Just watched Schindler's List for the first time. Watching media about the holocaust just makes me find the liberal line of "but calling for genocide and organizing for it is just their freeze peach" to be even more infuriating and absurd. I don't understand why they can't have a hierarchy of values, one of them being a society that tolerates a wide range of views in the political sphere but that recognizes that a limit to that range is organizing for mass murder.
As a separate point, media on the Nazis always makes me question my position against the death penalty in all cases because I certainly think executing Nazis at Nuremberg was the right call. The allies didn't execute enough of them, to be honest.
You have to put everything in context. In this case, not just the political scene in Weimar republic but our contemporary liberals who will "defend to the death your right to call for someone else's genocide".
The thing here is that current liberals have lived their entire lives in extremely stable liberal democracies. Arguably, the most stable the West has ever been since at least the Pax Romana. They assume, correctly in this case, that a handful of cunts calling for fascism won't gain traction, and they don't because the countries are prosperous and their politics stable.
Rewind back to Weimar Germany, and everything is a mess. Even after the infamous hyperinflation was controlled, the country was still a powder keg, because the economy and general living conditions were crap and political groups were becoming polarized. To put it simply, the system was critically stable; one disturbance too strong, and down it goes. I don't remember what author used this simile, but he summed up by saying that, in these unstable times and places, there is much less "distance" between speech and action. The instability causes the law to be badly enforced, for judges to be corrupted, for the civil society to react too slowly or even not at all against extremists etc.
So honestly, liberals virtue-signalling by defending fascism apologia as free speech will have no impact now. But come the time when shit hits the fan and the system loses its capacity to keep itself together, then yes, such liberal neutralism is tantamount to defending fascism.
I get the same feelings for wallstreet and banks watching the big short tbh.
All kulaks go to the gulag, nazi kulaks, liberal kulaks etc.
On the topic of Oscar Schinlder, the fact that he owned factories and was allowed to do business proves that the Nazis weren't Socialists.
You know who else bases their belief systems off of fantasy they saw on TV? Liberals
On the note of free speech, it is essential to stability actually. If you suppress it you may slow the spread of ideas but, you also radicalize those you are silencing. Of course in western societies we don't have free speech as speech is dominated by public schools, mainstream media, and astroturfing. (and foriegn propaganda in western colonies) To actually change a society you have to change the culture. The whole rise in nationalism among youths is precisely because they were told not to say and do those things.
I understand that blocking some speech may be necessary in order to prevent foreign counter intelligence in burgeoning countries, but to oppose it in principal is juvenile.
Same tyranny, different priorities
Why does seeing value in free speech mean that free speech must be absolute?
How can someone be a serious leftist and against the death penalty? Do you even revolution, dog?
If it's not impartial, it's not free, it's just more or less constrained
this is absolutely untrue. You can't organize support for ISIS legally, and you shouldn't be able to. Speech isn't absolutely free in a society.
People don't just snap out of who they've always been and arbitrarily decide to go along with something like that simply because they hear about it from some nobody on the street and the meme just seems so dank to them it spirals into an organized machine. This is modern nihilism's caricature of human consciousness.
Any such major disturbances are a reflection of the underlying social unconscious becoming manifest, revealing a pervasive morbidity and unbalance in that society. What ever truth they see you do not, and vice versa. To moralistically call for preemptive punitive censure is just to push that illness back down again out of sight, out of mind, while you get to return to more or less serenely cruising aloft the oceans of blood our luxuriant civilization is built on yourself, whatever you think you're really doing to help.
Whatever liberalism's hypocrisies, freedom of thought as an ideal does tend to keep these unseen pressures from boiling over into a much deeper pathology. The pathologies of the so-called left of today in the West are plain for all to see, revealing the intractable contradictions of the censorial reflex.
