NationStates

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I can't wait for the SC to impose the same level of justice against Stalinists and Kim Jong-Un apologist regions, oh wait that's not going to happen.

If you wanna write up a proposal to condemn NK, go for it. No one is stopping you.

Prydania wrote:

North Saitama wrote:Popular morality is not objectivity. What the majority believes is moral and immoral does not constitute absolute truth. The very presence of Fascists defeats this argument, as, obviously, Fascists have a different view of morality than you, or the majority.

Furthermore, you are also assuming my position in a hypothetical scenario, in an attempt to paint me as a hypocrite and discredit me.

"Just because the majority thinks fascism is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong guys! Also how dare you accuse me of defending fascism!"

*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

North Saitama wrote:

Prydania wrote:"Just because the majority thinks fascism is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong guys! Also how dare you accuse me of defending fascism!"

*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

North Saitama wrote:

Prydania wrote:"Just because the majority thinks fascism is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong guys! Also how dare you accuse me of defending fascism!"

*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

"Honorable Ambassador, I must disagree. Fascism, and its followers by proxy, exists as a danger to international security. History proves this - Union of the Axis Powers, Union of Fascist Nations, and other fascist strongholds routinely destroyed and harassed dozens of regions across the world. This isn't Security Council thought policing - it's proactive measures to keep the majority safe. There can be no neutral party here; there are fascists, their collaborators, and their opponents. Now, which will you be?"

Prydania wrote:

North Saitama wrote:
*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

It is still abstract advocacy, not any actual action. You can ignore an opinion, or even stop it through convincing others that it is bad. What this resolution does, though, is concrete action; it forcefully compromises the ability for a region to defend itself from raiders. Rather than merely argue against an abhorrent ideology, you are stamping them out with jackboots.

What I find laughable is how you can imply, with a straight face, that I, and Forestavia, are Fascists, for merely suggesting that they deserve fair treatment like everyone else. Especially laughable is how you can claim that I am defending Fascism, in a sad attempt to vilify me, as opposed to merely speaking-out against abuse of the SC and against interventionism and ideological warfare. I even said it myself that I don't care about the ideology.

The reason why I pop-up with Fascists is simply because these sort of resolutions are always against Fascists. It is not my fault that there are no other type of regions being targeted for ideological warfare using the Security Council.

As for the people Fascists target (which includes myself, half-Slavic), it doesn't matter if they hate me. As long as they don't actually do anything, I can ignore them.

North Saitama wrote:

Prydania wrote:"Just because the majority thinks fascism is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong guys! Also how dare you accuse me of defending fascism!"

*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

Casusistry. Defending Fascists means defending Fascism.


"Mussolini made the trains run on time!, No, that's not defending Fascism, it's defending Fascists! How dare you accuse me of defending Fascism!".


The position of Fascism being a threat is not a subjective one to anybody who takes one look at the openly stated aims and objectives of Fascism with honest intentions. They state openly their desire for war and militarism, which is the inverse of peace and goodwill.

I don't need to paint you as a hypocrite, you made yourself one long before I wrote anything in reply. As for the mockery we're applying, well, we tried reason and rational arguments, but you and those like you proved impervious to both.

North Saitama wrote:

Prydania wrote:My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

It is still abstract advocacy, not any actual action. You can ignore an opinion, or even stop it through convincing others that it is bad. What this resolution does, though, is concrete action; it forcefully compromises the ability for a region to defend itself from raiders. Rather than merely argue against an abhorrent ideology, you are stamping them out with jackboots.

What I find laughable is how you can imply, with a straight face, that I, and Forestavia, are Fascists, for merely suggesting that they deserve fair treatment like everyone else. Especially laughable is how you can claim that I am defending Fascism, in a sad attempt to vilify me, as opposed to merely speaking-out against abuse of the SC and against interventionism and ideological warfare. I even said it myself that I don't care about the ideology.

The reason why I pop-up with Fascists is simply because these sort of resolutions are always against Fascists. It is not my fault that there are no other type of regions being targeted for ideological warfare using the Security Council.

As for the people Fascists target (which includes myself, half-Slavic), it doesn't matter if they hate me. As long as they don't actually do anything, I can ignore them.

