Occamsrazer

Well it was still a step in the right direction, distributing power a bit more locally instead of living as a colony under a monarchical foreign power. You may also recall that initially they went too far in decentralizing power before the Constitution replaced the articles of confederation. Even then voting rights were mostly decided by each state, some allowing non land owners and even free black men (though sometimes later removing that right) to vote pre 1800s. Whatever they may have discussed, voting and ability to participate in government was enjoyed by over half of the citizens, which is a significant improvement over the foreign tyrant they had previously. But regardless of how the British tried to label colonial rebels, and regardless of how much the rebels didn't get right, I'm on the side of the historical revolutionaries.

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.

I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?

That's crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.

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?

How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.

Too many people in the world crave an identity that is original enough to be interesting, but not so original that it can't be quantified or defined by accepted or understood identity templates. They need to be able to put a name to their identity so they can talk about it.

I'd make the case for that being tea, but very cool regardless!

With so much going on in the world beyond our control and maybe more importantly our increased access to news about those events, we need a way to process things that we can't influence, but that may impact us anyway. Stoicism can provide that in an increasingly secular society, where it used to be religion.

Maybe, but the only reason this is notable is because of an uptick that is from the literal opposite of Christian right wing.

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.