And know this, whatever you believe, save a miracle, every possible future pathway we are faced with now it's going to be… deeply unpleasant… for most involved, in ways none of us can even imagine.
the societal consequences of free speech are irrelevant free speech "with exceptions" is simply not free speech
This isn't true. You can have a hierarchy of values. Advocating and organizing for genocide seems to me to cross a line. Courts have found that they can limit speech that is subversive in that you can't advocate overthrow of the government. I don't see why they should tolerate calls for genocide and organizing for it
This is true. The problem I can see is how speech laws are implemented and what is going to be snuck in behind them. especially in the USA where corporations can have the same legal rights as individuals.
Then it would not be free speech, it would be limited speech You can't have your free speech and censor it too The government can be wrong you know
no shit. t. state that totally won't become tyrannical promise
Okay fella, by Nazis you mean about 5k people spread across America (that's being generous) And they don't even do shit to blacks or brown.. Like those vice documentaries and a few others where they have a black guy or woman interview these people, and they aren't even rude to them!
These people are literally fucking nerds and are actually harmless. Nobody takes it seriously except for equally weird "rebel without a cause" leftists that feel like hero's dedicating their life to annoying other nerds on a different team.
Don't be gay.
Well in that case America doesn't have free speech, it has limited speech.
That's part of what the right are protesting about though. Multiculturalism justifies an ever more pervasive security state. People have ways of handling the deviants within their own culture according to its value system, standards and expectations, but when you can be severely socially ostracized or even imprisoned for publicly criticizing a generally impermeable and state protected sect in that society, which fosters its own extreme elements, that then can only be checked by the intrusive state, its easy to see a self-perpetuating cycle into an ever more repressive system.
Really, because I've never seen anyone on the Holla Forums-right make that argument. It's always about the browns making them feel uncomfortable and ethnostates and fun etc. They don't care about a pervasive security state, because in their minds it's "proper function" is targeting those "invasive/disruptive elements" anyway. They care about "protected sects" heh only insofar as they aren't part of one.
It's not like they're a bunch of libertarians chafing under the repressive gauntlet of the police state, they just don't like that this police state isn't doing anything for them. They're only too eager to cheer when this repressive apparatus kills niggers or degenerates or whatever.
I mean, they have already killed Heather Heyer. Other people have died at their hands too. So… no, they are not "harmless." This is a shitty meme.
This is absolutely correct. Shocking how many people fall for this "libertarian" meme though. It's pretty daunting that conservatives hold all the guns and form private militias, openly collude with law enforcement during protests, and then have the gumption to claim they are the ones that are being slighted by the government.
It is absolute insanity.
not a nazi but if watching THAT is what made you understand how bad nazis are then your lost mate
They certainly didn't execute enough of them. Many of the former Nazis went on to live normal lives after the war as if nothing happened. Some ended up in positions of authority and/or power. That's why the RAF was created.
The thing here is that YOU have lived your entire life in some extremely stable liberal democracy and YOU are criticizing people who defend values that allow it to remain that way.
Values that were forged during centuries of bloodshed specifically to prevent the very thing that you claim to worry about. Values that prevent polarization of society. Values that prevent Nazi-like authoritarian takeover.
Since when has liberal democracy been stable? The 90s maybe? If you don't count Bosnia I guess. Liberal democracy is at best 50 years old with the passage of the civil rights act, until then huge swaths of the public could not vote.
you got to be a fucking retard to protest against the very free speech that gives you the ability to protest lol
White right wing terrorism since '92 would have a higher death count than Islamist terrorism in the US if it weren't for 9/11. I'm not even weighing in on the free speech thing, here, I'm just saying they kill a lot of people.
Free speech is good but not for fascists.
Stop being a spooky idealist. Ideas don't hurt people and never can. Having those ideas and expressing them isn't "organizing genocide", nor is recruiting for your autistic methed-up skinhead gang. Further more, why is supporting genocide the redline? Why not go further? Capitalism has killed innumerable more than Fascism, so why not include Libertarianism, ancapism, almost all economic systems as things you an believe or advocate for?
I consider anarcho-transhumanism a form of Fascism. You can't believe it anymore or even dare of talking about it or I'll beat you up and/or cage you.
Try it, bichniqqa.
What in the fuck are you smoking that makes you think liberals want freedom of expression? They want the government to regulate expression so that you cant the feelings of minorities.
