|
Emden posted:Uh, why? Do you think if you moved to Turkey or Whereverthefuckistan the natives would stand up for you there? Hell no. They don't like foreigners at all. Why do you like foreigners over your own people?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:"My own people" aren't those who happen to have been born wherever I happen to have been born, and that's supposed to be relevant only according to some ideology that has only been important for two hundred years or so, "my own people" are people who share my commitment to making the world better. Responding to statements made by Emden will not yield progress in any goal you have had, have, or ever will have. He will not stop being a Nazi on this internet forum until he runs out of 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That's fair. I mean, it's vigilantism but I know better than to try and be pro-police on Something Awful. The battle of Cable Street wasn't people standing in the way of a bunch of fascist assholes going to abuse people though. The fascist assholes were going to march through and then presumably bugger off afterward. Leaving aside your ignorance of the historical record here, the question of employing violent means or not is a purely tactical one. I also think that one thing must be made clear here: As I have repeatedly explained, fascist assholes are always going to abuse people sooner or later. It's inherent to the ideology. Even if they don't stomp on immigrants and leftists right now, they are 100% guaranteed going to do so when they feel strong enough. With this in mind, why are you defending a group whose political ideology is literally baded on political violence? Why is the fact tha the blackshirts weren't engaging in violence when marching somehow a relevant factor here? You claim to accept the right to self-defense of the victims of fascism, but why should they have some kind of moral imperative of sticking to nonviolent means when dealing with people who literally want them dead for no reason just because said people are still in the preparatory phase of genocide?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Responding to statements made by Emden will not yield progress in any goal you have had, have, or ever will have. He will not stop being a Nazi on this internet forum until he runs out of HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I also think that one thing must be made clear here: As I have repeatedly explained, fascist assholes are always going to abuse people sooner or later. It's inherent to the ideology. Even if they don't stomp on immigrants and leftists right now, they are 100% guaranteed going to do so when they feel strong enough. The question here is will they ever get strong enough. In Greece I would say that yes they are already strong enough. In Russia I would say they are very close to being strong enough. In Britain, France, or Germany I don't think they are anywhere close to being strong enough. I agree that violence is inherent to fascist ideology, but in Western Europe what local fascist parties exist are so small and insignificant that there is no point in engaging in violence with them aside from catharsis. Violence is inherent to fascist ideology yes, but they still need to achieve a certain threshold where they can achieve what violence they want without getting a boot shoved up their rear end, and that threshold isn't crossed until they manage to corrupt civil authorities such as in Greece. quote:With this in mind, why are you defending a group whose political ideology is literally baded on political violence? Why is the fact tha the blackshirts weren't engaging in violence when marching somehow a relevant factor here? You claim to accept the right to self-defense of the victims of fascism, but why should they have some kind of moral imperative of sticking to nonviolent means when dealing with people who literally want them dead for no reason just because said people are still in the preparatory phase of genocide? Where in the world am I defending fascism? I've repeatedly said that the people who follow it are assholes, that it's a horrible ideology predicated on violence and abuse, and that if it becomes sufficiently powerful everyone has a moral imperative to resist it via all means necessary. I have no idea how you got "defending fascism" from that. Regarding the Battle of Cable Street, I'm saying that engaging fascists such as the blackshirts in violence when they themselves haven't done any violence to provoke it not only plays right into their hands and is counterproductive because it legitimizes their complaints of being oppressed, but it also sets a dangerous precedent of political movements being violently suppressed. Fascism is a disgusting, horrible ideology but outside of places like Greece and Russia is no greater a political threat than the generic right-wing crazies that exist in every country, and saying "it's okay to go out and literally beat them up for their political views because these particular political views have been deemed by the majority to be acceptable to beat up" runs contrary to everything that democracy stands for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I think that you're arguing past one another here. I don't think that Jedit is saying that fascists aren't bad or that they shouldn't be fought against on an international level. I think he's talking domestically, and going out and beating fascists up does absolutely nothing but play into their hands. Also fighting fascism on an international level really plays into their hands given nationalism is such a huge part of fascism. The Allies going to war with