50512
Post by: Jihadin
Never heard of Dailystormer till now.
The Daily Stormer is an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist news and commentary website.[1][2] It considers itself a part of the alt-right movement.[3] Its editor is Andrew Anglin, who founded it on July 4, 2013, as a faster-paced replacement for his previous website Total Fascism.
The site is known for its use of Internet memes, which have been likened to the imageboard 4chan and cited as attractions for a younger and more ideologically diverse audience.[4] While some white nationalist authors have praised The Daily Stormer's reach, others have taken issue with its content and tone, accusing Anglin of being an agent provocateur, used to discredit true white nationalism.[5]
The Daily Stormer orchestrates what it calls the "Troll Army", which is involved in Internet trolling of figures with whom Anglin disagrees politically. It has also distributed propaganda.
Figure I clarify for some of the audience
12313
Post by: Ouze
Giving them a platform here is a net victory for them.
It doesn't really tell us anything we don't know about white supremacists.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Other than making Breitbart look good, they don't do much of anything useful. It's like a "news" version of the neonazi forum.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
It would help if you did not take every occasion to portray the free-speech laws of the Commonwealth and EU as the avatar of Orwellian oppression.
Wether these Neo-Nazi are proper Nazi or not is entirely inconsequential. If they are honestly Nazi, then they espouse a dangerous ideology. If they are the political equivalent of morbid fetishists, then they are simply dangerous individuals, because prone to escalation, desillusion and stupidity.
And then you have the absurdity of equating the violence of protesters to the violence of fascists. Punching a Nazi in the face is as disturbing to civil peace as the attention the media and justice system will give to the case. The function of Nazi organisation is to be a threat to civil society as understood nowadays.
16387
Post by: Manchu
After repeatedly describing Spencer and his followers as tryhard buffoons, I get accused of "defending" them because I pointed out that evoking Nazism is their media meal ticket. That's an authentic example of how far backward you have to bend to avoid seeing the truth. As KK explained, the reality in the US is that these guys are overwhelmingly irrelevant. This rally and others like it are part of a strategy by a group that is so embarassing and unlikable and unsympathetic that they stand no chance of directly influencing the vast majority of Americans. So they create a bizarre spectacle of allusions to the Third Reich to summon the press. The press is all too happy to oblige.
The same spectacle also lures in their opposite numbers on the loony left. The idea is that the cameras catch everyone looking terrible. But guys waving swastika banners have nothing to lose when it comes to looking terrible. Waving a swastika banner around is as bad a look as anyone can possibly have in the US. On the other hand, the left does have something to lose in this exchange: the notion that liberalism, including the social value of free political expression, and leftism go together.
That assumption has been a fundamental principle of the mainstream progressive left in the US since at least the 1960s. It is a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement. Guys like Spencer want to demonstrate that is no longer the case, ultimately to discredit progressivism entirely. This is also why he has commandeered the vocabulary of leftist identity politics to talk about white supremacy. Getting punched in the face is one of his greatest victories. Getting all major media outlets to cover his pathetic rallies is an even greater victory.
Set aside the entirely superficial appeals to Nazi branding and what's left? Certainly, no meaningful connection to mid-20th-century German politics. Nope, it's just homegrown American white supremacy. I'm not surprised at all that one of these guys is responsible for killing one person and injuring nineteen others. After all, Dylann Roof murdered nine black people who welcomed him into their church because he wanted to touch off a so-called race war, which unsurprisingly did not occur.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It would help if you did not take every occasion to portray the free-speech laws of the Commonwealth and EU as the avatar of Orwellian oppression.
Wether these Neo-Nazi are proper Nazi or not is entirely inconsequential. If they are honestly Nazi, then they espouse a dangerous ideology. If they are the political equivalent of morbid fetishists, then they are simply dangerous individuals, because prone to escalation, desillusion and stupidity.
And then you have the absurdity of equating the violence of protesters to the violence of fascists. Punching a Nazi in the face is as disturbing to civil peace as the attention the media and justice system will give to the case. The function of Nazi organisation is to be a threat to civil society as understood nowadays.
You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?
If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Blood Hawk wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:
It would help if you did not take every occasion to portray the free-speech laws of the Commonwealth and EU as the avatar of Orwellian oppression.
Wether these Neo-Nazi are proper Nazi or not is entirely inconsequential. If they are honestly Nazi, then they espouse a dangerous ideology. If they are the political equivalent of morbid fetishists, then they are simply dangerous individuals, because prone to escalation, desillusion and stupidity.
And then you have the absurdity of equating the violence of protesters to the violence of fascists. Punching a Nazi in the face is as disturbing to civil peace as the attention the media and justice system will give to the case. The function of Nazi organisation is to be a threat to civil society as understood nowadays.
You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communists are also a threat civilized society?
If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.
... the frag has this got to do with anything?
Yes, there is more than one horrible political orientation. Do you really think you've proven any point in getting me to admit this?
16387
Post by: Manchu
What We Know About Heather D. Heyer Heather D. Heyer died standing up for what she believed in.
Friends described her as a passionate advocate for the disenfranchised who was often moved to tears by the world’s injustices. That sense of conviction led her to join demonstrators protesting a rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday.
“We were just marching around, spreading love — and then the accident happened,” a friend, Marissa Blair, said. “In a split second you see a car, and you see bodies flying.”
The authorities said Ms. Heyer, 32, was killed when a car driven by a man from Ohio plowed into the crowd.
“Heather was such a sweet soul, and she did not deserve to die,” Ms. Blair said on Sunday.
Others said Ms. Heyer, who lived in Charlottesville, spoke out against inequality and urged co-workers to be active in their community.
“Heather was a very strong woman,” said Alfred A. Wilson, manager of the bankruptcy division at the Miller Law Group in Charlottesville, where Ms. Heyer worked as a paralegal. She stood up against “any type of discrimination,” he said. “That’s just how she’s always been.”
Mr. Wilson said in an interview on Sunday that he found her at her computer crying many times.
“Heather being Heather has seen something on Facebook or read something in the news and realized someone has been mistreated and gets upset,” he said.
A couple of years ago, she was dating someone who became agitated after learning that Mr. Wilson was black and that they were friends.
“She just didn’t like the way he was judging me as a minority male that’s doing well for myself,” Mr. Wilson said, adding that Ms. Heyer stopped seeing the man after that.
She often posted messages on Facebook about equality and love, said Ms. Blair, who recently left the law firm.
“She’s always so passionate and she speaks with so much conviction all the time,” she said.
Mr. Wilson hired Ms. Heyer at the recommendation of a friend. She had a high school diploma but did not have a background in law. Instead, she was working as a bartender and waitress, but he said she had an eye for detail and was “a people person.”
“If you can get people to open up to you, that’s what I need,” he told her. “I’ll teach you everything about the law you need to know.”
She did not stop working as a waitress even after she started at the law firm.
“It’s because of Heather that I started tipping people a lot better,” Ms. Blair said.
Ms. Heyer’s only flaw, Mr. Wilson said with a laugh, was that she liked to sleep late. “I had to change my office work hours just to meet her schedule,” he said.
She worked to improve herself by taking classes and studying.
“If she’s going to do something, she made sure she understood it,” he said. She was so dedicated that during her first two years on the job she did not take any vacations, he said.
Ms. Heyer lived alone with her Chihuahua, Violet, who was named after her favorite color.
For her, activism was about more than just “sitting behind your computer screen,” Ms. Blair said. “You gotta get out in your community and do things.”
Ms. Heyer and her friends were walking together at the protest when a car crashed into the crowd.
Ms. Blair, 27, saw it unfold.
Ms. Blair said her fiancé pushed her out of the way. She had a scrape on her arm and a bruise on her leg.
She began to look for him, and spotted his red baseball cap on the ground, covered in blood.
“It terrified me,” she said.
They two were reunited — he had a broken leg — and taken to a hospital, all the while wondering what happened to Ms. Heyer.
A detective broke the news that Ms. Heyer had been killed.
“I kind of knew and didn’t want to believe it,” she said. “When the cop told me, I cried and sank to my knees.”
James Alex Fields Jr., 20, of Maumee, Ohio, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at the scene of a crash that resulted in a death, the police said.
Charlottesville, in a statement about Ms. Heyer, said: “This senseless act of violence rips a hole in our collective hearts. While it will never make up for the loss of a member of our community, we will pursue charges against the driver of the vehicle that caused her death and are confident justice will prevail.”
A GoFundMe campaign created to support Ms. Heyer’s family had surpassed $200,000 as of Sunday evening.
“I’ve never had a close friend like this be murdered,” Ms. Blair said. “We thought, ‘What would Heather do?’ Heather would go harder. So that’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to preach love. We’re going to preach equality, and Heather’s death won’t be in vain.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Manchu wrote:
Set aside the entirely superficial appeals to Nazi branding and what's left? Certainly, no meaningful connection to mid-20th-century German politics. Nope, it's just homegrown American white supremacy.
What deep connection to mid-20th-century german context would satisfy the claim to Nazi inheritance, in your eyes? Because the way I see you set the stage, there isn't any possible ways for someone nowadays to be a Nazi, which I'm sure you'll agree is an absurd idea.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What We Know About James Alex Fields James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio was charged with second-degree murder in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday after the authorities said he smashed a car into a line of cars in an episode that left a 32-year-old woman dead and injured at least 19 other people who were protesting a rally staged by white nationalists.