We are applying fair treatment. We are applying to Fascism the exact same standards the Security Council applies to all those it deems threats to peace and goodwill. We are even applying to Fascism the precise same standards it applies to us, if given even the remotest chance. That is fair treatment. You are suggesting that the Security Council treat Fascist regions as though they were a protected species. A part of me wonders whether myself and my own region would stir your heart to the extent that you would mount such a sterling defence of us.


If you feel this standard should apply elsewhere then just Fascists, feel free to draw up a proposal, but I should inform you that such efforts have met with failure in the past. Contrary to your wheedling defence here, several non-Fascist regions WERE targeted for similar resolutions, but those few that made it to vote failed miserably, thus burying once and for all the whole 'slippery slope' fallacy that was bandied around in the KR and NE Liberations.

North Saitama wrote:It is still abstract advocacy, not any actual action.

Fascism as an ideology is inherently cancerous. By the time it moves from abstract to concrete action? People have already been hurt. And history has shown, time and time again, that direct action is the most effective way of combating fascism.

What I find laughable is how you can imply, with a straight face, that I, and Forestavia, are Fascists, for merely suggesting that they deserve fair treatment like everyone else.

Um, yeah? Fascism, at its heart, calls for genocide and political oppression. If you're going to die on a hill to defend that? You're not any better then its adherents.

Especially laughable is how you can claim that I am defending Fascism, in a sad attempt to vilify me...

You vilify yourself quite well without my help.

...as opposed to merely speaking-out against abuse of the SC and against interventionism and ideological warfare. I even said it myself that I don't care about the ideology.

If you don't care about ideology to the point that you cannot even distinguish between fascism and everything that isn't fascism? Then you're either blissfully naive or wilfully obtuse.

The reason why I pop-up with Fascists is simply because these sort of resolutions are always against Fascists. It is not my fault that there are no other type of regions being targeted for ideological warfare using the Security Council.

Well that's because people REALLY don't like fascism. Maybe you ought to crack open a history book and find out why.

As for the people Fascists target (which includes myself, half-Slavic), it doesn't matter if they hate me. As long as they don't actually do anything, I can ignore them.

First off, Slavic neo-fascists are a thing.
Secondly? If you ignore people who are spreading an ideology aimed at your destruction because they aren't actively hurting you today then you surrender the right to be surprised when they come for you tomorrow.

You seem hung up on that, actually. That so long as fascism remains abstract it's harmless. And really, it isn't. By the time fascists move from the abstract to direct action? People are in danger.

Prydania wrote:My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people communists target? Have you once advocated for the repeal of the Commendation held by The Red Fleet? I can play this game, too. The defense of fascism is not the point. If these fascists in the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators target another region, then I will be the first one advocating for #1 a condemnation of CCD and #2 a liberation for the affected region that they targeted. But until that day comes, I am perfectly happy and justified in taking the principled moral position that I have laid out. Because WE are the ones targeting them. It's not the other way around. You're trying to make them the bad guys but it is us who are doing the instigating. It is us who are taking the first shot! WE ARE THE ABHORRENT ONES! Because it is US who are abusing the power of the Security Council! We are setting them up for an invasion in the event that their founder CTE. That action is abhorrent.

What do you want me to say? Yes. Fascism is very, very bad. That's pretty obvious. There is no disagreement between us on that point. When it comes to the statement "fascism is bad" you and I are best buds, Prydania.

You really want to know where my sense of right and wrong is for the people fascists target? When I voted for the liberation of Boston. When fascists act like the way this Security Council is acting right now, that is when my sense of right and wrong comes out for the people fascists target. When fascists interfere with another region's sovereignty then I'll stand up for the victims. But right now, there are no victims. The only victims we're dealing with are the residents of KAISERREICH, Nazi Europa, and Confederation of Corrupt Dictators because those are the regions that we have "liberated" by force, against the will of the people within those regions. They are the victims. They are the victims of the crime of having an unpopular opinion. That's why I'm standing up for those regions. That's why they need a voice. There is nothing laughable about targeting people who are different. Don't you believe that we should live in a multicultural world full of diverse ideas and ways of thinking? I do.

Prydania wrote:

North Saitama wrote:It is still abstract advocacy, not any actual action.

Fascism as an ideology is inherently cancerous. By the time it moves from abstract to concrete action? People have already been hurt. And history has shown, time and time again, that direct action is the most effective way of combating fascism.

