Neo-Nazis threaten to kill School Administrator

[Indomitable Friendship]

It's edgy kids with low IQ's, if even that.

[The Black Forrest]

Trump was the one who pulled out from Afghanistan.

Actually, he didn't just pull out, he wanted to pull out earlier than Biden and then released some of the Taliban's most popular and extremist members, under the promise that they definitely wouldn't take over the country.

No, I'm pretty sure it was biden. After all, he IS president.

Yes. He is and like every other President has to follow up the other guys stuff.

[The Black Forrest]

That’s not really an answer.

They would be worse? How?

A false sense of security and complacency that might allow the left to accept less than they tend to embrace now. We've played nice and now it's time to take off the kid gloves. We must be militant and embrace direct action.

Running for office? That’s a pretty good answer which answers nothing.

Seriously; it’s not that hard? How would they be worse?

[The Alma Mater]

Amazing how nobody can give those reasons then.

All it would take is one, and the fuck up in Afghanistan covers that.

Considering more Americans died in Afghanistan under Trump than under Biden - I assume you believe that Trumps impeachment was justified ?

[The Black Forrest]

This doesn't even make sense

Even if it was something impeachable, which again it wasn't, Trump wanted to pull out even earlier in an even more uncoordinated and breakneck fashion. So either Biden did nothing wrong legally, or Trump is equally as guilty for being the one to make the plan in the first place.

Wait, what?

No, putting aside whether or not the exit from Afghanistan is impeachment worthy, only Biden actually did it. Wanting to do something and doing something are very different.

Well….talks had been going on for awhile and agreements were made.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timel ... ghanistan/

Not suggesting Biden handled it right. To suggest it’s his fault is silly if not simple minded.

[The Black Forrest]

I just realized this isn’t the American politics thread.

I will withdraw from Big Jim P’s tangent……

[New Visayan Islands]

What coup? What Congrats?

The coup against our democracy that was thwarted by the brave freedom-loving patriots in the intelligence community and corporate America.

The biggest terrorism threat in America comes from poor white people.

We know who you are, and we are not amused. Given your history, I am issuing you *** three days off for trolling and threadjacking *** as a reminder to read, review, and reflect on the Rules. Now.

Everyone else, please keep this thread on topic; we have an extant thread for Afghanistan and the fallout of the American Withdrawal; if the fallout is more connected to American politics, we have an extant thread for that as well.

New Visayan Islands
Game Moderator

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's a question for you: why should Nazis be allowed to speak freely?

Try and answer this without throwing around horseshit like "muh constitution" or "muh inalienable rights" or "muh civilized society" or "muh government oppression" or "muh we can't stoop to their level" or whatever other bullshit always comes up in literally every debate that erupts from the discussion of free speech. Give me a good, honest reason why society should tolerate Nazis.

Here's a few reasons;

1. Because the rationales used to ban Nazi ideology are transferable and create a chilling effect, and you've just crafted the tools of censorship and empowered people to use them, so they will in fact be used on other ideologies and perspectives over time.

2. Because it's not practical to exclude them from participation in society and its discussions. Separate from the ethical question of whether they morally deserve X, it doesn't work to actually improve society in any tangible sense. In fact, it seems to worsen it.

3. Because maintaining the legitimacy of the government to govern is a crucial argument in dismissing elements of nazi ideology.

Because last I checked Nazi ideology was a belief system centered around the genetic superiority of only a handful of people who are expected to violently dominate the lesser, subhuman categories who are only worthy of life as long as they're living and working as slaves for the glory of their superhuman masters and if they aren't doing precisely that then they don't even deserve to live. Under a Nazi regime people like me would be put in camps where we'd be lucky to work ourselves to death, because the only other form of demise would be far more unpleasant. Under a Nazi regime the common man is expected to give his life totally over to the state, the party, and the leader above all else; to the point of being expendable for the sake of creating a future in which they and they alone rule unchallenged and unquestioned. From the Nazi perspective there is nothing but war - whether it be war against dissidents, war against subhumans, war against foreigners, war against degenerates, et cetera. For them it is not enough that their enemies have different ideas but that they have different lifestyles, different ethnic backgrounds, different physical abilities, and whatever other excuse they want to make to keep people oppressed and docile.