the Nazis absolutely proved Hitler's statements and actions preparing for conflict against the "enemies of Germany" thus by your own logic WW2 was bad and legitimised Hitler. quote:The public is not won over with violence, and contrary to what some people seem to think, public opinion is everything in a democracy. Why are significant portion of citizens of Russia or Greece continuing to support the openly violent fascists in their countries then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Wait so you are only allowed to fight against fascism when it has taken over a country? Did German Jews have any right to defend themselves or did they have to wait until things went international? You're allowed to fight fascism wherever you see it, and I would say that is exactly what everyone 'ought to do. The question here is when is violence justified and I would say that violence is only justified when all other means of enacting change are compromised. quote:Also fighting fascism on an international level really plays into their hands given nationalism is such a huge part of fascism. The Allies going to war with the Nazis absolutely proved Hitler's statements and actions preparing for conflict against the "enemies of Germany" thus by your own logic WW2 was bad and legitimised Hitler. International politics are not democratic. Might equals right on the world stage, and I should point out that nobody went to war with Nazi Germany until they began to aggressively expand and take over territory, heavily disrupting the international order and the balance of power in Europe. That was why everyone went to war, not because they were fascists. The true horrors of fascism didn't become evident until later with the discovery of the holocaust. If you are advocating that war is a legitimate means of enforcing morality in accordance with the views of the most powerful states then that is ironic because I thought that this forum hated neoconservative foreign policy. quote:Why are significant portion of citizens of Russia or Greece continuing to support the openly violent fascists in their countries then? In the case of Greece, desperation due to economic woes. In the case of Russia, I'm not sure. You should ask someone who knows more about Russia. I doubt that it's because a majority of Russians are won over politically by violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:Yeah, I know, but it's hilarious to me that he grounds his supposedly immutable primal ur-philosophy or however the gently caress fascists think about life on nationalism, an ideology which was developed in the late 18th/early nineteenth century, maaaaaybe mid-18th if you stretch it. Modern racism is also not that old. No poo poo they weren't modern scientific racists. Probably because they weren't modern. Racism is old as hell and you can dig up laws banning interracial marriage from 7th century Spain and China, Innocent III's speech that launched the crusades specifically calls for "destroying the vile races", the arab slave trade recognized race based distinctions on slavery, and a thousand other instances that make it clear that "modern racism is new" is true only by making a really dumb distinction. SickZip fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Innocent III's speech that launched the crusades specifically calls for "destroying the vile races"... https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=UEBSAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PA383 Edit:  Edit 2: We also have to keep in mind when and by whom this stuff was translated into English. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
SickZip posted:No poo poo they weren't modern scientific racists. Probably because they weren't modern. I'd say it's more true that there are lots of ancient societies that are racism-free, or where racism is extremely different, and that modern racism also has one aspect-- an understanding of genetics and evolution-- that old racists didn't actually have. I agree there is demonstrable 'color of their skin' racism from older times. But the idea of racial supremacy, rather than racial cohesiveness, isn't as easy to prove from those earlier examples.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
We are just doomed to repeat the past aren't we as feckless liberals wring their hands that we might dare do violence to fascists where ever they lay. It should not be safe for a fascist to be a fascist, no matter where they are. They are an affront to "polite" politics to allow them an open forum is the death knell of a democracy. Then again history has show that liberals never really have a problem with fascists since they tend to root out (and kill) those evil socialists who want to change too much too soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Then again history has show that liberals never really have a problem with fascists since they tend to root out (and kill) those evil socialists who want to change too much too soon. This is always my paranoiac fear. Hand-wringing liberal apologism for fascism stops being merely pathetic and starts to become actively disturbing when you realise the history of liberal collusion with fascism. Underneath all the hand-wringing, what I hear as a leftist is 'when poo poo hits the fan, I'm going to buddy up with the people killing you.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
