How do you feel about the following phrase?

[Toogoodman]

WWII: Smack down some fascists!
2017: Fascists are just expressing an opinion!

Ok then.

I mean, didn't we round up all the communists after WWII? The Red Scare? This happened between 47-56, but that doesn't make it a good thing does it?

Do i agree with Fascists? nah, but saying "we should just be allowed to assault them" is pretty fucking stupid.

[Danner]

I'm not advocating violence, but tolerance of intolerance would be self-defeating.

Your rebuttal is very true. And it's a fundamental problem on how to handle intolerance. But it is only one half of the issue.

Ideal: We want a society where everyone can live in peace.

Problem: Bob disagrees. Bob want [somegroup] burned to death in a fire.

Accepting the view of Bob means sacrificing that ideal. (your argument, and correctly so)
Making Bob an outlaw also sacrifices that ideal. (belfpala's "solution")

The only actual answer is to reject the idea of Bob. Tell him "no, that's not how it will be".
And put Bob to trial if he does something towards his goal.

[Deleted]

Next time ISIS come to town I'm sure you'll happily respect their right to free speech as they kill you and your family.

ALTOGETHER NOW, "THAT'S DIFFERENT"! For reasons.

You're deliberately ignoring the several times where I stated that only action should ever be met with violence. Perhaps in order to set up some kind of absurd version of my argument? I'd say murdering people would fall safely into the category of action, not speech. Or what? Think and say what you want, that's your right. What is not your right is murdering or attacking people for disagreeing with you. Not nazis. Not ISIS. Not antifa. Kids in kindergarten even manage to learn this pretty quickly...

[Ooid]

You can’t attack in “self-defense” if the other person isn’t actively trying to hurt you. Being associated with groups or having beliefs that you feel are advocating for violence does not mean you can attack someone for it.

[belfpala]

So, you're preaching intolerance of intolerance, then?

You don't see the difference?

[Aggrophobic]

All nonsense. The anti-fascists are every bit as fascist as whoever they're "defending" themselves against. What saddens me is that some people actually listen to them.

Most sane and educated people would be "anti-fascists" though, would they not?

[Deleted]

Most sane and educated people would be "anti-fascists" though, would they not?

Certainly. But most sane and educated people also realize that you can't go around attacking people in the street because you don't agree with them.

[Danner]

You don't see the difference?

What is the difference? Both sides are lunatic violent hate-mongers. One of the sides are hypocrites to boot. Both sides of this petty gang-war is a threat to my desire of how society should work. I do not wish a society where laws are put aside just because someone declares another person an un-person. I do not wish to applaud anyone treating their political opponents as sub-humans, even if - or especially - if I otherwise agree with them ideologically. That includes fascists. That latter specifically also includes anti-fascists. It also specifically includes you and your comment in #30.

I have no desire to see you die horribly in a fire. In fact, I strongly wish you may live a long and uneventful life. And that sometime in the future you will grow up and regret this phase of your life. What you are doing is advocating hate.

Work on that.

Or you know, punch me. Or wish me a fiery death. Whatever it is you edgy kids do.

[belfpala]

I have no desire to see you die horribly in a fire. In fact, I strongly wish you may live a long and uneventful life. And that sometime in the future you will grow up and regret this phase of your life. What you are doing is advocating hate.

Work on that.

Or you know, punch me. Or wish me a fiery death. Whatever it is you edgy kids do.

I've said multiple times I'm not violent, nor do I have intentions of being violent.

Thank you for your wishes in bold. I've failed at the second part, and I'm doing my best to fail at the first part.

But here's the thing: I wish no harm on my fellow humans. When I see humans who do wish harm on my fellows, then I change my stance and I can understand why my fellows to whom harm is wished may wish to retaliate by harming. That's the difference, which was the question I posed.

[Nasuuna]

Well it's completely dumb to say? Nobody with some intellect would generalize like that - it's typical only for right-wing people. Other people just are unable to think like that - it makes no sense. That said it's the same with "self-defense" that's also something (used as in in OP's phrase) only narcissistic people (typical Conservative/right-wing) would say.

You seem not to realize that you are unable to not reflect your mindset even when you try to be cynical.

did you just say its idiots that generalize then generalize all right wing in the same way?

[Schattenlied]

The phrase isn't true. There are plenty of "Antifa" who intentionally seek out violent ways to shut others down, which is the opposite of anti-fascism.

No, because people claim Fascism about things that aren’t fascism.

These right here.

[Danner]

@belfpala: Does your wish of no-harm extend to manbeartruck as well, or does he qualify as some sort of sub-human?

Asking because of post #30.

[Swalload]

"Anti-fascism is always self-defense". How do you feel about this phrase? Is it true and any actions taken is self-defense or is not true?

Not true, if someones does something without being provoked, under the claim that it is anti-fa, it cannot be self-defense in any way shape or form. People can instigate as anti-fa, any form of instigation cannot be self-defense but it can be an anti-fa action.

[therealstegblob]

WWII: Smack down some fascists!
2017: Fascists are just expressing an opinion!

Ok then.

If you're unable to see the blatant and fundamental difference between Germany invading Europe and fringe neo-nazis in 2017 then maybe you should wait until you're done with High School to post on the internet about it.

[belfpala]

@belfpala: Does your wish of no-harm extend to manbeartruck as well, or does he qualify as some sort of sub-human?

Asking because of post #30.

Fair question. That qualifies as me being up at a stupid hour and not censoring my own thoughts or considering their consequences. I do not wish him/her to die in a fire. The sentiment came from a general annoyance for tolerance "because it's free speech" of intolerance.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're unable to see the blatant and fundamental difference between Germany invading Europe and fringe neo-nazis in 2017 then maybe you should wait until you're done with High School to post on the internet about it.

Stop it before it starts. That's the fundamental difference. And thank you for being concerned about my education, but it's been alright.

[therealstegblob]

Stop it before it starts. That's the fundamental difference. And thank you for being concerned about my education, but it's been alright.

And violence is the way to do that?

[Danner]

Fair question. That qualifies as me being up at a stupid hour and not censoring my own thoughts or considering their consequences. I do not wish him/her to die in a fire. The sentiment came from a general annoyance for tolerance "because it's free speech" of intolerance.

Did not see this coming I must admit.

I have come onto you strongly in these posts because the only possible way I could interpret post #30 was if you were some sort of hardcore antifa sympathiser / activist actively going after the moderates for condemning them. It seems I owe you an apology for jumping to conclusions.

That said - I do not think manbeartruck is wrong. I detest hatespeech - but I do not think it is on the same level of crime as actually punching someone. As a society we must be able to speak - and reject - ideas in a civilized manner. That is only hard when it comes to ideas that are completely indefensible. Like fascism. But that is also where it is the most important to keep the principles.

Because ban one idea for good reasons and it is easy to ban another idea for bad reasons.

[belfpala]

And violence is the way to do that?

I haven't actually met anyone who commits violence this way. I've seen a few videos, sure. I've read interviews with Spencer, and I think he's seriously dishonest intellectually. It's more disturbing to me that a message from someone like him has some people agreeing.

- - - Updated - - -

Did not see this coming I must admit.

I'm a reasonable man in unreasonable times.

[Lex Icon]

it's a stance.. no more no less.

[Aggrophobic]

Certainly. But most sane and educated people also realize that you can't go around attacking people in the street because you don't agree with them.

No, of course not.