Multiple people stabbed at Sacramento far-right rally & counter-protest - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Govna;50602178] But in plenty of other cases, the neo-Nazis and Fascists have attacked first. Again, right-wing extremism in the United States is and has been an issue for a long time now, and it's been responsible for everything from sporadic shooting sprees that have cropped up to terrorist attacks and plots. As I said before, even our own government considers it a significant enough issue that they invest a lot of energy and resources into investigating and infiltrating it. These kinds of reactions from the left meanwhile are natural social-defensive responses to their extremism that's been a problem for decades now-- whether we're talking the problems that have been had with the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and individuals like George Lincoln Rockwell, the American National Socialist Movement, The Order/Silent Brotherhood, etc.[/QUOTE] It's like you just looked at the first sentence of each post and didn't read any further. [QUOTE=Zyler;50601992]No, in this case the AntiFa people attacked first. [B]Not that it matters anyway because AntiFa justifies using violence in all cases and not just in self defense.[/B] And just to make it extra clear, THAT'S the reason I disagree with them, not because I think neo-nazis are nice people.[/QUOTE] The US government also considers radical islamic terrorism to be an issue, does that mean they should ban all Muslims from the country? After all, there's no such thing as a disproportionate response, right? [QUOTE]These kinds of reactions from the left meanwhile are natural social-defensive responses to their extremism that's been a problem for decades now-- whether we're talking the problems that have been had with the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party and individuals like George Lincoln Rockwell, the American National Socialist Movement, The Order/Silent Brotherhood, etc.[/QUOTE] Right, but this isn't the Klu Klux Klan at the height of their power, nor is it Nazi Germany circa 1932. You can't conflate the current enemy with previous enemies in order to justify any action against them. By this logic anyone could go on a murdering spree of liberals and claim they are fighting against Stalin or Mao Zedong's communist china and be totally justified in their actions. They are not the same people and we are not living at the same time as every racist group in history. We aren't living in Nazi Germany circa 1932, we are living in western countries circa 2016. We have to discuss solutions and appropriate responses based on the here and now.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50602096]One group is killing for the "right" to oppress and strip the rights of anybody who isn't a straight white male. Another group is killing to protect the rights of anybody who doesn't fit into that narrow definition. I wonder, I wonder, and wonder who is just a bit more justified in this poor ol' grey morality world of ours... [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] Yes, post more antifa pics beating up on the poor, downtrodden nazis. Also, I posted that pic of the fascists to contradict the "peaceful nazi rally" horseshit. They came looking for a bloody fight, and left bloody from a fight.[/QUOTE] So that we're on no uncertain terms here, [i]fuck[/i] the nazis. I don't give a fuck about the fact that they're getting stabbed. Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd be all up for you and your antifa friends getting an unreal-tournament-esque bloodsport you can participate in if you want to kill each other so bad. Yeah, it's fucking silly, but honestly this entire situation is ridiculous. I never thought I'd have to argue with someone who considers themselves a liberal as to why armed intimidation is actually a bad thing. If the nazis are spoiling for a fight, let them fight the fucking police and make themselves look like idiots. I'm sure they'd be itching for a chance at that. But I will [i]not[/i], on an intellectual level, stand for the concept of supporting armed gangs which roam the streets and attack each other and anyone who gets between them. Sorry, that's fucking juvenile madness. Society is built on rule of law, and while the law isn't always right, you can bet your ass that I'll argue that murder and assault should be illegal. But then, you're the guy who said that a family getting murdered made his dick hard earlier today, so maybe I just shouldn't bother. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] Honestly what a lot of Antifa supporters in this thread aren't getting is that we want [i]neither[/i] of you. If you can't fucking play nice, get in the fucking time out corner. If there were a neo nazi in this thread, I'd be telling them the same. Thing. If you can't live in polite society, fuck off from it.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50602096]One group is killing for the "right" to oppress and strip the rights of anybody who isn't a straight white male. Another group is killing to protect the rights of anybody who doesn't fit into that narrow definition. I wonder, I wonder, and wonder who is just a bit more justified in this poor ol' grey morality world of ours...[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sorry the world isn't black-and-white enough for you and you aren't able to go on a killing spree against people you disagree with.

[QUOTE=Zyler;50602230]Yes, I'm sorry the world isn't black-and-white enough for you and you aren't able to go on a killing spree against people you disagree with.[/QUOTE] I'm waiting for the ghost of Yawmwen to use axelord as a vessel so he can start spouting nonsense about how molotovs are harmless.

