this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
218 points (96.6% liked)
Television
1903 readers
440 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, the reign of terror — that worked out so well last time.
Typical privileged liberal response. For people target by ICE, they are already in the reign of terror. For women losing their rights, they are already in the reign of terror. For lgbt having their rights removed, they are already in the reign of terror. For those with families in Palestine, they are already in the reign of terror. I'm happy for you, you don't know any of these groups, you have no empathy for these groups.
Those people being terrorised, no reign of terror. Alex pretti being shot, no reign of terror. A rich cishet white pedophile male being shot? Now you're terrorised.
Wanna deal with my premises and conclusions now? Would you like to disagree with P1, P2, P3, C1 or C2? Or just tell me your terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them?
So, let's examine the possibilities:
You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.
You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).
Robespierre was killed by the end of the reign of terror. Maybe you should look at what happens when we indiscriminately kill people*.
Edit: because I don't just disagree with them, fuck the conservatives — I just also recognize your suggestions are equally shit and reductive.
What do you disagree with? P1, P2, P3, C1, or C2? Or do you want to keep telling me how you're not terrorised by the current regime, but would be terrorised by fascists having violence visited upon them.
You want to learn from history? Historically, how have fascists successfully been handled?
Tell me the difference between fascists and those who fight fascists? You: "I can't"
Purging comments. It's clearly got heated, so I'm just purging the chain.
Saw this after I sent my reply? Want me to delete it? I tried to stay level, for what it's worth, while being called stupid, an idiot, and being told to go fuck myself.
No, I've just deleted when it got bad. I realise the chain of affairs, but I thought it was just best to purge it all as I've been down this road before and more new chains kept popping up. I'm sure you realise you do have highly contentious views on this topic that will rile some people up.
I do. I tried to keep it level. It's your house, I'm not arguing.
I meant I sent a reply at the end of the chain, where it got 'heated'.
Eh, Jax replied. I'm happy with those being the last words.
You came to me, you didn't have to, you can leave at anytime.
Once you proved you were ignorant about the reign of terror already happening, you could have left.
Once you proved you were ignorant about how fascists have been successfully handled in the past, you could have left.
Once you proved you were ignorant about how appeasement doesn't work you could have left.
I don't owe you anything: you do not get to come to me, ignore everything I say and demand answers from me. You can, instead, leave.
You can educate yourself about what's happening right now. You can read MLK's letter. You can educate yourself about how fascists have been successfully handled in the past. You can educate yourself about how appeasement doesn't work. You can become a better and more educated person. Or you can tell me to go fuck myself while saying it's me full of hate.
Yes I ignore everything you're saying because you're obviously someone that loves to speak without doing much. Fall on your sword for the cause, or continue bloviating on a public forum. Your choice.
Mods, you might want to sweep these up too.
A false dichotomy? In this economy?
Also neither of them make sense.
Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?
Also also, I don't think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don't agree with their reasoning )
Edit : wait, no it'd need to just be fauxchotomy or that's a double negative
To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.
If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably. Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I'm not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I'm not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.
Edit: oh, and no — I'm not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.
TL;DR;
You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.
I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.
If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.
So I'm going to break this in to two sections.
The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn't really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.
The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it
FIRST SECTION
Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here's a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.
A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.
I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.
Speaking of the options:
Neither of these make sense.
Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.
I think we can both agree that you can't possibly justify that claim.
SECOND SECTION
Ok, so firstly that's a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.
Secondly the killings weren't exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.
Regardless of any of that, unless you're about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn't satisfy the word indiscriminate.
Just because it doesn't fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination.
If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that's your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn't true.
Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that's some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.
i wasn't arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don't have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.
I wasn't implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you've said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won't hold my breath.
Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.
By the way, don't comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.
Edit: By the way 2 electric boogaloo, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum. Your choice, all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.
TL;DR;
START READ HERE
Seems the previous TL;DR; was too long ill try to be more concise.
Two people disagreeing with you (for different reasons no less) doesn't mean they are associated, get a grip on that ego.
Grammar and logic aren't the same thing.
You've argued many positions from your imagination and not a single position that was actually taken.
There is no conversation (of this type) to be had with someone who can't separate imagination from actual text.
Good luck with life.
END READ HERE
BIG SENTENCES PAST HERE
I know long sentences aren't your thing, you can stop here, this is only so i have it written down.
