First they came for the anti-fascists

[PyramidHead]

If you were a fascist or a Nazi who wanted to use the institutions of liberal society to gain a foothold and push your agenda, can you think of a better message to help your cause than "mass popular uprisings publicly opposing fascism is what makes fascism stronger"?

EDIT: Wait, maybe the best message is "mass popular uprisings publicly opposing fascism are actually terrorism"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you were a fascist or a Nazi who wanted to use the institutions of liberal society to gain a foothold and push your agenda, can you think of a better message to help your cause than "mass popular uprisings publicly opposing fascism is what makes fascism stronger"?

EDIT: Wait, maybe the best message is "mass popular uprisings publicly opposing fascism are actually terrorism"

Well it isn't like the President encouraged violence against protesters (he wasn't elected yet). Or the GOP didn't immediately expel the Montana Representative because he physically assaulted a reporter (well, actually they didn't).

Wait... we need to be talking about how antifa somewhere lit a trash can on fire.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This shit is at the level of an entire state government openly celebrating white supremacy. There is nothing to love here and no way to calmly reason your way around this. People who want to remove nonwhites from society are part of our ruling class and they're counting on people like JP to relentlessly apologize, equivocate, and downplay the threat they represent. They don't need to count on a complacent government or law enforcement apparatus; that's been in place for years.

I haven't and don't downplay anything when I say that you are part of the problem if you advocate for violence instead of defeating people in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[PyramidHead]

This shit is at the level of an entire state government openly celebrating white supremacy. There is nothing to love here and no way to calmly reason your way around this. People who want to remove nonwhites from society are part of our ruling class and they're counting on people like JP to relentlessly apologize, equivocate, and downplay the threat they represent. They don't need to count on a complacent government or law enforcement apparatus; that's been in place for years.

I haven't and don't downplay anything when I say that you are part of the problem if you advocate for violence instead of defeating people in the marketplace of ideas.

Please tell me how the marketplace of ideas has any currency for this person:

 

[dismal]

This shit is at the level of an entire state government openly celebrating white supremacy. There is nothing to love here and no way to calmly reason your way around this. People who want to remove nonwhites from society are part of our ruling class and they're counting on people like JP to relentlessly apologize, equivocate, and downplay the threat they represent. They don't need to count on a complacent government or law enforcement apparatus; that's been in place for years.

I haven't and don't downplay anything when I say that you are part of the problem if you advocate for violence instead of defeating people in the marketplace of ideas.

Please tell me how the marketplace of ideas has any currency for this person:

View attachment 22884

View attachment 22885

View attachment 22886

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This shit is at the level of an entire state government openly celebrating white supremacy. There is nothing to love here and no way to calmly reason your way around this. People who want to remove nonwhites from society are part of our ruling class and they're counting on people like JP to relentlessly apologize, equivocate, and downplay the threat they represent. They don't need to count on a complacent government or law enforcement apparatus; that's been in place for years.

I haven't and don't downplay anything when I say that you are part of the problem if you advocate for violence instead of defeating people in the marketplace of ideas.

Personally, I think you are a major part of the problem because you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This shit is at the level of an entire state government openly celebrating white supremacy. There is nothing to love here and no way to calmly reason your way around this. People who want to remove nonwhites from society are part of our ruling class and they're counting on people like JP to relentlessly apologize, equivocate, and downplay the threat they represent. They don't need to count on a complacent government or law enforcement apparatus; that's been in place for years.

I haven't and don't downplay anything when I say that you are part of the problem if you advocate for violence instead of defeating people in the marketplace of ideas.

Please tell me how the marketplace of ideas has any currency for this person:

View attachment 22884

View attachment 22885

View attachment 22886

He seems to be advocating for violence against those he views as threats, a lot like you. Switch "left" with "right" and I don't see a big difference, especially in that second post. That text of that second post could be posted by a neo-nazi or by an Antifa person. Its not easy at first read to tell if the author is with or against the Proud Boys. It speaks of protecting Americans from domestic terrorists. Who does it mean by citizens and who does it mean by terrorists? It could go either way if not joined with the image and the first post above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

 

[ZiprHead]

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?​

 

[dismal]

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?​

Nope. Everyone advocating violence against speech is on low ground.​

 