[QUOTE=Govna;50602178]It's not contradictory. It's a matter of them starting trouble where there previously wasn't any, and other people not liking this about them and deciding to stand up against them in reaction. [i]They[/i] try to spin it as being contradictory to get people to join them ("We're being oppressed! Look how terrible it is!"), but anybody with half a brain can see the problem is with them for being a horde of violent, racist assholes who think whites are better than everybody else. And those of us who actually have to deal with the consequences of their beliefs (my father's family is made up entirely of Shia Persian immigrants; the right wing is becoming more and more of an issue for us) certainly know better. Or should we just allow this behavior to continue unchecked? Because like it or not, it's becoming more and more of an issue in the United States today. Trump's campaign has helped to stir things up. Doing nothing about it is not going to make it go away, ignoring it will not make it go away either. You're not proposing any solutions here. [/QUOTE] You operate on a logic that all Fascists and extreme right-wing people are violent and need to be eliminated cause a Holocaust 2.0 will happen. When in reality a lot of them are not violent. Just a bunch of rednecks and disgruntled people that have been on a trend of dwindling for decades now. Sure they are getting more exposure now (thanks partially to people like you) and probably are going to grow abit, but your supposed actions truly only add to them. And the ironic thing is their groups probably know how to conduct themselves better you ever will at protests and within the law. Let them go back to their meet and greet BBQs and just protest them like normal human beings. Or else you are just going to need to put them in a camp or suppress them like real Nazis to get rid of them forcibly.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50602197]no, that's fucking stupid and daryl davis is an idiot retard the best thing to do is obviously stab them until they stop being nazis if enough communists attack the militant racial supremacists who believe america is under attack by communists then eventually they'll stop believing they're under attack by communists and then they'll give up if you think confirming their fears and turning them into the clear victim isn't the best way to get rid of them then you must be stupid pal[/QUOTE] Or better yet, maybe the two sides will just kill each other off and the rest of us won't have to deal with them anymore.

d

Obligatory reminder that Axelord said his dick got hard regarding a story where a mother murdered her two children. You guys are trying to decipher his reasoning for why he's justifying this violence, but I really don't think theres anything to gleam from such a fucked up, hateful person.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50602254]There's a huge difference between 'people you disagree with' and fucking Nazis. People can be reasonable and have disagreements, but if a fascist isn't going to be reasonable they have to be dealt with. Ideally, this just be done by showing how much of an idiotic piece of shit they are, but if a fascists is going to present a violent threat, it only seems proper to respond in kind. This has nothing to do with a black and white world, it's actually quite the opposite. A black and white world is one in which all violence is to be condemned and only peaceful means are to be accepted. A tool has it's place. This isn't to say it is always used properly, but it certainly has an undeniable place and purpose.[/QUOTE] By the definition of Nazi that a lot of people in this thread have used, namely being a Donald Trump supporter and supporting freaking Brexit. I don't think there's much distinction between disagreeing with someone and them being a Nazi. It's like how the words racist, sexist, terrorist and fascist have lost their meaning. Everybody's a Nazi now. "If a facist isn't going to be reasonable" then I agree we need to do something about it. But if a supposed facist (in reality, someone I dislike) is just standing around doing nothing then there's no reason to justify violence against them. You shouldn't commit violence against anyone who isn't committing violence against you. And I'm sorry I don't trust your magical abilities of precognition enough to be able to tell whether somebody's gonna be violent just by looking at them. How about actually punishing somebody when they commit a crime instead of harming innocent bystanders on the off-chance that some random uneducated hick is going to become the next hitler? If we want to start punishing people who have committed no crime before they have the possibility of committing it based on some ipso facto guilt by association, we should really get a move on banning all those Muslims from the country because some of them (probably all of them, following this logic) might be terrorists.

