AntiFA: Protesters or Terrorists?

[Torrocca]

Before the original Nazis rose to power, they were mostly just talk. They talked and then they fucked up Europe for twelve years.

Are you going to start banning groups on the possibility that they may take over the government and institute an negative extremist platform?

Do I need to explain to you the flaws and implications inherent in that thinking...

Do I need to give you an in-depth explanation of what Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War Two were and why, as a result of that, Nazism is a very bad thing?

[Sovaal]

Easy there, Stretch Armstrong. No reason to put words in my mouth.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I only connected the dots. If killing me by refusing to save my life in this instance doesn't constitute violating my right to life, then owning property somehow means property owners get special privilege among natural rights.

So, essentially, you did put words into his mouth.

[Edding]

A thread about AntifFa has deteriorated into an argument over whether or not supposed fascists have the right to free speech.
Is that irony or coincidence? Seriously, I'm asking.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No it's not. Socialism is built around killing all the people who don't support socialism.

Show me evidence where this is a stated goal in Socialist ideology? Because I sure can show you the proof about Nazi ideology!

Socialism involves the elimination of the Bourgeois. This requires killing them.

[Mavorpen]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I only connected the dots. If killing me by refusing to save my life in this instance doesn't constitute violating my right to life, then owning property somehow means property owners get special privilege among natural rights.

You're using loaded language.
I think we're done here.

I mean, you could at least pretend as though you have a rebuttal.

[Torrocca]

A thread about AntifFa has deteriorated into an argument over whether or not supposed fascists have the right to free speech.
Is that irony or coincidence? Seriously, I'm asking.

I mean, in this case Fascists heavily relate to Anti-Fa, so it's technically on topic

Show me evidence where this is a stated goal in Socialist ideology? Because I sure can show you the proof about Nazi ideology!

Socialism involves the elimination of the Bourgeois. This requires killing them.

Show me evidence? Specifically the bit of evidence where Socialism says, "yeah the only way to eliminate the Bourgeois class is by literally fucking killing every last one of them?"

[Sovaal]

I must have missed the footnote in the 1st Amendment that dictates that commies can espouse their bullshit, but a nazi cannot espouse their bullshit.

Remember, everyone: America is the world and the world is America. No one has the belief that Nazism actually is bullshit that shouldn't be allowed! Nope, not at all!

Because freedom if speech isn't like a recognised right by the free world or the UN or anything.

[Grinning Dragon]

A thread about AntifFa has deteriorated into an argument over whether or not supposed fascists have the right to free speech.
Is that irony or coincidence? Seriously, I'm asking.

I support their right to free speech, what I do not support or condone is the use of violence.

[Mavorpen]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I only connected the dots. If killing me by refusing to save my life in this instance doesn't constitute violating my right to life, then owning property somehow means property owners get special privilege among natural rights.

So, essentially, you did put words into his mouth.

No. If I had said, "So basically, you're claiming X," then yes, I would be putting words into his mouth. I didn't make the claim that he said or claimed what I concluded. I reached my own conclusion from his argument.

[Proctopeo]

You're using loaded language.
I think we're done here.

I mean, you could at least pretend as though you have a rebuttal.

One isn't necessary. I do, but it's not worth it.

[Torrocca]

Remember, everyone: America is the world and the world is America. No one has the belief that Nazism actually is bullshit that shouldn't be allowed! Nope, not at all!

Because freedom if speech isn't like a recognised right by the free world or the UN or anything.

Because Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Russia, and a load of other European nations sure do recognize Nazism as free speech!

[Mavorpen]

I mean, you could at least pretend as though you have a rebuttal.

One isn't necessary. I do, but it's not worth it.

Suuure you do.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Are you going to start banning groups on the possibility that they may take over the government and institute an negative extremist platform?

Do I need to explain to you the flaws and implications inherent in that thinking...

Do I need to give you an in-depth explanation of what Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War Two were and why, as a result of that, Nazism is a very bad thing?

Well then, I suppose we should in turn also ban socialism yes?

Seeing as how socialist regimes acrossed the world led to even more deaths than the holocaust and WW2, and they held back millions of peoples standard of living for years. Lets not forget all those extremists who have killed thousands of people acrossed the world ( the weathermen, ELN, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc. )

I suppose we should also ban Islam too, seeing as how that religion just has a tendency to breed militants.

As I recall the Crusades were a Christian thing, and although they are peaceful now... I mean who knows? Ban them.

.......

[Torrocca]

Do I need to give you an in-depth explanation of what Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War Two were and why, as a result of that, Nazism is a very bad thing?

Well then, I suppose we should in turn also ban socialism yes?

Seeing as how socialist regimes acrossed the world led to even more deaths than the holocaust and WW2, and they held back millions of peoples standard of living for years. Lets not forget all those extremists who have killed thousands of people acrossed the world ( the weathermen, ELN, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc. )

I suppose we should also ban Islam too, seeing as how that religion just has a tendency to breed militants.