What I find laughable is how you can imply, with a straight face, that I, and Forestavia, are Fascists, for merely suggesting that they deserve fair treatment like everyone else.

Um, yeah? Fascism, at its heart, calls for genocide and political oppression. If you're going to die on a hill to defend that? You're not any better then its adherents.

Especially laughable is how you can claim that I am defending Fascism, in a sad attempt to vilify me...

You vilify yourself quite well without my help.

...as opposed to merely speaking-out against abuse of the SC and against interventionism and ideological warfare. I even said it myself that I don't care about the ideology.

If you don't care about ideology to the point that you cannot even distinguish between fascism and everything that isn't fascism? Then you're either blissfully naive or wilfully obtuse.

The reason why I pop-up with Fascists is simply because these sort of resolutions are always against Fascists. It is not my fault that there are no other type of regions being targeted for ideological warfare using the Security Council.

Well that's because people REALLY don't like fascism. Maybe you ought to crack open a history book and find out why.

As for the people Fascists target (which includes myself, half-Slavic), it doesn't matter if they hate me. As long as they don't actually do anything, I can ignore them.

First off, Slavic neo-fascists are a thing.
Secondly? If you ignore people who are spreading an ideology aimed at your destruction because they aren't actively hurting you today then you surrender the right to be surprised when they come for you tomorrow.

You seem hung up on that, actually. That so long as fascism remains abstract it's harmless. And really, it isn't. By the time fascists move from the abstract to direct action? People are in danger.

1. The inherent problem is that you are acting as if it will lead to anything. The problem is that you are failing to differentiate between a threat and abstract advocacy, which there are legal tests for (such as the Brandenburg test).

2. I am fighting on a hill for non-interventionism and freedom of expression. I have expressed many times that I actually don't care about the ideology.

3. I am not distinguishing because I care more about actions and the concrete. In this case, mere abstract thought is being punished with concrete action.

You could advocate for nuclear apocalypse, and it wouldn't change my position. As long as you are not a valid threat, and merely abstractly advocate for it, it doesn't matter to me to the point that action is required.

4. "Fascism is bad". I get it, and it is not relevant. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean that its adherents deserve a different standard of justice.

5. It is harmless because it is abstract advocacy. At this stage, I do not fear them, because they aren't a credible threat.

You are really going hard with the whole Fascist doomsday argument, implying that they are a credible threat.

Cedoria wrote:

North Saitama wrote:
*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

Casusistry. Defending Fascists means defending Fascism.


"Mussolini made the trains run on time!, No, that's not defending Fascism, it's defending Fascists! How dare you accuse me of defending Fascism!".


The position of Fascism being a threat is not a subjective one to anybody who takes one look at the openly stated aims and objectives of Fascism with honest intentions. They state openly their desire for war and militarism, which is the inverse of peace and goodwill.

I don't need to paint you as a hypocrite, you made yourself one long before I wrote anything in reply. As for the mockery we're applying, well, we tried reason and rational arguments, but you and those like you proved impervious to both.

The position of Fascism being a threat has legal tests (the Brandenburg test) to separate imminent lawlessness from mere abstract advocacy, in the interest of not outlawing ideologies de facto. What you seem unable to do is understand that abstract advocacy does not imply a credible threat. You are basically equating "I hate you" with intent to kill.

You tried shoving "Fascism is bad" in my face (your so-called "reason and rational arguments"), when I kept saying that I don't care what they believe, that all I care about is what they DO. You resort to mockery when your "Fascism is bad" falls flat when I continue to not care about your ideological arguments, as you have no logic to present me.

Cedoria wrote:

North Saitama wrote:
It is still abstract advocacy, not any actual action. You can ignore an opinion, or even stop it through convincing others that it is bad. What this resolution does, though, is concrete action; it forcefully compromises the ability for a region to defend itself from raiders. Rather than merely argue against an abhorrent ideology, you are stamping them out with jackboots.

What I find laughable is how you can imply, with a straight face, that I, and Forestavia, are Fascists, for merely suggesting that they deserve fair treatment like everyone else. Especially laughable is how you can claim that I am defending Fascism, in a sad attempt to vilify me, as opposed to merely speaking-out against abuse of the SC and against interventionism and ideological warfare. I even said it myself that I don't care about the ideology.

