Please turn to Virtual Boy chapter 1, verse 20.

That's what they were all there for.

To cause havoc and disrupt the vote count to keep Diaper Don in office.

He went to prison for it. You can pretend otherwise, but the only people who play along are other reactionaries who are allied with this guy but are embarrassed that he took the mask off.

What I'm asking you to do is to say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.

-DJT

This guy was part of Trump's plan to have the House of Representatives overturn the election. It's why he was there and why he went to prison. Trump wanted a bunch of reactionary dipshits to cause havoc, which is why he told them to go to Congress with the Proud Boys, 3%ers, Oath Keepers, and other neo-fascist groups.

I started playing Satisfactory with a friend a couple weeks ago.

I realized yesterday that it's basically my job if it was fun.

It's so cute when conservatives think we're all as gullible as they are.

Let's take a look at the people who endorse Trump:

Let's take a look at the people who endorse Trump:

Reactionaries are anti-intillectuals.

They think their assumptions and propaganda drip-feed are as good as your expertise.

The Epoch Times is a propaganda outfit and money laundering scheme run by the Falun Gong cult.

Kind of makes you wonder why everyone on his golf course isn't open carrying since it'll make the whole situation safer? They should issue one at the front if you're not strapped.

When have more guns ever been a bad thing?

The mod there is always doing that game where he winks about how the Democrats were the slave owners during the civil war, as if the numerous political realignments since then never happened.

I got banned yesterday for posting a speech by Lincoln where he was mocking slavers because they called themselves "conservatives" despite the fact that they wanted to break long-standing prohibitions and push slavery onto the rest of the country.

He apparently didn't appreciate my demonstration that it's always been ideological conservatives who are consistently weirdo fascist losers.

So you're saying that Lincoln was wrong when he said slavers identified as Conservatives?

Wow, we're so lucky to have such an intellectual giant on Lemmy!

He also used other pronouns.

He's pointing out that conservatism as an ideology is only about preserving ones status in relation to others by systematic oppression.

It's pretty rich for you to act like you're correcting me when you're wrong about the text on it's face.

But, like Lincoln's speech shows, conservatism lies about what it really is: reactionary bullshit. Hey, just like you're doing now!

Conservatives did not consider Lincoln a conservative. They considered a revolutionary. You're lying.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

We've been over this, remember?

Abraham Lincoln himself said the slavers called themselves Conservatives. You want to pretend like the great realignment didn't happen, because facts are inconvenient to the narrative you find useful.

I know reactionaries are anti-intillectuals, but the reading assignment was pretty short, even if the words were kinda big. Use a dictionary if you need to.

They also thought slaves should count as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes; this ensured that the conservatives could maintain their slave-State status without the Northern states being able to eliminate it through a vote.

So maybe we shouldn't hold up their anti-democratic streak as an ideal.

But reactionaries are gonna reactionary.

And Donald Trump endorsed Putin.

Anyone who thinks Putin would prefer Harris over his puppet is either lying or a useful idiot.

Same as it always was for reactionaries:

Far from yielding a knee-jerk defense of an unchanging old regime or a thoughtful traditionalism, the reactionary imperative presses conservatism in two rather different directions: first, to a critique and reconfiguration of the old regime; and second, to an absorption of the ideas and tactics of the very revolution or reform it opposes. What conservatism seeks to accomplish through that reconfiguration of the old and absorption of the new is to make privilege popular, to transform a tottering old regime into a dynamic, ideologically coherent movement of the masses. A new old regime, one could say, which brings the energy and dynamism of the street to the antique inequalities of a dilapidated estate. Over the last two decades, various writers and journalists have claimed that conservatism went into decline when Trump, or Palin, or Bush, or Reagan, or Goldwater, or Buckley, or someone took it off the rails. Originally, the argument goes, conservatism was a responsible discipline of the governing classes, but somewhere between Joseph de Maistre and Joe the Plumber, it got carried away with itself. It became adventurous, fanatical, populist, ideological. What this story of decline overlooks—whether it emanates from the right or the left—is that all of these supposed vices of contemporary conservatism were present at the beginning, in the writings of Burke and Maistre, only they weren’t viewed as vices. They were seen as virtues. Conservatism has always been a wilder and more extravagant movement than many realize—and it is precisely this wildness and extravagance that has been one of the sources of its continuing appeal.

Corey Robin- The Reactionary Mind

Sure buddy.

I'm glad you found a way to disengage without having to think about it. Must be a pretty fragile ego you have there if you go to such hilarious lengths to protect it.

...You realize it's all there, right?

ETA: for everyone to see?

Let's sum up:

You can't understand a simple sentence explaining that you accept that there are common-sense limitations on the principles of liberal democracy (like freedom of speech), but you don't accept that there are also common-sense limitations on the principles of anarchy (like freedom of association).

Then you tell me that I'm in denial about... something? It isn't clear, really.

Then you tell me that I'm stupid for editing a spelling mistake.

What a hero to dig in your heels and die on the dumbest possible straw-man hill. I have so much to learn from you. I've changed my mind, thank you for correcting me with your angsty-teenager understanding of anarchism. o7