Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.

▲

cryptonector 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion.

All claims I see of a person being "a threat to democracy" are super exaggerated, and almost always of the "a thread to our democracy" (which makes one wonder: who is "us" in that phrase, and what about everyone else?).

Exaggerating threats is itself an incitement to violence. Maybe tone it down?

▲

cman1444 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

This may be true for Kirk specifically, but in general I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say there are threats to "our" (meaning all Americans) democracy when there's frequent attempts to subvert and even overthrow election results.

See: January 6th insurrection, trump's call to the GA secretary of state, increased gerrymandering, and attempts to throw out certain ballots.

Are these not threats to democracy?

▲

cryptonector 4 days ago | parent [-]

Wild exaggerations don't help. No one at J6 had a weapon -- if they haad, we'd know. Don't mention the pipe bomber, because that's been looking a lot like a false flag. Blah blah blah. Oh, and gerrymandering is rich: the blue states are more gerrymandered than the red states. These are not threats to democracy considering that:

- J6 was not in fact an insurrection (no weapons, no plan, just a crowd acting like a mob)

- all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means (even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)

- gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start

- "attempts to throw out certain ballots" has "attempts to stuff ballot boxes" on the flip side, which you ignore.

You are not even-handed.

▲

unethical_ban 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means

And all 70-something accusations across the country, when they had to be held to actual factual basis, were rejected, and the candidate continued to lie and say he won when he did not.

>(even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)

Wrong.

>J6 was not in fact an insurrection

Wrong.

>gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start

One political party in the past generation has advocated for eliminating it, while another political party is explicitly and proudly using it to weaken democracy. No pretense, just "We need to keep Republicans in power, and so we will do everything we can to that end, even if it is undemocratic".

One political party wants to make elections more accurate and representative by changing to things like ranked-choice or approval voting, and one political party defends the status quo because anything that gives voters more options would disenfranchise extremists.

You are not even handed.

	▲	ClayShentrup 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		approval voting helps but IRV is actually fairly pro-extremist. https://www.rangevoting.org/IrvExtreme

▲

cman1444 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

- There were many weapons in fact, and there were vague plans, but not detailed ones. An insurrection is according to Webster's "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government".

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...

Even if there were no weapons, the events of the day still satisfy that.

- Just because something was deemed to be legal, does not mean it's okay and therefore not a threat to democracy.

- I never stated that gerrymandering was exclusive to Republicans. I know it happens on both sides, but it is a threat to democracy either way. My point about it being "increased" is because it is now being done mid-decade by Republicans rather than just when the census occurs.

- You frame this as if the second negates the first. Let me be clear, they are both threats to democracy. Thank you for providing me with another point of evidence towards my argument.

▲

dgb23 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I remember when the tone started to shift. The onslaught of lies, hate and hyperbole. It only got worse since then, and things that are acceptable politically today were unthinkable then.

There have been no consequences, no corrections, no apologies for blatant lying and spreading hate. There’s not even a pretense of honesty anymore.

“Tone it down!” That’s rich!

▲

unethical_ban 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomrod 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Agree. It's unfortunate that violence often becomes the settlement when folks let norms dissolve.