• DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    4 months ago

    They keep saying we need to tone down the rhetoric. But the rhetoric is all true. It’s directly based on what the conservatives do and say. So maybe they should stop doing and saying things that are so horrendous.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Two things can be true at once:

      Yes, they should stop doing and saying things that are so horrendous.

      Yes, we should not sink to their level with similarly violent rhetoric thus justifying their “see? The other side is just as violent as we are”.

      Oh, look at that: Denouncing violent rhetoric on Lemmy gets met with a lynch mob of downvotes. I’m shocked!

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        4 months ago

        Jokes aside you need to look up the concept of the paradox of tolerance. Only people lacking reason and centrists (but i repeat myself) would see “both sides” as being the same

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          The paradox of tolerance is almost universally misunderstood. It means that we need to have strong legal guarantees of human rights and punish those who violate those rights. It does not mean that we should try to violently or extra-legally suppress the right when it tries to gain power legally.

          • jorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            4 months ago

            The paradox of tolerance is not about laws which are distinct from morality. It’s not a legal concept at all

            • FishFace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The immorality that it seeks to avoid is the elimination of tolerance. You can achieve that through strong laws without stooping to the level of fascists themselves. I’m not saying it’s a legal point, but that it has a legal solution.

                • FishFace@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Why engage someone on a discussion board if you’re not actually willing to discuss the subject…

                  At least you understand now that I wasn’t saying the paradox of tolerance is “about laws.”

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        4 months ago

        at least we didn’t stoop to their level right?

        gets repeatedly clubbed for talking in the labor yard

      • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        Smith is quoted here as saying:

        “Have you not looked at the headlines about how Pierre Poilievre is described as dangerous?” the premier said. “How the leader of the Opposition in Alberta has described me as dangerous? When you start using that kind of rhetoric, that ends up creating an elevated risk for all of us.”

        She’s complaining about being called “dangerous”. That’s hardly violent rhetoric and certainly no worse than the language they use to describe their opponents.

        Sure, there are some individuals on the internet spreading violence, but you cannot equate the non-conservative media rhetoric with the violent and dishonest rhetoric coming out of conservative sources.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Point out the elected democrat official who was openly calling for violence against republicans? What rhetoric are they even talking about? Us calling them an existential threat to our democracy? If it wasn’t true, we wouldn’t say it. Saying that isn’t calling for violence, and proposing that it does is engaging in the same whataboutism that republicans always do. It’s BS. Republicans shooting republicans and somehow it’s progressives fault 🙄

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    The very premier who wanted Tucker Carlson to put a minister in his crosshairs? That one? The same premier who called other politicians radicals?

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    4 months ago

    They’re just really surprised a shooter came for them instead of a Democrat first. That’s the only thing they’re surprised about. They’ve been trying to make something exactly like this happen since Trump exhorted the “second amendment people” to “do something about Hillary” before the 2016 election.

  • TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s a hard line to ride in describing my hatred for this vile, shit stain of a human being… Whilst also not being put on an RCMP watch list because of what I believe she deserves.

  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    Smith: I always stay focused on issues

    Reporter: Smith says she only meant that Guilbaut (?) should be fired…

    So, no capability of self-reflection or consistency. Stereotypical populist.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Is there a link to a transcript or what they actually said? That “article” is 2 sentences and doesn’t detail it.

    (I realize there’s a video. Not everyone can/wants to watch it, plus you can’t skim or copy/paste to quote anything.)