[ghostbrainalpha]

I understand your point. I lean conservative myself, but go with me on this.

If the people that liberals want thrown from helicopters ( fascists ), are only in that group because they want to throw people from helicopters....

Isn't that the same logic as "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"? The liberal subs HATE, HATE groups. They aren't calling for random white people, religious people, or fiscally responsible people to be thrown from helicopters.

[aaron-lebo]

I've had one too many brushes with r/politics where "liberals" hated people because they were the wrong gender and race. The liberal and conservative subs alike have plenty of people who hate the other side for no good reason.

[traverseda]

Sure. Of course the communists tend to be very "you'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes".

Both sides of that fight seem to have legitimate cause to claim self-defense.

>They aren't calling for random white people, religious people, or fiscally responsible people to be thrown from helicopters.

No, but they do seem to be a hair away from actively endorsing subjugation. A lot of them seem to have already taken steps to make sure that that demographic can't have a voice in their movement. They also seem to have set the precedent that any criticism of their activism from outside their movement makes you an enemy. I get the feeling that a lot of them would do all those terrible things, if they could. There are fundamental tenets of the movement that give people an excellent excuse to do horrible things.

Instead, we could just, not? I liked the "judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin" thing we had going on. That's an easy rule to enforce, but less so when you start carving out special exceptions that mostly benefit your voter base.