Background
• Mr. Fields, 20, was born in Kenton, Ky., to Samantha Lea Bloom.
• He was living with his mother until “five or six months ago” when he moved to his own apartment in Maumee, Ohio, according to an interview that Ms. Bloom gave to The Toledo Blade. They moved to Ohio from Kentucky about year ago because of her job, she said.
• Mr. Fields’s father died before he was born, an aunt, Pam Fields, said in an interview on Sunday. Ms. Fields said she had not seen her nephew, whom she remembered as a “very quiet little boy,” more than five times in the past 10 years.
• A friend and former neighbor of Ms. Bloom’s in the condominium complex where she lived until last year remembered her son as a quiet teenager who “kept to himself a lot.”
“He had some trouble in school making friends,” said the friend, who requested anonymity because she said she feared for her safety.
“She had struggled with him during his teen years but he came around towards the end of school,” she said, adding, “She was always trying to do the best for her son.”
• In an interview with The Associated Press, Ms. Bloom said she knew her son was going to a rally, but that she tried to “stay out of his political views.” She said that she thought the rally “had something to do with Trump,” adding, “Trump’s not a supremacist.”
• Derek Weimer, 45, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that Mr. Fields was one of his students when he taught history at Randall K. Cooper High School. He described Mr. Fields as “a very bright kid but very misguided and disillusioned.”
When Mr. Fields was a freshman, he wrote a report for another class that was “very much along the party lines of the neo-Nazi movement,” Mr. Weimer said.
“A lot of boys get interested in the Germans and Nazis because they’re interested in World War II,” he said. “But James took it to another level.”
• Military records show that Mr. Fields entered the Army on Aug. 18, 2015, around the time his mother wrote on Facebook that he had left for boot camp. Less than four months later, on Dec. 11, his period of active duty concluded. It was not immediately clear why he left the military.
• A photographer said he saw Mr. Fields on Saturday with symbols of Vanguard America, a group whose manifesto declares that “a government based in the natural law must not cater to the false notion of equality.” The organization denied any ties to Mr. Fields.
“The driver of the vehicle that hit counterprotesters today was, in no way, a member of Vanguard America,” the group said in a statement on its Twitter account. “All our members had been safely evacuated by the time of the incident. The shields seen do not denote membership, nor does the white shirt. The shirts were freely handed out to anyone in attendance.”
A Violent Crash
• Mr. Fields was driving a Dodge Challenger “at a high rate of speed” in downtown Charlottesville at about 1:45 p.m., a spokeswoman for the city said in a statement. He drove the car into a sedan, which hit a minivan that was in front of it.
The impact of the crash pushed the sedan and the minivan into a crowd of pedestrians. Mr. Fields fled the scene in the Challenger but was stopped a short time later by the Charlottesville police.
• Deia Schlosberg and Conrad Shaw, documentary filmmakers who were in Charlottesville to shoot footage of one of the counterprotesters, were nearby when the car barreled down the street. They said that it hit a number of people before crashing into the other vehicles.
“It seemed like it was trying to drive through the crowd,” Ms. Schlosberg said. “The other cars were enveloped in the crowd. I bet those cars saved a ton more lives because it couldn’t keep going.”
• The city identified the dead woman as Heather D. Heyer, 32, of Charlottesville.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-driver-.html
50512
Post by: Jihadin
• Military records show that Mr. Fields entered the Army on Aug. 18, 2015, around the time his mother wrote on Facebook that he had left for boot camp. Less than four months later, on Dec. 11, his period of active duty concluded. It was not immediately clear why he left the military.
Good money it was a mental issue code
Discharge more likely Honorable
5470
Post by: sebster
A lot of people are hesitant to lend any kind of support to antifa. I get that. They're pretty annoying & self-righteous, and a lot of the stuff they do is counter-productive and often illegal. They're not white hats.
But the guys they're up against are committing at least as much violence, and also they're fething Nazis. And now they're Nazis who's number includes a guy who murdered a counter-protester, and attempted to murder many more.
Anyone out there who sees that and comes up with any kind of 'both sides' argument has some serious thinking to do.
Blood Hawk wrote:You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?
If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.
Yes, both communism and fascism are bad ideas with horrible legacies, but you're missing a huge distinction between the two at this level. The horrible elements of communism are secondary impacts, the appeal comes from the dream of social and material equality. People who believe in communism are wrong, but they're not automatically awful.
Whereas the really horrible parts of fascism are right there, up front, they are the central appeal. The worship of power, of political and military violence - those things are why people become fascists. People who believe in fascism aren't just wrong, they're inherently drawn to explicitly ugly ideals.
34390
Post by: whembly
 sebster wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?
If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.
Yes, both communism and fascism are bad ideas with horrible legacies, but you're missing a huge distinction between the two at this level. The horrible elements of communism are secondary impacts, the appeal comes from the dream of social and material equality. People who believe in communism are wrong, but they're not automatically awful.
Whereas the really horrible parts of fascism are right there, up front, they are the central appeal. The worship of power, of political and military violence - those things are why people become fascists. People who believe in fascism aren't just wrong, they're inherently drawn to explicitly ugly ideals.
erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.
In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals.
The proverb of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.  
5470
Post by: sebster
 whembly wrote:erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.
In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals.
The proverb of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.
The distinction loses meaning when it is part of a political force that has a real chance at gaining power. But for individuals espousing personal philosophy, even if they're part of a minor political party, the difference is huge.
If you meet a regular person who happens to be a communist, then you're meeting a regular person with strong beliefs about material and social equality. They don't actually want mass political oppression and economic stagnation, even though that's almost certainly what their ideas will bring.
Whereas if you meet a regular person who happens to be a fascist, then you're meeting a person who dreams about committing violent acts of suppression on enemies both internal and external. They actually want the horrible stuff.
That difference is massive. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:To continue my rambling, I hate Nazism and everything it stands for, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a democracy where people weren't allowed to say what they thought, no matter how repulsive.
As I've said before, the USA of old, confident in itself, and its values, would laugh of this fringe movement. Let them march would probably be the response.
You seem to think that organising a counter-protest is somehow suppression of the original protest. That's completely wrong. It's just as important an element of free speech as the original protest.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: whembly wrote:erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face. In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals. The proverb of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.
The distinction loses meaning when it is part of a political force that has a real chance at gaining power. But for individuals espousing personal philosophy, even if they're part of a minor political party, the difference is huge. If you meet a regular person who happens to be a communist, then you're meeting a regular person with strong beliefs about material and social equality. They don't actually want mass political oppression and economic stagnation, even though that's almost certainly what their ideas will bring. Whereas if you meet a regular person who happens to be a fascist, then you're meeting a person who dreams about committing violent acts of suppression on enemies both internal and external. They actually want the horrible stuff. That difference is massive.
Okay.. .you're referring to typical individuals. I was targeting the ideology. So... mea culpa on my part. It's like when folks wear the Che Guerava t-shirt thinking they're supporting whatever Communist ideals Cuba represents... but, ignorant to the actual history of how brutal murderous Che was to his own people... murdering gays and blacks just because.... But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power. I feel like this is dragging a wee bit offtopic, so to circle this around... The thing is... we’re all people, whether we have differences of opinion, color of skin, accents, or beliefs. My grandpa used to say that we're all the same "on the inside"... We breathe the same air, bleed the same blood, and eat the same things. He made a point to teach that to his kids/grandkids. Life *is* a struggle... and it's one continuous journey with trials and tribulations... but it doesn’t mean you have to go through life hating others and looking for a reason to lash out at them. I believe we’re better than that.... I believe we can counter bad ideas with good ideas. Resorting to violence as an "answer" is simply fething lazy.
5470
Post by: sebster
 oldravenman3025 wrote:I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.
Orwell was a keen thinker who believed in ensuring all his ideas were as clearly defined and argued as possible. As such, I think he'd fairly horrified that his most famous work is one of the most poorly understood books in literature.
The events of 1984 don't show the gradual creation of a police state through well intentioned increases in surveillance. The totalitarian regime begins in the chaos of war, and desperate starvation. Orwell did this quite deliberately, because Orwell knew how totalitarian states actually start.
Gary Kasparov, who knows quite a lot about actually fighting against a tyrant, wrote a very good piece in the wake of Snowden's leaks and flight to Moscow. One telling quote;
"But citizens behind the Iron Curtain were not terrified of the intelligence services because of data collection. We lived in fear because we knew what would happen to us if we gave any hint of dissent against the regime. As often as not, no data at all was required to persecute, disappear, torture, and murder potential enemies. If a court actually was involved, and evidence desired, it could simply be fabricated. And no, to take on the next argument I often hear, brutal totalitarianism does not begin with surveillance by a liberal democratic state. It begins with terror, it begins with violence, it begins with the knowledge that your thoughts and words can end your career or your life."
So no, if 1984 was to be used as an instruction book then you wouldn't start by increasing surveillance powers. There are lots of good reasons to limit and control surveillance powers, of course, but the fear that surveillance is the first step to government takeover is miles away from reality.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
sebster wrote:
So no, if 1984 was to be used as an instruction book then you wouldn't start by increasing surveillance powers. There are lots of good reasons to limit and control surveillance powers, of course, but the fear that surveillance is the first step to government takeover is miles away from reality.
To say that it can't possibly lead to a totalitarian state is really presumptuous. Besides, surveillance can and is used as a tool of terror. So by Kasparov's quote, it could indeed by used as an opening salvo in the formation of a totalitarian state.