Nazis want to build a society in which the people are merely cattle to be herded, milked, and slaughtered at the discretion of a handful of hateful and violent individuals who are willing to spill the blood of their own people in their own streets just to make a so-called "better society". So I ask you: why the fuck should we tolerate that? We should we tolerate them? Over half the people on this website would wind up in a Nazi death camp if they took power. Do you have such utter contempt for your fellow Man that you would allow these kind of barbarous ideas to float about? What do you want us to do, debate them? They tried that the first time and it didn't work. It's not working now, either. No one ever abandoned Nazism by being convinced through sound, reasonable arguments. No one ever turned away from Nazism because they were presented with irrefutable evidence to discredit their views.

This is a list of reasons Naziism is shit, to be sure. But we can craft a lists of reasons that feminism shouldn't be tolerated. Or that opposing particular views on race dynamics shouldn't be tolerated. Or socialism shouldn't be tolerated. Or capitalism even. Or indeed, practically anything. And that's the problem that causes the first thing I discussed in this reply.

Why should I tolerate people who want me dead just for being transgender? Why should society?

Why should I tolerate people who want to oppress me for being my gender? Why should society?

It shouldn't. Nazis don't deserve a voice, they don't a vote, they don't deserve a presence in any public sphere of society.

If you want to go to war with them and just have open violent conflict, that's one thing. But expecting them to just accept the loss of their agency is foolhardy.

They should be chased out into the shadows where they belong.

Oh i'm sorry. It's even more stupid than I thought. You want a *guerilla war* with them where they are the guerillas.

The lesson to be learned from WWII was that you don't debate Fascists; you fight them.

The UK managed it. The US managed it. France managed it. Poland managed it. Sweden managed it. and so on. In fact in most of the debates, the fascists lost. They couldn't win elections anywhere except Germany, which had some pretty unique factors going on. Now, when they just openly try and seize power and initiate violence, then you crush them, to be sure.

That Liberals have continuously failed to learn this lesson only ensures that history will repeat itself and Fascists will take power again. It's already happening in some countries, and the U.S. is coming close to joining them.

"What we're doing isn't working, so we need to do the same thing, but more actively!".

No, I won't tolerate Nazis. I won't respect people who view me as human scum.

You don't have to. You just have to not want to violate their rights.

I won't respect people who think of me as mentally ill or degenerate. And society shouldn't, either. Why? Because most of society should be killed according to the Nazis. If you truly care about democracy, liberty, and so on then you should support the disenfranchisement of Fascists because as long as you don't then there will always be a risk that those Fascists will infiltrate and subvert the system from within, destroying it and ushering in an age of blood and fear and there is no excuse for that kind of negligence.

Brown McCarthyism will save democracy apparently.

A democracy that will not defend itself does not deserve to exist, and if you can't accept that then you may as well be a collaborator.

"If you're not with the brown scare, you're one of THEM.". Just cut to the chase and found the board of unamerican activities mate.

[Ostroeuropa]

Reminder that Ostro once said, and I quote

I'm not trying to redefine it. I'm pointing out that once you consider these things, it shows we shouldn't care about terrorism as a category or phenomanae, especially given how fringe it is as a phenomanae.

Note that he never responded to my response to this.

Yes, he said that we shouldn't care about terrorism!

This is specifically because you were arguing that riots shouldn't be counted as evidence of an ideology being inherently violent, but that terrorism should.
I pointed out to you this is an arbitrary distinction and if we're not going to consider people who riot terrorists, then there's not really any point to the term and it makes no sense.

Who knew that all a terrorist needed was a few of his mates to stand near him also doing terrorist things for it to magically no longer be terrorism. Maybe have one hold a placard saying "Down with this sort of thing" and chanting just be safe. The 9/11 hijackers would be thrilled with that development i'm sure.

(Which is incidentally why I am calling the events here with lots of nazis sending death threats *a riot* rather than terrorism.).

It's not terrorism, because there's lots of them doing it. That's how stupid the definition is, and that's why I told you nobody should give a shit about terrorism because it's a nonsense term that has never been applied consistency and boils down to "Political violence I don't like" rather than anything meaningful. The left used to know this when they pointed out only muslims got called terrorists, but they took entirely the wrong lesson from that observation.

I also pointed this out to you in the context of a discussion about systemic ideological harm. You can't justifiably say that one ideology is violent because they're out of power, but another isn't because they wear police uniforms to do their violence. That's as nonsensical as Nazi's claiming to be a peaceful, normal ideology whereas communism is totally violent, because look at the number of violent criminal acts that occurred in Nazi germany, turns out that it was communists who kept acting outside the approved mechanisms for violence (The ones the nazis controlled and used to exact their violence), who would have guessed.