The reason why I pop-up with Fascists is simply because these sort of resolutions are always against Fascists. It is not my fault that there are no other type of regions being targeted for ideological warfare using the Security Council.

As for the people Fascists target (which includes myself, half-Slavic), it doesn't matter if they hate me. As long as they don't actually do anything, I can ignore them.

We are applying fair treatment. We are applying to Fascism the exact same standards the Security Council applies to all those it deems threats to peace and goodwill. We are even applying to Fascism the precise same standards it applies to us, if given even the remotest chance. That is fair treatment. You are suggesting that the Security Council treat Fascist regions as though they were a protected species. A part of me wonders whether myself and my own region would stir your heart to the extent that you would mount such a sterling defence of us.


If you feel this standard should apply elsewhere then just Fascists, feel free to draw up a proposal, but I should inform you that such efforts have met with failure in the past.

You most certainly aren't, though, as the mere advocacy is being punished. As I said above, you still fail to grasp the difference between action (which includes credible threats) and abstract advocacy. The difference is actually very important, as abstract advocacy does not necessarily entail action.

And, honestly, if it came to it, yes, I would defend your region if they were in the same position that CCD is in now. Having said that, I haven't had the opportunity to defend anybody but Fascists, as they are really the only types of regions targeted as such.

Southern Forestavia wrote:

Prydania wrote:My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people communists target?

I've voiced my support for offensive liberations aimed at Marxist regions. The reason I don't mention Marxism here is because, and I understand this a radical concept for you, Marxism isn't the topic of discussion here.

If the best argument you can muster in defence of fascism is "but what about communism?" then you have no argument. Fascism can, and has been, deconstructed and criticized on its own merits. Without the need to drag other ideologies into it.
Just like people can, and have, deconstructed and criticized communism on its own merits.

If "whataboutism" is all you have? You've lost. It's the last arrow in the "defence of fascism" quiver.

Southern Forestavia wrote:You're trying to make them the bad guys but it is us who are doing the instigating. It is us who are taking the first shot! WE ARE THE ABHORRENT ONES!

If you have two groups of people, and one side is saying "kill Jews, gays, blacks, and other sub-humans" and another side that says "no, don't do that, and we're going to stop you"? It's not the latter that are abhorrent.

How you can get that twisted around is beyond me.

What do you want me to say? Yes. Fascism is very, very bad.

Such a simple concept and obvious truth. And yet it's like pulling teeth to get you to agree to that baseline. Further? Even after admitting it you seem uninterested in acting on it.

North Saitama wrote:1. The inherent problem is that you are acting as if it will lead to anything. The problem is that you are failing to differentiate between a threat and abstract advocacy, which there are legal tests for (such as the Brandenburg test).

I was unaware USSC precedent had any standing in the WA SC.

2. I am fighting on a hill for non-interventionism and freedom of expression. I have expressed many times that I actually don't care about the ideology.

Fascism is inherently opposed to freedom of expression. You think fascists will respect your right to freedom of speech and conscious should they find themselves with authority over you?

3. I am not distinguishing because I care more about actions and the concrete. In this case, mere abstract thought is being punished with concrete action.

You could advocate for nuclear apocalypse, and it wouldn't change my position. As long as you are not a valid threat, and merely abstractly advocate for it, it doesn't matter to me to the point that action is required.

Advocacy comes before action.

4. "Fascism is bad". I get it

I don't think you do.

5. It is harmless because it is abstract advocacy. At this stage, I do not fear them, because they aren't a credible threat.

It's worth fighting to ensure they never become a credible threat.

You are really going hard with the whole Fascist doomsday argument, implying that they are a credible threat.

For years the prevailing notion was "fascists on the internet? Who cares, just like-minded losers in echo chambers."
And then Charlottesville happened. People were calling for genocide of Jews as they marched down the streets of an American city, and a woman died.

So I find your assertion that a threat needs to be apparent before action can be taken to be nonsense. If you wait for fascists to take action? You're too late.

You tried shoving "Fascism is bad" in my face

People keep raising that (very simple) point because it's true, and you refuse to recognize it.

If only we could just ban fascism. Too bad it's against international law.

