Reply #192: and you should try

[iverglas]

... easing up on the pretence.

Of course, in these posts, Seirrajim, Silverhair, and I never fantasized about anything.

Hmm. IN THESE POSTS. Did *I* say anything about THESE POSTS? Is there not a whole great big forum full of posts hereabouts, stretching back several years in time?

I looked briefly at a historical event and suggested that the spirit of resistance was a good reason to maintain an armed citizenry.

And ... apart from what you now say making no sense ... you misrepresented what I wrote, or pretended to understand it in a way that it could not be understood, in order to launch a pseudo-lesson in history that was really quite irrelevant to anything.

I was merely following your exhortation to "Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ..." Since I did exactly what you asked, I can't see what you are objecting to.

How odd, hmm?

How very strange that your purporting to understand something I said as having meant something it could not conceivably have meant would have been taken as objectionable.

It went like this:

Silverhair:

The gov't must then decide whether it is worthwhile to go after you. If they decide to and if you resist then they will escalate the force used until they win. Take a look at Waco for the level of escalation they will go to. And that was a Democratic administration.

I found this inexplicably bizarre, as I usually do when people use Waco as an example of government -- the "they" in the level of escalation they will go to -- run amok. What was amok there was a handful of people doing very unpleasant things and arming themselves heavily in order to repel any government efforts to stop them.

For that reason, I replied:

I'd be taking a look at Waco for the level of appalling shit that some people will pull, and the wisdom of not allowing them access to weapons to facilitate their doing of it.

(I'm still utterly gobsmacked that anyone here would liken himself to the criminals in Waco, which is really what Silverhair appeared to do. It appears to serve the purpose of people who have fantasies about repelling jack-booted fascist minions to liken themselves to criminals who have repelled government forces. I mean, Waco is really not infrequently cited in this respect.)

Obviously, Waco is an example of the level of escalation <the government> will go to to put an end to appalling shit. So? Obviously, force is the ultimate means for compelling compliance with the rules that a society has agreed to. So?

But obviously, it was the question of what the government will do that I was addressing.

Silverhair said:

Democracy is really a way of avoiding civil war. Since the side with the most people usually wins, by counting heads we determine who could likely muster the biggest army and win the war. So we allow them to win and avoid the bloodshed.

What on earth does that have to do with Waco? Was that crowd really some minority within society, some group that collectively rejected the rules on which the rest of society had reached consensus? Do we need to regard individuals who coerce and manipulate and harm other people, and the victims of those individuals, as some sort of legitimate dissenting minority? It's a question, certainly. But few would disagree that the answer should be 'no'.

There is a difference between dissent and criminality, even though the precise line may not be easy to draw.

When someone uses an instance of the use of force by the state against individuals engaged in criminality to bolster an argument defining democracy as a way of dealing with dissent, my jaw drops.

And *I* suggested that we look at the use of force by the state against criminality on a massive scale -- fascism in WWII --

Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ...

-- very obviously referring to the lengths the government would go to, obviously meaning that I am quite prepared to be happy about the lengths that governments will go to, to defend their societies against such people and their actions. I am no more prepared to regard fascists and what they do as legitimate dissenters and legitimate expressions of dissent than I am to regard the Waco leaders and their deeds as such.

These are both *not* expressions of how Silverhair defined democracy: "really a way of avoiding civil war". They are instances of the use of force to defend democracy itself. "Democracy" no more permits the things that the Waco leaders were doing than it permits the things that the Nazi leaders were doing.


My comments were made in this very clear context: what "government" will do to defend democracy. NOT what individuals will do to defy government.

Nonetheless, my point remains; when you decided to change the subject, you were stuck with the one you chose.

And the conclusion you purported to draw from what I said:

Your exhortation to examine the "level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism" provides a stark reminder of the importance and prudence of maintaining an armed citizenry.

is the purest bullshit, and unrelated to what I said in any way. My exhortation provided no such reminder of any such thing.

And that is quite simply because "an armed citizenry" could not and would not have defeated fascism through its random skirmishes and assassinations, or even through organized local uprisings, and is completely unlikely ever to do so. Not unless the arms that the "citizenry" has include tanks, trains, planes and sophisticated communications systems.

So your soapbox was evidently soggy even before I got to it.