Taking advantage of the chaos of war or other catastrophe is convenient of course for a prospective tyrant, but it's far from the only option. We're in the information age now. Surveillance is more potent than it was in the past.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
sebster wrote: oldravenman3025 wrote:I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.
Orwell was a keen thinker who believed in ensuring all his ideas were as clearly defined and argued as possible. As such, I think he'd fairly horrified that his most famous work is one of the most poorly understood books in literature.
The events of 1984 don't show the gradual creation of a police state through well intentioned increases in surveillance. The totalitarian regime begins in the chaos of war, and desperate starvation. Orwell did this quite deliberately, because Orwell knew how totalitarian states actually start.
Gary Kasparov, who knows quite a lot about actually fighting against a tyrant, wrote a very good piece in the wake of Snowden's leaks and flight to Moscow. One telling quote;
"But citizens behind the Iron Curtain were not terrified of the intelligence services because of data collection. We lived in fear because we knew what would happen to us if we gave any hint of dissent against the regime. As often as not, no data at all was required to persecute, disappear, torture, and murder potential enemies. If a court actually was involved, and evidence desired, it could simply be fabricated. And no, to take on the next argument I often hear, brutal totalitarianism does not begin with surveillance by a liberal democratic state. It begins with terror, it begins with violence, it begins with the knowledge that your thoughts and words can end your career or your life."
So no, if 1984 was to be used as an instruction book then you wouldn't start by increasing surveillance powers. There are lots of good reasons to limit and control surveillance powers, of course, but the fear that surveillance is the first step to government takeover is miles away from reality.
"Surveillance" is not even a problem for free speech, really. In countries with laws limiting certain forms of speech, it is not (or very rarely) the government that tracks social media comments for illegal speech, but rather members of the citizenry aware of the laws protecting them that reports those acts. And it's not even really a problem for the people, honestly. If people want to organize a revolution, they'd be soft as hell to organize it on Facebook or Reddit, rather than the everyday-increasing number of utterly untraceable platforms available out there.
Anyway, all this is tangential to the underlying issue : the ( imho silly) belief many americans holds that a society that allows the worse scum to organize and publicize is inherently and essentially superior to those that do not. Nothing is lost in giving yourself the ability to draw a line at "people who advocate systematic violence as a means of acheiving a state of political hegemon". No, you do not have to worry about it being a precedent, because it isn't, because free speech has been infringed upon in so many more socially deleterious manners, that all the precedents are already there.
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:Okay.. .you're referring to typical individuals.
I was targeting the ideology.
So... mea culpa on my part.
Cool, but not simply at the individual level. I'll explain in a bit more detail in my response below.
It's like when folks wear the Che Guerava t-shirt thinking they're supporting whatever Communist ideals Cuba represents... but, ignorant to the actual history of how brutal murderous Che was to his own people... murdering gays and blacks just because....
That's a pretty good way of seeing the difference. If you see some guy wearing a Che Guevara shirt he's mostly likely an idiot who likes fashion and revolutionary fantasies a lot more than he likes reading. If you see a guy with a swastika on his shirt he's almost certainly an awful person.
But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.
Sure, but there's a difference between well intentioned but ultimately foolish belief that would likely get people killed, and an idea that's evil from the outset. Consider a guy who is called by his friend, who tells him he's in serious danger. So the guy gets in his car to drive to his friend as fast as possible, including taking a short cut by going the wrong way down a one way street.
But compare that to a guy who decides to deliberately drive his in to a crowd of people in order to kill them.
They both killed people. They both did something wrong. We should make sure that we never do anything similar ever again. But there remains a big difference between a well-intentioned but murderously bad idea, and an actual decision to murder.
The thing is... we’re all people, whether we have differences of opinion, color of skin, accents, or beliefs.
My grandpa used to say that we're all the same "on the inside"... We breathe the same air, bleed the same blood, and eat the same things. He made a point to teach that to his kids/grandkids.
Life *is* a struggle... and it's one continuous journey with trials and tribulations... but it doesn’t mean you have to go through life hating others and looking for a reason to lash out at them.
I believe we’re better than that.... I believe we can counter bad ideas with good ideas. Resorting to violence as an "answer" is simply fething lazy.
I agree, that violence is lazy, and particularly about life being full of trials, and the worst answering to respond to that by hating on others. That's wise words.
I also think there's a practical reason not to engage nazis in street fighting. Thuggish brutality is the one thing nazis are really good at. Challenged in terms of political strategy or cunning, or in terms of raw numbers of believers, the nazis lose every time. But when it comes to running street battles, that's the core strength of the skinhead. It's the worst way to take them on.
But all of that is side conversation to the one core reality here - these people are nazis. They are the worst. The people challenging might not be great, their methods may be illegal and/or stupid. But the answer then is to say 'this is not the way to fight the nazis, but nazis are still the absolute worst'. Instead we've seen people say 'both sides' and that's outrageous.
21737
Post by: murdog
Hope you get this sorted out down there. Painful to watch. Your laws, your constitution and your history tell me you will. You've stood against tyranny and oppression, within and without, since the beginning, and I'm sure you will prevail in this round and come out stronger than before.
Remember that free peoples the world over are watching - we love and support you, we look to you for leadership and inspiration, and we have faith in your strength of character and moral fortitude (even when it is absent at the top). The small number who want to take you backward are no match for the rest of us moving forward together.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Grey Templar wrote:To say that it can't possibly lead to a totalitarian state is really presumptuous.
Good thing no-one said that.
Besides, surveillance can and is used as a tool of terror. So by Kasparov's quote, it could indeed by used as an opening salvo in the formation of a totalitarian state.
You've completely misunderstood Kasparov's quote. Surveillance as a tool of terror, for blackmail or anything like that is not needed. When they control the courts and the police, then gathering actual evidence is an unnecessary step.
Once the police state is in place, then yes, intense surveillance is used to monitor, track and shut down in resistance cells. I think that's possibly what's caused people to focus on surveillance as the sign of a police state. What they miss is that surveillance is only needed once the opposition goes underground, after the original public opposition has been arrested, disappeared etc.
112656
Post by: nfe
whembly wrote: sebster wrote:
Yes, both communism and fascism are bad ideas with horrible legacies, but you're missing a huge distinction between the two at this level. The horrible elements of communism are secondary impacts, the appeal comes from the dream of social and material equality. People who believe in communism are wrong, but they're not automatically awful.
Whereas the really horrible parts of fascism are right there, up front, they are the central appeal. The worship of power, of political and military violence - those things are why people become fascists. People who believe in fascism aren't just wrong, they're inherently drawn to explicitly ugly ideals.
erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.
In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals
Communist and egalitarian societies have existed, and come into being, with no violence whatsoever. Some continue to exist (albeit as communes rather than states in modernised territories). Best of luck finding a facist example.
The hideous violence usually associated with communism was effected in an attempt to establish communist states by totalitarians, rather than perpertrated by communist states. The hideous violence usually associated with facism is a fundamental component of the ideology. The result was awful in both cases, unquestionably, but the distinction is important if you're keen to argue a 'bad as each other' position.
EDIT: wow, apparently being in Iraq, using an Iraqi SIMcard, gets you a little USA flag.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
whembly wrote:
But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.
That's rather the point. Communism is not fundamentally a violent idea. Quite the opposite in fact. Communist ideology at it's core is a utopian concept of equality of all, post scarcity and lack of ownership. The reality is that people are rather attached to the idea that work is for the betterment of themselves, and they have some agency over property they view as theirs. The ideology is that everyone lives in a world where they are happy not to own anything and share all they have. In reality is eventually at some level you will run in to people who do not want to do this (normally once it goes beyond a group who know and trust each other). Sometimes this means that the group either fizzles out or reaches a settled point of a small commune. But with almost every ideology there will also be from time to time people who have taken belief to an extreme and believe the only way to do this is to force it upon people who will see the light once they are forced to. When they reach state level they generally become fascist in their actions and oppression of opposition. Communist dictatorships or Red Fascism.
Communism is not fundamentally an ideal of control or dictatorship. In fact one of the ideals of communism is a stateless society. Fascism however is. It is always about control and power over others, if you can call fascism an ideal (or neo-facism, which is what we are talking about here. Pre ww2 Fascism was something slightly different and is more of a state of rule than an ideal)
34390
Post by: whembly
 Steve steveson wrote: whembly wrote:
But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.
That's rather the point. Communism is not fundamentally a violent idea. Quite the opposite in fact. Communist ideology at it's core is a utopian concept of equality of all, post scarcity and lack of ownership. The reality is that people are rather attached to the idea that work is for the betterment of themselves, and they have some agency over property they view as theirs. The ideology is that everyone lives in a world where they are happy not to own anything and share all they have. In reality is eventually at some level you will run in to people who do not want to do this (normally once it goes beyond a group who know and trust each other). Sometimes this means that the group either fizzles out or reaches a settled point of a small commune. But with almost every ideology there will also be from time to time people who have taken belief to an extreme and believe the only way to do this is to force it upon people who will see the light once they are forced to. When they reach state level they generally become fascist in their actions and oppression of opposition. Communist dictatorships or Red Fascism.
Communism is not fundamentally an ideal of control or dictatorship. In fact one of the ideals of communism is a stateless society. Fascism however is. It is always about control and power over others, if you can call fascism an ideal (or neo-facism, which is what we are talking about here. Pre ww2 Fascism was something slightly different and is more of a state of rule than an ideal)
In the real world... yeah communism is very much a violent idea. You ain't herding all those cats across a body of water.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.
Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
34390
Post by: whembly
Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means. Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them. Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
Steve... I'm arguing that the only way communism can be implement is through violent means. Anything else is academic.... all you have to do is look at history and understand human nature. Thus why some of us treat folks preaching the communism choir the same way we'd treat the fascist choir. I think human kind is too hardwired against something like that... even if we'd ever reach some post-scarcity state. *this debate* is what I mean by persuading each the merits/demerits of such an idea. We doing dis right! 
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
To counter this idea that we have thought crime police here in Europe. Saying "I hate (insert group)" in public or the internet is perfectly legal. The moment you say "You should hate (insert)" is were it crosses into hate speech. This is not acceptable. Just voicing your own opinion is perfectly fine for the state. Of course threatening or harassing people online/in public is just as illegal here as it is in the US. All in all its a tiny difference that people are blowing up way out of proportion.
The reason police here, in the NL at least, would have stopped the Friday protest after those chants is because they set up a number of rules with the organizers of protests on what is acceptable behavior in light of preserving public order. As seems obvious from Charlottesville the public order threshold was certainly crossed.
91440
Post by: Rosebuddy
Blood Hawk wrote:
You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?
If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.
Liberals always hate and fear socialists more than they do fascists, because liberals can always maintain their material position by switching sides if fascists take power but can't do so if socialists take power.
whembly wrote:
Steve... I'm arguing that the only way communism can be implement is through violent means. Anything else is academic.... all you have to do is look at history and understand human nature.
History, yes. Human nature, no. It is true that communism must gain power through revolution. Avoiding violence isn't possible. This is because the class that currently has power, the capitalist class, uses violence to maintain and defend it. They will nurture fascism if they believe it's what will best defend their grip on society. If communists are to free society, they must fight back against the ruling class. Fascism is violent for its own sake, as an end in and of itself. Communism is violent to achieve its end goals.
95191
Post by: godardc
 Disciple of Fate wrote:To counter this idea that we have thought crime police here in Europe. Saying "I hate (insert group)" in public or the internet is perfectly legal. The moment you say "You should hate (insert)" is were it crosses into hate speech. This is not acceptable. Just voicing your own opinion is perfectly fine for the state. Of course threatening or harassing people online/in public is just as illegal here as it is in the US. All in all its a tiny difference that people are blowing up way out of proportion.
The reason police here, in the NL at least, would have stopped the Friday protest after those chants is because they set up a number of rules with the organizers of protests on what is acceptable behavior in light of preserving public order. As seems obvious from Charlottesville the public order threshold was certainly crossed.
We have thought police in Europe.
Not officialy established, but the very moment you say you support Trump, the alt right or something like that, you risk your career.
You risk your reputation.
You can't say this kind of thing without consequences.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
 godardc wrote: Disciple of Fate wrote:To counter this idea that we have thought crime police here in Europe. Saying "I hate (insert group)" in public or the internet is perfectly legal. The moment you say "You should hate (insert)" is were it crosses into hate speech. This is not acceptable. Just voicing your own opinion is perfectly fine for the state. Of course threatening or harassing people online/in public is just as illegal here as it is in the US. All in all its a tiny difference that people are blowing up way out of proportion. The reason police here, in the NL at least, would have stopped the Friday protest after those chants is because they set up a number of rules with the organizers of protests on what is acceptable behavior in light of preserving public order. As seems obvious from Charlottesville the public order threshold was certainly crossed.
We have thought police in Europe. Not officialy established, but the very moment you say you support Trump, the alt right or something like that, you risk your career. You risk your reputation. You can't say this kind of thing without consequences.
No that is ridiculous, certain employers might not appreciate such sentiments, but you hardly lose your career over it. Although I would love to hear who got fired just for saying they supported Trump? The alt-right is something very different and is frequently very intolerant if not downright racist and/or sexist. Of course that would not be appreciated on the work floor. The state does not employ thought police. Hell a professor at my former university was a major Trump supporter, basically being one of the few people in the whole university. He even publicly debated others on it. He still has his job in a state financed university. Saying you support Trump here is hardly a big deal, people will just raise an eyebrow. In the private sphere the US and Europe are equally vulnerable to this. Europe has no thought police, which is a state organ. Public/social sentiment/pressure has always existed in both Europe and the US.
95191
Post by: godardc
Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
godardc wrote:Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind
You're burying the lead. That is a private and not state sponsored network. I can point to US journalists or hosts being fired over views, so either we both have thought police or neither do.
112656
Post by: nfe
whembly wrote:
Steve... I'm arguing that the only way communism can be implement is through violent means.
As I said above, egalitarian and communist societies have existed through history and continue to exist today without any violent means exploited either to establish or maintain them. They exist both as modern communes and in non-urbanised communities.
Anything else is academic.... all you have to do is look at history and understand human nature
Human nature as some kind of remotely homogenised or generalisable concept does not exist.
Thus why some of us treat folks preaching the communism choir the same way we'd treat the fascist choir.
Because of a lack of familiarity with any of the evidence beyond totalitarian, nominally-communist states like the USSR, China, and Cambodia?
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
godardc wrote:Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind
Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.
70214
Post by: Disciple of Fate
 MonkeyBallistic wrote: godardc wrote:Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran.
Then C News had to pay him 50k€.
So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture.
That is a fact.
This is the first one that came to my mind
Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.
Yes the example I think of now (because it was so recent) for the US is of Tomi Lahren being fired from The Blaze, both being very much on the right side of the aisle, over abortion. So saying only the left engages in this is a bit much. You just see it less in Europe from the right, because lets be honest, the right just has a much smaller base here to be fired from as opposed to left leaning organizations.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Disciple of Fate wrote: MonkeyBallistic wrote: godardc wrote:Eric Zemmour, a journalist/show man, fired by C-News (former i tele) because he told that muslims have their own laws, which aren't the French laws but the Coran. Then C News had to pay him 50k€. So they did fire him, illegaly, because he opposed the left dominant culture. That is a fact. This is the first one that came to my mind
Any news media has an editorial position, whether than be supporting the left, the right or trying to remain unbiased. Any journalist who goes against that editorial position risks loosing their job. That's hardly the same as claiming that the average person could loose their job for saying they like Trump.
Yes the example I think of now (because it was so recent) for the US is of Tomi Lahren being fired from The Blaze, both being very much on the right side of the aisle, over abortion. So saying only the left engages in this is a bit much. You just see it less in Europe from the right, because lets be honest, the right just has a much smaller base here to be fired from as opposed to left leaning organizations.
Even Ayn Rand, who many on the right put on a pedestal of intellectual purity with almost fetishistic fervour, belittled and kicked people out of her intellectual club for espousing ideas contrary to her own or even just not wanting to sleep with her anymore.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Kovnik Obama wrote:
... the frag has this got to do with anything?
Yes, there is more than one horrible political orientation. Do you really think you've proven any point in getting me to admit this?
You said it is absurd to equate the violence between the two sides. There are actual self declared communists part of the "anti-facist' side that have actively committed violence. You then say that fascists are more dangerous because they have an ideology that is a threat to civilized society. Communists also have an ideology that is also a threat to civilized society. So yea you can equate the violence on both sides. So I was pointing out you where wrong there.
And to the people who honestly think that communism isn't as bad because it isn't outright murderous in its language are being very naive. Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas. Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together. We have a mountain of corpses to prove that.
Also the white nationalist crowd also have a utopian vision with the white ethnostate. Which can also only be achieved with violence.
112656
Post by: nfe
Blood Hawk wrote:
And to the people who honestly think that communism isn't as bad because it isn't outright murderous in its language are being very naive. Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas. Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together. We have a mountain of corpses to prove that.
Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.
91440
Post by: Rosebuddy
Blood Hawk wrote:
You said it is absurd to equate the violence between the two sides. There are actual self declared communists part of the "anti-facist' side that have actively committed violence. You then say that fascists are more dangerous because they have an ideology that is a threat to civilized society. Communists also have an ideology that is also a threat to civilized society. So yea you can equate the violence on both sides. So I was pointing out you where wrong there.
And to the people who honestly think that communism isn't as bad because it isn't outright murderous in its language are being very naive. Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas. They may not always come out and say it the two go together. We have a mountain of corpses to prove that.
There is a century of the capitalist ruling class doing everything it can to kill communists and to prevent sovereign countries from electing socialist governemnts. Capitalists have been oppressing workers ever since there first was capitalists and workers. The stuff about how communists are absolutely worse than nazis is full on capitalist propaganda.
Yes, anti-fascists have committed acts of violence. Against fascists, because of the violence that the fascists want to commit against racial and sexual minorities. It is the height of liberalism to view only the atomised act of fighting without any concern for motivation or political context and conclude that both those who wish to exterminate what they view as degenerates and those who want to prevent the extermination of racial and sexual minorities are the exact same.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
nfe wrote:
Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.
You for real? Baseless? You honestly denying that tens of millions died?
Rosebuddy wrote:
There is a century of the capitalist ruling class doing everything it can to kill communists and to prevent sovereign countries from electing socialist governemnts. Capitalists have been oppressing workers ever since there first was capitalists and workers. The stuff about how communists are absolutely worse than nazis is full on capitalist propaganda.
Yes, anti-fascists have committed acts of violence. Against fascists, because of the violence that the fascists want to commit against racial and sexual minorities. It is the height of liberalism to view only the atomised act of fighting without any concern for motivation or political context and conclude that both those who wish to exterminate what they view as degenerates and those who want to prevent the extermination of racial and sexual minorities are the exact same.
