Brazil far-right presidential candidate in serious condition after stabbing - Polidicks

My position is to use words until words fail. I'm not going to advocate for assassinating political candidates but I'm not going to weep if someone who calls for genocide is killed by someone who he is trying to convince people to murder.

Words can only take you so far before nutjobs advocating for the literal murder of innocent people gain a political platform and rile up their supporters while benefiting from this tolerance. I understand that Brazil has enough problems with violence as is, but dude, this guy is just plain bad news as a politician and should've avoided politics altogether.

I mean if he had actually killed him then he woudn't be elected, the problem then isn't that he tried, it's that he failed.

The problem is this also works in the reverse. Greensboro Massacre effectively killed most communist groups in the USA for a long time. Someone already posted the image of the far-right nationalist dude in Japan that killed a major socialist party by simply cutting one of them down. All it creates is something known as the strategy of tension. Tit for tat bullshit is then used by the larger organized/established parties to discredit any newcomers. So yes. Murdering everyone/everything does not solve a thing. Hence why so many paramilitary groups these days have a belief in going Kamikazi[aka. Striking Bayonet], where your actions will ensure the death of an opponent, as well as yourself.

Good. He wants violence he gets violence.

I've gotta ask, if you guys alright with using violence to curb freedom of speech, would you also be alright with simply curbing freedom of speech judicially, so some opinions and ideologies simply became illegal? If you truly believe that beating up, stabbing or threatening anyone who preaches far-right ideology is fine, because them spreading their message is harmful, the only difference is in the manner you carry it out. Freedom of speech includes not being threatened to silence - a state that on paper allows freedom of speech, but harasses anyone who speaks out against it, obviously doesn't have freedom of speech. Is the difference that it isn't the state carrying out the harassment? How about a pseudo-fascist state wherein all the harassment is carried out by civil groups aligned with the government? Would that be a state with freedom of speech? I'm asking in relation to the $1 fine thread earlier today, as well.

You can't actually use Greensboro because the police were actually involved with the KKK/Neo Nazies and thus allowed the violence to occur.

I'll fight for the Freedom of Speech for everyone. But i won't fight for someone who wants to remove the freedom of speech from everyone except themselves.

I legitimately express that if you have not, read the Banality of evil. Its important and once you do you'll realize just how fucked our systems are through that lense.

Were the Allies the real Nazis by suppressing Hitler's freedom of speech?? Someone who wants to murder other people either needs to be in jail or, failing that, dead themselves - not given a platform and a shot at making it happen. Freedom of speech doesn't cover your right to incite violence.

The presence of the radicalism directly led to reluctance on the part of Britain and France in aiding the republicans, part of a wider phenomenon of judging the left as a greater threat than the right, while left-wing sectarianism erupted (as always) and you saw conflict between Soviet-supported communists and everyone else. Meanwhile, there were all sorts of stupid excesses like church burning and other shit that alienates people. If you want to beat fascism, you have to be grounded. You have to be liberal. You also have to court conservatives. You will also have to contrast yourself to the far-left by signalling shared cultural norms with the rest of the country, else the right will just portray liberalism as dead and violated by people who don't respect private property, the nation, or the family. Yea, we don't need zealots like you to do anything. Intelligence services, the police, and the army have been more than capable of dealing with domestic instability in the past, whether it was coming from the right and left. If you're somebody not part of the government that's going around declaring x is exempt from liberal freedoms and you have a right to use violence, prepare to have the same leveled against you. It happens every time.

From what I've read, the guy clearly has a lot antiquated, and downright terrible views. Still, I think it's a bit much rooting for his stabbing, although I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. Maybe it is a good thing though? I'm pretty conflicted on the matter truth be told, and maybe that is because I simply don't follow Brazilian politics enough to know how to really feel. That aside, I feel like the terms Nazi and fascist have really lost all meaning, but I suppose that's just semantics. It's one thing to say "yeah, I think violence may be necessary to quell the Nazis who utilize violence", but you have to really be careful about where you draw your line. Vigilantism can be really jump off the rails, and I fear that improper usage of words like this can be weaponized; think like the stigma communist had. It's a small symptom of a larger issue, but something that has been sitting on my mind as of late. Oh, that and the guy who stabbed him allegedly claimed to be on some holy "mission from God."

What happens when the military is governed by a foreign power's puppet? What happens if your civil servants are entrenched in their own fascist beliefs, as with 1940s Germany? Don't tell me it can't happen in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

Because likely more will suffer under his rule. Rather him die than those who will face the wrath of a fascist.

The Allies were responding to fucking war, what the actual fuck are you talking about?

gonna start an arms manufacturing business and sell cheap guns and ammo in bulk