[PyramidHead]

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

You're so, so close. You're almost there. You've identified that there are two forces: neo-Nazis and those who are opposed to neo-Nazis. They both want to fight each other because they both think the other is a terrorist. They both are willing to use violence. Now... here's the part where you need to actually consult something called a moral compass. Between these two otherwise equivalent forces (well, actually not equivalent since one side brings guns and the other usually brings food), can you identify anything about their ideology that might make one of them worth calling a terrorist but not the other? Anything? I'll give you a hint: it's something about wanting the genocide of an entire population of people based on their skin color. I know it's a lot to ask for you to independently make an ethical judgement between "nazis" and "minorities and liberals". I know that it must be confusing when both sides say mean things about each other; who am I supposed to support, the Nazis who want to stop antifa from hurting other Nazis, or the antifas who want to stop Nazis from harming minorities? What a head-scratcher!!​

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?

No, that's not what I believe.

It amazes me that I have to continuously spell it out: Racism bad. Sexism bad. Bigotry bad. Prejudice bad. Mob violence bad. Full stop.

When one group of prejudiced zealots oppose another group of prejudiced zealots, they will feed into each other in a cycle and prop each other up. This is the nature of the blood feud. This happens regardless of one side being worse than the other. And both of these sides both see themselves as the good guys, no matter how demented their thinking may be. And speaking of these as sides is itself a problem, because usually the majority isn't for either violent zealot, but for sanity, peace and civil discussion.

Do you seek to marginalize those who push bigotry, or do you seek to inflame prejudice, create martyrs, spark more bigotry, zealotry and hatred, and recruit more to both violent and hateful "sides" and encourage greater and greater violence and fascism?

Your choice is yours. I've made mine.

 

[dismal]

You lose any moral capacity you might have to criticize violent people while you advocate violence yourself.

I see those people as bad. And your equivalent.

Yes, and again, does the following text not read like something Pyramidhead could have posted in this thread?

"We will be holding a rally in Portland in response to the city of Portland allowing domestic terrorists (nazis) to run their city and endanger American citizens (minorities and liberals). Free speech was fought for and paid for with blood, it will not be lost for anything else"

"Get your weapons ready. Be ready because the

isn't playing around anymore, and neither should we"​

You're so, so close. You're almost there. You've identified that there are two forces: neo-Nazis and those who are opposed to neo-Nazis. They both want to fight each other because they both think the other is a terrorist. They both are willing to use violence. Now... here's the part where you need to actually consult something called a moral compass. Between these two otherwise equivalent forces (well, actually not equivalent since one side brings guns and the other usually brings food), can you identify anything about their ideology that might make one of them worth calling a terrorist but not the other? Anything? I'll give you a hint: it's something about wanting the genocide of an entire population of people based on their skin color. I know it's a lot to ask for you to independently make an ethical judgement between "nazis" and "minorities and liberals". I know that it must be confusing when both sides say mean things about each other; who am I supposed to support, the Nazis who want to stop antifa from hurting other Nazis, or the antifas who want to stop Nazis from harming minorities? What a head-scratcher!!​

There's nothing wrong with being against Nazis. Almost everyone is against Nazis. The mistake you're making is in assuming you can't be against Nazis and still have vile uncivilized beliefs.

Stalin was against Nazis. He did more to stop the actual Nazis than anyone. That doesn't mean he didn't also have vile beliefs and practices.​

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They both want to fight each other because they both think the other is a terrorist. They both are willing to use violence.

And they both see it as binary; us vs them. What you are missing here is that both of these types of zealots are prone to mischaracterizing the rest of us as being on the opposing side to themsleves if we don't 100% back them in their zealotry and violence.

can you identify anything about their ideology that might make one of them worth calling a terrorist but not the other?

If they both push violence against innocents that they assume with prejudice are the threatening enemy, then they are both problems.

Anything? I'll give you a hint: it's something about wanting the genocide of an entire population of people based on their skin color.

I'll give you a hint. Very few of the people your militants target actually want genocide of an entire population of people based on their skin colour. Very few. Those who do want that hold criminal and murderous intent, and the vast majority of those you demonize and attack could have been (and most still will be) your allies against such people if you let them.