Ah yes those evil capitalists with their free markets and lack of work camps and millions of people executed.  Also the anti-fascists have declared pretty much anyone that is against them or hell even present a fascist. And then they attack those people. It seems less like people protecting anyone and more like they are just violent authoritarians.
Also I don't trust either of these group's word. I have had too many people lie to me in my life to be that foolish. Their actions speak loader then there words ever could.
112656
Post by: nfe
Blood Hawk wrote:nfe wrote:
Demonstrably not the case. These baseless charges could really be undone with the smallest hint of investigation beyond Evil Reds For Dummies books.
You for real? Baseless? You honestly denying that tens of millions died?
No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.
These are:
Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas
Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.
And are baseless.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The argument about the violence inherent in the system of communism is a bit theoretical.
At this Charlottesville "Unite The Right" rally, the right-wing consisted of extremists like the KK and neo-nazis. This does not mean that the protestors were hard-left comintern provocateurs. They were a loose grouping of people who don't like the KK and neo-nazis and had the idea of going to do something about it.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.
Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
Communism is a coercive ideology.
Care to explain to me how you enact a coercive ideology without violence?
This is not even going into the fact of Marx's insistence on the use of violence as essential.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:The argument about the violence inherent in the system of communism is a bit theoretical.
Yes the textbook apologetic, is that communism has never been implemented.
However, the facts about the victims of communism tell us about harsh realities.
Let me scratch my head and think,
Which ideology hath more stink.
112656
Post by: nfe
 44Ronin wrote: Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.
Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
Communism is a coercive ideology.
At the risk of eternal repetition, no, this is another 'characteristic' of communism that is demonstrably false as any investigation of communist and egalitarian communities that stretches beyond the horror stories of South America, China, USSR etc makes abundantly clear.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
nfe wrote: 44Ronin wrote: Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.
Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
Communism is a coercive ideology.
At the risk of eternal repetition, no, this is another 'characteristic' of communism that is demonstrably false as any investigation of communist and egalitarian communities that stretches beyond the horror stories of South America, China, USSR etc makes abundantly clear.
No it is not.
It is written in the damn communist manifesto. If you'd bother to read it.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
44Ronin wrote: Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.
Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.
Communism is a coercive ideology.
Care to explain to me how you enact a coercive ideology without violence?
In which case all ideologies that aren't strictly pacifist and non-violent are coercive. You get thrown in jail for breaking the law, after all.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
nfe wrote:
No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.
These are:
Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas
Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.
And are baseless.
First communism and violence going together is easy. You just said you don't deny that ten of millions died due to communism. There is a direct connection between living in a communist country in the 20th century and being killed. So the two go together.
Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will. So lets say you have a communist revolution in the United States. You are going to overthrow the system with a revolution, and take peoples private property, their businesses, etc. It is unlikely that opponents of that revolution will just give in. Violence would be inevitable. How communist policies become murderous is well documented in books like the Gulag Archipelago, and from the first hand accounts. Millions dying in work camps, etc.
Not to mention all the mass killings. link Do honestly believe all of that isn't rooted in the ideology itself? Marx himself said that people would need to be "swept out of the way".
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.
I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
 Peregrine wrote:
By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?
You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.
I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people
and plenty are violent left wing agitators, what is your point?
You are conflating white nationalists and those who want to defend their history, but can't handle when the reverse occurs.....can you?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Did the guy seize the means of production when using his car as a weapon, or is there another way that the tenets of communism are relevant to any of this?
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
You know what my point is. It was an antifascist counter demonstration, not a left wing rally and certainly not a communist revolution. By equating being against fascism with being communism you're doing a fine job of taking attention away from the actions of the white supremacists and basically blaming the victims of the actual murder and attempted murders.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
44Ronin wrote:You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Given the fact that the extreme majority of the world has at least some form of state, I think we can pretty conclusively say that merely labeling something "coercive" is not a very relevant thing to say here. Communism is coercive in the same way that any other system of government is coercive, it is a set of laws that everyone must follow regardless of whether or not they personally agree with everything. And communism is not inherently more coercive than other systems of government. For example, a capitalist democracy (such as the US in very recent history) might ban gay marriage for moral reasons, while a communist government might not (after all, who you marry has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and capital), making the communist government freer in that sense.
And, again, I think we can all see a difference between "I think we should have a government with policies that you disagree with" and "I think we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of white civilization". Please stop with the ridiculous "both sides are bad" argument.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
44Ronin wrote: Peregrine wrote:
By that standard any government is a "coercive ideology". You pay taxes, and the government uses force to make you comply if you disagree. You obey the speed limit, or the police arrest you and you don't get to drive anymore. Etc. So can we stop with this ridiculous idea that "capital should be collectively owned" and "we should exterminate the lesser races to protect the purity of the superior white race" are morally equivalent beliefs?
You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:Regardless of this circular debate about communism, most people are against fascism and most antifascist protesters are not communists. Most of them are perfectly nice, moderate people who just want a better world and are prepared to make their voices heard.
I'd love for somebody to try to claim that most white supremacists are perfectly nice people
and plenty are violent left wing agitators, what is your point?
You are conflating white nationalists and those who want to defend their history, but can't handle when the reverse occurs.....can you?
Guy, I don't know who you're talking about "defending their history" about.
What you need to understand regarding American Nazis and their beliefs is they love to talk about it as "defending their history" when it comes to these Confederate monuments, yet they have not one damn problem with destroying Native American monuments or holy sites, not one damn problem removing or disturbing the burial grounds of enslaved African Americans on the grounds of plantations or Southern estates, and not one damn problem when it comes to revisionist history surrounding the treatment of slaves here in the US(a great example of which is when people say things like "Slaves weren't paid, but they were given clothes, food, etc...as though that somehow mitigates the fact that they're flipping slaves).
These aren't militant historians. They don't give one rat's dropping about history except when it suits their narrative.
112656
Post by: nfe
Blood Hawk wrote:nfe wrote:
No I'm not, because that's not the charge you made.
These are:
Violence is the logical conclusion of communist policies and ideas
Communist may not always come out and say it but the two go together.
And are baseless.
First communism and violence going together is easy. You just said you don't deny that ten of millions died due to communism. There is a direct connection between living in a communist country in the 20th century and being killed. So the two go together.
I could have been clearer about the issue in your second statement. Fair enough. The two can be associated based on a variety of examples. This does not mean they are inherently paired as you imply, however, as various other examples attest, both historically and currently.
Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will.
Not strictly true, the idea as presented originally by Marx stated that it would be inevitable, not that it was desireable, and the philosophy has been nuanced widely since, often in quite contraditory ways, like any political philosophy of any significant vintage.
Anyway, as people have said in the last few posts, this is rather off-topic given the conversation is really predicated on the notion that the counter demonstration is primarily composed of communists and therefore no better than those engaged in the initial demonstration, which is nonsense, so I'll back out of the debate on the ethical acceptability of communism now. Apologies for my part in the derail!
221
Post by: Frazzled
This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
 Frazzled wrote:This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
Yes, this thread has gone so far off topic, I'm beginning to suspect it's deliberate.
91440
Post by: Rosebuddy
Frazzled wrote:This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Rosebuddy wrote: Frazzled wrote:This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.
Well said, but this is what the right always does. If it can't deny that it committed the crime, it tries to blame the victim.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I think that this will be the Final Warning here - no joke.
Keep this thread on topic, and polite.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
nfe wrote:
I could have been clearer about the issue in your second statement. Fair enough. The two can be associated based on a variety of examples. This does not mean they are inherently paired as you imply, however, as various other examples attest, both historically and currently.
Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will.
Not strictly true, the idea as presented originally by Marx stated that it would be inevitable, not that it was desireable, and the philosophy has been nuanced widely since, often in quite contraditory ways, like any political philosophy of any significant vintage.
Anyway, as people have said in the last few posts, this is rather off-topic given the conversation is really predicated on the notion that the counter demonstration is primarily composed of communists and therefore no better than those engaged in the initial demonstration, which is nonsense, so I'll back out of the debate on the ethical acceptability of communism now. Apologies for my part in the derail!
There is plenty of evidence of the connection between communism and violence. Saying that is baseless is completely absurd. But anyway enough of that.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:Rosebuddy wrote: Frazzled wrote:This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.
Well said, but this is what the right always does. If it can't deny that it committed the crime, it tries to blame the victim.
Dude, everyone plays the victim in scenarios like this. It doesn't seem to matter who is committing the violence or terrorism.
edit: Note: I am referring the side committing the violence, not the side that was the victim of the violence.
21737
Post by: murdog
Its playground tactics writ large. Bullies always cry 'I'm the victim' when someone stands up to them. To me, this is about a whole bunch of people standing up to a whole bunch of bullies - but with deadly, adult consequences. Same thing though - are we gonna let bullies rule the playground? Or do we send them home crying until they figure out how to play fair?
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Blood Hawk wrote:nfe wrote:
I could have been clearer about the issue in your second statement. Fair enough. The two can be associated based on a variety of examples. This does not mean they are inherently paired as you imply, however, as various other examples attest, both historically and currently.
Second communists think that capitalism is evil and believe that the working class either should rebel or will.
Not strictly true, the idea as presented originally by Marx stated that it would be inevitable, not that it was desireable, and the philosophy has been nuanced widely since, often in quite contraditory ways, like any political philosophy of any significant vintage.
