Listen, we have already covered this. Fascism was never defeated by violence in WWII. In fact, it thrives stronger than it ever was.
Fascism thrives on violence so you have to be a special kind of useful idiot to advocate that more violence is going to fix things.
People have things so mixed up in their head they think using the authoritarian playbook is going to work for them. That their ideology will magically rise up from the ashes.
It is a fucking fantasy. The sooner you stop living in self defense fantasyland and start working with your fellow Americans the closer we will be to solving our problems.
This is class warfare and the wealthy would love for us to tear each other apart.
Yeah, everyone knows WWII was ended with pansies and pleasantries, and totally not with the single largest display of violence the world has ever seen before or since.
WWII ended up with the largest fascist nation in history claiming victory if that is what you mean. Considering the Red Army did most of the work and the US got most of the spoils it has always been a war of questionable results.
When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You’re just not that intelligent.
You’re both right. Every ideological movement benefits from having violent and nonviolent factions. You can have violence alone but, if victorious, that often trends towards a different brand of authoritarianism. Nonviolence alone doesn’t have enough bite I’m afraid. For every MLK Jr there needs to be a Malcolm X. Bhaghat Singh and Subhas Bose for Gandhi. Mandela was initially nonviolent but, due to that lack of bite, he changed his tune over time.
But I will qualify this with the fact that all of these men stood for oppressed groups (whether minority or majority). Whether violence alone can work depends on where your alignment lies with the state. Violence alone will accomplish your goals if you are aligned with the state.
What often gets ignored in American revolutionary history is that it started with nonviolent resistance. This can actually be enough if you outnumber your oppressor vastly. Violence, of course, is a necessary last resort when injustice and inhumanity persist.
This kid isn’t advocating for what you think they are. They’re advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won’t use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They’ve made it clear they don’t actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That’s why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.
Looking more closely it appears that their argument is that when you defeat fascism with violence you’re at risk of becoming / become a fascist / authoritarian yourself. History attests to their point of view. I think theres validity to the idea that the US has retained some fascist / authoritarian elements. Its just that the rest of the world has had to bear the brunt of that post WW2 (as opposed to American citizens, so they may be noseblind to it).
There’s sophistication to their viewpoint no doubt. I think arriving at the conclusion that pacifism is the only acceptable solution is misguided but I don’t believe that aspiring to a nonviolent worldview equates to fascist apologism.
I guess the message I’m not getting is that they believe WWII didn’t solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today’s issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.
I get you and respect your approach. I’m referring primarily to a discussion I’ve had with them before. I’ll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn’t make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He’s arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn’t becoming more fascist. This isn’t an oddity, it’s part of a dangerous message.
Whether they’re cognizant or not isn’t important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I’m at risk of sounding like I’m trying to argue your point with that.
I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual’s control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.
You’re still advocating for hugging Nazis into peaceful coexistence out here, huh?
And your still advocating for us to murder our way out of this like a good fascist?
*you’re. Can we at least have a civilizational collapse with proper grammar?
Thanks grammar Nazi!
The other option is rapidly degrading to be murdered instead.
Fighting back against fascism and tyrannical applications of force is not being fascist.
Listen, we have already covered this. Fascism was never defeated by violence in WWII. In fact, it thrives stronger than it ever was.
Fascism thrives on violence so you have to be a special kind of useful idiot to advocate that more violence is going to fix things.
People have things so mixed up in their head they think using the authoritarian playbook is going to work for them. That their ideology will magically rise up from the ashes.
It is a fucking fantasy. The sooner you stop living in self defense fantasyland and start working with your fellow Americans the closer we will be to solving our problems.
This is class warfare and the wealthy would love for us to tear each other apart.
Yeah, everyone knows WWII was ended with pansies and pleasantries, and totally not with the single largest display of violence the world has ever seen before or since.
WWII ended up with the largest fascist nation in history claiming victory if that is what you mean. Considering the Red Army did most of the work and the US got most of the spoils it has always been a war of questionable results.
When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You’re just not that intelligent.
You’re both right. Every ideological movement benefits from having violent and nonviolent factions. You can have violence alone but, if victorious, that often trends towards a different brand of authoritarianism. Nonviolence alone doesn’t have enough bite I’m afraid. For every MLK Jr there needs to be a Malcolm X. Bhaghat Singh and Subhas Bose for Gandhi. Mandela was initially nonviolent but, due to that lack of bite, he changed his tune over time.
But I will qualify this with the fact that all of these men stood for oppressed groups (whether minority or majority). Whether violence alone can work depends on where your alignment lies with the state. Violence alone will accomplish your goals if you are aligned with the state.
What often gets ignored in American revolutionary history is that it started with nonviolent resistance. This can actually be enough if you outnumber your oppressor vastly. Violence, of course, is a necessary last resort when injustice and inhumanity persist.
This kid isn’t advocating for what you think they are. They’re advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won’t use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They’ve made it clear they don’t actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That’s why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.
Looking more closely it appears that their argument is that when you defeat fascism with violence you’re at risk of becoming / become a fascist / authoritarian yourself. History attests to their point of view. I think theres validity to the idea that the US has retained some fascist / authoritarian elements. Its just that the rest of the world has had to bear the brunt of that post WW2 (as opposed to American citizens, so they may be noseblind to it).
There’s sophistication to their viewpoint no doubt. I think arriving at the conclusion that pacifism is the only acceptable solution is misguided but I don’t believe that aspiring to a nonviolent worldview equates to fascist apologism.
I guess the message I’m not getting is that they believe WWII didn’t solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today’s issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.
I get you and respect your approach. I’m referring primarily to a discussion I’ve had with them before. I’ll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn’t make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He’s arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn’t becoming more fascist. This isn’t an oddity, it’s part of a dangerous message.
Whether they’re cognizant or not isn’t important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I’m at risk of sounding like I’m trying to argue your point with that.
I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual’s control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.