North Saitama wrote:

Prydania wrote:Fascism as an ideology is inherently cancerous. By the time it moves from abstract to concrete action? People have already been hurt. And history has shown, time and time again, that direct action is the most effective way of combating fascism.


Um, yeah? Fascism, at its heart, calls for genocide and political oppression. If you're going to die on a hill to defend that? You're not any better then its adherents.


You vilify yourself quite well without my help.


If you don't care about ideology to the point that you cannot even distinguish between fascism and everything that isn't fascism? Then you're either blissfully naive or wilfully obtuse.


Well that's because people REALLY don't like fascism. Maybe you ought to crack open a history book and find out why.


First off, Slavic neo-fascists are a thing.
Secondly? If you ignore people who are spreading an ideology aimed at your destruction because they aren't actively hurting you today then you surrender the right to be surprised when they come for you tomorrow.

You seem hung up on that, actually. That so long as fascism remains abstract it's harmless. And really, it isn't. By the time fascists move from the abstract to direct action? People are in danger.

1. The inherent problem is that you are acting as if it will lead to anything. The problem is that you are failing to differentiate between a threat and abstract advocacy, which there are legal tests for (such as the Brandenburg test).

2. I am fighting on a hill for non-interventionism and freedom of expression. I have expressed many times that I actually don't care about the ideology.

3. I am not distinguishing because I care more about actions and the concrete. In this case, mere abstract thought is being punished with concrete action.

You could advocate for nuclear apocalypse, and it wouldn't change my position. As long as you are not a valid threat, and merely abstractly advocate for it, it doesn't matter to me to the point that action is required.

4. "Fascism is bad". I get it, and it is not relevant. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean that its adherents deserve a different standard of justice.

5. It is harmless because it is abstract advocacy. At this stage, I do not fear them, because they aren't a credible threat.

You are really going hard with the whole Fascist doomsday argument, implying that they are a credible threat.

Cedoria wrote:
Casusistry. Defending Fascists means defending Fascism.


"Mussolini made the trains run on time!, No, that's not defending Fascism, it's defending Fascists! How dare you accuse me of defending Fascism!".


The position of Fascism being a threat is not a subjective one to anybody who takes one look at the openly stated aims and objectives of Fascism with honest intentions. They state openly their desire for war and militarism, which is the inverse of peace and goodwill.

I don't need to paint you as a hypocrite, you made yourself one long before I wrote anything in reply. As for the mockery we're applying, well, we tried reason and rational arguments, but you and those like you proved impervious to both.

The position of Fascism being a threat has legal tests (the Brandenburg test) to separate imminent lawlessness from mere abstract advocacy, in the interest of not outlawing ideologies de facto. What you seem unable to do is understand that abstract advocacy does not imply a credible threat. You are basically equating "I hate you" with intent to kill.

You tried shoving "Fascism is bad" in my face (your so-called "reason and rational arguments"), when I kept saying that I don't care what they believe, that all I care about is what they DO. You resort to mockery when your "Fascism is bad" falls flat when I continue to not care about your ideological arguments, as you have no logic to present me.

Cedoria wrote:

We are applying fair treatment. We are applying to Fascism the exact same standards the Security Council applies to all those it deems threats to peace and goodwill. We are even applying to Fascism the precise same standards it applies to us, if given even the remotest chance. That is fair treatment. You are suggesting that the Security Council treat Fascist regions as though they were a protected species. A part of me wonders whether myself and my own region would stir your heart to the extent that you would mount such a sterling defence of us.


If you feel this standard should apply elsewhere then just Fascists, feel free to draw up a proposal, but I should inform you that such efforts have met with failure in the past.

You most certainly aren't, though, as the mere advocacy is being punished. As I said above, you still fail to grasp the difference between action (which includes credible threats) and abstract advocacy. The difference is actually very important, as abstract advocacy does not necessarily entail action.

And, honestly, if it came to it, yes, I would defend your region if they were in the same position that CCD is in now. Having said that, I haven't had the opportunity to defend anybody but Fascists, as they are really the only types of regions targeted as such.

I fully grasp the distinction, I just don't think it's an important distinction. By the time Fascism translates from advocacy to action, thousands of lives are in danger. It is too late to cut out the cancer if you wait for it to metastasise. You have to kill the monster in it's crib.
'
No, I sincerely doubt you would. As soon as people like me are targeted, it'd be ten degrees to the right on your part, quicker then you can say 'free speech'. That happens every time, don't try and fool me into thinking it wouldn't be the case again.