Anyway, as people have said in the last few posts, this is rather off-topic given the conversation is really predicated on the notion that the counter demonstration is primarily composed of communists and therefore no better than those engaged in the initial demonstration, which is nonsense, so I'll back out of the debate on the ethical acceptability of communism now. Apologies for my part in the derail!
There is plenty of evidence of the connection between communism and violence. Saying that is baseless is completely absurd. But anyway enough of that.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:Rosebuddy wrote: Frazzled wrote:This thread is about a terror attack, not the differences between fascists and communists (may they all die in a fire).
And in this thread about a terror attack carried out by a nazi against socialists, who were counter-protesting the nazis on account of their ideology of genocide, people keep saying that socialists are just as bad and possibly even worse than nazis. They're repeating actual original Third Reich propaganda.
Well said, but this is what the right always does. If it can't deny that it committed the crime, it tries to blame the victim.
Dude, everyone plays the victim in scenarios like this. It doesn't seem to matter who is committing the violence or terrorism.
Yes, but you can tell who the genuine victims are. They're the ones being hit by a car deliberately driven into them at high speed.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Yes, but you can tell who the genuine victims are. They're the ones being hit by a car deliberately driven into them at high speed.
True, but in their minds the white nationalist/supremacists think they are victims. Responding to them with violence will only make things worse.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MonkeyBallistic wrote:Yes, but you can tell who the genuine victims are. They're the ones being hit by a car deliberately driven into them at high speed.
And, as a general rule, if one side is literal Nazis it's a safe bet that the victims are the other guys. Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other hand, responding with sufficient violence means that there are fewer Nazis in the world, which I think is a definite improvement. And, as I recall, this was the solution we used the last time we had a Nazi problem and it worked pretty well.
91440
Post by: Rosebuddy
Blood Hawk wrote:
True, but in their minds the white nationalist/supremacists think they are victims. Responding to them with violence will only make things worse.
The nazis will feel slighted no matter what happens, though. They are fearful and angry over economic and demographic pressures. That leftists don't like nazis is not at all why nazis want to terrorise people. You're blaming the left for its enemy wanting to murder them all.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Blood Hawk wrote: MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Yes, but you can tell who the genuine victims are. They're the ones being hit by a car deliberately driven into them at high speed.
True, but in their minds the white nationalist/supremacists think they are victims. Responding to them with violence will only make things worse.
They will always feel the victim. It's central to their ideology. Fascism doesn't function without someone to do violence upon, and therefore there must always be fostered in Fascism a fear and hatred of the Enemy (whomever the target of the day is). They must always feel slighted and victimized for their ideology to function.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Peregrine wrote:
On the other hand, responding with sufficient violence means that there are fewer Nazis in the world, which I think is a definite improvement. And, as I recall, this was the solution we used the last time we had a Nazi problem and it worked pretty well.
So what does that mean? Starting kill all the people in America who say they are nazi or you think are nazis? Arrest people for thought crimes? We aren't at war with a sovereign nation, we are dealing with a small group of extreme and violent people with a victim hood complex. If they break the law or commit violence or try to commit violence then the authorities should deal with them.
Rosebuddy wrote:
The nazis will feel slighted no matter what happens, though. They are fearful and angry over economic and demographic pressures. That leftists don't like nazis is not at all why nazis want to terrorise people. You're blaming the left for its enemy wanting to murder them all.
I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here. Punching Richard Spencer in the face months ago didn't seem to stop the attacker from driving his car into a crowd.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society? I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Blood Hawk wrote:Peregrine wrote:
On the other hand, responding with sufficient violence means that there are fewer Nazis in the world, which I think is a definite improvement. And, as I recall, this was the solution we used the last time we had a Nazi problem and it worked pretty well.
So what does that mean? Starting kill all the people in America who say they are nazi or you think are nazis? Arrest people for thought crimes? We aren't at war with a sovereign nation, we are dealing with a small group of extreme and violent people with a victim hood complex. If they break law or commit violence or try to commit violence then the authorities should deal with them. Maybe violence isn't the best reponse here.
Rosebuddy wrote:
The nazis will feel slighted no matter what happens, though. They are fearful and angry over economic and demographic pressures. That leftists don't like nazis is not at all why nazis want to terrorise people. You're blaming the left for its enemy wanting to murder them all.
I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Unit1126PLL wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
One way to oppose them is to protest at their rally. Another way is to heckle their leader's press conference so hard he has to abandon it.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Peregrine wrote: 44Ronin wrote:You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Given the fact that the extreme majority of the world has at least some form of state, I think we can pretty conclusively say that merely labeling something "coercive" is not a very relevant thing to say here. Communism is coercive in the same way that any other system of government is coercive, it is a set of laws that everyone must follow regardless of whether or not they personally agree with everything.
Er...no.
The abolition of property rights is a fundamental attack on human rights. A fundamental attack of freedom and liberty.
And communism is not inherently more coercive than other systems of government. For example, a capitalist democracy (such as the US in very recent history) might ban gay marriage for moral reasons, while a communist government might not (after all, who you marry has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and capital), making the communist government freer in that sense.
Communism is inherently more coercive because it aims to remove property rights.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Kilkrazy wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society? I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
One way to oppose them is to protest at their rally. Another way is to heckle their leader's press conference so hard he has to abandon it.
Are those working? The first got someone killed, and the second... isn't working. Not really. (Unless you define 'having little to no measurable effect' as working). Automatically Appended Next Post: 44Ronin wrote: Peregrine wrote: 44Ronin wrote:You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Given the fact that the extreme majority of the world has at least some form of state, I think we can pretty conclusively say that merely labeling something "coercive" is not a very relevant thing to say here. Communism is coercive in the same way that any other system of government is coercive, it is a set of laws that everyone must follow regardless of whether or not they personally agree with everything.
Er...no. The abolition of property rights is a fundamental attack on human rights. A fundamental attack of freedom and liberty.
And communism is not inherently more coercive than other systems of government. For example, a capitalist democracy (such as the US in very recent history) might ban gay marriage for moral reasons, while a communist government might not (after all, who you marry has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and capital), making the communist government freer in that sense.
Communism is inherently more coercive because it aims to remove property rights.
You know, I'm not a communist, but you really should look up the difference between Personal Property and Private Property. Theoretical Communism does not abolish all concepts of property at all in any form.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Unit1126PLL wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
One way to oppose them is to protest at their rally. Another way is to heckle their leader's press conference so hard he has to abandon it.
Are those working? The first got someone killed, and the second... isn't working. Not really. (Unless you define 'having little to no measurable effect' as working).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
44Ronin wrote: Peregrine wrote: 44Ronin wrote:You are correct. Statism is coercive by nature. Communism is an ideology of expanding statism according to its tenets. Therefore expanding coercion and reducing freedoms and liberties by default according to its beliefs
Given the fact that the extreme majority of the world has at least some form of state, I think we can pretty conclusively say that merely labeling something "coercive" is not a very relevant thing to say here. Communism is coercive in the same way that any other system of government is coercive, it is a set of laws that everyone must follow regardless of whether or not they personally agree with everything.
Er...no.
The abolition of property rights is a fundamental attack on human rights. A fundamental attack of freedom and liberty.
And communism is not inherently more coercive than other systems of government. For example, a capitalist democracy (such as the US in very recent history) might ban gay marriage for moral reasons, while a communist government might not (after all, who you marry has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth and capital), making the communist government freer in that sense.
Communism is inherently more coercive because it aims to remove property rights.
You know, I'm not a communist, but you really should look up the difference between Personal Property and Private Property. Theoretical Communism does not abolish all concepts of property at all in any form.
No, it demolishes any personal ownership of a means of production, meaning the government owns all of your ability to produce. Meaning it reduces your personal freedoms. In terms of harsh lessons in history, forced collectivisation meant a dire end for millions of victims.
Communism means the government has a monopoly on trade. Therefore government has a monopoly on your life.
23
Post by: djones520
Bingo. They say those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
We saw it happen in China after the Soviet Union, and it's a shame that there are still so many who haven't learned that lesson.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
Nazism is worse, because in order to adhere to it, you must accept violence as necessary and even encouraged. Violence is good, for a Nazi, as it is how the strong overcomes the weak. One cannot be a Pacifist Nazi.
We're talking about how to deal with Nazism, not how to deal with Communists in the streets. (though someone could pm me with a discussion about that if they like!) Automatically Appended Next Post: Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
Peaceful opposition is not enough, obviously, as that's what was tried by the vast majority of counter-protesters. They weren't the ones who outgunned the police.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
Yes, but sometimes one person's rights infringes on the rights of another person. I could argue that a white supremacist's right to free speech erodes non-white people's right to feel like valued, equal members of society and to not live in an an environment where they feel threatened or intimidated.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Unit1126PLL wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
One way to oppose them is to protest at their rally. Another way is to heckle their leader's press conference so hard he has to abandon it.
Are those working? The first got someone killed, and the second... isn't working. Not really. (Unless you define 'having little to no measurable effect' as working).
Unite The Right failed in their objective of reversing the decision about the statue of Lee.
They failed to "unite the right" since only extremists turned up, proving that the great majority of right-wing (Republican) citizens are not extremists and do not support those causes.
They were exposed as a bunch of cowardly murderous thugs (if it needed to be shown again.)
Their leader attempted to blame the police for the violence and get more support for his cause and was thwarted to the extent he had to be taken away with police protection.
