The original Baldur’s Gate story (1 and 2 + expansions) begin with you being a barely trained orphan sent on an unexpected journey by your foster father…

Bullet vending machines? Just in case you find yourself running low on bullets while out and about in the city? “Damn it. They’re out of Snickers bars so I guess I’ll just settle for some 9mm.”

Fabulous.

I disagree that “their humiliating defeat on November 5 was due largely to their undeniable role in the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza.” I definitely think it played a role and Dems would have won more voters with concrete promises to halt Israel’s genocide and enforce US laws like the Leahy Law. People are justifiably upset with Israel crossing lines without Biden enforcing consequences, and the huge amounts of money going to fund genocide as opposed to being used domestically.

Was it really THE major issue affecting votes though? IMO the more significant issues were things like a feeling of “more of the same” when people are struggling and focusing on trying to win “moderate” Republicans instead of motivating a base they thought was guaranteed. Still, it’s an article with valid points.

Rare W for separation of church and state in Republican territory. I hope it lasts.

Reminds me of a quote from a Warhammer 40k book. “When the stars fell, when the seas boiled and the earth burned, my faith didn’t die. That is when I began to believe. God was real, and he hated us.”

My mistake, deleting it.

deleted by creator

It won’t be a few if that happens, it won’t be limited to those that chose to fight (on either side), and deaths won’t be the only serious consequence. That’s why other people are asking for level heads.

Pro-violence Lemmy users and power fantasies in magical worlds where they kill a few dozen people and the world is saved.

They probably want to stay and steer their fellow citizens away from violent crimes and towards resisting in ways that don’t make them look like murderous stalkers. Why don’t you leave? If the US has become awful enough to justify these crimes, you’re still free to do so. You said so yourself.

Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being reprehensible bastards. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter the groups are super close. Both:

• I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.

• I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.

• Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.

• Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to my enemy are happening at all levels of government, my way is better.

• I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.

• I’m actually going to sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill for me because it makes me feel good. Just daily indulgence in the worst brand of power fantasies.

For that last one: The doxing thread would have been hilarious if it wasn’t disgusting before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guys who pick fights at bars and stall until the bouncer arrives then tell everyone else, “You’re lucky I was held back”. If I was wrong there would be a couple hundred folks doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not just BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act - it should be incredibly obvious I’m saying not to. I’m also saying I don’t need to worry about 99.9% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are clearly all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will actually act so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.

That’s a wonderful compliment and I genuinely smiled. Everyone has their skills, and I’m 100% positive you exceed me in other ways. We all contribute.

You will get hate for it, but not because you’re wrong. Also, while doxing is technically legal in the US if it’s just posting a person’s details like address, it becomes illegal “if it’s part of an effort to truly threaten or harm someone, if it intentionally inflicts emotional distress, or if it invades someone’s privacy by revealing a highly offensive personal fact about that person without providing the public information about a matter of public concern.” Courts have decided malicious doxing is not protected by the First Amendment.

I’m pretty sure the original doxing thread was removed, and I’m willing to bet there’s more to it than the admin who said “fuck reports, it’s staying up” having a change of heart regarding morality.

The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who are “the enemy within”. You are proving each other’s point, two sets of extremists advocating for whatever it takes, with both POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.

Ok, I have those thoughts sometimes too, especially when I’m angry and hopeless. I usually cut them off because ultimately I don’t think I have the right to kill people outside of the context of a war etc. But there’s nothing illegal about thinking. Clarence Darrow: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure".

A lot of folks are calling for actual violence though. It’s all over the thread. Incitement is different than just wishing Trump and his cronies would croak.

In a nutshell

In a nutshell you don’t understand effective resistance, just violence. Your whole 1st paragraph is little more than torture porn - likely because you can’t argue with my specific points intellectually so you want to appeal to extremes of emotion.

Think. What do you suppose will accomplish more to slow and stop Trump? The Pentagon, state governments, courts, and civil rights organizations with their legal challenges and administrative knowledge? Or a couple hundred Lemmy warriors “storming” Chicago hunting podcasters and Illinois fascists who’ll they’ll magically identify and slaughter because you’re all supheroes apparently? And that’s assuming all of you aren’t just talking just talking tough because it makes you feel good, which has odds of very slim to none. Even -if- you could and actually would, do not sabotage real efforts towards foiling Trump by killing or assaulting people (not to mention your lives). If a civil war breaks out and it’s army vs. army that’s different, but the US isn’t near there yet and in the meantime you’re trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.

They already have “violent vigilante rhetoric”.

“They’re evil so I should be allowed to do it too.” Let’s forget morality issues - in the context of murdering people like podcasters it doesn’t even make sense to race to the bottom. It will accomplish almost nothing and cause a host of problems. Let’s say miracles are real - you aren’t full of crap, you don’t get caught or killed, and you actually go murder Fuentes in cold blood or someone else like him. What do you honestly think the right’s response is going to be? “Oh crap, we better stop hating”? Creating martyrs and millions of angry, fearful people with guns is not the path to a safe nation.

You know one of the reasons why they’re calling us “cucks”?

Oh no, the would-be rapists and fascists on the extreme right don’t like me! …Are you really trying to tell me you’re upset about their insults? They can say whatever they want about me. Hell, you can too. I’m going to sleep just fine tonight without the approval of short-sided murder fetishists, regardless of whether they are your guys or Trump’s.

I too am a connoisseur of urinary tract infections. /s

why would their death be bad?

Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people decided whether to kill civilians based on that metric? Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you want protected will harm their nation (and your willingness to seriously consider their murder wouldn’t help). Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion that you’d somehow know when it would save “tens of millions”.

let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?

You using him as an example of Western fascism.

Pick one.

That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you say, policies can be determined by either. I think a person should get a trial where they can defend themselves and punishment can be administered equitably because of morality, not because it’s in a book. If I had to rule a country, I would design a system for trials if none existed, i.e. not because of existing law. I wouldn’t sign mob rule and vigilantism in law and then say it’s alright because I made it legal. We’re not going to agree. You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.

Why I don’t support fascism: I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I would not support telling random people to march into a German newspaper and open fire on civilians in the hope they kill the right people to stop Hitler’s rise. Which is the WW2-era equivalent of killing Fuentes in his podcast studio as a check to Trump.

You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?

Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good? Can you please post the quote of me saying that? Don’t just tell me I said it either, or that what I said means it even if it doesn’t say it.

I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.

Exactly! You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law. I said “Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering?” You said that wasn’t true, that you don’t support killing anyone you want, but simultaneously tell me you do want to kill people you think are future threats (if it does reduce suffering).

Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism

Webster’s work for you?

• Fascism: populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.

• Communism: A: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. B: a theory advocating elimination of private property. C: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Soviet Union.

Pretty sure you’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism. For starters, Stalin made private ownership a serious offense. Hitler supported private ownership. I even gave you an example of Stalin dissolving his Comintern - a move a fascist would never ever make. If I give you that they’re similar in many meaningful respects, will you in turn concede there are important differences?

tell me what I’ve mischaracterised

You told me that because I don’t want to kill podcasters/journalists (not even leaders) that you “spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.” Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered doesn’t mean I excuse the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take. I accuse you of bringing in that attack because you’re outraged, wanted a strawman to support that outrage, and are at best slippery sloping me - not because I said that.

you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal

Dude, I stopped talking about legality the moment you made it clear you have no regard for the law. Since then it’s been all about morality, which you say is your only compass.