A man in the US state of New Mexico has pleaded guilty to helping a defeated Republican candidate carry out drive-by shootings at the home of Democrats.
The defendant, Demetrio Trujillo, says the candidate, Solomon Peña, hired him after failing to win a seat in the state legislature in November 2022.
Over the following weeks, the residences of several Democratic officials were attacked in Albuquerque.
For sure. But what do we do?
In Germany, they can ban extremist parties as a result of historic events. That’s what under consideration with the AfD. The US could persue the same route, although it is probably harder in a two-party system.
Especially since we’d effectively have to ban Republicans which would seem to be going a fascist route. As ironic as that is…
The paradox of tolerance is only a paradox when all context is removed.
“Banning a political party” completely and utterly forgets the, “… that uses more and more stochastic terrorism and acts more and more like evil groups from history that committed great atrocities” part.
Exactly. Unfortunately I don’t think most people would understand that and see banning one of two political parties are extreme overreach.
Not only would they not understand. The opposition will purposefully spread misinformation and try to confuse people. Add that people are fallible and all it takes is one shady Democrat and the whole thing backfires.
I don’t really see how that could work on its own. So the party is banned, so what? All the deplorables are still around and now they’ve got one more grievance to get riled up about. By fracturing the party you nullify their political power and that’s obviously a good thing, but it might increase the likelihood they resort to terrorism. The only solution I can see working is fixing our education system, but that doesn’t help in the short term.
The thing is, the active fascists are an extreme minority in most cases. They only have support because of the methods of disinformation and populism they use.
The majority of their base aren’t horrible people who want to see the world burn down around them. They’ve just been told that’s whats best for them by charismatic politicians.
They would have limited power when their party doesn’t have any votes.
That would be massively illegal under US law, specifically the first amendment.
True. It may have to be done in a different way.
Germany has free speech similar to the first amendment in the US, but they also have strict laws against hate speech and extremism. That is different from the US, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is often protected by the first amendment.
Overall I’m not sure. But it sure would be nice if news channels were required to tell the truth or be held accountable if creating and spreading lies which indoctrinate people into actions like this.
We all should collectively boycott what passes for “news” these days. It is all terrible. Although it has always had inflection points where the rich barons try to control the tone of the public through their media empires, so not sure if we can ever fully quell the corruption that seems to eventually bleed back into journalism periodically.
One of the things to be careful about is the “they’re all equally bad” fallacy. No side is ever going to be perfect, but there are huge differences between organizations that make the occasional bad decision and organizations that are dedicated to distorting and lying in whatever way is necessary to justify their ideological points.
OAN is not a news organization at ll. Fox reports actual news, but always gives priority to propaganda. CBS and ABC aren’t terrible, but are far more concerned with ratings than news. NBC is similar, but they chase a more liberal audience.
NPR, PBS, and the BBC are all quite good about doing honest journalism. Start there if you want to know what it actually going on. Then cross-check it against other sources.
How’s that gonna stop my redneck relatives from being fed lies?
They’re gonna hate me for this one but arm yourself and train. Lets take a hypothetical to the endgame, lets say there are nazi style brownshirts roaming the streets in 10 years time, do you think it would be better to be unarmed with strong gun control, or like me do you think at least half of the roughly 400 million guns that already are here would end up in the brownshirts hands anyway?
You have the correct approach, and it is the moral duty of sites such as this one to stop fucking banning people for saying it.
Start punching Nazis at any opportunity, when you see someone punching a Nazi, look the other way.
I’ve never seen a Nazi in person (and been aware of their fascism). In seriousness have you? What happened when you punched them?
Username checks out. 🖕🏼
They go around in groups though. The only time they actually admit to be Nazis is when they’ve got their friends around them and they’re waving flags.
It’s like this in every country. They hold demonstrations and then 10 times the number of counter protesters turn up. I’ll get worried when the number of counter protesters goes down but I’ve not yet seen that.
Follow them home.
Seriously. When they show up in khakis and black masks, make them fear for their safety.
I abhor violence, but it’s going to take violence to prevent huge systemic violence down the road. If these fucks come to real power, I know I’ll be on one of the lists.
Did you figure out any solutions while in the delta quadrant?
But seriously. A very good question. Last time, the fascist uprise that was also starting in the US (yes, it was becoming very popular here in the 1930s) leading up to WWII was quelled after Pearl Harbor and we joined the war.
I don’t really want to have to have a world war again to stop fascism. Why can’t we fucking learn from history?
Although, as you know, after WWIII, we did then get warp drive. So…
Areavaderchee
There is a good book on modern fascism Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It (excepts)
There is liberal anti fascist action (e.g. suing them, petitions, boycotts) and autonomous anti fascist action (less polite). The latter isn’t about violence, but to disrupt fascist events. The strategy is to prevent them from recruiting - prevent them from speaking because we know that clever fascist speech and their lies can lead to recruitment.
Be prepared to kill Nazis if it comes down to it. But try every possible democratic solution prior to it.
The biggest part is simply voting and talking to people who will listen to you to vote.
Acknowledge and learn. Vote with conscience and pragmatism.
Voting is the minimum effort. We are going to need a lot more than that to stop the republican party.
The minimum effort, but also one of the most easily accessible (even in areas of disenfranchisement) and most influential.
Its not as direct as throwing a brick through some lobbyists window, but its also more likely to have an effect on the world and less likely to land you in prison.
Just organizing locally is a next step beyond voting.
Put “republican” hired to shoot “Democrat” in the headline
By deliberately de-emphasizing the crimes of republicans they are thereby absolved and emboldened.
BBC knows better but doesn’t do the right thing. Why? Why indeed.
Odd that just doing that is great, but notice that this is the BBC not an american source. Its almost like if you want the best news about your country and its real issues and good things its best to never look in the sources from that country.