Overall that seems like a pretty good result to me. I don't know what your criteria for success are.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Kilkrazy wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Kilkrazy wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:I am not blaming people. I am just trying to say that violence isn't the answer here.
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
One way to oppose them is to protest at their rally. Another way is to heckle their leader's press conference so hard he has to abandon it.
Are those working? The first got someone killed, and the second... isn't working. Not really. (Unless you define 'having little to no measurable effect' as working).
Unite The Right failed in their objective of reversing the decision about the statue of Lee.
They failed to "unite the right" since only extremists turned up, proving that the great majority of right-wing (Republican) citizens are not extremists and do not support those causes.
They were exposed as a bunch of cowardly murderous thugs (if it needed to be shown again.)
Their leader attempted to blame the police for the violence and get more support for his cause and was thwarted to the extent he had to be taken away with police protection.
Overall that seems like a pretty good result to me. I don't know what your criteria for success are.
Perhaps not having someone murdered in order to accomplish these things.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
You have to understand that prior the Civil War, Americans typically identified themselves by which state they came from, and people in the south didn't move around much.
The reasons for the Civil War are hard to explain in a brief sentence, and there are a wide variety of reasons northerners and southerns fought.
At the root of it, it was about economics. The South relied on slave labor for its economy, while the north had cheap labor from the influx of immigrants. Banning slavery meant destroying the economy of the south. Now who most had more to gain keeping slavery around? Rich plantation owners. Most southerners didn't own slaves. Now this doesn't mean most whites didn't look down on blacks as inferior or with hatred, I am sure many did, but there was a great deal of racism in the north as well and there still is. And going back to the fact that people more identified themselves by the area/state they lived in, and not the country as a whole, many in the south simply signed up to defend their state. And northern whites did not sign up in mass to just free the slaves either, their reasons for signing up are varied as well. They were, first and foremost, putting down a rebellion.
So if you had a father, uncle, grandfather, etc who fought for the south in the civil war, and just about everyone did, you are probably less likely to criticize them especially what southerns blamed the north for. The South was in terrible shape economically for almost a hundred years after the Civil War. While you can justifiably argue they brought it on themselves, at the time many felt it was the only option left for the South. Those who grew up during the reconstruction and hard times to follow would rather blame the north versus blaming their own kin.
I took my GF to Savannah, GA recently that has tons of Civil War monuments, including one in Forsyth Park that is dedicated to the Confederate Dead. Until the last couple of generations, I am sure many of the white people living in Savannah could trace their family history to those who fought for the south.
To say that all symbols of the confederacy from statues to the Confederate Battle Flag is used only to communicate hate is wrong. The reasons individuals identify themselves with those symbols is as complex as the war itself.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
44Ronin wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
At the level of reality, not at the level of theory. As has been pointed out numerous times.
Also, stop harping on the Communists, yes, they're bad. This thread is about Nazis, whom I noticed were conveniently edited out my post that you quoted, perhaps because you didn't care for the point it was making, or you missed it?
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
Yes, but sometimes one person's rights infringes on the rights of another person. I could argue that a white supremacist's right to free speech erodes non-white people's right to feel like valued, equal members of society and to not live in an an environment where they feel threatened or intimidated.
People feel unsafe so we should take away people's constitutional rights? Yea sorry ain't buying that argument.
23
Post by: djones520
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
Yes, but sometimes one person's rights infringes on the rights of another person. I could argue that a white supremacist's right to free speech erodes non-white people's right to feel like valued, equal members of society and to not live in an an environment where they feel threatened or intimidated.
I bet you've spoken out against the Patriot Act, haven't you?
112656
Post by: nfe
44Ronin wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
Ok. My last words on the topic so as to not contribute further to the impending thread lock: tell me about all the violence inherent in the Kibbutz movement.
23
Post by: djones520
nfe wrote: 44Ronin wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
Ok. My last words on the topic so as to not contribute further to the impending thread lock: tell me about all the violence inherent in the Kibbutz movement.
That is not Communism. Period.
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
Blood Hawk wrote: MonkeyBallistic wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
Yes, but sometimes one person's rights infringes on the rights of another person. I could argue that a white supremacist's right to free speech erodes non-white people's right to feel like valued, equal members of society and to not live in an an environment where they feel threatened or intimidated.
People feel unsafe so we should take away people's constitutional rights? Yea sorry ain't buying that argument.
Then I'll ask again. What is it you'd like to be able to say that you think you wouldn't be able to say if your country passed the kinds of anti hate speech laws many European countries have? Automatically Appended Next Post:  djones520 wrote: MonkeyBallistic wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:Unit1126PLL wrote:
How would you suggest Nazi's be opposed in a society?
I'm not sure reasoned discourse works, and we've been "ignoring" them since the beginning. There was a skinhead that patrolled College Ave. in State College PA. My older friends and professors used to say "just ignore him." Ignoring them is what caused the rise of the alt-right, and ultimately led to the death of a woman, 9 black churchgoers, and likely many more I've not heard of and yet to come.
They should be opposed peacefully. Some people are so consumed by their ideology that a productive dialogue isn't likely. But there are others you could convince. If they break the law then they should be punished accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
In the U.K. Laws exist to enable parliament to declare an organisation illegal and make it a criminal offence to be a member. I think you'd call that thought crimes though.
Next time you find yourself saying freedom of speech is the most important freedom, ask yourself this, what is it you'd like to say that you think you wouldn't be able to if you lived in a country with laws against hate speech?
Rights are only rights if everyone has them.
Yes, but sometimes one person's rights infringes on the rights of another person. I could argue that a white supremacist's right to free speech erodes non-white people's right to feel like valued, equal members of society and to not live in an an environment where they feel threatened or intimidated.
I bet you've spoken out against the Patriot Act, haven't you?
I'm not American and I'll confess to having no clue what the Patriot Act is ... so no. My natural British bias though is to be highly suspicious of anything labelled as patriotism.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The left wing didn't have someone murdered. The right wing extremists murdered someone and thereby created a martyr.
79481
Post by: Sarouan
I don't think people here get the point. I mean, sure it's easy to call Fascism or Communism as evil following the way you see things, but I believe it's more important to understand why people support such and such political view.
Indeed, there are always "true believers", but I think it's important to note that not all people living under Fascism or Communism are especially that way. Or would you say whole Germany suddenly became true Nazis to the core once Hitler went into power ? There are people who voted for his party and supported him, but I don't think it's because all of them were hard supporters of his whole ideology.
An old saying tells us that Hell is paved with good intentions. As soon as you use violence to state your ideology is the "one who is right" and would do anything to shut all the others sides pointing what would be wrong, this is where it goes badly. No matter what happens, even if you think what you're doing is in the right, situations like this one or what happened with Russia and Germany in the past will keep happening.
Here, as a fact, there is indeed one man who killed, and from what we learned so far, it seems indeed his own ideology has quite some part to play in that act. Was it wrong? Yes, absolutely. Should we kill all the people who were in the protest for the white pride, just because they were supporting it ? Hell no. Punching a Nazi in the face doesn't solve anything - it's just another burst of violence, that can only breeds more violence. Trying to understand why is he a Nazi and then act in respect of that knowledge so that horrible things can never happen again...it's harder, it takes more time and it's not guaranted to be successful, true, but I think it's the way that is more likely to give meaningful results on long term.
People follow radical ideologies because they think the world doesn't work right and they're not satisfied with how their life is going, not especially because they want to kill everyone else not thinking like them. Someone who has nothing to complain and is happy with their life, has no real reason to change the way things are going.
And let's be honest: as long as one (or many) side(s) will say "shut up and suck it up", you will just fuel the extremes eventually.
91440
Post by: Rosebuddy
44Ronin wrote:
No, it demolishes any personal ownership of a means of production, meaning the government owns all of your ability to produce. Meaning it reduces your personal freedoms. In terms of harsh lessons in history, forced collectivisation meant a dire end for millions of victims.
Forced collectivisation was a necessary component of the war effort against the Third Reich. Even the US switched to a command economy during WW2 because markets are inefficient.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Unit1126PLL wrote: 44Ronin wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
At the level of reality, not at the level of theory. As has been pointed out numerous times.
Also, stop harping on the Communists, yes, they're bad. This thread is about Nazis, whom I noticed were conveniently edited out my post that you quoted, perhaps because you didn't care for the point it was making, or you missed it?
I never spoke of the parties concerned aside from the identity conflation you are spouting.
I didnt conflate either group into simply nazis and communists. I was just taking issue with people that are mistakenly claiming that communism isn't violent. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rosebuddy wrote: 44Ronin wrote:
No, it demolishes any personal ownership of a means of production, meaning the government owns all of your ability to produce. Meaning it reduces your personal freedoms. In terms of harsh lessons in history, forced collectivisation meant a dire end for millions of victims.
Forced collectivisation was a necessary component of the war effort against the Third Reich. Even the US switched to a command economy during WW2 because markets are inefficient.
It occured before world war two. Might want to check up on it before apologetics becomes a bad misconception.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Meanwhile, Trump still hasn't managed to say "white nationalism is bad, stop killing people". He did manage to not waste any time attacking the black CEO who quit his council for not attacking white nationalism.
This also just reinforces my old stance that any statement of his condemning white nationalism is an empty statement unless he makes it on Twitter. That's where his racist alt-right base lives, that's where it needs to be condemned by him.
112656
Post by: nfe
djones520 wrote:nfe wrote: 44Ronin wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Okay, I could engage, but I'm not, because we're wondering again.