I've always been of the impression that fascism wouldn't make a direct return (it's too closely tied to a history of war, and since most fascist groups are also nationalist it usually seems too close to embracing an enemy), but the ideas still have the same appeal to the bigoted and authoritarian and the same pressures like economics and the scapegoating of minorities emerge. It takes a few generations, of course, since for the people who lived during or close to the war the ideas and beliefs of fascism were fairly well-known and tied directly to horrible crimes like the holocaust. The further away we get from that, though, the easier it is to separate fascism and its particular history from the ideas that make it up. You still get Golden Dawn types waving around their ludicrous not-Swastikas, but fascism will reemerge most strongly under the banner of groups that deliberately avoid styling themselves anything like fascists. For starters, probably no banners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:This is always my paranoiac fear. Hand-wringing liberal apologism for fascism stops being merely pathetic and starts to become actively disturbing when you realise the history of liberal collusion with fascism. The fascists might be the ones pulling the trigger, but it was always the liberals who gave them the gun in the first place. Look at Germany in 1918 and again in 1933. Italy in 1922. Look at how the Republican side in Spain was split into a liberal faction still hand-wringing and trying to come to some kind of understanding while the anarchists and communists were already fighting for dear life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The fascists might be the ones pulling the trigger, but it was always the liberals who gave them the gun in the first place. Look at Germany in 1918 and again in 1933. Italy in 1922. Look at how the Republican side in Spain was split into a liberal faction still hand-wringing and trying to come to some kind of understanding while the anarchists and communists were already fighting for dear life. Granted, the Communists then stabbed the Anarchists in the back...although this was largely to benefit an alliance errr popular front with liberals. Basically, liberalism is toxic in the long term and will eventually facilitate the rise of strong-men. My theory is that 1945 to the 1989 was a lull largely created by the necessity of reform due to the Cold War and the aftermath of WW2. Basically, at that point, we picked up where the 1930s had left off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I've always been of the impression that fascism wouldn't make a direct return (it's too closely tied to a history of war, and since most fascist groups are also nationalist it usually seems too close to embracing an enemy), but the ideas still have the same appeal to the bigoted and authoritarian and the same pressures like economics and the scapegoating of minorities emerge. Someone up thread used the term Para-Fascists to describe this situation where were going to see fascism or its trappings more and more in politics. I think with that we see the Republicans are a Para-Fascist party. There is no need for street gangs to go in the street and beat up the Left, they have the police do it and drape it in legal trappings. The rest of the world is just slightly behind America on this, and the Tories in the UK are fast adapting to this idea. Kieselguhr Kid posted:This is always my paranoiac fear. Hand-wringing liberal apologism for fascism stops being merely pathetic and starts to become actively disturbing when you realise the history of liberal collusion with fascism. This is a constant fear I have as well. It is especially stark I find when me and my liberal friends start debating various conservatives the second I go just too far to the left for the liberal they start backing up the conservative. I get the feeling that maybe its not paranoid to hear that when they complain about being mean to fascists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
If the Republicans are para-fascist, what does that make Russia? Is it even possible to have an effective antifa movement in Russia those days when the government is openly supporting groups like Occupy Pedophilyaj?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Only socialists and communists should have their rights to assemble, protest, and participate in politics protected guys. Anyone who is further right than that should be barred via violence because their views are just wrong. Also only people on the far left have the right to decide whose views are wrong and should be barred. The lack of self-awareness in this thread is nothing short of astonishing. Everyone has the right to assemble, protest, and participate in politics no matter how vile and ugly their opinions are. This is the very foundation of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Only socialists and communists should have their rights to assemble, protest, and participate in politics protected guys. Anyone who is further right than that should be barred via violence because their views are just wrong. Also only people on the far left have the right to decide whose views are wrong and should be barred. See this is you sticking up for fascism. This makes you an rear end in a top hat. Just keep that in mind. I don't get why it's so crazy that people who espouse a love for ethic cleansing should be kept out of the political sphere of influence. That they beliefs are so backward and loving wrong that well it is evil, its pure human evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