Freedom of expression is a human and and it is so for good reason. You can screech "I hate jews" all you want. You can't organize the murder of jews. These are separate things.
A human *right*.
Why won't all the redditors go away?
This is weak sauce. You need to watch hollywood movies to remind you Nazis are rill bad? Comrade wut?
But in essence, no. Free speech is useful because you want your enemies to say what they're thinking. In any event you can't stop people from saying what they want. The whole point of politics is how to get people to want the same thing as you. Driving dissent underground only makes it metastasize. Why this has not thus far lead to a virulent communism is another matter.
Also the death penalty is false comfort. Killing someone doesn't undo what they did. Non-Germans just want to blame the Nazis when as Camus points out all of Western civ has fallen to nihilism at this point and that's the root problem. He also says the first demand of worldwide rev should be for global abolition of the death penalty and I agree.
To be fair, if you're going to deny nazis their right to free speech, should not also commies be denied the same right? After all, communism killed far more people than the nazis did.
HE ACTUALLY POSTED IT THE MADMAN!
The freedom of speech, and the rest of the values of the enlightenment, is the foundation of western civilization. It is why the 1st world is better than the rest of the world. If you deny one group the right to voice their opinions, you are denying everyone the right to voice their opinions.
Defending the freedom of speech isn't virtue-signaling, it's defending ourselves from atrocities. Communism and fascism are basically two sides of the same coin. They are both bad, and both lead to piles of dead bodies.
Yeah, the USA has a stellar track-record of upholding the free speech of communists. It's not like they have perfectly good anti-communist legislation that has been used to prosecute inconvenient socialists before. They would only be able to do that if they had anti-fascist legislation that they could amend against communists, everyone knows that right now the law protects communists from the government.
Stalin can't keep getting away with it!
Might as well watch District 9 and say killing people is right because of what we did to aliens that one time. feels > reals after all. You forget the Dwight "I hate Germans" Eisenhower's death camps. Not to mention all the other camps.
I always found it extremely suspect that people say "I disagree with your opinion but will defend to the death your right to speak it." Who's threatening you with death in this scenario? If you're defending somebody's right to say "my life matters" against someone who's genocidal then sure (and that's probably the original intent of the expression). But the thing is it also applies just as much to a scenario where you're defending a person's right to say "I want to kill you, by the way everyone - here's his address and schedule."
It's one of those aphorisms that people repeat ad nauseam but never really interrogate, and it's exactly the kind of phrase that, unless considerably modified, supports Nazi-like behavior.
And you liked it so much you want to do it again?
Ideally not, but the government already has the means to do so. The narrative freeze-peach advocates are crafting that if we institute legislation to oppose fascism the government would use that to oppose communism is faulty for this reason. The government already has legislation they can use and have used to prosecute communists.
We already don't have unconditional free speech, the second any of us becomes inconvenient to the US government they would not hesitate to invoke the laws they've already crafted for this reason. Making new ones to shut down fascists isn't going to give them a weapon against us they don't already have.
Then perhaps it would be better to instead support free speech. IMO the only read difference between nazis and commies is the uniform.
I'm not convinced that would accomplish anything. I'm fairly certain that nothing is going to come from appealing to the moral sensibilities of capitalists or their state.
Still going to point out that I don't think fascists should be entitled to free speech though.
So I see.
Oh fuck off you idiotic twat.
spielberg is revisionist propaganda designed to fuel amerikan exceptionalism, yes the nazis comitted atrocities and exterminated a lot of people but the film is massively shit and you are a cocksucking pansexual liberal bouji fuckboy, also many czechs despise schindler, he was basically a collaborator, there was a kerfuffe when they tried to put up a statue of him
if you want an understanding of how spielberg operates but are quite obviously incapable of dealing with the spectacle of the holocaust I would suggest you watch an analysis of something like private ryan
the biggest criminal that made all of this possible(outside of hitler and the british fraternities obviously) went scot free at nürnberg, i bet you dont even know who that is
good luck talking to either left or right about the east india company, hsbc, the opium wars or any of that shit, blame the kikes or the fucking commies or muh gapitalism but dont you dare blame the oldest most insular most criminal network in the history of humanity
it does seriously this is a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧TEST🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
hue na immerhin I still get called a loony here often enough when I point out the kind of long games these fuckers have been playing
No you don't, you just want to be argumentative.