Communism is awful, and has it's flaws, but at the theoretical level, one could be both a Communist and a pacifist.
The two are simply incompatible.
Ok. My last words on the topic so as to not contribute further to the impending thread lock: tell me about all the violence inherent in the Kibbutz movement.
That is not Communism. Period.
By all means illustrate exactly how the early kibbutzniks hope for elective egalitarian, collectivist communities with communally held property and pooled money and resources is distinct from all conceptions of communism (but probably in a PM last I go back on my hopes not to contribute further to the point-dodging of the apologists for the hard right).
It's definitely gladdening to see such fervour for the evils of communism in a thread about a hard right murderer. Presumably all you cats would jump into a thread about a guy at a mayday protest using his car to commit murder to tell us about how the victim was almost certainly a Nazi and they're just as bad as the murdering red.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Oh its pretend the right wing violence is worse thab the left wing violence pantomime is it?
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
44Ronin wrote:Oh its pretend the right wing violence is worse thab the left wing violence pantomime is it?
You mean that old, is punching someone in the face better or worse than attempting to commit mass murder with a car debate?
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
MonkeyBallistic wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Oh its pretend the right wing violence is worse thab the left wing violence pantomime is it?
You mean that old, is punching someone in the face better or worse than attempting to commit mass murder with a car debate?
Dunno mate, but throwing rocks at people can certain cause fatalities.
Lets not forget that left wing nut who brassed up the republicans, the antifa agitators who decide to hit people in the head with bike locks and such....caught carrying firearms illegally etc...
No you are correct this one nut in the car is the only example of anyone engaged in the general violence. Violent left wingers are just figments of your imagination.
As far as im concerned both sides engaging in violence are abhorrent. But what is equally disgusting is someone who somehow thinks one sides violence is somehow justified.
112656
Post by: nfe
44Ronin wrote:Oh its pretend the right wing violence is worse thab the left wing violence pantomime is it?
Where'd you get that?
As I read the thread I primarily see three basic posts:
'The driver is a dick, but reds are just as bad because X,Y, and Z'
'Communism isn't innately X, Y, and Z'.
'How about we talk about how a right winger murdered a person and not expend all of our energy on criticising a set of political philosophies that a handful of people on the same protest as the victim may have subscribed to'
I apologise for having been the second, and suggest we all listen to the third.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
nfe wrote:
As I read the thread I primarily see three basic posts:
'The driver is a dick, but reds are just as bad because X,Y, and Z'
'Communism isn't innately X, Y, and Z'.
'How about we talk about how a right winger murdered a person and not expend all of our energy on criticizing a set of political philosophies that a handful of people on the same protest as the victim may have subscribed to'
I apologise for having been the second, and suggest we all listen to the third.
Then of course there are the people who aren't talking about communism at all because it's off topic.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Its more the case of ignoring violence on the left that was involved, and has been ongoing.
You know, its called handwaving and its intellectually dishonest
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
44Ronin wrote:Its more the case of ignoring violence on the left that was involved, and has been ongoing.
You know, its called handwaving and its intellectually dishonest
So how many people did the "left" kill in anti-racist protests?
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
 Bromsy wrote:nfe wrote:
As I read the thread I primarily see three basic posts:
'The driver is a dick, but reds are just as bad because X,Y, and Z'
'Communism isn't innately X, Y, and Z'.
'How about we talk about how a right winger murdered a person and not expend all of our energy on criticizing a set of political philosophies that a handful of people on the same protest as the victim may have subscribed to'
I apologise for having been the second, and suggest we all listen to the third.
Then of course there are the people who aren't talking about communism at all because it's off topic.
I say its on topic given the violence surrounding the fracas and antifa are one of these groups if not the main communist groups whose political and stated aim is to agitate violence itself.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
44Ronin wrote: Bromsy wrote:nfe wrote:
As I read the thread I primarily see three basic posts:
'The driver is a dick, but reds are just as bad because X,Y, and Z'
'Communism isn't innately X, Y, and Z'.
'How about we talk about how a right winger murdered a person and not expend all of our energy on criticizing a set of political philosophies that a handful of people on the same protest as the victim may have subscribed to'
I apologise for having been the second, and suggest we all listen to the third.
Then of course there are the people who aren't talking about communism at all because it's off topic.
I say its on topic given the violence surrounding the fracas and antifa are one of these groups if not the main communist groups whose political and stated aim is to agitate violence itself.
Well, the mods have said it's off topic so I'd say it's a good idea to drop it, hmm?
82281
Post by: MonkeyBallistic
44Ronin wrote: MonkeyBallistic wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Oh its pretend the right wing violence is worse thab the left wing violence pantomime is it?
You mean that old, is punching someone in the face better or worse than attempting to commit mass murder with a car debate?
Dunno mate, but throwing rocks at people can certain cause fatalities.
Lets not forget that left wing nut who brassed up the republicans, the antifa agitators who decide to hit people in the head with bike locks and such....caught carrying firearms illegally etc...
No you are correct this one nut in the car is the only example of anyone engaged in the general violence. Violent left wingers are just figments of your imagination.
As far as im concerned both sides engaging in violence are abhorrent. But what is equally disgusting is someone who somehow thinks one sides violence is somehow justified.
Motive and context is everything. Antifascist attack fascists because they hate fascism. Fascists on the other hand, hate everyone on the planet who isn't white, straight and Christian. I know whom I'd side with.
Tell me though, when was the last occasion that an antifascist protestor deliberately murdered a white supremacist.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
 Co'tor Shas wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Its more the case of ignoring violence on the left that was involved, and has been ongoing.
You know, its called handwaving and its intellectually dishonest
So how many people did the "left" kill in anti-racist protests?
We have a partisan handwave here, because milking victims and circumstances of violence in lieu of having anything intellectual to say is easy.
Or you could just condemn all violence and those seeking violence.
Looks like the low road is your path
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
I thought punching Nazis was a time honored American Tradition.
Captain America, Indiana Jones and Wonder Woman cant all be wrong.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Given that Marx himself said that Communism could only be implemented by violently overthrowing the ruling class, yes anybody who espouses communism is espousing violence. Not to mention attaching themselves to an ideology that killed exponentially more people than the Nazis.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Grey Templar wrote: Steve steveson wrote:No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.
Given that Marx himself said that Communism could only be implemented by violently overthrowing the ruling class, yes anybody who espouses communism is espousing violence. Not to mention attaching themselves to an ideology that killed exponentially more people than the Nazis.
How many other Nazi countries have there been?
Just wondering, given that this is offtopic anyways.
86333
Post by: 44Ronin
Itt; advocates of violence, who somehow manage not only to advocate violence but also complain about violence.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
44Ronin wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Its more the case of ignoring violence on the left that was involved, and has been ongoing.
You know, its called handwaving and its intellectually dishonest
So how many people did the "left" kill in anti-racist protests?
We have a partisan handwave here, because milking victims and circumstances of violence in lieu of having anything intellectual to say is easy.
Or you could just condemn all violence and those seeking violence.
Looks like the low road is your path
Given that one side(the Nazis) came armed and spoiling for a fight, with armed white supremacist militias backing them, is it really a huge surprise that fights broke out and people fought back?
There comes a point where non-violence is just making yourself a victim. The woman who was ran over by this Nazi piece of trash, for example, wasn't "seeking violence". She was part of a peaceful fricking protest.
You still haven't responded to my post regarding these "militant historians" by the by. Automatically Appended Next Post: 44Ronin wrote:Itt; advocates of violence, who somehow manage not only to advocate violence but also complain about violence.
Still waiting for you to reply about the "militant historians".
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
You ever leave Dakka for a couple of days and return to an even crazier, Mad Max-ier forum?
I will however note this:
We had one war involving Nazi's already. Uncountable millions died and unspeakable atrocities were committed on all sides in a carnival of violence that lasted six years. In the modern world we decry the violence involved and reflect on those heinous acts committed by all sides, and readily acknowledge that no side was without sin (often sharing the exact same sins), and that there were glimmers of humanity on all sides as well.
However, nobody is under any illusion as to who the central bad guys ultimately really were, and there are good reasons for that. Those reasons remain valid today.
110703
Post by: Galas
One way to fix this problem is give them a big place like, I don't know. A football stadium, plenty of weapons (No cars allowed), and a "Two sides enter, only one leaves" and let them resolve their problems here.
We can give the winners a small island in the pacific to create their own uthopia, be it a fascist state or a communist/anarquist communa.
Is only a win/win for society as a whole.
37231
Post by: d-usa
My guess, considering this is a threat about a Hitler loving guy using his car as a weapon to kill someone:
Examples of self proclaimed communists using violence in the US: on topic, if you want to go "both sides are bad m'Kay" I guess.
Discussions about the merits of communism and the history of it: not on topic.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
44Ronin wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: 44Ronin wrote:Its more the case of ignoring violence on the left that was involved, and has been ongoing.
You know, its called handwaving and its intellectually dishonest
So how many people did the "left" kill in anti-racist protests?
We have a partisan handwave here, because milking victims and circumstances of violence in lieu of having anything intellectual to say is easy.
Or you could just condemn all violence and those seeking violence.
Looks like the low road is your path
Mate, how is asking for an example of what you claim the "low road"? Back up your claims.
9594
Post by: RiTides
This thread has gotten wayyyyy off topic, and probably run its course, anyway.
I'm locking it for now - if there's a major development in the next few days and you feel it should be reopened, please PM me then.
|
|
