I am not sure you can read. on Jan 6 as appropriate, those who occupied property illegally clashed with the police.

if anything the police should have shot to kill a lot more.

but those protesting outside the building didn't have any problems with the police

chanting whatever yes, aiding and abetting the enemy absolutely no lol

right-wing people in general protest illegally (violently occupying property, smashing things and so on) so much less, that's why they clash less with the police.

you won't be harassed if you never cause trouble illegally to begin with.

being right-wing inherently means you aren't in favour of violent rebellion you know? and being radically leftist inherently mean being inimical to the system (that's why radical leftism should be criminalized btw) and willing to use violence for political purposes structurally.

the vast majority of right-wing people never participated in any protest in their lives, protesting is not in the DNA of the right.

also because protesting is the tantamount collectivist act, and being right-wing usually means being anti collectivist, feeling a moral pulsion toward politics because of personal interest not because of a purported collective good (which for many right-wing people cannot exist definitionally).

which is what made Jan 6 peculiar and surprising

If that's just because governments are usually right wing themselves then it wouldn't really be inherent.

no it's not because of that.

think Brazil right now: the right isn't protesting violently at every occasion like the left did under Bolsonaro.

or think Italy, france and so on. when a right-wing government is in place protests are super common place and often violent. when a leftwing, even radical government is in place, the right doesn't do anything of the sort.

think of environmentalism: violent green protests are everywhere in Europe. where are the violent protests blocking traffic to abolish the price of carbon and all green nonsense? and abolishing green nonsense polls at over 30% in many countries.

it's like this for everything. where are the violent protests blocking cities to cut income taxes?

where are the violent protests burning immigrant shelters (like BLM burned police buildings) to protest against immigration policies?

for real, sounds like you would enjoy Germany. they are far more authoritarian.

right wingers use bomb, tanks, and guns when they don't like government policies

Yeah like Augusto Pinochet.
Or these guys
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...al-2024-04-28/

You can't criminalise people for having thoughts. That's very different from committing crimes due to your ideology.

Nazi parties are illegal in many countries

What countries? I can't find any after googling and this states that Germany's SC didn't ban a neo Nazi party
https://www.economist.com/europe/201...neo-nazi-party

Also the AFD isn't banned afaik. Some countries ban nazi symbols but not political parties and in most countries nazi symbols, while odious are nonetheless legal.
And the far right have violently protested as violence is par for the course for all extremists, be they radical left or right.

lol at private property in usa

it's all stolen land

I do like the way the Germans are more brutal toward the protestors. They need to be. Things are getting dangerous over there. They are realizing that importing these types is a recipe for being turned into a third world country.

Mongdig do the likes of Douglas Murray and Ben Shapiro pop up on your youtube recs, perchance?

Or you can't read that I asked a simple question as to where you stood on January 6th. I was asking without assuming your stance.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not as much of an idealist as you. To say that there has been zero police abuse is quite charitable. I'm not implying it's been widespread. I'm just saying that zero is an extreme take.

The so-called radical leftists largely don't use violence, though.

Those in left-wing protests who use violence are usually radical, but radical leftists usually don't use violence.

If you don't believe in our 1A, that's fine, but the fact that 1A exists primarily to prevent the government from criminalizing ideas is a fact, nonetheless.

if you're opposed to using violence for political purposes....

the United States government is the biggest purveyor of violence for political purposes the world has ever seen

How is this thread still going?

Q: why can you say death to America?

A: 1st Ammendment.

Q: But isn't this a credible threat of mass murder or violent revolution?

A: No.

Q: But what if it REALLY bugs me?

A: Contact your member of congress about ammending the constitution to prohibit speech that really bugs some random guy.

When you say some random guy, are you including me in that?

That sounds just a shade contrary there Kurtz.

What about personal property? Marx wasnt against that.

I didn't read any question re Jan 6. If you mean what I think should have been done, I think they should have shot to kill all trespassers (and that should be the norm in all violent protests). No one should even imagine he could trespass like that and live to tell it to someone.

There might have been abuse in the sense you guys mean it, but only of people who were doing a crime to begin with, in which case for me no abuse can exist (IE unlimited violence is always justified to stop criminals in flagrante). But no one who was not committing property crimes was abused afaik.

Once you are committing a crime and you don't stop when told to stop by law enforcement (like ****ing leave the property), as far as I am concerned they can shoot you down

Ofc AFD isn't banned, that has nothing to do with Nazism, it would be like banning the democratic party for Marxism.

As for German rules wrt banning parties



https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht...hren_node.html

let's say a protester sees someone in distress(baby choking, stroke, whatever), and the protester has to run to save the person... some idiot law enforcement officer cant see what's going on, orders the protester to stop running... so if the protester ignores the order to stop running(totally legal running), the innocent person will die(maybe the person is even a law enforcement officer ).. then according to you, it's totally ok for this heroic protester to be gunned down dead, executed

The use of deadly force to protect property isn't crazy. It just isn't practical. It just causes a larger riot.