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.
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.