Earlier, imgur removed a post featuring a Nazi getting punched and so, the Front Page and a nice chunk of Usersub, is all Nazi-punching and fash-bashing.
It's a shotgun people want to use to justify violence based on any definition they want. You realize christians have a persecution complex and could use the same argument? We can just actually dive into specifics of situations and find actual ethical positions.
Freedom of Speech is the idea that while everyone can talk, not everyone is worth listening to. The first person who should be ignored is the person calling for another to be silenced.
This depends, is the religious school private or public? If the religious school is private, is the religious belief publicly fascist in nature?
If the school was public then it is going against the law. The government has a monopoly on violence and will use the violence to uphold the law. So in this case, the police would be doing the bashing.
If it is private and not spreading harmful ideas, then it is fine.
In most sane places self-defense is allowed, so if someone is being violent you can use violence to stop them. Their really is only one use of this rhetoric - to break the Power Ranger rule and escalate from words to violence. You can find specific examples pretty quickly, but I know better than to point out the most obvious ones.
The issue is that it lets you skip some steps in justifying violent actions. There certainly are times that words can be enough to justify self defense, but they're pretty narrow situations. In an academic sense it's fine to use for analysis, but using it as a blanket excuse for violence is kind of weak.
A fascist going mask off to me kind of involves attacking people. Not everyone will have the same definition.
Assuming you're talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you've found the ambiguity.
The statement is useless without actual definitions. So long as it's being used like this, the definition of intolerance will keep slipping so political opponents can be targeted without considering whether you're behaving morally.
Assuming you’re talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you’ve found the ambiguity.
Ok, yeah, this is what I wanted to get to. Otherwise we are just bouncing around vague ideas and I really didn't see an end to it.
Shitty ideas have consequences. There are several examples in history. Notably the German Nazi party. Which resulted in a lot of violence, death, and torture of innocent people. Not to mention a war. And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
It started from their belief that they could suppress people just because they didn't like them. All they had to do was declare them "intolerant" of German society, and it became morally acceptable to force them out.
That mindset can't arise when society broadly values freedom of speech. In a society where the speech of even the worst bigots is protected, those bigots lose support every time they call for silencing their victims.
In a society where Hitler can't even call for censoring the Jews without pissing off the entire population of Germany, he certainly can't get support to exterminate them.
Most don't. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You've kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.
Regardless. Let's roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
I haven't studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There's obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I'm okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I'll be pretty close to violence.
I do give wide berth for expression, though. We're also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.
The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.
I got permabanned from reddit for posting the question "what would Eisenhower do if he was present with a machine gun?" underneath a picture of a Nazi march in Wisconsin. Apparently, that is inciting violence in reddit view. Gotta keep those Nazis safe.
Yeah, the right is the most delicate of snowflakes. They'll ban you for asking a question, they'll plug their ears and yell shit about emails if you say something that hits home and they don't have an answer.
I got banned for implying that the Israeli palatine conflict is more complicated then an episode of G I joe. And I have said some crazy fucked up shit that flew by the radar.
We didn't hate them until we thought they might actually take us over as well. We weren't fighting Nazis, we were fighting "un-Americans". It's literally just another flavor of racism(that we helped teach the Germans lmao - they loved our concept of eugenics)
Notice how after Nazis it went to Commies, the other "un-American" type.
Kind of hard to talk people going to another war across the sea so soon after WW1. Plus, the US was more divided on WW2 then people tend to think prior to Pearl Harber.
I'm paraphrasing for effect. I'm specifically referencing his statements about why he joined the Spanish Civil War. I'm pretty sure he never said "every fascist should be shot" but it makes for a shocking surprise for a chud who thinks that antifa is "Orwellian" because they're "the real fascists".
Remember, we didn't beat the fascists during WWII using arguments and polite discussion. We bashed the fash back then, we can and must bash the fash today.
They surely did their part, but it wasn't only them. USA also had a quite important role in it. Yeah, the USSR won Stalingrad and pushed the German force back, but after the USA landed in the Normandy Germany had to fight at 2 fronts, which reduced the amount of casualties on the allied sides. Would the USSR be able to win the war without the USA? Maybe, I seriously don't know, but saying that they were the one winning the war is kind of ignorant.
Would the USSR be able to win the war without the USA?
FWIW Kruschev said no fucking way, despite later claims of the Soviet leadership to have not needed US support. US-supplied weapons weren't very important, but US food and trucks and petroleum allowed Soviet industry to focus primarily on weapons production.
That's really not accurate. Prior to Pearl Harbor we were 1) helping extensively to re-arm Britain in their fight against Germany, 2) fighting an undeclared but active war against German U-boats in the Atlantic, and 3) placing an economic embargo on Japan in response to their ongoing invasion of China - the very act that precipitated the Pearl Harbor attack.