Any discussion of political violence that doesn't acknowledge that politics *is violence* is not worth taking seriously. (Specifically; all political positions can be constituted as; "Who is us, who is them, and where, when, and why are we justified in doing violence to them?" See for instance; any criminal law. Or Taxation. Or immigration policy. And so on.).

"Unauthorized violence" is a term that has merit. It's honest. It's accurate. But at that point it invites questions like "What is authorized violence?" and "Authorized by whom?" and "What constitutes authorization?" and so on, they become necessary questions if you want to try and build an ethical case in favor of unauthorized violence being worse than authorized violence, despite the fact that the latter is *orders of magnitude more prevalent in all societies*. Simply calling unauthorized violence "Terrorism" and so on while calling authorized violence various things to try and normalize it and pretend it isn't violence, isn't an honest discussion or evaluation.

[Mercatus]

I love how everyone assumes I’m a leftist as soon as I make a comment criticizing nazis.

I hold extremely far-right views on most things, but I abhor the thinking and ideology of nazis and their modern day brethren. In order to be a nazi, you have to be anti-semitic, and most of the GOP seems to love Israel (and so do I).

So if the Nazis didn't hate Jewish people you'd be cool with them?

Hell fucking no. Hitler also tried to establish himself as a God, even making his own church that replaced the Bible with copies of Mein Kampf. I’m not onboard with racist ideologies either.

[New haven america]

So if the Nazis didn't hate Jewish people you'd be cool with them?

Hell fucking no. Hitler also tried to establish himself as a God, even making his own church that replaced the Bible with copies of Mein Kampf. I’m not onboard with racist ideologies either.

Well you do, you just don't want to admit it.

[Mercatus]

Oh now I am curious(and bored)…….how?

Because Biden at least is honestly conservative. He's not a phony progressive like Kamala or Nancy.

He’s not really that conservative.

If Biden was bad, the batshit insane attitudes of Kamala and Pelosi would make the situation ten times worse. They’d be more aggressive than Biden ever could be. I’d rather have a president that doesn’t even know he fucking exists than an insane, highly aggressive liberal like Kamala Harris.

[Mercatus]

Hell fucking no. Hitler also tried to establish himself as a God, even making his own church that replaced the Bible with copies of Mein Kampf. I’m not onboard with racist ideologies either.

Well you do, you just don't want to admit it.

In your mind, you really, really want me to be racist just so it fits your narrative that all conservatives are racist.

[New haven america]

Well you do, you just don't want to admit it.

In your mind, you really, really want me to be racist just so it fits your narrative that all conservatives are racist.

I was more so pointing the fact that you're a member of the American Fascist Party, also known as the GOP.

Which yes, the majority of which is very racist.

You don't want to support racism but you're supporting racists, so that kinda defeats the point, doesn't it?

[Mercatus]

In your mind, you really, really want me to be racist just so it fits your narrative that all conservatives are racist.

I was more so pointing the fact that you're a member of the American Fascist Party, also known as the GOP.

Which yes, the majority of which is very racist.

You have yet to really show me how the majority of Republicans are racist.

If anything, the democrats who argue for CRT are racist because it is an ideology that puts whites below blacks and also implies that blacks cannot do anything without the help of white people.

[New haven america]

I was more so pointing the fact that you're a member of the American Fascist Party, also known as the GOP.

Which yes, the majority of which is very racist.

1. You have yet to really show me how the majority of Republicans are racist.

2. If anything, the democrats who argue for CRT are racist because it is an ideology that puts whites below blacks and also implies that blacks cannot do anything without the help of white people.

1. Which party's spent the past year whining about CRT because it makes them look bad?
2. Thank you for proving my point. CRT's actually about how social systems in the US have been built to exclude and punish racial minorities, namely built by right-wing conservatives in specific...

You don't want to support racism, but you're part of the party that actively champions racism any chance it gets. Ok, sure, we'll see how that works out for ya.

[Neuer California]

Reminder that Ostro once said, and I quote



Note that he never responded to my response to this.

Yes, he said that we shouldn't care about terrorism!

This is specifically because you were arguing that riots shouldn't be counted as evidence of an ideology being inherently violent, but that terrorism should.
I pointed out to you this is an arbitrary distinction and if we're not going to consider people who riot terrorists, then there's not really any point to the term and it makes no sense.

