{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "I love the carefully intertwined urban legends in which antifa are dangerous radicals coming to shoot your livestock and trash...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/620533367097753600/", "html": "

nuclearspaceheater:

\n

argumate:

\n

I love the carefully intertwined urban legends in which antifa are dangerous radicals coming to shoot your livestock and trash your community but also limp wristed colorful haired gender nonconforming soyboys and girls who couldn\u2019t possibly pose a physical threat and they\u2019re funded by Soros in cash and drugs but he also doesn\u2019t pay them because he\u2019s sneaky and they\u2019re suckers and they\u2019re black but they\u2019re also white and they\u2019re poor but actually they\u2019re spoiled rich kids and they\u2019re hot then they\u2019re cold they\u2019re yes then they\u2019re no they\u2019re in and they\u2019re out they\u2019re up and they\u2019re down

\n

The first part, at least, is no contradiction. A person or group can be both pathetic and dangerous. School shooters, for example. But if the police refused to respond to a school shooting, it would both be true that\u00a0\u201cthis is a significant physical threat\u201d and\u00a0\u201cthis threat could be immediately solved by the government simply deciding to do so\u201d.

\n
\n

Like, in an insurrection where conservative outlying areas are seeing increasingly large musters of irregulars to defend against X, the central government needs to show credible signs of acting against X or the rural areas will secede and start purging themselves of X, or what they take to be X or X-adjacent.

"}