largely done while only giving lip service at most towards even somewhat reforming the police while never actually doing it or B) protesting actual legitimate police violence (treading) and wanting some sort of solution to it? If that's treading on him in his eyes they have a rather loose idea of it. And I don't feel like someone who potentially doesn't understand why people want to reduce police using undue violent force to tread on people is particularly worth listening to.
>This person just doesn't like you or what you stand for.
What do you think I "stand for"? I don't agree literally that all cops are bastards but many people are not using it literally anyway. I am not against a police force but I am for reforming how they operate and what they are allowed to get away with one way or another in the face of the many cases of grotesque violence that they do get away with. This is probably the way it is for most people who have a stance against the police, the ones who genuinely think all police are demons as soon as they put on the badge are as much of a minority as literal nazis in America.
>That doesn't make him a hypocrite even though you want to ascribe additional meaning to the flag and symbolism he is using. He  doesn't have to assume the entire history of the flag and what it meant in colonial America to make his point.
Then maybe he should have used symbols that aren't already predominantly meaning two very different even if not necessarily contradictory things. That is at least questionable on the face of it and you can't blame anyone for reading it that way even if he's entirely as you claim. I haven't implied it necessarily makes him a hypocrite only that it is ironic. And even putting that aside, I'd say it's at least again questionable. But if it really is all like you're saying with this person sure I guess I UNDERSTAND it, but I think it's silly given what I said above about "democrats and leftists"

>>15829
It wasn't an irrational fear when we were all being told that Kamala was sure to win the presidency not that long ago, or when we were subject to the executive orders of a senile old man who didn't even know what he was signing.  And maybe you missed that whole little "abolish the police" movement that Democrats like to pretend they weren't in support of.  It makes perfect sense that this flag was created some time during the past 4 years and it would also make sense for it to remain proudly displayed even after Trump became president as a fuck you to the left.  Because most people who see that combination of symbols should know what it means.  Proud to be American.  Support the police.  Don't tread on me.  I.e. the exact opposite of Democrats and the left.

You're confusing two different things.  The treading is one thing and support of the police is another.  You can even be in favor of police reform without being anti cop.  And even if I grant that there is some treading by the right, that clearly isn't the treading he's concerned about.  It's just awhataboutisn.

>>15830
It's clear that we see symbols and what they mean and past events and actions and who supports what and how prominent "abolish the police" actually was and so on in reality in too different a light for this go anywhere so I'll just leave it at that.

Five different rounds, Evil™️ Guns.

And here at Evil™️ Guns, we have five different rounds to choose from. The .33 mini, 13 mm ХГ (handgun), the 13 mm АР (assault rifle), the 13 guage shotgun shell, and the .666 magnum.

And the .33 Mini is Evil™️'s analog of the .22 LR. Excellent for feeding those miniature-sized AK-47s and miniature size M16's that you give to the children. It also makes a very good snake gun and small game hunter. The .33 Mini goes well with a first time shooter or for target practice.  Or just a useful round when you have small game or rats to kill. .33 Mini


Our submachine guns are usually chambered in 13 mm ХГ(handgun) and our shotfuns aee wonderfult, the trench sweeper Evil™️ Guns Shotgun is a wonderful pump action shotgun, which usually comes in birdshot, buckshot,or elephant shot.

We have Ak 47s (kiloshnikovs) chambered in 13 mm АР (асулт Рйфул - assault rifle), which is an excellent round for taking down soldiers or other armoured enemies.

We have M-16s in 13 mm АР and it:s perfect for war crimes.

We have plenty of handguns to choose from, all using the 13 mm ХГ (handgun ammo) which is essentially a Russian version of the 45 ACP.
A glock chambered in 13 mm  ХГ (handgun) holds 13+1 rounds


All made in Japan. 🇯🇵🗾

💴💵💶💷 Yen, Dollars American, Euros, pounds British, are all usable currencies. Also, Swedish krona, Russian Roubles, and Kursidian dollars all also accepted.

Our .666 magnum will go in our lines of Desert Evil™️ handguns as well as six shot revolver that we can provide