T H I S
But then who would help plan their surveillance state, work on their rockets, and do even shadier shit for them?
A small proportion of a crowd brandishing bike locks with malicious intent does not constitute a meaningful threat to free speech. Absolutely any protest with two opposing sides will have some street violence, this infantile whinging is an unwarranted attempt to claim some kind of moral high ground and a product of these people's sheltered lives and narrow political and historical knowledge.
People opposing US imposed dictatorships in South America were disappeared, murdered, or had their families murdered by US backed death squads. Socialist and Union agitators in the US and other countries were brutalized, spied on, unreasonably imprisoned and murdered. People living in SA and other muslim countries are brutalized or killed for not being muslim/the right kind of muslim. Countless other groups and individuals standing against governments and other powerful groups had their lives destroyed by the people they opposed. The idea that this kind of repression is comparable to some petty street violence is pathetic.
Seeing as both communism and nazism resulted in mass murders by the millions, what is the difference?
If you think that those are the only two systems with body counts, you're beyond helping.
Im claiming no such thing.
yes and yes ive probably posted that here 30 times it fills me with joy that you beat me to the punch
Comparatively, capitalism has no mass murderers of note, thankfully. Nobody whose actions resulted in the deaths of millions, certainly.
not that user but I'm not quite sure how you got from the first to the second tbh
He's implying that communism and nazism are the same purely because they resulted in millions of """"murders"""". Capitalism can instantly be given credit with one man with millions of deaths (these are actually murders) to his name, as one user did here If you fell off a stepladder and broke your neck in the USSR you were a victim of communism, so it's pretty odd that it's put up there with actively trying to murder millions of the population but both are worse than capitalism, which saw a King who went full ancapistan for rubber and murder several million Congolese.
Feudalism resulted in the least genocide tbh
This. It's concern trolling. One Nazi with an armband on gets decked in Seattle, and a bunch of mainstream news outlets have their op-eds hand wringing about "free speech". It's an obsession with being "neutral", which also means trying to seem like you have high minded principles. The impetus to jump on any situation like this to explicate your principles is rooted in the fact that all of these cretins regularly support heinous state acts like the Iraq War, drone bombings, the police state and mass incarceration, lack of access to adequate healthcare because UHC is "unrealistic". What a fucking joy when some dipshit NOBODY millenial gets his skull cracked so they can leap to his defense by crying out "I'll defend to the death your right to say it!!! I'm in the historical tradition of highly quoted liberal forefathers! I'm moral!"
Is there a substantial difference at some point? Are you implying lunatic events like pogroms were all done by people with their "minds fucked up"? Or ruthless Nazi murders of eastern europeans? Or tribal genocide in Africa? Or the police brutality against supposed drug users/dealers in the Phillipines? Or the police brutality in the USA? Are all of these people suffering "fucked up minds", or are their heads just sufficiently filled with delusional ideas about the world that drive them to believe their actions are somehow revolutionary, or maybe that their sadism is sanctioned because the people they are murdering are somehow less than human?
Fascists are not people, so no. Communism didn't kill more people.
Everyone likes to feel like the rebel underdog against the big bad society i guess. Even that society's own militia.
by 'liberals' he means classical liberals i think. libertarians. the liberals you're thinking of are the ones that require you to memorise the pronoun encyclopedia and want to regulate speech but don't like punching nazis.
I think fascists and commies have the same right to free speech, even though the ideologies are equally inhumane.
That was colonialism.
Progressives aren't liberals; they are authoritarians.
There is a difference between the death penalty in society and the death penalty in war. Its an inefficient way to do civil justice, but on the international plane its called for.
youtube.com/watch?v=5cZhT_vq4Es This movie is much better at depicting how the rise of fascism uses "free speech" to gain traction. Another fact to be noted is that anti-fascists used tactics and blockages to prevent fascists from organizing
Kinda like today. If antifa really wanted to "defeat" fascism, they would debate them instead of out-fashing the fash.
