What about ANTIFA?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Then why are the anti-fascists wreaking havoc in areas where fascists are not involved?

Couldn't tell you. Those ones, I'd reckon, are violent revolutionaries and anarchists.

There were thousands of them at G20!

Sorry, only a thousand I think.

The ones that directly fight fascists are ones worthy enough of support, though.

So was the Soviet Union!

[Torrocca]

Didn't back off on my WWII statement, one old irrelevant man from Twitter means literally nothing to me. Do you honestly believe that was a cogent argument? Totally irrelevant anyway, your entire argument is quite poorly constructed and I'm having a hard time keeping up.

Ah, calling a congressman and a World War Two veteran irrelevant. Classy. Especially when, just moments ago, you said explicitly that him and other veterans would be lumped on the side of the fascists. Absolutely classy.

Sources for the first statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H27Ul9ZsHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCWGcpcJgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54MetzvFJHE

You can find literally hundreds if not thousands of videos of them attacking people who are not in fact Nazis. I refuse to believe you're ignorant on this unless you're trying to plug your ears intentionally.

Two thirds of your "sources" are literally from alt-right channels, and the first one doesn't even make mention of the attacker being AntiFa.

Supporting those who want to assault anyone who conveniently falls under their own personal definition of "fascism" is called being an authoritarian moron who cannot comprehend the basics of what freedom of expression entails and why it exists.

The vast majority of AntiFa doesn't do this.

[Torrocca]

There were thousands of them at G20!

Lotta German Anarchists and Commies then, comrade :^)

So was the Soviet Union!

And the Soviet soldiers were worthy of being supported - particularly since Hitler was waging a war of extermination against them and their people.

[Kubra]

Couldn't tell you. Those ones, I'd reckon, are violent revolutionaries and anarchists.

There were thousands of them at G20!

The ones that directly fight fascists are ones worthy enough of support, though.

So was the Soviet Union!

the G20 was not an anti-fascist demonstration.
I mean, no doubt the folks there could be expected to show up to one, but anti-fascist demos in europe draw in a very broad cross section of activists and non-activists. Put bluntly, the guys at a european anti-fascist demo are very likely to snitch on you if you go on a prole stroll.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There were thousands of them at G20!

Lotta German Anarchists and Commies then, comrade :^)

So was the Soviet Union!

And the Soviet soldiers were worthy of being supported - particularly since Hitler was waging a war of extermination against them and their people.

It doesn't say much about their nation's long-term goals, does it?

[Kubra]

and what are those political views?

Do I really need to elaborate? Look at the discrimination in America going on in that era which was legally supported, look at the general culture of the time which was far far less accepting of women's rights, homosexuality, etc.

well that's bad stuff innit

[Torrocca]

Lotta German Anarchists and Commies then, comrade :^)


And the Soviet soldiers were worthy of being supported - particularly since Hitler was waging a war of extermination against them and their people.

It doesn't say much about their nation's long-term goals, does it?

Modern Germany or the 1940s USSR?

[Deanson]

Didn't back off on my WWII statement, one old irrelevant man from Twitter means literally nothing to me. Do you honestly believe that was a cogent argument? Totally irrelevant anyway, your entire argument is quite poorly constructed and I'm having a hard time keeping up.

Ah, calling a congressman and a World War Two veteran irrelevant. Classy. Especially when, just moments ago, you said explicitly that him and other veterans would be lumped on the side of the fascists. Absolutely classy.

Sources for the first statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H27Ul9ZsHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCWGcpcJgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54MetzvFJHE

You can find literally hundreds if not thousands of videos of them attacking people who are not in fact Nazis. I refuse to believe you're ignorant on this unless you're trying to plug your ears intentionally.

Two thirds of your "sources" are literally from alt-right channels, and the first one doesn't even make mention of the attacker being AntiFa.

Supporting those who want to assault anyone who conveniently falls under their own personal definition of "fascism" is called being an authoritarian moron who cannot comprehend the basics of what freedom of expression entails and why it exists.

The vast majority of AntiFa doesn't do this.

Correct, one anecdotal reference is irrelevant to the political views of the average man fighting in WWII. This side of the discussion isn't relevant at this point anyway.

Attacking a source does not make the material uploaded incorrect. If you have such high standards I highly recommend you search yourself, you will find plenty more evidence which will be harder to ignore due to not being able to immediately character assassinate the uploader.

