Yeah you might be right. Any government will inevitably grow corrupt and needs healthy fear of the people to keep them honest. Or as a wise man once put it: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.
You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
But is that any worse than defaulting to the side with less power? At the end of the day if you have to side with one or the other, whoever happens to have power at the time seems like pretty arbitrary criteria. If instead Israel were the lesser power being bullied by a powerful Palestine, would you side with Israel? How about if Nazi Germany were getting bullied by Western powers, would you side with them? It wouldn’t make sense because Nazis are very obviously the bad guys. Anyway it’s not just about power.
Mass shootings weren’t even defined before. We didn’t talk about them because they weren’t tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn’t settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.
After reading your comment I had to fight an almost overwhelming urge to buy a Nazi flag and rent out my house for the simple pleasure of screwing over renters. That’s how fast it happens.
Yes, it’s a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.