Isn't this a bit ironic coming from a Communist? Tons of people will have to be exterminated in the global revolution. Trying to make moralist arguments for Communism is a non-starter. Better to say that historical necessity compels the extermination of class enemies and that morality is a bourgeois fiction designed to reinforce class society.
Isn't this a bit ironic coming from someone who believes in capitalism and liberal democracy? Tons of aristocrats and nobles will have to be exterminated in the revolution. Trying to make moral arguments for liberal democracy is a non-starter. Better to say that historical necessity compels the extermination of class enemies and that morality is an attempt by the wealthy to protect the feudal system.
Changing any system requires violence, as those at the head of the system will oppose change, as it is in their self interest. Exterminating Jews would be the goal of Nazis even if they took control without harming a hair on anyone's head. If a state and the bourgeois within it allowed revolutionaries to take control there would be no reason for them to kill anyone.
Please be Holla Forums trolling.
Its easy to protect nazi freeze peach when it isnt your race's humanity that is up for debate. They know that if shit hits the fan they are a-ok. Thats why its so easy for libs to handwave it off.
why would you want to give the state more power in this? It's a neolib/con run state that will surely shut down leftist conversation just as easily as reactionary ones. There has to be a different solution than that.
I know plenty don't like him but is Chomsky a liberal now?
I'm not convinced by Doug's line of reasoning here, and I'd suggest that he is being very spooky by turning free speech into a fundamental value. In fact, he seems to me through both videos on Zero Squared to be attempting to find reasons for a free speech principle, while already being biased towards it. This isn't an intellectual crime, but it makes him seem eager to defend free speech regardless of the context.
But my main problem isn't his stance on the state, since I think even many leftists here who are not being fundamentalist about free speech still would be wary of giving the state to much power to define what is allowable speech. It is that in the previous video, if I remember right, he also denounced the notion of deplatforming, or harassing political opponents so that they find it difficult to organize and propagate their message. What I've heard from him so far in this respect is that speech serves the utility of allowing you to hear the arguments of your enemies so that you can defeat them. I have several problems with this.
1. I don't think defeating ideas with ideas is always possible. Look at: climate change, evolution being dropped from schools in Turkey, Donald Trump winning the US elections, Hillary Clinton defeating Bernie for that matter (allegations of voter suppression aside, it was close enough and everyone knows Clinton had an irrational personality cult).
2. I don't think it is always necessary that people be allowed to express their ideas in every instance they'd wish to do so in order that you may be familiar with them. The white nationalist ideology has literally been around in the USA since the 18th century. New Spain codified the supremacy of Europeans when they were still building gothic cathedrals in Europe. The especially weirdo reactionaries read books from 17th century aristocrats.
3. The notion that the fash's ideas are so suppressed that normies will be privy to them but not the politically aware seems counter-intuitive. We all knew about Holla Forums, stormfront and neo-nazis before most of the population did. In fact, it seems strange to suggest that your opponent's ideas could be so obscured that you'd never see them until the moment they burst forth and overtake you like some latent horde. I'd imagine the fact their ideas can't be found anywhere would imply nobody has heard of them, making their suppression quite successful.
Ultimately it seems like the way you handle speech and your opponent's organizing is all about strategy. You don't want to cede the power of censorship to the state because it is vastly more powerful than you, but you can certainly hinder far-right organizing without tearing up the first amendment. Right now I'd say the left is very unorganized and has no strategy, but saying we have to allow Charles Murray to speak anywhere he wants so we can take notes and grandly defeat him in debate once and for all seems naive.
technically, you could argue commies are organizing for mass murder, since revolution could be incredibly violent. Point being, be prepared for the consequences for whatever kind of change you want.
I agree that they're naive about this but I still think the most important issue is to not let the state gain any ground. We enjoy the current amount of freeze peach we have because of far more recent court rulings, going back to the original first amendment (where the government simply can't stop you from saying a thing they don't like, but would regularly arrest any political opponents afterward) would be catastrophic to anyone operating outside the status quo of politics.