[QUOTE=Fouytan222;50602255]Obligatory reminder that Axelord said his dick got hard regarding a story where a mother murdered her two children. You guys are trying to decipher his reasoning for why he's justifying this violence, but I really don't think theres anything to gleam from such a fucked up, hateful person.[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious that both sides are just sociopathic neanderthals looking for a higher cause to justify their thuggery they both think they're revolutionaries fighting for the future of the country but in reality they're just cunts

[QUOTE=Zyler;50602201]It's like you just looked at the first sentence of each post and didn't read any further. The US government also considers radical islamic terrorism to be an issue, does that mean they should ban all Muslims from the country? There's such a thing as a disproportionate response.[/QUOTE] [i]You[/i] didn't read my post. Antifascism is simply a front that is united in the belief that neo-Nazism, Fascism, and other such intolerant, inherently violent and extremist ideologies must be opposed because they're incompatible with out way of life and our values here in modern Western nations (and they are; ethnonationalism is ridiculous). There is no unified memorandum on whether or not violence should be used in all cases or just in self-defense. Antifascists in Germany for example have done both: they've used violence offensively as well as defensively. They've also used other methods to fight against the far right, like interrupting and breaking up their demonstrations. In Sweden meanwhile, they focus more on using aggressive opposition tactics-- not strictly defensive. The Anti-Nazi League in the United Kingdom did the same thing years ago coupled with propaganda campaigns that successfully wore down the National Front and the British Movement at a time when they were making worrying gains. You're also trying to deliberately confuse the issue here by bringing in Islam, and you're trying to draw parallels where there simply aren't any. The majority of those who follow Islam are not radicals nor are they violent; [i]all[/i] those who consider themselves to be neo-Nazis and Fascists are by the core beliefs of their ideologies inherently violent. It's one thing to profess to follow a religion, it's another thing to profess a political affiliation. They are not the same as much as you're trying to equate them as being the same.

d

I will go on the record and say I take back that "my dick is hard" comment. It was really off color of me and shitty in general. I will leave it up there as a testament of my ass backwards moment. Sorry. I will not channel the spirit of Yawmen. Molotovs do hurt, just like words.

[QUOTE=Govna;50602278][I]You[/I] didn't read my post. Antifascism is simply a front that is united in the belief that neo-Nazism, Fascism, and other such intolerant, inherently violent and extremist ideologies must be opposed because they're incompatible with out way of life and our values here in modern Western nations (and they are; ethnonationalism is ridiculous). There is no unified memorandum on whether or not violence should be used in all cases or just in self-defense.[/QUOTE] If that's the case then your post is completely offtopic because we're talking about a specific organization called AntiFa that justifies using violence to achieve its goals. [QUOTE]You're also trying to deliberately confuse the issue here by bringing in Islam, and you're trying to draw parallels where there simply aren't any. The majority of those who follow Islam are not radicals nor are they violent; all those who consider themselves to be neo-Nazis and Fascists are by the core beliefs of their ideologies inherently violent. It's one thing to profess to follow a religion, it's another thing to profess a political affiliation. They are not the same as much as you're trying to equate them as being the same.[/QUOTE] Most of the people who have been called Fascists and Neo-nazis in this thread, namely Donald Trump supporters and people who supported Brexit, would not call themselves Fascists and Neo-nazis either. The actual number of people who would call themselves that are so small as to be not representative of any larger group. By arguing that Donald Trump supporters and freaking Brexit are part of some secret conspiracy to undermine western values, you are making the same argument that conservatives use to argue that Islam and all its supporters are part of some secret conspiracy to undermine western values. Do you understand the idea of guilt by association? [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Octavius;50602307]You'd be right in saying words have lost their meaning, but I haven't seen Trump supporter or Brexit supporter used to identify them alone. Supporters of the two certainly have a much higher likelihood of being actual Nazis, but that alone isn't enough. In this specific instance, we are dealing with people who outwardly proclaiming themselves fascists and blatantly showing their ideas. I could very possibly deal with a Trump supporter in a civil way, but the chances of that with a self-identified die-hard fascist is about one in a million.[/QUOTE] You're imagining some ideal person with which you would be totally justified in beating the shit out of. I mean, I'm sure this kind of person exists. But they'd need to be standing in front of you and actually threatening you to justify violence against them. Racist people can and are converted from their hardly-felt beliefs all the time. That's the only reason there's been any success in civil rights movements in the past 150 years. It's better to have even the smallest chance of converting someone who is racist into not being racist instead of violently attacking someone without a justified reason to do so, since that doesn't have even a remote chance of converting the person to not being racist and will instead radicalize them further and sabotage the work of actual civil rights campaigners who are doing the right thing. This is essentially the difference between what YOU NEED to do as an individual and what WE OUGHT to do as a society. If someone is in front of you and actively threatening you, you have the right to defend yourself. However, going up to someone and bashing them up with no justifiable reason for doing so makes society a collectively worse place by reinforcing the cycle of violence. I mean, I've actually had people thank me personally for causing them to challenge their preconceived beliefs and helping them become a better person. Has this ever happened to you? Can you think why that is?