The vast majority of Antifa do just that, actually. It's why thousands turn up to riot and break shit. Where do you think the rest are? What do you think Antifa does? They do literally nothing but incite violence. That is their goal, most don't even have a problem admitting it.

[Deanson]

Do I really need to elaborate? Look at the discrimination in America going on in that era which was legally supported, look at the general culture of the time which was far far less accepting of women's rights, homosexuality, etc.

well that's bad stuff innit

Sure. I'm just saying it's ironic that modern ultra liberal communists suddenly love those same people.

[Kubra]

well that's bad stuff innit

Sure. I'm just saying it's ironic that modern ultra liberal communists suddenly love those same people.

well they aren't fascists are they

[Torrocca]

well that's bad stuff innit

Sure. I'm just saying it's ironic that modern ultra liberal communists suddenly love those same people.

I'd assume it's due to either ancestry or the fact that that was an honorable cause, fighting Nazis in the war.

For me, at least, it's both.

[Kubra]

Ah, calling a congressman and a World War Two veteran irrelevant. Classy. Especially when, just moments ago, you said explicitly that him and other veterans would be lumped on the side of the fascists. Absolutely classy.



Two thirds of your "sources" are literally from alt-right channels, and the first one doesn't even make mention of the attacker being AntiFa.



The vast majority of AntiFa doesn't do this.

Correct, one anecdotal reference is irrelevant to the political views of the average man fighting in WWII. This side of the discussion isn't relevant at this point anyway.

Attacking a source does not make the material uploaded incorrect. If you have such high standards I highly recommend you search yourself, you will find plenty more evidence which will be harder to ignore due to not being able to immediately character assassinate the uploader.

The vast majority of Antifa do just that, actually. It's why thousands turn up to riot and break shit. Where do you think the rest are? What do you think Antifa does? They do literally nothing but incite violence. That is their goal, most don't even have a problem admitting it.

I mean when it's Jack Posobiec there's not a great deal of credibility there is there

[Kash Island]

Sure. I'm just saying it's ironic that modern ultra liberal communists suddenly love those same people.

I'd assume it's due to either ancestry or the fact that that was an honorable cause, fighting Nazis in the war.

For me, at least, it's both.

fighting a bad guy dosn't make you a good guy by default, it just means you have beef for some reason with that group.

like we have said, the Soviet Union was a horrific totalitarian state that passed the third Reich body count and it was an Ally, but by no means were they the "good guys"

they were merely allies of convenience.

[Torrocca]

I'd assume it's due to either ancestry or the fact that that was an honorable cause, fighting Nazis in the war.

For me, at least, it's both.

fighting a bad guy dosn't make you a good guy by default, it just means you have beef for some reason with that group.

like we have said, the Soviet Union was a horrific totalitarian state that passed the third Reich body count and it was an Ally, but by no means were they the "good guys"

they were merely allies of convenience.

Compared to the Nazis and their allies, literally everyone and their mother was a good guy.

[Kash Island]

fighting a bad guy dosn't make you a good guy by default, it just means you have beef for some reason with that group.

like we have said, the Soviet Union was a horrific totalitarian state that passed the third Reich body count and it was an Ally, but by no means were they the "good guys"

they were merely allies of convenience.

Compared to the Nazis and their allies, literally everyone and their mother was a good guy.

No, not really.

We massacred the native Americans to almost extinction and called it manifest destiny, we put Japanese in internment camps and had slavery in our nation for many many years. Many soldiers whom stormed the beaches of Normandy were probably racists themselves(though not in the same sense as the NAZIS). It's not like America was like it was today.

[Torrocca]

Compared to the Nazis and their allies, literally everyone and their mother was a good guy.

No, not really.

We massacred the native Americans to almost extinction and called it manifest destiny, we put Japanese in internment camps and had slavery in our nation for many many years. Many soldiers whom stormed the beaches of Normandy were probably racists themselves(though not in the same sense as the NAZIS). It's not like America was like it was today.

For the underlined: Let's blame the sons for the sins of their fathers!

For the rest: Sure, we had those at that time. It's not forgivable, really, it's not. But, in spite of that, we, the British, the Soviets, the Chinese, and every Allied power in the war was, without a doubt, a member of the "good guys" compared to the Nazis and their allies.

[Kash Island]

No, not really.