crusader_complex posted:The only moral protest is my protest (nonviolent, from my computer desk).  Somebody posted this video about Golden Dawn in the Eurozone economic thread. Highlights include a GD member of the Greek parliament comparing his party to Hezbollah (in that they both form a "second government" that helps their own people), that same person manning a store full of fascist thug memorabilia while saying that Greeks should kill those responsible instead of committing suicide, and a woman who was a lifelong socialist before turning to GD after being mugged by "migrants" multiple times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOpzRkX3ihU
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:See this is you sticking up for fascism. This makes you an rear end in a top hat. Just keep that in mind. Some would consider many far-left ideologies to also be pure human evil, but no one in this thread seems to support street violence against Communists, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:See this is you sticking up for fascism. This makes you an rear end in a top hat. Just keep that in mind. He's arguing against the use of violence to exclude people from politics, and then you say he's sticking up for fascism. I think the key is that we should be opposed to any groups using violence to keep people out of politics, and that means not using violence against right-wing groups until they are actively becoming violent themselves. You can't justly ban a form of political discourse because it tends to lead to harm, even though that's a really tempting concept when you have a turn holding the reins of power. Groups in Greece and Russia have already crossed the line while there aren't comparable groups in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:See this is you sticking up for fascism. This makes you an rear end in a top hat. Just keep that in mind. And what about people who believe that communism is evil and that sticking up for it makes you an rear end in a top hat because of the terrible legacies of people like Stalin and Mao? But I guess that they don't count because their opinions are "just wrong." The world is not so goddamned simple that you can bar large swathes of people from democratic assembly simply because you don't like their views. You know what that's called? Authoritarianism. Something which incidentally many people associate with far-left ideology. So I suggest that you get off your high horse. And no, I wasn't sticking up for fascism. Fascism is a great darkness that millions of people gave their lives to save us from. It is a horrible, vile, brutish and horrific ideology that in a just world would never see the light of day ever again. But its ugliness does not justify barring people from the democratic process. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Only socialists and communists should have their rights to assemble, protest, and participate in politics protected guys. Anyone who is further right than that should be barred via violence because their views are just wrong. Also only people on the far left have the right to decide whose views are wrong and should be barred. Jesus Christ, people are getting killed because of this. Sorry if wanting to ban people who only use violence in order to kill people they hate and live solely to do that from assembly is the same as a GULAG, which by the way held lest people in numbers and per capita than the current US prison system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Chamale posted:He's arguing against the use of violence to exclude people from politics, and then you say he's sticking up for fascism. I think the key is that we should be opposed to any groups using violence to keep people out of politics, and that means not using violence against right-wing groups until they are actively becoming violent themselves. The problem with this is even when they are "peaceful" they intent is still violence. Their rhetoric is violence, they're ultimate goal is violence. I would say it's like, but it actually is hate speech, they don't demonstrate to express an opinion, the march in the streets to instill fear in a target population. Coddling them, only encourages them, we've seen it all before and it ends in tragedy, these people don't want to conform to liberal democratic processes, they view that process as an evil to do away with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Jesus Christ, people are getting killed because of this. Sorry if wanting to ban people who only use violence in order to kill people they hate and live solely to do that from assembly is the same as a GULAG, which by the way held lest people in numbers and per capita than the current US prison system. Fojar argued upthread it is a moral imperative to attack violent fascists. Fojar38 posted:I can agree with this. If civil authorities, especially the police or god forbid the military are corrupted by the fascist movement then I would say that it is not only justified to oppose them but also a moral imperative to do so with all means necessary including violent resistance. Also, the reason the Gulag held fewer people than the U.S. system is turnover - 1.6 million people were murdered or worked to death in the camps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's returned and it's advancing faster than anyone's worst nightmares. It's important to realise that a particular country's outlying factions are not the ones to watch. The overt racist and thugs are discredited and disliked by the upper middle classes which limits their power. For now. Instead pay attention to the narrative of a countries media. In the UK we've had a string of "documentaries" villainising the poor and the problem has slowly creeped its way towards attacking the disabled. A doctor got in a tabloid newspaper complaining that Stephen Hawking works so disabled people should not get benefits. There was leaked documents from the government of a canceled workfair (work for access to benefits, slavery by another name) project that would "house" disabled people in "centers" where they could be "productive". It was a plan for bringing back the workhouse and this time for disabled people. In the UK the media is either supporting the government or ignoring issues it feels it cannot put a positive spin on. It has nothing negative to say which is indicative of the unfolding agenda. This post was from a bit back but it's putting my thoughts more eloquently than I've did earlier in the thread. The way right-wing politics is taking shape in the west is very disturbing but that's not necessarily means a return to fascism. Fascism in my mind is a very specific and unmistakable type of political movement and what we are seeing is not the revival of big-f Fascism but a more insidious ideology that has way more chance of success and the results might not necessarily mean a better result than a Fascist government. We are seeing the normalization of trampling on individual liberties under the guise of maintaning security and public order. We are seeing advocation of "natural" hierarchies and we are seeing general scape-goating of everything foreign or deviant. But these things are not done in a fascist manner or with fascist organizations. If anything we are seeing the revival of conservatism as liberal democracy falters. True conservatism, that is... The kind that does not even pretend to pay lip service to liberalism. The kind that would hand the country to fascists if they believed it was slipping out of their control. I mean we can talk about whether bashing the fash is the right thing to do for pages here, even though very few in this forum actually has experience in such matters. But frankly? It does not matter unless you are in somewhere like Greece or some eastern European place teetering on the collapse. You are wasting your time with this kind of posturing when there are far more bigger developments going on. Don't get tunnel-vision when it comes to this issue is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But I guess that they don't count because their opinions are "just wrong." The world is not so goddamned simple that you can bar large swathes of people from democratic assembly simply because you don't like their views. You know what that's called? Authoritarianism. Something which incidentally many people associate with far-left ideology. So I suggest that you get off your high horse.  Russians being massacred by Fascist Germans  http://i.imgur.com/fQjGxfb.pngEthiopians massacred by Fascist Italians  Clément Méric, a French anti-fascist activist who was brutally beaten to death for using words. http://i.imgur.com/GtTVE3f.jpgA gay Russian man beaten by Russian fascists and is now dead gently caress Fascism. Christ, the one good thing the US and UK did in the 20th century was fight fascism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Fojar argued upthread it is a moral imperative to attack violent fascists. Fascists are violent by definition, violence informs the core of their identity. The us prison system also systemically instills rape in its prisoners, to the point that we make jokes about it. Think how hosed up that is and what that says about our society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Kindly don't be so condescending as to treat me as though I don't know what fascism entails. I think that I've been very clear thus far as to precisely what my opinions of fascism are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
LP97S posted:
Hey, here are some innocents murdered by Communists, Democrats, and Republicans:    Removing accountability from the political process and allowing "might makes right" never ends well. The arguments to allow suppression of law-abiding fascists could also be used to crush other movements if the tables ever turn and simply shouldn't be tolerated. I'm arguing that we should start bashing fascists after they break the law, not crush any nascent political movement whose law-abiding members have opinions simply too different for the government to allow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Kindly don't be so condescending as to treat me as though I don't know what fascism entails. I think that I've been very clear thus far as to precisely what my opinions of fascism are. Really cause it seems like you don't know what fascism entails if you think you can deal with them in a civil manner. Chamale posted:Hey, here are some innocents murdered by Communists, Democrats, and Republicans: Well I guess its good then we have the police repress any group further to the left of the accept Neo-Liberal position then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Hey, here are some innocents murdered by Communists, Democrats, and Republicans: At least the last two and even to some extent the first one pretends that those were horrible mistakes or necessary instead of being back-slapping cool about it and say "good starts!" Jesus, 30 million exterminated isn't enough of a reason to hate Fascism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Communism in China resulted in the deaths of 49-78 million people. Stalin alone personally wiped out seven million people in his purges. Most of these were not soldiers. So when people on this forum advocate for communism to have its due place in the democratic process are they hand waving all those deaths? Again, this isn't about defending fascism. This is about defending the democratic process and keeping it open for everyone, not just for what movements are deemed sufficiently pure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