As I recall the Crusades were a Christian thing, and although they are peaceful now... I mean who knows? Ban them.

.......

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

[Uxupox]

Well then, I suppose we should in turn also ban socialism yes?

Seeing as how socialist regimes acrossed the world led to even more deaths than the holocaust and WW2, and they held back millions of peoples standard of living for years. Lets not forget all those extremists who have killed thousands of people acrossed the world ( the weathermen, ELN, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc. )

I suppose we should also ban Islam too, seeing as how that religion just has a tendency to breed militants.

As I recall the Crusades were a Christian thing, and although they are peaceful now... I mean who knows? Ban them.

.......

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

damn murder is only bad when you kill non-aryans.

[Edding]

A thread about AntifFa has deteriorated into an argument over whether or not supposed fascists have the right to free speech.
Is that irony or coincidence? Seriously, I'm asking.

I mean, in this case Fascists heavily relate to Anti-Fa, so it's technically on topic

I was alluding to it's ideological similarity to the late Berkeley affair.

[Torrocca]

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

damn murder is only bad when you kill non-aryans.

Damn scheming to literally genocide everyone that's not Aryan is equally bad to accidental death or other forms of murder. It's not like billions would have died from the former, nope not at all!

[Sovaal]

Are you going to start banning groups on the possibility that they may take over the government and institute an negative extremist platform?

Do I need to explain to you the flaws and implications inherent in that thinking...

Do I need to give you an in-depth explanation of what Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War Two were and why, as a result of that, Nazism is a very bad thing?

Do we need to go into a in-depth explanation why the gulags and the occupation of eastern Europe and the suppression of all political opposition, and why as a result, communism, or as you'll probably retort, the form practiced by the "no try communist" Soviet Union was bad? Communism, or at least those who espouse it, have killed millions of people, so why would they have a voice while the fascists dont?

[Republic of the Cristo]

Well then, I suppose we should in turn also ban socialism yes?

Seeing as how socialist regimes acrossed the world led to even more deaths than the holocaust and WW2, and they held back millions of peoples standard of living for years. Lets not forget all those extremists who have killed thousands of people acrossed the world ( the weathermen, ELN, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc. )

I suppose we should also ban Islam too, seeing as how that religion just has a tendency to breed militants.

As I recall the Crusades were a Christian thing, and although they are peaceful now... I mean who knows? Ban them.

.......

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

Sure seems like it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

[Mavorpen]

Do I need to give you an in-depth explanation of what Nazism, the Holocaust, and World War Two were and why, as a result of that, Nazism is a very bad thing?

Do we need to go into a in-depth explanation why the gulags and the occupation of eastern Europe and the suppression of all political opposition, and why as a result, communism, or as you'll probably retort, the form practiced by the "no try communist" Soviet Union was bad? Communism, or at least those who espouse it, have killed millions of people, so why would they have a voice while the fascists dont?

Probably in the same way that Americans would have a voice despite their government killing millions of people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

Nothing wrong happened here. People who wear glasses are obviously Nazis who deserve no rights.

[Sovaal]

Well then, I suppose we should in turn also ban socialism yes?

Seeing as how socialist regimes acrossed the world led to even more deaths than the holocaust and WW2, and they held back millions of peoples standard of living for years. Lets not forget all those extremists who have killed thousands of people acrossed the world ( the weathermen, ELN, FARC, Red Army Faction, etc. )

I suppose we should also ban Islam too, seeing as how that religion just has a tendency to breed militants.

As I recall the Crusades were a Christian thing, and although they are peaceful now... I mean who knows? Ban them.

.......

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

So long as you don't make it an "official" part of your ideology, your free to commit as many genocides and mass murders as you want?

[Uxupox]

damn murder is only bad when you kill non-aryans.

Damn scheming to literally genocide everyone that's not Aryan is equally bad to accidental death or other forms of murder. It's not like billions would have died from the former, nope not at all!

Damn scheming to literally genocide everyone that's not Communist is equally bad to accidental death or other forms of murder. It's not like billions would have died from the former, nope not at all

[Torrocca]

Because the Socialists sure made it a part of their ideology to exterminate non-Aryans or literally anyone that wasn't them, amirite?

Sure seems like it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

1. Pol Pot was an overly-authoritarian asshole and I recognize that.
2. The Gulags weren't camps where people were sent to be exterminated; they were labor camps where people died because of food and winter clothing shortages.
3. Mao never schemed to exterminate a hundred million of his own people who were ethnically related to him - that was a result of shitty, SHITTY policy.
4. The Purges of Stalin's regime were shitty, but they weren't genocide.

[Sovaal]

So, essentially, you did put words into his mouth.

No. If I had said, "So basically, you're claiming X," then yes, I would be putting words into his mouth. I didn't make the claim that he said or claimed what I concluded. I reached my own conclusion from his argument.

It just seems that you where claiming that was what he believes by claiming that. Although, I guess one would be just as valid to say I do the same.