• SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t see that he actually said that. At most, the article quotes him as asking if revolution is necessary:

    “So that’s the question,” he tells Klingenstein. “Have the abuses or the threat of abuses become so intolerable that we have to be willing to push back?”

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      “There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable,” he said. “At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”

      (From the interview)

      As an explanation for his Jan 6 related activities, ‘it was our duty to alter or abolish the existing government’ is pretty close to ‘hell yes’

      • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        70
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I like how they say they’re “suffering abuses” while trying to force religion on people, force LGBTQ back into the closet, while they resist police reform because it protects them and oppresses minorities, while taking away women’s body autonomy, while they protect white supremacists and literal Nazis, while they support the big businesses killing us all with capitalism.

        Their way of thinking is literally just DARVO on a national scale.

        Do we have a c/lone of r/persecutionfetish yet? Because this Eastman statement belongs on that sub, what an asshole.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          Their way of thinking is literally just DARVO on a national scale.

          The narcissist’s prayer is also relevant:

          That didn’t happen.
          And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
          And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
          And if it is, that’s not my fault.
          And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
          And if I did, you deserved it.

        • DreamButt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          I would like to point out that from the perspective of the ruling class losing power is a type of “suffering abuse.” So I don’t think these people are lying per say. BUT they are obviously out of touch idiots who are pathologically incapable of understanding other people

    • Kleinbonum@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      He also says

      Our Founders lay this case out. There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.

      But he’s not just asking a philosophical question. He’s one of the people at the core of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and keep Trump in power.

      Here, he’s providing his ideological underpinnings that he believes gave him the right to alter or abolish the existing government.

      Sure, here he’s just asking the question if revolution is necessary - but he already answered it in deed when he tried to keep Trump in power against the expressed wish of the electorate.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t see that he actually said that. At most, the article quotes him as asking if revolution is necessary:

      Then you should pay greater attention to the context in which he said it.

      Edit: corrected the omitted word “attention”

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      He was being asked about Jan6 and he brought up the language of the Deceleration that justified overthrowing British rule while describing Joe Biden’s election as an existential threat.

      If somebody is accused of murder, and when asked about the murder, they explain the legal and historical context of justified homicide, it’d be pretty obtuse to observe that they didn’t explicitly admit they killed the person.

    • goforliftoff@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      I know the answer would be ridiculous if we ever even got one, but I would love to hear about these intolerable abuses or threats of abuses these people were (and presumably still are since, you know, they weren’t successful) facing. That’s not to say there aren’t people in this country dealing with some pretty intolerable things, but I just don’t seem to see them (or hear about their issues) at Trump rallies.