Advocacy leads to action. If you genuinelly can't see the danger posed, well that's not our problem. This resolution is a preemptive strike to cut away the virus before it has a chance to spread. Do you honestly think Fascists would not punish people like me for 'mere advocacy' if given half a chance? Of course they would. I see no reason not to hold them to equivalent standards.

Prydania wrote:

North Saitama wrote:1. The inherent problem is that you are acting as if it will lead to anything. The problem is that you are failing to differentiate between a threat and abstract advocacy, which there are legal tests for (such as the Brandenburg test).

I was unaware USSC precedent had any standing in the WA SC.

2. I am fighting on a hill for non-interventionism and freedom of expression. I have expressed many times that I actually don't care about the ideology.

Fascism is inherently opposed to freedom of expression. You think fascists will respect your right to freedom of speech and conscious should they find themselves with authority over you?

3. I am not distinguishing because I care more about actions and the concrete. In this case, mere abstract thought is being punished with concrete action.

You could advocate for nuclear apocalypse, and it wouldn't change my position. As long as you are not a valid threat, and merely abstractly advocate for it, it doesn't matter to me to the point that action is required.

Advocacy comes before action.

4. "Fascism is bad". I get it

I don't think you do.

5. It is harmless because it is abstract advocacy. At this stage, I do not fear them, because they aren't a credible threat.

It's worth fighting to ensure they never become a credible threat.

You are really going hard with the whole Fascist doomsday argument, implying that they are a credible threat.

For years the prevailing notion was "fascists on the internet? Who cares, just like-minded losers in echo chambers."
And then Charlottesville happened. People were calling for genocide of Jews as they marched down the streets of an American city, and a woman died.

So I find your assertion that a threat needs to be apparent before action can be taken to be nonsense. If you wait for fascists to take action? You're too late.

You tried shoving "Fascism is bad" in my face

People keep raising that (very simple) point because it's true, and you refuse to recognize it.

I don't think you get this.

CCD will never have authority over me, because I (the guy currently sat in a hotel room in lake Charles, not the gvh account) don't exist in ns. They can attempt to invade enadia, good luck, but if they manage it that'll be as close as it gets. We'd move. They will never have power of me in rl, I live in Scotland. The chance of fascists gaining power in Scotland is about as high as me gaining power on Mars.

You're fighting against people because they subscribe to an ideology you don't like, not because you believe they're a threat. Please don't try and pretend it's anything different.

Prydania wrote:

North Saitama wrote:
*rolls eyes*

The whole point is that you are punishing an abstract opinion for not following popular morality, as opposed to punishing concrete actions. The whole basis for this proposal is based on subjective views, and punishing based on a subjective opinion of Fascism, rather than punishing actions.

Furthermore, I am not defending Fascism; I am defending Fascists, as I feel like the Security Council is being unjust and interventionist. Their ideology is actually irrelevant to me; I simply do not approve of using the SC for ideological warfare, contrary to its purpose of promoting peace.

At this point, are you so devoid of rational arguments that you are going to resort to mockery?

My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

It's quite OK Prydania. I am guessing that once this passes with a landslide, a whole bunch of similar liberations will be drafted, probably some targeting non fascist or communist regions. Who knows? One might even get to voting. Stranger things have happened.

I am certain that these folks will be on that thread, arguing as passionately as they are here.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:They will never have power of me in rl, I live in Scotland. The chance of fascists gaining power in Scotland is about as high as me gaining power on Mars.

Meanwhile I live in the country where Charlottesville happened. So *shrug*

You're fighting against people because they subscribe to an ideology you don't like, not because you believe they're a threat. Please don't try and pretend it's anything different.

Your (primary) failure in this thread is that you assume fascism is simple “another ideology” that some people simply “don’t like.”

No, man. I dislike democratic socialism. I recognize that democratic socialists, however, merely advocate for policies I disagree with. They aren’t a threat to me. Merely people with different opinions on certain positions.

Fascists though? Fascists don’t consider me worthy of human dignity. This isn’t me “not liking” an ideology. This is me being proactive against a group of people who would denegrate, degrade, and kill me if they had the means to do so.