[QUOTE=axelord157;50601872]Why why why do people keep thinking its just a "disagreement" when it comes to having fascists? Any jackoff who skims a history book can tell you that giving fascists the ability to organize themselves in public always leads to dead people, a lot of dead people. The whole street-fighting thing would definitely suck for bystanders but how else do you expect nazis learn they aren't welcome anywhere?[/QUOTE] Because if there's one thing you find a lot of in history books, it's "A small insignificant group wanted x but nothing came of it." [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50602167]pray tell, how would you intimidate them without making it clear that by demonstrating their lives are in danger.[/QUOTE] Get a whole lot more people than them and counter-protest (without throwing any first punches)? Remind them that they'll be arrested if they try anything? [QUOTE=Govna;50602278][i]You[/i] didn't read my post. Antifascism is simply a front that is united in the belief that neo-Nazism, Fascism, and other such intolerant, inherently violent and extremist ideologies must be opposed because they're incompatible with out way of life and our values here in modern Western nations (and they are; ethnonationalism is ridiculous). There is no unified memorandum on whether or not violence should be used in all cases or just in self-defense. Antifascists in Germany for example have done both: they've used violence offensively as well as [B]defensively[/B]. They've also used [B]other methods to fight against the far right, like interrupting and breaking up their demonstrations[/B]. In Sweden meanwhile, they focus more on using aggressive opposition tactics-- not strictly defensive. The Anti-Nazi League in the United Kingdom did the same thing years ago coupled with [B]propaganda campaigns that successfully wore down the National Front and the British Movement[/B] at a time when they were making worrying gains. You're also trying to deliberately confuse the issue here by bringing in Islam, and you're trying to draw parallels where there simply aren't any. The majority of those who follow Islam are not radicals nor are they violent; [i]all[/i] those who consider themselves to be neo-Nazis and Fascists are by the core beliefs of their ideologies inherently violent. It's one thing to profess to follow a religion, it's another thing to profess a political affiliation. They are not the same as much as you're trying to equate them as being the same.[/QUOTE] Hey, those bold parts sound like good plans! nah, stick with initiating a stab-off nothing quite like a good ole stab-off

you can stop fascism through nonviolent or violent means. if you go violent, then escalation is inevitable, especially in the case of american fascists. if you truly believe you must use violence to curb its rise, then you must be truly ready to fight, kill, and die. you must be ready to read about bombings and mass shootings from both sides the war. bats and blades aren't going to intimidate them, many of them are already armed, already training, and itching for a chance to start fighting. it will be bloody and you're not guaranteed to win. or, you can discard offensive violence and turn their ideology into a laughing stock, something nobody takes seriously. make them into the angry men yelling at clouds they are. educate people on how they're wrong. fix the communities churning them out. sure isn't exciting but it is more likely to result in destroying the idea of fascism.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50602351]you can stop fascism through nonviolent or violent means. if you go violent, then escalation is inevitable, especially in the case of american fascists. if you truly believe you must use violence to curb its rise, then you must be truly ready to fight, kill, and die. you must be ready to read about bombings and mass shootings from both sides the war. bats and blades aren't going to intimidate them, many of them are already armed, already training, and itching for a chance to start fighting. it will be bloody and you're not guaranteed to win. or, you can discard offensive violence and turn their ideology into a laughing stock, something nobody takes seriously. make them into the angry men yelling at clouds they are. educate people on how they're wrong. fix the communities churning them out. sure isn't exciting but it is more likely to result in destroying the idea of fascism.[/QUOTE] I reckon the only reason these far right-wing ideas still exist is that their opposite, the proposed 'regressive left' still exists, and vice versa. You ever notice how the only argument both far right-wing people and the far left-wing people who endorse violence can make is about how a very, very small number of people with opposing viewpoints have some really bad ideas and how they must be much more powerful than they actually are. These two groups literally feed each other, and they wouldn't exist without each other because the views of a communist and the views of a fascist are actually much closer to each other than either view is to a liberal or a moderate. Like, their views are so completely dissimilar from most regular people's that the only way they can maintain their viewpoint is if they have some mythical enemy to fight and their only 'evidence' is some boogeyman on the opposing side which they build up into some huge monolithic monster. They literally stew around in their echo chambers swapping newspaper clippings from biased news sources spouting exaggerated or made up bullshit, just so they can hype themselves up to buy a baseball bat and beat some random pedestrian's head in in order to fight the mythological great-evil-that-will-destroy-the-world. There's a specific mindset or personality type that just really enjoys causing other people pain, but the only reason they can do that and still justify in their minds that they're the good guy is if they construct some big bad evil that's so horrible and powerful that any violent action they take will never defeat it. Therefore, any violent act is justified. No matter how bad of a person you are, you'll never be as bad as a Nazi or a Communist, so you can be as bad as you want.

