American Politics XII: We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

[Aamayska]

I can understand the position that fascism should be debated and other such things, it fits nicely into a liberal worldview after all, but at a certain point people are going to have to once again realize the only way you can actually beat an ideology that praises violence to such a degree is to use violence yourself. We didn't beat the Nazis by trying to talk them out of it, we killed them.

And how would you suggest applying violence in this situation? By what criteria should we identify those to use violence against?

[Sordhau]

Allowing Fascist ideas to propagate does not decrease the number of Fascists. It increases it. We've allowed Fascists to openly express themselves for decades, and are now at the point where mainstream American Conservatives are openly courting Fascists and embracing their ideals. We literally just had a shooting motivated by the Fascist conspiracy theory of the 'Great Replacement' for fucks sake, the same conspiracy theory that's being endorsed by incumbent Republican officials and fucking Fox News anchors. Reality is living proof that your argument is a load of shit. Giving Fascists a voice does not make a society any freer, it only puts people like me at further risk by allowing Fascism a breeding ground to grow and fester.

This naive idea of a world where the free flow of ideas will automatically purify itself of evil ideologies is a pure fucking fantasy, and I refuse to allow myself to be loaded onto a train at gunpoint just to satisfy your self-righteous Liberal delusions.

What then, is a reasonable solution? Censorship? If so, how should it be applied?

In totality.

I can understand the position that fascism should be debated and other such things, it fits nicely into a liberal worldview after all, but at a certain point people are going to have to once again realize the only way you can actually beat an ideology that praises violence to such a degree is to use violence yourself. We didn't beat the Nazis by trying to talk them out of it, we killed them.

And how would you suggest applying violence in this situation? By what criteria should we identify those to use violence against?

Fascists aren't known for being subtle. They're quite open about their repulsive views, and broadcast them quite openly.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I can understand the position that fascism should be debated and other such things, it fits nicely into a liberal worldview after all, but at a certain point people are going to have to once again realize the only way you can actually beat an ideology that praises violence to such a degree is to use violence yourself. We didn't beat the Nazis by trying to talk them out of it, we killed them.

And how would you suggest applying violence in this situation? By what criteria should we identify those to use violence against?

Sadly, site rules will not allow me to speak on the topic in enough depth to actually carry the conversation. Wouldn't be terribly shocked if I get warned for that post, even.

[Umeria]

So don't engage. Your desire shouldn't prevent anyone else from talking to these people, especially since doing so is usually the only way to get them out of their ideology.

Allowing Fascist ideas to propagate does not decrease the number of Fascists. It increases it. We've allowed Fascists to openly express themselves for decades, and are now at the point where mainstream American Conservatives are openly courting Fascists and embracing their ideals. We literally just had a shooting motivated by the Fascist conspiracy theory of the 'Great Replacement' for fucks sake, the same conspiracy theory that's being endorsed by incumbent Republican officials and fucking Fox News anchors. Reality is living proof that your argument is a load of shit. Giving Fascists a voice does not make a society any freer, it only puts people like me at further risk by allowing Fascism a breeding ground to grow and fester.

Correlation vs causation. We've let fascists talk and we've also seen an increase in their influence, that doesn't mean the former caused the latter.

This naive idea of a world where the free flow of ideas will automatically purify itself of evil ideologies is a pure fucking fantasy, and I refuse to allow myself to be loaded onto a train at gunpoint just to satisfy your self-righteous Liberal delusions.

I never said anything about it being automatic.

[Aamayska]

What then, is a reasonable solution? Censorship? If so, how should it be applied?

In totality.

And how would you suggest applying violence in this situation? By what criteria should we identify those to use violence against?

Fascists aren't known for being subtle. They're quite open about their repulsive views, and broadcast them quite openly.

You misunderstand my lquestions. What exactly defines a fascist in these terms, and at what point of (for lack of a better word) "infection" should they consider to be a lost cause? What methods of censorship do you suggest? Where do you suggest we start?

[Saiwania]

The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own which are in kind. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

If anything, Fascists have China to point to, as an example of the most powerful and mighty example of an authoritarian/totalitarian system that has risen to prominence. If China is becoming #1, it is a sign that democracy won't be the future as is thought.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

your commoner mandate to kill and destroy, gained by brainwashing and deceit doesn't mean anything

[Aamayska]

Sadly, site rules will not allow me to speak on the topic in enough depth to actually carry the conversation. Wouldn't be terribly shocked if I get warned for that post, even.

I sent you a telegram

[American Legionaries]

The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

I don't think people have said fascists are incapable of coming to power, only that we should stop them from doing so, forcefully if necessary.

[The Jamesian Republic]

The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side. Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens. We can act against censorship with efforts of our own. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

your commoner mandate to kill and destroy, gained by brainwashing and deceit doesn't mean anything

Exactly.

[New haven america]

Allowing Fascist ideas to propagate does not decrease the number of Fascists. It increases it. We've allowed Fascists to openly express themselves for decades, and are now at the point where mainstream American Conservatives are openly courting Fascists and embracing their ideals. We literally just had a shooting motivated by the Fascist conspiracy theory of the 'Great Replacement' for fucks sake, the same conspiracy theory that's being endorsed by incumbent Republican officials and fucking Fox News anchors. Reality is living proof that your argument is a load of shit. Giving Fascists a voice does not make a society any freer, it only puts people like me at further risk by allowing Fascism a breeding ground to grow and fester.

Correlation vs causation. We've let fascists talk and we've also seen an increase in their influence, that doesn't mean the former caused the latter.

This naive idea of a world where the free flow of ideas will automatically purify itself of evil ideologies is a pure fucking fantasy, and I refuse to allow myself to be loaded onto a train at gunpoint just to satisfy your self-righteous Liberal delusions.