Prydania wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:They will never have power of me in rl, I live in Scotland. The chance of fascists gaining power in Scotland is about as high as me gaining power on Mars.

Meanwhile I live in the country where Charlottesville happened. So *shrug*

You're fighting against people because they subscribe to an ideology you don't like, not because you believe they're a threat. Please don't try and pretend it's anything different.

Your (primary) failure in this thread is that you assume fascism is simple “another ideology” that some people simply “don’t like.”

No, man. I dislike democratic socialism. I recognize that democratic socialists, however, merely advocate for policies I disagree with. They aren’t a threat to me. Merely people with different opinions on certain positions.

Fascists though? Fascists don’t consider me worthy of human dignity. This isn’t me “not liking” an ideology. This is me being proactive against a group of people who would denegrate, degrade, and kill me if they had the means to do so.

At Charlottesville, a political demonstration got violent. Would you have attacked other ideologies if one of their members had killed somebody; if, for example it was a blm or Antifa demonstration in which it happened? No...I suspect you'd say it was just a fringe group.

Nazis believe I should be killed also. I win on two points, gay and disabled; they're still not a threat though, because mean internet people live in the computer screen and think I also live their. They don't know my address, I don't know theirs; I've taken sensible steps to make sure it's hard to find out.
I guess a Nazi party getting reasonable vote numbers might be a threat? But CCD...no, they're a region I won't have relations with, nothing more.

Caracasus wrote:

Prydania wrote:My only point, which is quite rational, is that fascism is inherently immoral and abhorrent. Be it in abstract or concrete terms. It is, at its heart, an ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocidal politics, state-sponsored terror, and political oppression.
These concepts, even in the abstract, are unjustifiable and abhorrent.

What I find laughable is that people such as yourself, Forestavia, and others claim to most certainly not be fascists. Only to crawl out and defend fascism at every opportunity.

Where's your sense of right and wrong for the people fascists target?

It's quite OK Prydania. I am guessing that once this passes with a landslide, a whole bunch of similar liberations will be drafted, probably some targeting non fascist or communist regions. Who knows? One might even get to voting. Stranger things have happened.

I am certain that these folks will be on that thread, arguing as passionately as they are here.

If that happens, I'll be around. I hate offensive liberations, they defame what the security council was supposed to be.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
It's quite OK Prydania. I am guessing that once this passes with a landslide, a whole bunch of similar liberations will be drafted, probably some targeting non fascist or communist regions. Who knows? One might even get to voting. Stranger things have happened.

I am certain that these folks will be on that thread, arguing as passionately as they are here.

If that happens, I'll be around. I hate offensive liberations, they defame what the security council was supposed to be.

I know you will be of course. As much as I find your position on this stuff bizarre you are at least consistent.

I'm wondering more about those other valiant defenders of free peach. I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that we probably won't be seeing them around...

Anyways, in other news KReich was liberated with 14,706
To 4,499 for and against. I am wondering what the stats will look like with this one to be honest.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:At Charlottesville, a political demonstration got violent. Would you have attacked other ideologies if one of their members had killed somebody; if, for example it was a blm or Antifa demonstration in which it happened? No...I suspect you'd say it was just a fringe group.

You don’t know me nearly well enough to make that assesment m8

The thing is that this didn’t happen. Why? Well I suspect that because if you have two groups of people, and one group believes in genocidal politics and the other doesn’t? It’s the side that advocates for genocide that will end up killing someone.

Nazis believe I should be killed also. I win on two points, gay and disabled; they're still not a threat though, because mean internet people live in the computer screen and think I also live their. They don't know my address, I don't know theirs; I've taken sensible steps to make sure it's hard to find out.
I guess a Nazi party getting reasonable vote numbers might be a threat? But CCD...no, they're a region I won't have relations with, nothing more.

See, here’s what you don’t seem to understand.
Charlottesville didn’t just happen out of the blue. It was a culmination of neo-fascist agitation in the online space. For years everyone wrote off neo-fascists as just that- “mean internet people.” They were crazies on the fringe who existed in their echo chambers.

Until they suddenly weren’t just mean internet people anymore. They weren’t just hanging out in their online echo chambers anymore. They were marching through an American city, chanting genocidal slogans, and someone died by their hand.

