Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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?

 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.

 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.

 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:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Responding to them with violence will only make things worse.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

 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?

 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.

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.

 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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

...
...

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.

The left wing didn't have someone murdered. The right wing extremists murdered someone and thereby created a martyr.

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.