I never said anything about it being automatic.

It did.

[Saiwania]

Here is one issue that the Left of the Left in the US and most other countries want: Gun Control.

I'd contend that only a truly totalitarian system of governance has the effective power to control who has guns and who doesn't. Anything less, means that not enough will be done by default. A democracy doesn't invest serious money into databases or social credit systems and so on, that'd be necessary to know where every gun part physically exists or the name attached to some ownership.

As soon as some control measure costs too much money or if/when priorities change, people just vote to have it be neglected if not abolished. The system that Antifa so hates on the grounds of it not granting enough freedoms, is actually necessary and inevitable for the outcomes that're wanted for certain things.

China and North Korea or even Russia, has accomplished more internal security than the US or Canada or most other liberal democratic examples.

[Prima Scriptura]

Here is one issue that the Left of the Left in the US and most other countries want: Gun Control.

I'd contend that only a truly totalitarian system of governance has the effective power to control who has guns and who doesn't. Anything less, means that not enough will be done by default. A democracy doesn't invest serious money into databases or social credit systems and so on, that'd be necessary to know where every gun part physically exists or the name attached to some ownership.

As soon as some control measure costs too much money or if/when priorities change, people just vote to have it be neglected if not abolished. The system that Antifa so hates on the grounds of it not granting enough freedoms, is actually necessary and inevitable for the outcomes that're wanted for certain things.

China and North Korea or even Russia, has accomplished more internal security than the US or Canada or most other liberal democratic examples.

Lol, it was people like you that passed the first gun control laws to disarm black people.

[Ifreann]

The Antifa side would be sorely mistaken to believe that all of the internet is on their side.

No one believes that.

Fascists have their own platforms and safe havens.

Which antifascists routinely infiltrate.

We can act against censorship with efforts of our own which are in kind. We're a legitimate political bloc which if power is granted to us, will be because we have the people's mandate to govern.

Bollocks will you.

[Ifreann]

Here is one issue that the Left of the Left in the US and most other countries want: Gun Control.

I'd contend that only a truly totalitarian system of governance has the effective power to control who has guns and who doesn't. Anything less, means that not enough will be done by default. A democracy doesn't invest serious money into databases or social credit systems and so on, that'd be necessary to know where every gun part physically exists or the name attached to some ownership.

As soon as some control measure costs too much money or if/when priorities change, people just vote to have it be neglected if not abolished. The system that Antifa so hates on the grounds of it not granting enough freedoms, is actually necessary and inevitable for the outcomes that're wanted for certain things.

China and North Korea or even Russia, has accomplished more internal security than the US or Canada or most other liberal democratic examples.

Lol, it was people like you that passed the first gun control laws to disarm black people.

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

[Prima Scriptura]

Lol, it was people like you that passed the first gun control laws to disarm black people.

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29 ... ontrol.pdf

A firearm gives a POC protection against racist fucks that want to kill them.

[Umeria]

Correlation vs causation. We've let fascists talk and we've also seen an increase in their influence, that doesn't mean the former caused the latter.

I never said anything about it being automatic.

It did.

No it didn't. If fascism was banned for the past 50 years and everything else in America happened the same way, fascists would have just as much if not more influence. This is because words alone don't create extremists, extreme conditions create extremists.

Now, would the threat of fascism be less noticeable if it was officially banned? Absolutely, which shows the danger of doing so. An underground movement can seize control without anyone being able to react, a movement that's out in the open can be recognized and responded to.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Lol, it was people like you that passed the first gun control laws to disarm black people.

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

In the United States at least I believe that claim is true. The southern states went out of their way early on to ensure that freed blacks couldn't possess arms legally.

[Prima Scriptura]

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

In the United States at least I believe that claim is true. The southern states went out of their way early on to ensure that freed blacks couldn't possess arms legally.

And ya wonder why?

[Thermodolia]

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

In the United States at least I believe that claim is true. The southern states went out of their way early on to ensure that freed blacks couldn't possess arms legally.

Don’t forget ole Ronnie and his signature on Californias first gun control law which was created because the black Panthers where protesting outside the Capitol building with guns

[American Legionaries]

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29 ... ontrol.pdf

A firearm gives a POC protection against racist fucks that want to kill them.

Arming minorities is an imperative.

[Ifreann]

The first gun control laws? I rather doubt that.

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29 ... ontrol.pdf

PDF is not inclined to load for me.

A firearm gives a POC protection against racist fucks that want to kill them.

I'm sure, but I would have thought that the first gun control laws in the US were, you know, controlling the guns held by white people. Whereas Black people were, in the eyes of the law, little more than livestock who had no rights to control at all. I don't doubt that the history of racism and gun control dates back further than the Mulford Act, but I'd be a little surprised if they were the first gun control laws in the US.

[Prima Scriptura]

In the United States at least I believe that claim is true. The southern states went out of their way early on to ensure that freed blacks couldn't possess arms legally.

Don’t forget ole Ronnie and his signature on Californias first gun control law which was created because the black Panthers where protesting outside the Capitol building with guns

I’ve heard more than a few right-wing gun lovers say that they want to disarm leftists….

[Thermodolia]

https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29 ... ontrol.pdf

A firearm gives a POC protection against racist fucks that want to kill them.

Arming minorities is an imperative.

That’s why I’m armed. The amount of people who want to kill me just because I’m gay is pretty crazy and I’d rather not be in a grave.

[Ifreann]

In the United States at least I believe that claim is true. The southern states went out of their way early on to ensure that freed blacks couldn't possess arms legally.

Don’t forget ole Ronnie and his signature on Californias first gun control law which was created because the black Panthers where protesting outside the Capitol building with guns

Was the Mulford Act really California's first gun control law?