Whats up with this "small and insignificant" groups claim? Do you people really think "small and insignificant" groups lead to Trump being the GOP forerunner? Small and insignificant groups can't do that, a large trend of authoritarianism and at worst, open fascist ideas lead to things like Trump.

[QUOTE=axelord157;50602448]Whats up with this "small and insignificant" groups claim? Do you people really think "small and insignificant" groups lead to Trump being the GOP forerunner? Small and insignificant groups can't do that, a large trend of authoritarianism and at worst, open fascist ideas lead to things like Trump.[/QUOTE] Trump and his supporters are not Neo-Nazis. Again, I'm sorry the world isn't black-and-white and everyone you disagree with isn't automatically a Nazi. All you're doing is causing the word 'Nazi' to lose its meaning and effectiveness, causing more harm than good if you actually plan on defeating neo-nazis.

d

[QUOTE=Zyler;50602459]Trump and his supporters are not Neo-Nazis. Again, I'm sorry the world isn't black-and-white and everyone you disagree with isn't automatically a Nazi. All you're doing is causing the word 'Nazi' to lose its meaning and effectiveness, causing more harm than good if you actually plan on defeating neo-nazis.[/QUOTE] I wasn't calling all of his followers nazis ffs. I said "at worst" for a reason. Its a pretty undeniable fact that the main appeal of Trump is his authoritarian nature, something that is steadily growing across the western world.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50602492]It's a great idea, but it's a pipe dream. You're not going to suddenly fix all the problems and solve any sort of indoctrination or stupidity that exists. This is a piece of the puzzle, but it's not the whole thing. It won't succeed independently, because this just means the militant right-wing is allowed to organize and attack people. A combination of means is necessary to properly take the threat on, utilizing each means where and when it is appropriate.[/QUOTE] It's not a pipe dream, it's the way we do things in a modern society. People can be and are converted from their racist beliefs all the time. I'm not seeing millitant right-wing groups attack people right now, I'm seeing militant left-wing groups attack people on the off-chance that one day they might attack people. There also shitty people on both sides of the political spectrum who attack people, but that doesn't justify violence against either one, which leads me to my next point... [QUOTE]First of all, this whole "regressive left" idea is a new thing created by the right in order to demonize plain liberals, and make a crude and incorrect critique of them that can support their ideas. The people labelled as the "regressive left" are hardly that left at all, let alone far-left. Additionally, this so called "regressive left" doesn't really feed off of fascists or the radical right, it's perfectly capable of, and does, feed off of the mainstream right, since the "regressive left" is really just the modern American 'liberal' Finally, get your horseshoe theory bullshit out of here. The views of a communist and a fascist are not at all near each other. A fascist has much more in common with a conservative and an American liberal than a communist. You've managed to butcher political ideology so much in one post that I'm truly amazed. I'd be surprised if you could give a decent definition for any ideology you've labeled.[/QUOTE] ...There are shitty people within every distinguishable group or political persuasion. In reality there is no such thing as 'the left' and 'the right', every individual person holds their own political beliefs that are distinct from everybody elses. You don't get to arbitrarily group people together into a single ideological faction in order to assign guilt by association and then claim "off limits!" when it's a generalization of a group you prescribe to. Describing a liberal like me as a 'regressive leftist' is exactly the same as describing someone with right-wing views as a 'fascist' or 'neo-nazi'. It's partisan politics, you can either get used to it or disagree with it. But don't partake in it and then complain when you get the same treatment. [QUOTE]Some Trump supporters are, and many more are leaning towards that. The debate over whether or not Trump or many of his supporters are, at this present moment, fascists is irrelevant. What matters in this situation is fascist movement which is breeding in and coming out of Trump and his supporters.[/QUOTE] There are many Muslims who are radicalized into supporting terrorist groups, many more Muslims are leaning towards that or are susceptible to being affected by it. Should we assume that all Muslims are potential terrorists? The debate over whether or not Trump or his supporters are fascist is relevant, in fact it's the entire core of the argument. If you want to justify violence against somebody on the basis of some perceived threat, don't you think it's relevant whether or not they actually belong to a group you argue deserves a violent response? You basically want to remove all distinction between someone being a fascist or a neo-nazi and having some vague association with either one. Again, under your logic all liberals must be communists, all muslims must be terrorists, all christians must be the Westboro Baptist Church and all conservatives must be neo-nazis.