So you are saying the U.S. should enter more wars? I thought the majority have been saying we need to stay the fuck out of every war until Ukraine got invaded.
No, but you sound like an asshole who added nothing to the conversation as well.
Have fun promoting mass murder. Because trying to tell the U.S. they don't/didn't join wars fast enough only promotes them too. The murder of innocent Americans and all parties you sick their military on.
You dropped this. Don't hide your shitty attitude or inability to defend your ideas with reason.
What part of "You are just full of disingenous strawmen today, aren't you?" Shows ability to defend ideas?
I deleted my comment because I figured arguing with someone online about it wasn't worth it. I wasnt sober when posted the first comment, but my point still stands on the second comment. They are essentially war mongering. And your idea was to what, create further argument or disruption between people when someone chose to drop it?
Since the captain america of the past was the result of a military program initiated by a government directive. Any such program today would likely result in a super nazi
So, no thank you. Pity
I mean, right here, we are looking at a pic where Captain America could have killed Hitler but instead chose to give him what is, by his standards, a love tap.
Gotta keep in mind comics are funhouse mirrors for the society theyre created in. Pretty sure killing hitler wouldve been seen as the perfect end to a campaign, but then there would be less chance Cap would be needed again
True, I know the real behind the scenes reason he didn't punch him so hard his head came off of course. But in universe its an issue. I know most comics had lots of crap of why he didn't get killed by the supes? He had a giant collection of crap like kryptonite and whatnot to keep them away.
Thanks. I was going to come in to burst that bubble. A ton of Americans were totally sympathetic to fascists until we went to war with Germany and it became unfashionable. But they didn't change their politics, they just didn't call it fascism anymore.
Notice America didn't have a problem with Franco and you didn't hear a lot of Americans denouncing him since he wasn't part of the Axis powers.
In some cases, police responded to the protesters with violent attacks. In one instance, a protester escaped a mounted police officer who’d grabbed him by punching his horse in the face. As the rally broke up that night, some protesters were able to slip by police and punch departing Nazis in the face.
There seem to be signatures along the ground. One kinda looks like it says [something] S. Buscema. After some quick googling, I think it might be Sal Buscema.
Americans did not beat the Nazis. USSR did. And after that, the american regime took everyone they could from the tribunals to work for them. Lets not forget the good ol friendships at the time, like IG Farben and Allen Dulles. Lets not forget the first chief of staff of NATO. Lets not forget who put the american astronaut up there. And so on. American liberal democracy ate fascism. And we are what we eat
Punching Nazis in the face is a long-time beloved tradition. I suggest everyone try it sometime.
Earlier, imgur removed a post featuring a Nazi getting punched and so, the Front Page and a nice chunk of Usersub, is all Nazi-punching and fash-bashing.
Since we're leaving the definition of tolerance ambiguous this can justify the persecution of anyone.
Yes that does including being a piece of biggot
Even a tiny piece of ignorant fool.
It's a shotgun people want to use to justify violence based on any definition they want. You realize christians have a persecution complex and could use the same argument? We can just actually dive into specifics of situations and find actual ethical positions.
But nah. That's too hard. Let's just band wagon.
All this time I thought it was written bandwagon, instead of band wagon
I don't know why I put the space in, to be honest. I'd generally spell it without even if it's wrong.
At least you didn't hyphenate it
Its a different dynamic when those people are in power. I get what you are saying though.
It is. I'm digging into those, uh, extreme cases with another lemming at the moment.
Exactly.
Freedom of Speech is the idea that while everyone can talk, not everyone is worth listening to. The first person who should be ignored is the person calling for another to be silenced.
Care to give a specific example?
The government could probably still get them on sexual assault.
This depends, is the religious school private or public? If the religious school is private, is the religious belief publicly fascist in nature?
If the school was public then it is going against the law. The government has a monopoly on violence and will use the violence to uphold the law. So in this case, the police would be doing the bashing.
If it is private and not spreading harmful ideas, then it is fine.
In most sane places self-defense is allowed, so if someone is being violent you can use violence to stop them. Their really is only one use of this rhetoric - to break the Power Ranger rule and escalate from words to violence. You can find specific examples pretty quickly, but I know better than to point out the most obvious ones.
The issue is that it lets you skip some steps in justifying violent actions. There certainly are times that words can be enough to justify self defense, but they're pretty narrow situations. In an academic sense it's fine to use for analysis, but using it as a blanket excuse for violence is kind of weak.
I mean, if you can't find an example that isn't a fascist going mask off, then your just proving the point.
A fascist going mask off to me kind of involves attacking people. Not everyone will have the same definition.
Assuming you're talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you've found the ambiguity.