I know it's a lot to ask for you to independently make an ethical judgement between "nazis" and "minorities and liberals".

Not in the slightest, especially since I am both not white and a liberal.

 

[ZiprHead]

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?

No, that's not what I believe.

You might want to have a talk with dismal.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So I guess we're back to Square#1 here. The usual suspects will continue to be critical of antifa group membership and be silent on arresting group members as terrorists, while these usual suspects continue to preach about Love when it comes to Nazi membership.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?

No, that's not what I believe.

You might want to have a talk with dismal.

He's a minority view poster on here. Why do you hate minorities?



No, but seriously.... I haven't beed reading dismal throughout the thread. What in particular should I talk to him about? His last post above is 100% correct. There is nothing wrong with being against Nazis, and most people are against Nazis. And you can be against Nazis and also have problematic beliefs, and Stalin is a prime example.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?

No, that's not what I believe.

It amazes me that I have to continuously spell it out: Racism bad. Sexism bad. Bigotry bad. Prejudice bad. Mob violence bad. Full stop.

You can't just be concentrating on that flesh eating bacteria when you could have tardigrades all over your skin!

 

[PyramidHead]

So you believe neither side has the moral high ground?

No, that's not what I believe.

It amazes me that I have to continuously spell it out: Racism bad. Sexism bad. Bigotry bad. Prejudice bad. Mob violence bad. Full stop.

When one group of prejudiced zealots oppose another group of prejudiced zealots, they will feed into each other in a cycle and prop each other up. This is the nature of the blood feud. This happens regardless of one side being worse than the other. And both of these sides both see themselves as the good guys, no matter how demented their thinking may be. And speaking of these as sides is itself a problem, because usually the majority isn't for either violent zealot, but for sanity, peace and civil discussion.

This is rank inanity and it stinks to high heaven. What exactly are antifa zealously prejudiced against? The KKK?

Let's cut to the chase here. The only reason you and dismal (and Jason, and whoever else wants to chip in their support for the wrong side of history) are so fixated on turning a grassroots resistance movement with no central ideology into some cabal of savages is because somewhere along the way, you lost the capacity to recognize a problem that liberal institutions of governance are unequipped to solve. Giving antifa the benefit of the doubt would force you to concede that true power resides in the hands of ordinary people taking direct action in response to existential threats on their own terms, rather than technocratic elites--whether they be politicians or CEOs--deciding on our behalf when enough is enough. It's not about violence, otherwise you wouldn't rush to the defense of cops, military personnel, insurance companies, corporations, bureaucrats, and YES, NAZIS, when they inflict incredible violence on us all as a civilization with impunity. Yours is a position impossible to falsify: it will never be the case that fascism is an actual threat, and even if it were, it will never be the case that rational discussion is inadequate to stem the tide.

Despite history providing zero examples of ascendant fascism being defeated by civility, and ample examples of fascism becoming a worldwide crisis due to nobody taking it seriously in its early phases... which, once again, could not possibly be what's happening now, and even if it were, this time we'll be okay as long as we elect smart people to rule us, etc. What you present as an aversion to violence in all forms is actually a real disdain for the working class, the poor, and anybody who has been left behind by the same system now being taken over by Pepe the Frog and his clown brigade of race realists. They are supposed to get out of the way while the best and brightest in DC and Wall Street solve all their problems for them through legislation and compromise. Or just consult the constitution, and maybe something something free market, while their neighborhoods are overrun by far-right instigators with guns and bombs. If they start having ideas about autonomous mobilization, that would mean social challenges aren't best tackled by a small minority in possession of all the merit, or all the property. That's what's actually going on here, in this thread and in every disingenuous pearl-clutching over milkshakes.

 

[ZiprHead]

You might want to have a talk with dismal.

He's a minority view poster on here. Why do you hate minorities?



No, but seriously.... I haven't beed reading dismal throughout the thread. What in particular should I talk to him about? His last post above is 100% correct. There is nothing wrong with being against Nazis, and most people are against Nazis. And you can be against Nazis and also have problematic beliefs, and Stalin is a prime example.

Because he thinks people fighting against nazis and fascists are just as bad as the nazis and fascists themselves.

Nope. Everyone advocating violence against speech is on low ground.