Two people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they know each other, I'm not sure how to even work with the level of ego it'd take to assume two dissenting opinions must be collusion, let alone the level of confusion needed to think that two entirely different opinions are somehow the same opinion because they both happen to disagree with yours.
That's going to be some lucrative therapy work for someone eventually.
Perhaps i explained it poorly, i was criticizing your word choice because that choice of words made your statements logically incorrect.
Me not capitalising an i doesn't change the logical content.
Word Choice (Logical):
The sky is always blue.
vs
The sky is currently blue.
Capitalisation (grammatical?)
I think the sky is blue
vs
i think the sky is blue
If you genuinely can't see the difference there I'm not sure I'm qualified to help you.
That is my bad, i used too many words and it seems that's a problem.
Though i did put a TL;DR, three sentences should be fine, right ?
Your point was invalid the first time you made it, you've done nothing to back it up or expand upon it since then, so it remains invalid.
I'm not sure what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to be arguing that "violence begets more violence (and is therefore bad)" and then suggest sword based suicide, seems like it'd be quite extensive though.
You talk a big game for someone who hasn't actually engaged on a point they haven't imagined themselves, but you do you.
( for given values of imaginary and real, this is still only an online forum after all )
There is probably a name for someone who fights imaginary battles to avoid real ones.
hmm, actually ...i wonder if there was someone else we could point to as an example of someone who didn't engage on the talking points and went off on their own imaginary journey so they could claim victory ?
edit: reading prompts, ponderings
No lol, I'm not reading this — good luck trying somewhere else dude.
Read it? probably some, understood it? not if previous responses are to be believed.
and nothing of value was lost.
I'll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn't indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.
What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!
I didn't read anything beyond this point — but you have earned the tag 'Bloviating Troglodyte' so.. congrats? I guess?
i said you were using the word indiscriminate incorrectly, there was discrimination. I wasn't refuting that people of all classes were killed.
As i said before, just because it doesn't meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn't mean that there was no selection criteria.
If you want to claim a large majority of random people were rounded up with no criteria whatsoever, feel free.
I have no interest in trying to force you to use the correct application of a word, i was just pointing it out, the rest is on you.
I'm not sure how that's relevant but i don't have a formal opinion on it.
I know, i specifically put tags in to let you know where the big sentences were, i'm glad they helped.
I appreciate you spending the time to look up some unique words, at least i know you've learnt something today.
They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them 'enemies of liberty'. I am not going to argue on this point.
So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn't seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn't seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?
This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to. I use troglodyte regularly by the way, unless you're talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.
TL;DR;
Looks like we aren't going to agree on the definition of indiscriminate, I'm good with that, you do you.
I've put forth no opinion on anything other than word choice, as it relates to logical correctness.
Somehow you've taken that single issue and tacked on a bunch of moral, ethical and political standpoints that don't exist in my responses and then seem to have taken these imaginary attacks personally, i can't help you with that.
Being angry at imaginary positions other people haven't taken must be a hard way to live or at the very least, exhausting. It's certainly confusing from the outside.
I can't work with that level of misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) so let's just call it a day.
You don't need to argue, you just stated the selection criteria was "enemies of liberty". which i'm sure you'll agree is not "anybody for any reason", which is what it would need to be for it to be indiscriminate....because that's what indiscriminate means.
As i said i've no interest in forcing you to use the actual current definition of a word. If, to you, indiscriminate means "some discrimination, but not like, a lot" then you do you.
Again, my bad, what I meant to say is I'm not sure how it relates to any of the points already raised.
None of the points raised by me (or my responses) have been about the connections, success or failure any systems or movements, nor have there been any stances taken on ethics or morality.
The relative merits and drawbacks of political systems and ideologies is interesting, but as i said i don't know enough about them to put forth anything other than superficial opinions, If you want i can put down my opinions for you, but i can't guarantee they'll hold up to scrutiny.
I'm not sure how you got extremist from me commenting on logical errors in your phrasing, there have been no other positions taken by me in any of the responses I've posted, but feel free to point them out if you see one.
Congratulations ? it's a good word, well..i like it at least.
I suspect it's less common than you think.
My comment was less projection than it was an inference based on your seeming inability to correctly use a (subjectively) more common word like indiscriminate. Seems like a reasonable leap to me but I'll take your word for it.