• alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The communist party and participating in “Communist-actions” were banned in the 50s.

          Turns out you can just ban your opposition.

          • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That did work surprisingly well in the long run (as a plan, not sure it’s really had much benefit to the everyday person)

            That said, not like plenty of Red team (domestically, everybody would for foreign) doesn’t already meet the definition of “terrorist”.

            ter·ror·ist noun

            a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
            
            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Honestly that’s not a very useful term, because lawful is determined by the political system. You’re creating a group that contains both non-police brownshirts going onto campuses to beat up students and any student protesters using violence to defend themselves.

              In practice, it just means enemy of the state.

              • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                That’s another thing, they make blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional (at a federal level) legislature at the local and state levels, and let it be fought over in courts, with the hope it makes it to the supreme court and maybe becomes legal. While they argue and fight over it, it impacts real people.

                Ergo, unlawful violence (arrests) and intimidation (suppression of rights) against civilians, for political aims

                • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Lawful is always going to be defined by whether the state likes you or not.

                  Whether the state likes you is the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.

                  It’s better to accept this and understand that using intimidation and violence, including state violence to suppress reactionaries is good, while using intimidation and violence to suppress the left is bad than to play games with what is and isn’t terrorism.

    • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You have to ask? If it passes an NC legislative body, it’s being pushed by the Magamonkeys.

  • BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wait, wait, there is an exemption for the Proud Boys and gangs of guys in khaki pants and blue shirts carrying a Nazi flag and tiki torches, right?

    MAGAts would be really upset if they could no longer hide their identity while protesting for killing of non-white non-cis people.

    • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Turns out, it IS kinda weird. They allowed concealed carry* permit holders, and open-carry* where that’s legal, to continue while masked due to mandates, and crime didn’t go up. Hasn’t been a problem until now, and still doesn’t look to be a real problem at all.

      * meaning firearms/guns and other weapons