We massacred the native Americans to almost extinction and called it manifest destiny, we put Japanese in internment camps and had slavery in our nation for many many years. Many soldiers whom stormed the beaches of Normandy were probably racists themselves(though not in the same sense as the NAZIS). It's not like America was like it was today.

For the underlined: Let's blame the sons for the sins of their fathers!

For the rest: Sure, we had those at that time. It's not forgivable, really, it's not. But, in spite of that, we, the British, the Soviets, the Chinese, and every Allied power in the war was, without a doubt, a member of the "good guys" compared to the Nazis and their allies.

"good" is subjective, the NAZIS thought that they were bringing about a golden age of a superior people.

morality is not a solid, it's more like a liquid...or gas I guess, idk.

[Torrocca]

For the underlined: Let's blame the sons for the sins of their fathers!

For the rest: Sure, we had those at that time. It's not forgivable, really, it's not. But, in spite of that, we, the British, the Soviets, the Chinese, and every Allied power in the war was, without a doubt, a member of the "good guys" compared to the Nazis and their allies.

"good" is subjective, the NAZIS thought that they were bringing about a golden age of a superior people.

morality is not a solid, it's more like a liquid...or gas I guess, idk.

It's pretty fucking solid when one side is a colonial empire, a partially racist and sexist republic that was growing increasingly progressive, a union built on the idea of communism that was (at the time) headed by a madman, and all their allies, against genocidal monsters hellbent on conquering the world and genociding everyone that wasn't them.

[Kash Island]

"good" is subjective, the NAZIS thought that they were bringing about a golden age of a superior people.

morality is not a solid, it's more like a liquid...or gas I guess, idk.

It's pretty fucking solid when one side is a colonial empire, a partially racist and sexist republic that was growing increasingly progressive, a union built on the idea of communism that was (at the time) headed by a madman, and all their allies, against genocidal monsters hellbent on conquering the world and genociding everyone that wasn't them.

What do you think of the Mongol Empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire? just curious

[Torrocca]

It's pretty fucking solid when one side is a colonial empire, a partially racist and sexist republic that was growing increasingly progressive, a union built on the idea of communism that was (at the time) headed by a madman, and all their allies, against genocidal monsters hellbent on conquering the world and genociding everyone that wasn't them.

What do you think of the Mongol Empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire? just curious

Mongols were ruthless, the Romans were bad but they did do a lot of good for what its worth, and by Greek I'm assuming you mean Macedonian which, in this case, I'm okay with because, for the most part, Alexander the Great wasn't hellbent on slaughtering those he conquered - he's very fascinating, even, considering he wanted to unify the Greek and Persian worlds.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's pretty fucking solid when one side is a colonial empire, a partially racist and sexist republic that was growing increasingly progressive, a union built on the idea of communism that was (at the time) headed by a madman, and all their allies, against genocidal monsters hellbent on conquering the world and genociding everyone that wasn't them.

What do you think of the Mongol Empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire? just curious

You know, I really wonder what is the point of this line of questioning.

[Kash Island]

What do you think of the Mongol Empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire? just curious

Mongols were ruthless, the Romans were bad but they did do a lot of good for what its worth, and by Greek I'm assuming you mean Macedonian which, in this case, I'm okay with because, for the most part, Alexander the Great wasn't hellbent on slaughtering those he conquered - he's very fascinating, even, considering he wanted to unify the Greek and Persian worlds.

so you would be okay with someone whom supported Roman/Greek Imperial ideals then?

[Torrocca]

Mongols were ruthless, the Romans were bad but they did do a lot of good for what its worth, and by Greek I'm assuming you mean Macedonian which, in this case, I'm okay with because, for the most part, Alexander the Great wasn't hellbent on slaughtering those he conquered - he's very fascinating, even, considering he wanted to unify the Greek and Persian worlds.

so you would be okay with someone whom supported Roman/Greek Imperial ideals then?

Negative. I find those empires (as well as the Mongolian one) fascinating to look at from a historical perspective, but fuck imperialism.

[Kash Island]

so you would be okay with someone whom supported Roman/Greek Imperial ideals then?

Negative. I find those empires (as well as the Mongolian one) fascinating to look at from a historical perspective, but fuck imperialism.

you said you were okay with them that's confusing...

[Torrocca]

Negative. I find those empires (as well as the Mongolian one) fascinating to look at from a historical perspective, but fuck imperialism.

you said you were okay with them that's confusing...

Being fascinated by historical nations =/= agreeing with their ideals.