Why the hell do you keep comparing Muslims and neo-nazis? They aren't equal whatsoever. Millions of harmless Muslims exist. It's a walking contradiction to be a peaceful nazi. So, I ask you again, why the hell do you keep comparing Muslims to neo-nazis?

[QUOTE=axelord157;50602582]Why the hell do you keep comparing Muslims and neo-nazis? They aren't equal whatsoever. Millions of harmless Muslims exist. It's a walking contradiction to be a peaceful nazi. So, I ask you again, why the hell do you keep comparing Muslims to neo-nazis?[/QUOTE] Because you are not talking about nazis. You're talking about Donald Trump and Brexiters. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=axelord157;50602529]I wasn't calling all of his followers nazis ffs. I said "at worst" for a reason. Its a pretty undeniable fact that the main appeal of Trump is his authoritarian nature, something that is steadily growing across the western world.[/QUOTE] When does someone cross-over and become a justifiable target for violence? And how many innocent bystanders are then liable to be harmed for them to be 'defeated'? No more vague allusions. Tell me exactly what someone must say and do in order to deserve being beat up and killed in your mind.

[QUOTE=Zyler;50602585]Because you are not talking about nazis. You're talking about Donald Trump and Brexiters. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] When does someone cross-over and become a justifiable target for violence? And how many innocent bystanders are then liable to be harmed for them to be 'defeated'? No more vague allusions. Tell me exactly what someone must say and do in order to deserve being beat up and killed in your mind.[/QUOTE] I've been talking about far-right ideology since my first post. Ok. Somebody who is willing to use violence in the pursuit of establishing a fascist police state capable of stripping numerous populations of their civil and human rights. I personally prefer violence to be the last option left

[QUOTE=axelord157;50602623]I've been talking about far-right ideology since my first post. Ok. Somebody who is willing to use violence in the pursuit of establishing a fascist police state capable of stripping numerous populations of their civil and human rights. I personally prefer violence to be the last option left[/QUOTE] Okay, so AntiFa is wrong to use violence against people who are not actively acting violently towards them. We're done here. We agree, the argument is over.