I'm perfectly fine with the current tactic of meme'ing them off the internet through corporations who really want brownie points for being non-racist or whatever.
This is actually what should be taken out of this, tbh
besides mcveigh and some abortionists killed, I'm not sure what there is in the US. source?
"Hate speech" laws are the intellectual basis for liberal repression of communism in counterrevolutionary Eastern Europe. They're how the west justifies treating states like Poland and Ukraine as "democracies" - after all, they just outlawed "symbols of totalitarianism", right?
If you're dumb enough to post "freeze peach" memes while actually supporting revolution, I hope you have fun in prison; you'll deserve it for being so fucking moronic.
My dear user, it's not freedom of speech that creates stability, but the exact opposite. Materialism is the principle. As a system is made the more stable both by material prosperity and also hopefully by moral progress, the more luxuries its citizens can enjoy, and that includes civil rights. The more stable the system is, the more the ruling classes can let their enemies get away with, because that provides legitimacy to it. As instability grows, you'll see those liberals freedoms fall down one by one life dominoes. , as the rulers deem them not worth the risk anymore. Banana republics during the cold war are a perfect example.
This analysis sort of works backwards too. We might (tho this is obviously not an iron law) see a system's predilection for violent and overt methods of social control as an indication of low stability. On hindsight, this helps explain why the USSR was dismantled so easily.
There's this tendency nowadays, which I think stems from neoliberalism's "good governance" claptrap against popular participation in politics. It's this notion that countries need to have good civil rights and freedom before they can develop economically, when the causality is the exact inverse of that. Material prosperity allows for freedoms to flourish because of the reasons I states above: it provides stability which in turn allows the rulers to let freedoms grow.
And I'd like to note that Is not necessarily a good thing, as it says nothing about whether that society is worth existing in the first place, Nazi-like or not. Ancient Athens was an exemplary democracy for its citizens, yet still ran on slavery, after all. The peace of the mansion is not the same as the peace of the slave quarters.
Yeah I realize that. Are you going to make an argument or are you going to remind me of how tolerant and centrist you are?
I hate this movie. It's the worst piece of shit about the holocaut after the simplicity of evil. It totally ignores the fact that shindler was a porky and that the list wasn't even made by shindler but by his jew assistant who asked money for being putted on the list. The movie it's not even about the holocaust, it's about how can a man save a lot of lifes. First guys like shindler were the first to get rich with hitler and they were first in line to support him. But the movie totally glosses over this. What we have is a movie about a porky who saves lifes, not enough, but a lot.. The evil nazis in these movie are just a bunch of psycos while in reality guys like shindler were the true big villians. I'm not scared by the guys who call for genocide for a certain reason: they are not backed by capitalist. Nazism and fascism without capitalism behind is meaningless. Both are the reaction of porky to socialism, not a crazy guy with a mustache who gains power out of nowhere. The true evil and motivator behind these ideologies is capital. If 5000 people who scream genocide in america will be defeated, when porky needs to protect himself, he will find other 50000 more agressive. Free speach is important as fuck to control these people. No one besides a small niche will agree with the holocaust and shit like that, if we suppress them we will fuel the narrative that we are all against them. Truth is they are all against us. These people exist only to protect porky from us. But no one ever had the balls to show this on screen, no. Instead what we get is porky, the one who created the situation, that saves the day. Holocaust wasn't about 10000 people saved, it was about 6000000 killed. But those 6 million were killed by evil moustache not by porky, porky saved the day. Fuck this movie.
still wondering this facts not feels
Capitalism and colonialism hardly are mutually exclusive.
Is it that hard to google "right wing terrorism in the US?"
Did you misread the post?
antidefamation league is not a source, and that's all I find that doesn't just chain link back between sites with claims but no numbers. Some like Frein are considered rightwing terrorism and some like Roof are not, both of which are false.
