• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They’ll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can’t do or say.

    Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.

    Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way … in fact most people I’ve ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.

    It’s the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It’s all about money and power.

    It’s all about a handful of morons who aren’t aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some number of people are getting maimed, wounded, or killed. Do people have a threshold number at which point they decide it’s too much?

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like to explain it as such:

        The Mediterranean is full of dead bodies from asylum seekers, but people still bath there. People will not bathe in a pool, if that pool has a single cadaver in it. Some might say that it doesn’t count because you can’t see the bodies in the Mediterranean, but you can in the pool. but even if the pool has an angle and the corpse obscured behind said angle, people won’t swim in it if they are told this in advance. so clearly there must be some ratio of dead people to water that society sees as acceptable.

        so to answer your question, yes, and we haven’t reached that point yet, and the right is doing it’s best to keep that bar as high as possible.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Usually hunger … if you look through history, change doesn’t happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries … change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die … and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change …

        And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms … good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.

    • rodolfo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it’s

      They’ll keep arguing the details

      this is the sum of all the thread. there’s so much on this few words. in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I’d describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice. thank you

    • cloud
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Authoritarian governments don’t take power because of free speech, they take power because there’s no free speech anymore

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is like the chicken or the egg argument.

        Does authoritarian government take over because they’ve taken away freedoms … or do they take over because everyone is too apathetic to do anything about it all.

        Did they come in through force of will? Or because there was no opposing will?

        • cloud
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did they come in through force of will? Or because there was no opposing will?

          No right of free speech means opposition is limited