LP97S posted:At least the last two and even to some extent the first one pretends that those were horrible mistakes or necessary instead of being back-slapping cool about it and say "good starts!" I'm concerned that my message isn't getting through despite all my attempts to be clear. I hate fascism and think it is terrible. However, I think it's ridiculous for any political group to gain the power to point at an enemy and say "this group must be forbidden from participation in politics." We should resist the suppression of law-abiding political groups in all cases, and applying that standard consistently is more than enough to prevent fascists from taking power. Sometimes the people need to go out with clubs and bash the fash, but allowing that position to be the default legitimizes political violence and inevitably leads to corruption of the unaccountable enforcers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Removing accountability from the political process and allowing "might makes right" never ends well. The arguments to allow suppression of law-abiding fascists could also be used to crush other movements if the tables ever turn and simply shouldn't be tolerated. I'm arguing that we should start bashing fascists after they break the law, not crush any nascent political movement whose law-abiding members have opinions simply too different for the government to allow. Fascism works within the system (or puts up the appearance of) until it thinks it has the strength to take over and crush its opponents. As such, fascist love unwitting collaborators like you since your attitude protects them while they're weak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Jesus, 100 million exterminated isn't enough of a reason to hate Communism? (Yes, I know this figure was more or less deliberately inflated by people who probably had a reactionary agenda, but it shows how easily your line of reasoning can be, and to some extent already has been, turned in directions you probably wouldn't agree with. Also, the actual figure is still higher than 30 million.) Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Fojar38, if you don't want people to be condescending how about dropping dumb rhetoric like "Well you guys aren't talking about banning far left parties, so check mate.  " Fringe parties with Communist leanings are not a growing threat across Eastern Europe and Russia, leading to all the crap that can be found in the OP and in a few other posts in the thread. And yes, if a party started gaining traction and their ideology was literally Bolshevism with a side order of Stalinist purges on the horizon I'd be up in arms about it. But your example of "well what about left parties people dislike" is the reddest of red herrings. edit: Seriously, this complaint is mad given the thread's topic. Sorry we weren't talking about extremist far left parties, get back to us when they are as relevant in the EU/Russia as the stuff in the OP. Fojar38 posted:The lack of self-awareness in this thread is nothing short of astonishing. Everyone has the right to assemble, protest, and participate in politics no matter how vile and ugly their opinions are. This is the very foundation of democracy. Do you realize how insanely easy to Godwin this argument is? Should a party who's platform is violence and discrimination be allowed political agency? Do you think Golden Dawn are a legitimate political force, or that what's going on in Russia should be respected in the name of democratic serenity? Is the banning of political parties always wrong in your mind, such as with the Romanian New Right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Fascism works within the system (or puts up the appearance of) until it thinks it has the strength to take over and crush its opponents. As such, fascist love unwitting collaborators like you since your attitude protects them while they're weak. Jesus Christ do you even realize what you're saying? "Liberals like you who don't advocate kneejerk violence are just collaborating with <the enemy.> You are weakening our ideological movement! Impure!" You're using the exact same extremist line of thinking that gives rise to the kinds of attitudes that you purport to be fighting. quote:Do you realize how insanely easy to Godwin this argument is? Should a party who's platform is violence and discrimination be allowed political agency? Do you think Golden Dawn are a legitimate political force, or that what's going on in Russia should be respected in the name of democratic serenity? Is the banning of political parties always wrong in your mind, such as with the Romanian New Right? I'm pretty sure that I've said that what is occurring in Greece has moved beyond politics as the Golden Dawn has begun to use violence. I think that there is a moral imperative to oppose fascists when they become violent. But banning political parties for saying things that you don't like undermines democracy. Violence is the threshold that must be crossed first. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Corvinus posted:Fascism works within the system (or puts up the appearance of) until it thinks it has the strength to take over and crush its opponents. As such, fascist love unwitting collaborators like you since your attitude protects them while they're weak. Out of curiosity, when's the last time you went to an anti-fascist protest? At my city's nazi-free rally in March we had about 300 antifascists to 20 white supremacists and 50 police protecting them from our group. A few guys got around the barricade to try charging the nazis with an axe and got run off by the police.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:01
|
|