I was /k/ long enough to get lumped in with claims by them and SPLC even if you like their targets, they are the epitome of jews becoming filthy rich by jewing to not just take them at face value
I would say yes, they were all fucked up one way or another or they wouldn't have done what they did, but they weren't the same as the car driver. He was definitely mentally ill and violently lashed out like a lot of other mentally ill people. To blame his politics for what he did is as retarded as blaming violent video games for school shooters. If he wasn't a Fascist he would've used a different motive for his eventual violence.
if Nazis came to power everyone here would be in danger. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Doesn't the FBI keep statistics on that kind of thing?
this is the stupidest thing ever the values do nothing
I haven't found anything that makes sense yet, but I'm sure they do somewhere
True, and this: "if the commies came to power everyone here would be in danger. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it" is equally true.
Nothing will ever be as weird as American terrorist incident statistics
I think he means questioning the death penalty via state-imposed jurisdiction. And I might have to agree with him on that point: yes some people deserve to die, but giving that power to the state is a bad idea.
wtf I love communism now
I wonder how much white supremacy has gone up recently. inb4 still at 3%
You should read memoires of Jewish worker activists from before IIWW, anarchists, communists, all of those our comrades that were killed in Holocaust. I have read, and still I can't not cry when I think about it. That's why I with no irony or exaggeration dream about killing the nazis and people using svastikas in political context.
free speech is a fucking meme, the fact that people have the "right" to free speech is retarded.
talk shit, get hit, that's basically the only relevant rule regarding free speech any free society must have
free'd speech not free speech ok????
wtf I love Jews now
So you want people to beat and murder you because they disagree with you? That's what you're asking for if you don't support a guaranteed freedom of speech for all political groups. If there's no speech, then there's violence. And hopefully, if free speech was taken away and violence became necessary to influence opinion, everyone who opposes the freedom of speech is the first to be hanged so that society can return to being humans instead of pond scum.
Fuck off, fascist.
Also Oooh, how counter-culture. How subversive, revolutionary, and anti-establishment. And it even pissed you off, fulfilling its obviously intended purpose for the 675,000,000th time.
You're a fucking lemming.
that's like MINIMUM WAGE IS SOCIALISM, OBAMA IS A MUSLIM COMMUNIST NAZI SOCIALIST
Fascism is class collaboration + totalitarianism. All individual interests are put aside in favor of the interests of the nation, and a totalitarian government punishes or removes any individual or corporation that violates the public interest.
If that is not fulfilled, it's not fascism.
No, I want people to beat and murder nazifags for advocating the genocide of my people (and me by extension).
Then shouldn't they do the same to you in self defense? I think you're a lot worse, violence is worse than opinions. You are operating on the logic that Hitler used to exterminate the Jews, that Pinochet used to execute socialists, and that modern nativists use to argue against Islam.
If you support violence against them, they have every reason to engage in violence in return. White nationalists (I assume you're talking about them when you say "fascists" even though fascism is astronomically rare) are overwhelmingly non-violent and I don't want them to get violent, and attacking them gets them violent.
One small problem is that the alt-right is so incredibly paranoid that they've begun manufacturing assaults on themselves to justify violence against others. They have gone so far as to stab themselves in order to pin it on the left. So, supporting non-violence may not even matter as the right is not at all afraid to play dirty and falsify left wing support of violence to get at their goals anyway.
If the choice is between punching a nazi and getting labelled a violent agitator, and not punching a nazi and getting labelled a violent agitator, you may as well take a swing.
So you want to delegitimize yourself in the public light, garner sympathy for "nazis", and give the "nazis" more news presence to gain influence? Leaving them alone does more damage to their cause than physically attacking them.
Not to mention all of the false flags and doctored pics
You are not the target audience, the goal is not to win your support. You liberals are useless, always have been, always will be. Even George Orwell (the guy who wrote 1984) knew pacifism (should be called pussyism) was pro-fascist; not because it encourages fascism, but because it allows fascism to take root, it enables it. Like a medic who fixes up an enemy combatant so they can go out and kill again, but who doesn't do the killing himself. humaniterations.net/2012/02/29/you-are-not-the-target-audience/
it was just some post someone made.