d

[QUOTE=Zyler;50602627]Okay, so AntiFa is wrong to use violence against people who are not actively acting violently towards them. We're done here. We agree, the argument is over.[/QUOTE] Yeah, why the fuck not? I'm a big self-defense/practical pacifist person. I kinda frown down on the actions in the article but I'm not going to cry over some nazi assholes getting smacked around.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50602649]It is an obvious pipe dream. You can't convert and convince every single person no matter how hard you try. Even a cursory look at history would show this. Some people will resist, some people will be violent, and people need to be dealt with.[/QUOTE] Yes, and those people, right now, are a very small minority. And, if things continue the way they are, will be an even smaller minority as time goes on. [QUOTE]I haven't gone and arbitrary grouped people into factions in order to make them guilty by association. In fact, I stated earlier that this certainly is a problematic thing and agreed with you on the overuse of terms such as fascist and Nazi, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't make things up. And also, identify ideologies and grouping them is a very real and proper thing, but becomes problematic when it is improperly and poorly done by people. Nothing you have said refutes or argues against anything I stated, and it in fact just backs up and adds to some of it. The term "regressive left" is certainly created for that purpose, that's what I was point towards, though it is also generally applied to American liberals, and not as frequently to a more radical left ideology, but things seem to be leaning towards it simply being used as a catch all. So no, I haven't partaken in this ideology shitfest, and I'll continue to criticize it and would like to see you actually address what I said in that section of my post. I'd especially like to see that in regards to your seemingly poor understanding of ideologies, as exemplified by your use of the horseshoe theory.[/QUOTE] Again, you claim to not partake in the ideological shit flinging but you have thus far denied that shitty people exist in every category, thereby holding your in-group with some kind of esteem while demonizing the out-group, the very basis of the kind of identity politics I'm talking about. Have you actually made an argument against horse shoe theory? Or are you just dismissing it outright simply because you disagree with it and not based on some logical reasoning? [QUOTE]No, we should not assume all Muslims are potential terrorists. We should assume that those people who find themselves ideologically close to these extremists are potential terrorists. Additionally then, we must target what allows for people to be drawn to such ideologies, and it isn't Islam, it's their material and social situations.[/QUOTE] Religion is a form of ideology and an integral part of any individual's personal political beliefs. Haven't you noticed how most people who are against Gay Marriage cite religious reasons for being so? If you ask people to dismiss religion as irrelevant you are dismissing a large factor is today's modern politics, and for what purpose? Are you wanting to sabotage the possibility of people with nuanced understanding of the issues to discuss politics and religion and come to solutions for the problems facing the world today? It's also wrong to assume that fundamentalist Muslims, the kind whose political beliefs are most aligned with Political Islam and are most ideologically close to the extremists, are also automatically potential terrorists. There's a difference between wanting Sharia Law and performing violent acts in order to achieve it. Someone should not be considered a terrorist unless they are a terrorist. Someone should not be considered a neo-nazi unless they are a neo-nazi. Someone should not be considered a communist unless they are a communist. It's not relevant because nowhere have I ever stated I'd support violence against all Trump supporters. The question of whether or not Trump or his supporters are all fascist doesn't matter, because the concerning factor is that there are Trump supporters who are fascists, and they are seeking to bring Trump supports over to their ideology. Trump may no be a fascists, but he amasses a group that is broadly ideologically relocatable to fascists that the fascists can then recruit from. The same thing has been done with Bernie Sanders supporters, recruiting from them to get them from liberals and social democrats to socialists. [QUOTE]Overall, please stop making up some argument for me and maybe take a moment to read what I'm writing. I'm not saying every right-winger is a fascist. I'm not saying Trump is one. I'm not saying all Trump supporters are. It's a very real fact that fascists exist in the US, many of those fascists support Trump, and many of them are experiencing growth due to him. Trump has a base which the fascists can easily feed off of, and this is an undeniable fact. Hopefully you've actually taken the time to read this though instead of making up an argument for me again.[/QUOTE] It's difficult to understand your viewpoint when it's seemingly all over the place and you make a bunch of generalizations and non sequiturs that I have to correct even if it isn't the core of your argument. As to that core argument, the basic idea I have stated and re-stated is that you cannot punish someone for committing a crime they haven't committed yet. You may fear the rise of fascism in the west, but that doesn't give you the ability or the right to preside over each individual within a loosely defined group and the motivations and intentions of each and every individual. At best, we can define vague demographics based on big numbers and statistics, but we cannot take those vague figures and use them to direct our behavior towards individuals in our daily lives, even if they are vaguely 'relocatable' to some group that we really dislike. The best way to convince somebody of your viewpoint is to discuss and argue it with them. It might not work every time and it might be difficult, even unpleasant, but there's no reason why the right thing to do has to be easy or enjoyable. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=axelord157;50602684]Yeah, why the fuck not? I'm a big self-defense/practical pacifist person. I kinda frown down on the actions in the article but I'm not going to cry over some nazi assholes getting smacked around.[/QUOTE] Whether or not you emotionally sympathize with somebody is irelevant.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50602492]It's a great idea, but it's a pipe dream. You're not going to suddenly fix all the problems and solve any sort of indoctrination or stupidity that exists. This is a piece of the puzzle, but it's not the whole thing. It won't succeed independently, because this just means the militant right-wing is allowed to organize and attack people. A combination of means is necessary to properly take the threat on, utilizing each means where and when it is appropriate.[/QUOTE] what level of violence would you say is appropriate, and under what circumstances? what would you yourself do? [QUOTE=Octavius;50602649]It is an obvious pipe dream. You can't convert and convince every single person no matter how hard you try. Even a cursory look at history would show this. Some people will resist, some people will be violent, and people need to be dealt with.[/QUOTE] it is less a pipedream than believing that violence will completely stomp it out. if WW2, the biggest bit of violence this planet has ever known, couldn't stomp it out, what makes you think continued violence will now? there will always be shitheads, no matter how hard you try yo annihilate them unless you murder every last one and burn any and all things that mention the ideology. the absolute best you could ever do without using the tactics every tyrannical regieme in history has done is have small pockets of shithead nazis that are the laughing stock of the rest of the population.