The statement is useless without actual definitions. So long as it's being used like this, the definition of intolerance will keep slipping so political opponents can be targeted without considering whether you're behaving morally.
Ok, yeah, this is what I wanted to get to. Otherwise we are just bouncing around vague ideas and I really didn't see an end to it.
Shitty ideas have consequences. There are several examples in history. Notably the German Nazi party. Which resulted in a lot of violence, death, and torture of innocent people. Not to mention a war. And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
It started from their belief that they could suppress people just because they didn't like them. All they had to do was declare them "intolerant" of German society, and it became morally acceptable to force them out.
That mindset can't arise when society broadly values freedom of speech. In a society where the speech of even the worst bigots is protected, those bigots lose support every time they call for silencing their victims.
In a society where Hitler can't even call for censoring the Jews without pissing off the entire population of Germany, he certainly can't get support to exterminate them.
Most don't. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You've kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.
Regardless. Let's roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.
I haven't studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There's obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.
Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I'm okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I'll be pretty close to violence.
I do give wide berth for expression, though. We're also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.
The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.
It's really very simple.
Replace "tolerance" with "respect."
If you don't respect the rights of other people to exist, we have no reason to respect your right to exist.
Back in the day, "outlaw" was someone who had forfeited the rights of a citizen, and could be hunted down like a dog.
What counts as disrespecting someone's right to exist?
Idolizing mass murder.
So the gals that send love letters to serial killers should get the rope?
Guess it really burns you that guys in jail are getting more play than you are, doesn't it?
Don't deflect. You said it's very simple than chose another uselessly vague term.
I got permabanned from reddit for posting the question "what would Eisenhower do if he was present with a machine gun?" underneath a picture of a Nazi march in Wisconsin. Apparently, that is inciting violence in reddit view. Gotta keep those Nazis safe.
I'd just hop on a VPN and let them try to keep up with the IPs.
I used a vpn and they got me with ban evasion. I'm still curious as to how they knew. It was a new account and everything, using incognito.
Probably your MAC, then
reddit has no way to get users' MAC addresses tho
No one regrets getting banned from nazi digg.
that's a good nickname
Yeah, the right is the most delicate of snowflakes. They'll ban you for asking a question, they'll plug their ears and yell shit about emails if you say something that hits home and they don't have an answer.
I got banned for implying that the Israeli palatine conflict is more complicated then an episode of G I joe. And I have said some crazy fucked up shit that flew by the radar.
Did you say that on r/worldnews? I think the mossad or some other Israeli intelligence agency moderates that sub.
That's the one.
The Americans certainly took their fucking time to get involved though.
You can always count on America to do the right thing... after they've tried everything else.
And the nazis were inspired by the manifest destiny and praised the Jim Crow system.
Don't touch my boats.
If you want them to get involved quickly you have to have socialist revolution.
Or discover some oil that needs some democracy.
We didn't hate them until we thought they might actually take us over as well. We weren't fighting Nazis, we were fighting "un-Americans". It's literally just another flavor of racism(that we helped teach the Germans lmao - they loved our concept of eugenics)
Notice how after Nazis it went to Commies, the other "un-American" type.
And only when "manifest destiny" as it pertains to the Pacific Ocean, China and SE Asia was threatened by Japan.
Kind of hard to talk people going to another war across the sea so soon after WW1. Plus, the US was more divided on WW2 then people tend to think prior to Pearl Harber.
Anti-fascism is so Orwellian that Orwell himself said that every fascist should be shot.
Actually, he described the method that should be used to burn them in their tanks... but it comes down to the same thing, I guess.
I'm paraphrasing for effect. I'm specifically referencing his statements about why he joined the Spanish Civil War. I'm pretty sure he never said "every fascist should be shot" but it makes for a shocking surprise for a chud who thinks that antifa is "Orwellian" because they're "the real fascists".
Probably not, but he sure as hell thought it - as we all should.
Remember, we didn't beat the fascists during WWII using arguments and polite discussion. We bashed the fash back then, we can and must bash the fash today.
Ironically enough, we beat the fascists with a command economy aimed squarely at maximizing war materiel production. Free enterprise my ass ...
Who won the war against nazis was the USSR
They surely did their part, but it wasn't only them. USA also had a quite important role in it. Yeah, the USSR won Stalingrad and pushed the German force back, but after the USA landed in the Normandy Germany had to fight at 2 fronts, which reduced the amount of casualties on the allied sides. Would the USSR be able to win the war without the USA? Maybe, I seriously don't know, but saying that they were the one winning the war is kind of ignorant.
FWIW Kruschev said no fucking way, despite later claims of the Soviet leadership to have not needed US support. US-supplied weapons weren't very important, but US food and trucks and petroleum allowed Soviet industry to focus primarily on weapons production.
