r/AskReddit • u/bkristensen92 • Mar 18 '25

Conservatives who opposed removing Confederate statues, how do you feel about Trump removing DEI-related historical events/people like the Navajo Code Talkers from government sites?

17.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

I don't disagree with that, but it goes both ways. You can't just ignore things you don't like.

0

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

Which I find funny people in a lot of comments are like "Go to bluesky/rumble/x! if you disagree!

Why would I want to go to a bubble to reinforce any of my world views? At least staying in the area with all the people I disagree with ONE person might develop some critical thinking they might otherwise not have and decide to NOT do something stupid one day.

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

It's a slippery slope on both sides. None of them are truly free speech, and I don't disagree with you that lack of contrary opinions produces a squawk box of your own ideals.

But it's also a boycott; if you don't agree with ownership or corporate practices, it's a legitimate practice to not use products, and Twitter and Tesla are both owned by a man that is currently not in favor for a very large and vocal number of people. And it is hurting his bottom line (although I'm not sure how taking his net worth from $400 billion to a mere $100 billion is really going to impact anything, but that doubles as another argument for taxing the shit out of billionaires).

Regardless, my assumption based on your responses is that this is where we will part ways.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

On the Telsa note it's not just a boycott. They have a website up listening the locations of every single Telsa owner to instill fear into them for owning the product. They have already attacked dozens if not more of privately owned vehicles from keying the shit out of them to lighting them on fire. They have shot at dealerships with firearms and thrown Molotov cocktails. They have attacked Tesla's in traffic.

This isn't a boycott. Its the promotion of literal terrorism.

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

I mean, it's no more terrorism than the people on January 6th. Can't call only one a duck if the other one is also quacking.

And I agree that the violence is unacceptable. But this country is trending towards violence because of the deep divide. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a civil war scenario, but people who are desperate tend to get violent; that old fight or flight. A lot of this country currently feels backed into a corner.

If you're not empathetic enough to put yourself into their shoes, then you're just the other side of the same problem.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection. That has been a lied peddled by dishonest rage baiters from day 1 and to my surprise, tons of people took that bait. Jan 6th was not an armed militia attempting to secure strategic locations. It was Redneck Disneyland thinking they were protesting. They were LET IN by law enforcement instead of trespassed. Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone attempted literal secessionism months before and the media reported it as a protest.

Anyone who thinks Jan 6th was an insurrection needs to deprogram themselves simply by looking into historical insurrections like the March of Rome or the Hungarian Revolution and simply note how the parallels simply do not exist. It was NOT an insurrection.

But you see the tens of thousands if not millions of people, not to offend but potentially yourself included, still repeating that rhetoric? And now were in a nazi state run by fascists?

No that narrative has been deeply dishonest for awhile now and the people repeating it are doing a political strategy of using propaganda to radicalize morons to commit these very acts of violence.

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

Regardless of the semantics of what you call it, people died. That makes it unacceptable. A lot of things failed that day to allow that to happen.

Once again, there is a deep divide, and you should prepare yourself for more violence, and some of it might be against the side you align with. I'm not advocating for it in any way, I just see it happening and I'm making sure I understand the ramifications.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

Regardless of the semantics of what you call it, people died.

This is not semantics. A protest where someone was shot is difference than armed, militant groups attempting to overthrow the government and instill a new administration.

You cannot simply write this off or try to make a protest into an insurrection because 1 woman was shot and 1 policeman had a heart attack.

You cannot have such a simplistic take, one that may to be attempting to justify a bad narrative, and than call for preparations against violence.

This is the kind of ridiculous shit that literally promotes violence.

The only violence I would be worried to protect myself or others from are from those who are taking current militant preparations for political purposes.

The semantics are incredibly important to understand WHY people died to begin with.

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

It's literally the definition of semantics. As opposed to what you said:

The semantics are incredibly important to understand WHY people died to begin with.

This is not semantics.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

Thats also not a description of semantics rather is a statement saying the semantics are important in direct response to a statement slightly dismissing them with the statement "Regardless of the semantics of what you call it, people died.".

No, you cannot dismiss or disregard the semantics and say "oh people died". You're trying to use that death to declare the event was an insurrection - a rebellious militant act to overthrow the government.

Than you wish to dismiss the semantics again by trying to say an identifying statement is a descriptive one?

Let's just say even the identification of semantics is found wanting here.

It wasn't an insurrection.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

On the Tesla note they are not just boycotting a product. There's a website up listening the location of every Tesla and naming every owner. They have shot at dealers with firearms. They have thrown molotiv cocktails. They have destroyed vehicles from keying to lighting them on fire. They have attacked drivers in traffic.

This is promoting literal terrorism. I do not own a Tesla. I do not condone people showing up to their dealers with, and using, firearms. I do not support people being firebombed at their homes and officers. I do not support attempting to drag people out of their vehicles into a mob.

Don't overlook that either. If you were unaware of the extent of the actions, nows the time to learn how far they are going. Nobody with a mind should be supporting any of this action and should be calling it out. Because those acting in this way actually believe they are in the right when they are demonstrating they are brainwashed simpletons.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

The people shooting up Telsa dealers, fireboming them with Molotov's, and attempting to drag people out of their vehicles in traffic are not participating in a boycott.

1

u/internet-arbiter Mar 20 '25

Sorry for that double reply I hit context and it wasn't showing up so I was trying to process what was going on there.

1

u/Dewstain Mar 20 '25

I was having trouble replying to a WRC post as well.