Who knew that all a terrorist needed was a few of his mates to stand near him also doing terrorist things for it to magically no longer be terrorism. Maybe have one hold a placard saying "Down with this sort of thing" and chanting just be safe. The 9/11 hijackers would be thrilled with that development i'm sure.

(Which is incidentally why I am calling the events here with lots of nazis sending death threats *a riot* rather than terrorism.).

It's not terrorism, because there's lots of them doing it. That's how stupid the definition is, and that's why I told you nobody should give a shit about terrorism because it's a nonsense term that has never been applied consistency and boils down to "Political violence I don't like" rather than anything meaningful. The left used to know this when they pointed out only muslims got called terrorists, but they took entirely the wrong lesson from that observation.

I also pointed this out to you in the context of a discussion about systemic ideological harm. You can't justifiably say that one ideology is violent because they're out of power, but another isn't because they wear police uniforms to do their violence. That's as nonsensical as Nazi's claiming to be a peaceful, normal ideology whereas communism is totally violent, because look at the number of violent criminal acts that occurred in Nazi germany, turns out that it was communists who kept acting outside the approved mechanisms for violence (The ones the nazis controlled and used to exact their violence), who would have guessed.

Any discussion of political violence that doesn't acknowledge that politics *is violence* is not worth taking seriously. (Specifically; all political positions can be constituted as; "Who is us, who is them, and where, when, and why are we justified in doing violence to them?" See for instance; any criminal law. Or Taxation. Or immigration policy. And so on.).

"Unauthorized violence" is a term that has merit. It's honest. It's accurate. But at that point it invites questions like "What is authorized violence?" and "Authorized by whom?" and "What constitutes authorization?" and so on, they become necessary questions if you want to try and build an ethical case in favor of unauthorized violence being worse than authorized violence, despite the fact that the latter is *orders of magnitude more prevalent in all societies*. Simply calling unauthorized violence "Terrorism" and so on while calling authorized violence various things to try and normalize it and pretend it isn't violence, isn't an honest discussion or evaluation.

No, you were just trying to redefine terms so the right doesn't look as bad. Too bad for you, words have definitions (in this case, set in law) and your attempts to change said definitions ain't gonna work no matter how big your wall of text. That the riots were terrorism was an argument that, I will point out, was debunked repeatedly in said thread. You don't care for the legal definitions? Okay, get them changed. Until then, those are the definitions that we work with. And, no the argument you offer does not explain how terrorism is the same as a riot. A riot is a public disturbance, generally disorganized or barely organized without a specific goal beyond showing you're pissed. Terrorism is pre-planned and organized and has a specific goal: to sow fear and advance your cause. But you'll never admit that because it hurts your argument. Here's a good article for a definition of terrorism. Don't like it? Again, get the definition changed more widely than some forum instead of trying to force your own definition down everyone's throats.

(BTW, to all third parties, read the thread I quoted ostro's post from. Its actually relevant to this thread and explains, multiple times, why riots aren't terrorism viewtopic.php?f=20&t=503149 )

BTW, I also remember that in that post you mentioned a men's rights club being denied official status, citing it as proof that men's rights are ignored. The men's rights group I then pointed out was denied an official charger because they refused to include safeguards against violent mens rights activism. For this reason alone, I don't expect you to be completely honest anyway. Also you linked to a blog post complaining about how the target of gamergate's harassment were asking for site TOSes to be strictly enforced and called it an attempt to suppress the right (because obviously flaming and harassing people are rights everyone should have on every venue and people shouldn't have to follow the rules of said venue ). Said post was dishonest to the extreme.

[Ifreann]

"There's no reason to bring up the fact that I'm a Nazi," says local Nazi while defending other Nazis.

If this were truly the case, I'd be deplatformed from this website because my account would get deleted. I'm able to operate because I'm far more around here. I've abandoned the Nazi platform to switch to an authoritarian one that is just as good if not superior. I take the Galactic Empire as inspiration, with the closest equivalent in this reality being the regime China has.

Bad Star Wars references or sticking in an "eco-" don't change that we all know your beliefs.

[New haven america]

"There's no reason to bring up the fact that I'm a Nazi," says local Nazi while defending other Nazis.

If this were truly the case, I'd be deplatformed from this website because my account would get deleted. I'm able to operate because I'm far more around here. I've abandoned the Nazi platform to switch to an authoritarian one that is just as good if not superior. I take the Galactic Empire as inspiration, with the closest equivalent in this reality being the regime China has.

Mitch is a fucking RINO and needs to go.

