Bricked up
-
Im being a crybaby? Sorry, im not following.
Yup. Catch on.
-
Fascism is an ideology based on the oppression of other people. The whole ideology is based around not coexisting with other people. And it's not just trans people fascists have a problem with. It's literally anyone who isn't straight, white and also a fascist.
The only way to coexist with fascists is to pretend to be one at which point, what you're doing is worse than violence you're pretending there isn't a problem and allowing them to hurt other people. Fascists choose violence as their plan A. If you allow them to spew their hate you might as well lynch an immigrant yourself.
You can't coexist with them because you label them as fascists whether it makes sense or not. You sound just as unhinged as the caricature of others you are describing as fascism.
-
Yup. Catch on.
Yeah im trying. What did I say/do?
-
Yeah im trying. What did I say/do?
“It's a good question.
One problem with "fascists should be met w violence" is in the lack of definition for fascist. I can tell you, in my experience, saying something like "I don't want universal healthcare" is enough to earn me the label of "fascist" in leftwing forums like Lemmy and Reddit.
If the logic is "people who disagree are fascists, and fascists deserve violence" or more simply "people who disagree deserve violence"... well isn't that what fascists say??
Do you agree that that example at least highlights a serious problem in the chain of logic?”
That. That is a very long winded way to tell people you are a thin skinned crybaby who thinks criticism is persecution.
-
You can't coexist with them because you label them as fascists whether it makes sense or not. You sound just as unhinged as the caricature of others you are describing as fascism.
I'm not playing chess anymore, it's pointless.
-
I'm not playing chess anymore, it's pointless.
"I'm gonna stay angry and uncompromising, just like I planned."
-
"I'm gonna stay angry and uncompromising, just like I planned."
If you were in charge of Britain in the second world war, how would you have handled the rise of nazi Germany?
-
If you were in charge of Britain in the second world war, how would you have handled the rise of nazi Germany?
The exact same way it was, which is to withhold violence unless you or an ally you have sworn to defend is attacked.
-
The exact same way it was, which is to withhold violence unless you or an ally you have sworn to defend is attacked.
So to use violence then? Because the thing with fascism is that there are exactly 0 instances of fascist regimes existing peacefully. Not a single one. Fascism requires violence to work. It unites people in hatred of minority groups. The reason Putin is still waging war today despite having lost several hundred thousand troops, most of Russia's armoured vehicles, a third of their strategic bomber fleet, half the black sea navy, and almost all international trade is because if he stops then his loyal followers will no longer fall in line. He needs to frame NATO as being the reason people's lives are shit. Hitler needed to vilify the Jews because without a scapegoat he wouldn't be able to get people to rally behind him. Pol pot and Stalin used academics as their scapegoats. But the common thread here is that fascism requires the persecution of one or more minority groups to survive. So yeah violence is the only option when dealing with fascists the only real choice is whether it's done to the fascists or someone who hasn't done anything wrong and just wants to live their life in peace.
-
So if you were walking through the streets of Mariupol and saw a russian soldier violently raping a child (I use this example because it's not uncommon) you'd, what, ask them nicely to stop, let them get on with it?
-
That implies animals are lesser than fascists.
it implies violence is unacceptable towards life
-
So to use violence then? Because the thing with fascism is that there are exactly 0 instances of fascist regimes existing peacefully. Not a single one. Fascism requires violence to work. It unites people in hatred of minority groups. The reason Putin is still waging war today despite having lost several hundred thousand troops, most of Russia's armoured vehicles, a third of their strategic bomber fleet, half the black sea navy, and almost all international trade is because if he stops then his loyal followers will no longer fall in line. He needs to frame NATO as being the reason people's lives are shit. Hitler needed to vilify the Jews because without a scapegoat he wouldn't be able to get people to rally behind him. Pol pot and Stalin used academics as their scapegoats. But the common thread here is that fascism requires the persecution of one or more minority groups to survive. So yeah violence is the only option when dealing with fascists the only real choice is whether it's done to the fascists or someone who hasn't done anything wrong and just wants to live their life in peace.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Carl Schmitt literally wrote the book on fascism as an ideology. Hell, he was even in the Nazi Party, sort of like the Curtis Yarvin of his time. Which is interesting because Yarvin kind of idolizes Schmitt and quotes him frequently. Being in the Nazi Party didn't last very long, though, as he was forewarned that soon he was to be ousted from his role in the Party, as the regime no longer had need of philosophers, and he was also concerned that he would be outed as a Hegelian.
-
So to use violence then? Because the thing with fascism is that there are exactly 0 instances of fascist regimes existing peacefully. Not a single one. Fascism requires violence to work. It unites people in hatred of minority groups. The reason Putin is still waging war today despite having lost several hundred thousand troops, most of Russia's armoured vehicles, a third of their strategic bomber fleet, half the black sea navy, and almost all international trade is because if he stops then his loyal followers will no longer fall in line. He needs to frame NATO as being the reason people's lives are shit. Hitler needed to vilify the Jews because without a scapegoat he wouldn't be able to get people to rally behind him. Pol pot and Stalin used academics as their scapegoats. But the common thread here is that fascism requires the persecution of one or more minority groups to survive. So yeah violence is the only option when dealing with fascists the only real choice is whether it's done to the fascists or someone who hasn't done anything wrong and just wants to live their life in peace.
Comparing NATO to Jews is absurd and you should know that. You might be able to convince me that Russia is a fascist regime, as I am not as familiar with their country, but I would not agree that America is currently under a fascist regime.
-
it implies violence is unacceptable towards life
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"Even" Animals don't deserve it? Why is "even" in that sentence? Are you assuming we would be more willing to hurt animals than we would be to defend ourselves from fascists?
Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance.