OK thanks for the Information. I had no clue if they ever said something regarding this, so I didn't said anything about it.
Had Russia won any war ever? Maybe not, except the internal ones against themselves.
Good Lord, what a stupid take.
He just saw Enemy at the Gates for the first time. Have to give him a break.
The USSR didn’t exist then dumbass. Do they not teach history at Edgelord University?
Let's be fair to the alt-right. Oppression, racism and all their other values are also American traditions. What a great melting pot!
(insert kanye west level take here)
Yes, the great American Traidtion of gross indifference until the Japanese attacked Pearl harbor.
That's really not accurate. Prior to Pearl Harbor we were 1) helping extensively to re-arm Britain in their fight against Germany, 2) fighting an undeclared but active war against German U-boats in the Atlantic, and 3) placing an economic embargo on Japan in response to their ongoing invasion of China - the very act that precipitated the Pearl Harbor attack.
Don't touch the boats!
So you are saying the U.S. should enter more wars? I thought the majority have been saying we need to stay the fuck out of every war until Ukraine got invaded.
You are just full of disingenous strawmen today, aren't you?
You dropped this. Don't hide your shitty attitude or inability to defend your ideas with reason.
What part of "You are just full of disingenous strawmen today, aren't you?" Shows ability to defend ideas?
I deleted my comment because I figured arguing with someone online about it wasn't worth it. I wasnt sober when posted the first comment, but my point still stands on the second comment. They are essentially war mongering. And your idea was to what, create further argument or disruption between people when someone chose to drop it?
So's shooting traitors and burning their fields!
Get Billy back out here so we can do it proper this time!
Do it again Uncle Sherman
Since the captain america of the past was the result of a military program initiated by a government directive. Any such program today would likely result in a super nazi So, no thank you. Pity
I mean, right here, we are looking at a pic where Captain America could have killed Hitler but instead chose to give him what is, by his standards, a love tap.
Cap isn't even one thats opposed to killing.
Gotta keep in mind comics are funhouse mirrors for the society theyre created in. Pretty sure killing hitler wouldve been seen as the perfect end to a campaign, but then there would be less chance Cap would be needed again
True, I know the real behind the scenes reason he didn't punch him so hard his head came off of course. But in universe its an issue. I know most comics had lots of crap of why he didn't get killed by the supes? He had a giant collection of crap like kryptonite and whatnot to keep them away.
This was one of the things I liked about the MCU. MCU Cap would totally have killed hitler.
It also has a tradition of fighting communists.
Good thing Cap. has 2 fists
Make America Fighting Nazis Again -- MAFNA!
Also: Americans hold a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden
Rookie numbers. Alt Right rallies nowadays pull in way bigger groups. They just suck at pageantry.
Thanks. I was going to come in to burst that bubble. A ton of Americans were totally sympathetic to fascists until we went to war with Germany and it became unfashionable. But they didn't change their politics, they just didn't call it fascism anymore.
Notice America didn't have a problem with Franco and you didn't hear a lot of Americans denouncing him since he wasn't part of the Axis powers.
Less than 100 years ago
Stop ALL right.
Now that's just authoritarianism
That's what the modern left is - just a bunch of authoritarians.
So much for the tolerant left!
EDIT:
Fuck off, Nazi
Really? This comment is on a picture of Captain America punching Hitler, and STILL /s is needed?
I understood it as a followup joke, sorry that got missed on some people lol
I do get it, Poe's Law and all that. But this was about as blatant as you can get!
I'm curious: who is the great artist who drew this panel?
It's in Jack Kirby's style but I don't think it was drawn by Jack Kirby.
There seem to be signatures along the ground. One kinda looks like it says [something] S. Buscema. After some quick googling, I think it might be Sal Buscema.
Nice!
Based Cap quoting Mark Twain
Operation Paperclip.
How does operation Gladio fit in this "tradition"?
https://truthout.org/articles/biden-continues-to-provide-israel-billions-for-war-crimes/
Don't shoot the messenger, or shoot him, idc.
Americans did not beat the Nazis. USSR did. And after that, the american regime took everyone they could from the tribunals to work for them. Lets not forget the good ol friendships at the time, like IG Farben and Allen Dulles. Lets not forget the first chief of staff of NATO. Lets not forget who put the american astronaut up there. And so on. American liberal democracy ate fascism. And we are what we eat
And what does it have to do with the subject at hand?
USSR bad
USA good
Duh.
Adolf Heusinger? The guy accused of being part of the 20 July plot to kill Hitler? The guy who was in the army long before naziism and long after?
Germans bad. Soviets good.
It used to be... until liberals decided that the antifascists were the "real fascists."
Yeah uhhh no. Try again Dimitri
Really? I guess it was Russian bots that heckled antifa from the sidelines back in 2016 and not liberals, huh?