Love or hate Mitch McConnell, he's essentially done his job in the US Senate. No one else in that chamber has done more for the GOP than him. Whenever possible, he's ensured that the Democrats never got what they wanted or were never able to do anything major- because he's such a road block or good at having fellow Senators fall in line lock step in terms of voting.

Someone who doesn't know how to politic, will just let the Democratic party gain more power. Someone who is too Trumpist will lose their seat in the wrong circumstances or will be less competent whilst in power and they'll risk losing in the long term. Marjorie Taylor Greene is seen as a joke and so on. That looks bad and effectively is if allowed to become a problem.

You mean the Galactic Empire that was directly inspired by Nazi Germany?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Death threats aren't nice, but that is still technically just a type of speech. The 'seriousness' of a death threat is not really a thing, because there is no objective index of death-threat-seriousness. Anyone who hasn't had a death threat obviously hasn't been on the internet for very long.

No.

Freedom of Speech stops at death threats. Death threats are not a form of speech that should be protected under any circumstance.

They're also unprotected by our current constitution.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I was more so pointing the fact that you're a member of the American Fascist Party, also known as the GOP.

Which yes, the majority of which is very racist.

You have yet to really show me how the majority of Republicans are racist.

If anything, the democrats who argue for CRT are racist because it is an ideology that puts whites below blacks and also implies that blacks cannot do anything without the help of white people.

And what exactly is critical race theory?

[Free Nantucket]

If this were truly the case, I'd be deplatformed from this website because my account would get deleted. I'm able to operate because I'm far more around here. I've abandoned the Nazi platform to switch to an authoritarian one that is just as good if not superior. I take the Galactic Empire as inspiration, with the closest equivalent in this reality being the regime China has.

Bad Star Wars references or sticking in an "eco-" don't change that we all know your beliefs.

Unless he’s been through a denazification center of the kind closed ages ago, it’s safe to assume that yes, he’s still a National Socialist.

[Free Nantucket]

A false sense of security and complacency that might allow the left to accept less than they tend to embrace now. We've played nice and now it's time to take off the kid gloves. We must be militant and embrace direct action.

Running for office? That’s a pretty good answer which answers nothing.

Seriously; it’s not that hard? How would they be worse?

As my signature states, electoral politics are a fraud. These days at least. So, why would I run for public office in a timocratic republic corrupted beyond reform or repair? I have no faith in the system anymore. I say phony leftists are worse because they give people false hope that the system can be improved, which it can’t anymore. The only answer is direct action. Frankly, only a general strike or Revolution will save the world now. I prefer the general strike myself. Violence is still bad news and often turns revolutionaries into tyrants themselves. General strikes are a form of Revolution that avoids violence and keeps power in the right hands; that of the masses instead of an alleged “vanguard” of the people.

[Saiwania]

You mean the Galactic Empire that was directly inspired by Nazi Germany?

Star Wars' Galactic Empire doesn't have the eugenics and social Darwinism that the Third Reich of Germany had. Instead, it merely has the eternal ambition/desire for greater power/control over the Galaxy and a culture of rule by fear and a devotion to the Dark side of the Force.

No racism there, at worst they're species-ist with non-Humans not enjoying high rank without some exceptions like Admiral Thrawn. But overall, its still a brilliant system with a good civil service and meritocracy.

All things I can readily agree with or find more advantageous. There are other models out there for how people can be governed in the absence of democracy. So it is very likely and common for people to look into alternative forms of Fascism or authoritarianism if the Nazi model is obsolete or a dead end in terms of potential at this point in time.

[Salus Maior]

You mean the Galactic Empire that was directly inspired by Nazi Germany?

Star Wars' Galactic Empire doesn't have the eugenics and social Darwinism that the Third Reich of Germany had. Instead, it merely has the eternal ambition/desire for greater power/control over the Galaxy and a culture of rule by fear and a devotion to the Dark side of the Force.

No racism there, at worst they're species-ist with non-Humans not enjoying high rank without some exceptions like Admiral Thrawn. But overall, its still a brilliant system with a good civil service and meritocracy.

All things I can readily agree with or find more advantageous. There are other models out there for how people can be governed in the absence of democracy. So it is very likely and common for people to look into alternative forms of Fascism or authoritarianism if the Nazi model is obsolete or a dead end in terms of potential at this point in time.

Sai, the people who made the Galactic Empire explicitly said that they meant for the Empire to emulate Nazi Germany.