I said fascism, this has nothing to do with fascism. There is zero indication that these guys believe in class collaboration + totalitarianism.
They aren't. They are a few hundred, maybe thousands of people posting on forums who aren't taken seriously by white nationalists or the right in general.
And I reiterate, if you're going to remove peace from the field and engage in political violence, they logically should do the same. You're morally justifying their violence.
As per the image, I would not pull the switch, firstly because I believe in common decency and second because that man being punched is not a nazi.
Call it ahwtever, point is innocent people are still getting hurt. Please see the previous list You're free to surrender yourself to gas chamber if you want, as for those of us who still believe in their own existence, I'll stand and fight, thank you.
Then why are you saying "punch a fascist"? Shouldn't it be "punch a conservative"? Isn't it pollution of language to put nazis, fascists, folkists, romanticists, white nationalists, and conservatives into the same word, a word which only refers to one of those categories?
I cant believe you would unironically watch such garbage in 2017.
well, you know, it may be for the wrong reasons, but stopped clock twice a day and all that tbqh
I just realized that someone may interpret this as "freedom of speech destroys stability" instead of what I actually meant, "stability creates freedom of speech". Should I have said "inverse" instead of "opposite"? Maybe "reverse"?
I've spent days talking about this concept with a friend, we simply don't know how to explain it. It's a new trend in the right-wing to be completely post-modern in the worst possible sense; do one thing while claiming you're the opposite, then when someone accuses you of lying you call them a liar, then when you commit murder and they call you on it, you simply call them a murderer…and they get away with it, on a personal AND national level. No one is allowed to call them on their paradox bullshit.
Here in VA you see shit like : guys with truck/SUVs covered in confederate shit, trump stickers, blatant anti-mexican, anti-muslim stickers that they display with no shame, and if you talk to them about it (I have) they act all calm & reasonable & say shit like "well it's about national security, well I think Trump will make jobs somehow, obviously I'm not a racist or sexist but I do hate women & brown people". They honestly believe that the government is literally communist, and it's out to get them right now as we speak, and only based Trump is making the world free again. They can spout all this in a reasonable tone of voice and just not see anything wrong with it. It's maddening.
The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism
"It [the german working class and communist party] should have compelled the Social-Democratic leaders who headed the Prussian government to adopt measures of defence against fascism, arrest the fascist leaders, close down their press, confiscate their material resources and the resources of the capitalists who were financing the fascist movement, dissolve the fascist organizations, deprive them of their weapons, and so forth.
Furthermore, it should have secured the re-establishment and extension of all forms of social assistance and the introduction of a moratorium and crisis benefits for the peasants – who were being ruined under the impact of crisis – by taxing the banks and the trusts, in this way winning the support of the working peasants. It was the fault of the Social-Democrats of Germany that this was not done, and that is why fascism was able to triumph."
"In contradistinction to German fascism, which acts under anti-constitutional slogans, American fascism tries to portray itself as the custodian of the Constitution and "American democracy.""
"Wells : I watch communist propaganda in the West and it seems to me that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very old-fashioned, because it is insurrectionary propaganda. Propaganda in favour of the violent overthrow of the social system was all very well when it was directed against tyranny. But under modern conditions, when the system is collapsing anyhow, stress should be laid on efficiency, on competence, on productiveness, and not on insurrection.
It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The communist propaganda in the West is a nuisance to constructive-minded people.
Stalin : Of course the old system is breaking down and decaying. That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system.
You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate.
You rightly state that the old world is breaking down.
But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its own accord. No, the substitution of one social system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the people of the new world came into power they had to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the old power by force; these people of the new world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of the old world upon the new system.
Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for example.
Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old system by means of violence. What will you do with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealise the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class : Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts."
When you defend Nazis from repression in the name of free speech and hand wring about what will result for communist parties you're fighting to defend a right you don't have. Especially if you live in the USA there is no free speech for communists, thus advocating for Nazis to be tolerated is doing nothing other than objectively aiding Nazism with exactly no positive outcomes for the communist movement.