View Single Post
Old 15th March 2017, 09:25 PM   #1654
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
First, it's an ongoing problem in Africa to this day, so I'm not so quick to dismiss it as a 16th century problem.
Fair point. But I don't dismiss the problem, I suggest that it is a different one than the thread topic. No one is accusing fascists of supernatural alliances that do not exist. I am charging them with un-American political philosophies that they acknowledge (and per definition posted earlier, racial superiority and authoritarian control over citizens).

Quote:
The 'forcible suppression' thing came from your quoted definition of fascism. But I think it does represent your view. For the 'forcible' part, you certainly seem willing to tolerate violence against fascists:
I am admittedly asking for it now, but I do tolerate violence to differing degrees. In context of the OP, I see this more as a street fight between rivals, with the anarchists hopping in for the lulz, and I do tolerate this more if not outright condoning. An earlier post contained an eyewitness account, describing mutual aggression, not just Milo protesters. In fact, I didn't see anything Milo-specific going down; it looked more like an 'us v them' clash.

Quote:
"a more visceral show of disagreement?" "extreme response?" "A step or so outside decency?" Were you not implying the use of force?
Mutually, yes. I don't have extreme objections to 'taking it outside', unless one party does not want to.

Quote:
As for 'suppression,' if the intent isn't suppression, then what is it? Catharsis?
No, but to drop my junk on the block again: the intent is showing a natural reaction. A fascist/neo-nazi is, IMO, giving a solid 'F.Y.' to American ideals, and often to blacks, Muslims...often non-male-WASPs in general. There comes a point where it is antagonizing, then inciting, and that is where I can see some justifiable violence entering the picture. It has no guarantee of being legally protected...but depending on the circumstances, it may.

Quote:
Then I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Very few fascists have actually done all those terrible fascist things, either, so if witches get a pass for not actually doing the deeds, so should most fascists. But if it's based on their beliefs, some of the witches really did believe they were witches, so should they be given an "extreme response" too?
Then those witches would be what we call 'nuts' (generally). The 'not real' element of witch hunts is not analogous here. Fascists really do want to take away the Constitution, it's what fascism is all about (democracy is obsolete, per Wikipedia).

Quote:
IMO, the whole witch thing is actually a good example of how things can go terribly wrong if this "Natural Law" attitude is accepted.
Agreed. It can go horribly wrong. Or work for the best. Natural Law arguments are not an ace-in-the-hole, those involved would still face the music if charged. Then a jury gets to consider nullification, which is kind of where I'm at.

Quote:
See above.

ETA: or what Emily's Cat said.
Perhaps you agree with the 'preemptive' violence claim and could show me where I claim that? If I said that, I offer a retraction. If not, I await one.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top