Do I think that making the CCD vulnerable in some potential future scenario will wipe fascism from NS? No, of course not. What it will do, however, is send a message that we as a community want as little to do with their ideology and warped values as possible.

Caracasus wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:If that happens, I'll be around. I hate offensive liberations, they defame what the security council was supposed to be.

I know you will be of course. As much as I find your position on this stuff bizarre you are at least consistent.

I'm wondering more about those other valiant defenders of free peach. I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that we probably won't be seeing them around...

Anyways, in other news KReich was liberated with 14,706
To 4,499 for and against. I am wondering what the stats will look like with this one to be honest.

From reading the threads I get the impression we'll see quite a few of them returning if this ever happens, though obviously can't be sure as I don't know any of them well enough.
One of my main reasons for this is as follows:
I do not support raiding. I do not support anything that makes raiding easier. This makes raiding particular regions easier. Whatever you like to rp, you still have a right to not have your region targeted and destroyed by large interregional organisations. That's about as basic as it gets.

Prydania wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:At Charlottesville, a political demonstration got violent. Would you have attacked other ideologies if one of their members had killed somebody; if, for example it was a blm or Antifa demonstration in which it happened? No...I suspect you'd say it was just a fringe group.

You don’t know me nearly well enough to make that assesment m8

The thing is that this didn’t happen. Why? Well I suspect that because if you have two groups of people, and one group believes in genocidal politics and the other doesn’t? It’s the side that advocates for genocide that will end up killing someone.

Nazis believe I should be killed also. I win on two points, gay and disabled; they're still not a threat though, because mean internet people live in the computer screen and think I also live their. They don't know my address, I don't know theirs; I've taken sensible steps to make sure it's hard to find out.
I guess a Nazi party getting reasonable vote numbers might be a threat? But CCD...no, they're a region I won't have relations with, nothing more.

See, here’s what you don’t seem to understand.
Charlottesville didn’t just happen out of the blue. It was a culmination of neo-fascist agitation in the online space. For years everyone wrote off neo-fascists as just that- “mean internet people.” They were crazies on the fringe who existed in their echo chambers.

Until they suddenly weren’t just mean internet people anymore. They weren’t just hanging out in their online echo chambers anymore. They were marching through an American city, chanting genocidal slogans, and someone died by their hand.

Do I think that making the CCD vulnerable in some potential future scenario will wipe fascism from NS? No, of course not. What it will do, however, is send a message that we as a community want as little to do with their ideology and warped values as possible.

We send fascists the idea we want little to do with them by having little to do with them. I won't be opening an embassy with CCD any time soon, the Enadia-CCD day of friendship isn't going to happen on my watch (or anybody elses), and I go through life blissfully having nothing to do with ccd every day without feeling the need to destroy them.

To anyone reading through this thread, don't let the vocal minority fool you. Knocking over fascist sandcastles isn't actually a controversial issue. Less than 1/3 of the game is opposed, and one of the largest contributors to that opposition is the creator of the targeted region themselves.

To gain some perspective, a semi-serious Commendation proposal of a region called Hell was more controversial than this is.

I find the raiding vs defending issue to be both a positive and a negative.

In a positive sense? It’s a great dynamic to structure GP around. And both sides have their appeal. I’ve both raided and defended. They can both be fun.

In a negative sense? So many people get moralistic over it. Raiding and defending are just two ways to
play the game. It’s like Horde vs Alliance on WoW. Pick whichever one is appealing to you.
So I can’t help but roll my eyes when someone involved in the RvsD dynamic tries to paint their side as the “moral” one.

Nah man. It’s just a way to play the game.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:We send fascists the idea we want little to do with them by having little to do with them. I won't be opening an embassy with CCD any time soon, the Enadia-CCD day of friendship isn't going to happen on my watch (or anybody elses), and I go through life blissfully having nothing to do with ccd every day without feeling the need to destroy them.

I wish you were right. It would be great if fascism, both online and IRL, withered and died without mainstream attention.

Sadly the events of the last few years have proven that the opposite happens. It festers, it grows. And sometimes it leaks into the real world violently.
Again, I don’t think for a second that an offensive liberation against the CCD is going to rid NS of fascism.

It is, however, a proactive step against fascists within our online community. And I have learnt that being proactive against fascism does far more than ignoring them and hoping the issue solves itself.