Nah, I'm not saying you should be allowed to kill somebody because they made a choice to be X. I'm just saying I don't automatically reject it the way I do for things that aren't someone's choice.

Like, I don't think somebody saying kill all blacks is the same as somebody who says kill all child abusers. One is something that isn't a choice, and the other is, so I automatically ascribe violence as an acceptable outcome to the former but not the latter, although we could still come to the conclusion that violence is acceptable against the latter through a different thought process.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 19 2020 01:01pm

Like others have already pointed out, the category "literal nazis" tends to be so small as to be negligible. You're using a fringe case that is empirically irrelevant as a cover to justify your support for violence against far-right-but-constitutional beliefs as well as "far-right but not as bad as literal nazis".

Nah, I haven't used it to justify anything. I was just making sure we agreed on principal. That's the first step.

If you want to now go on to discuss how to identify those literal Nazis, we can do that since we agree in principal that violence is acceptable to inflict on the fringe case.

I consider violence to be an unacceptable method of arguing out civil or political disputes in virtually all cases. The overwhelming majority of people targeted by antifa violence do not fall within the very narrow category of cases where I'm ok with using violence.


So just because I agree with you in theoretical fringe cases under the most extreme (and empirically irrelevant) premises does not mean that I agree with the larger point you're making. The fact that you had to go to great lengths to construct a case where I can agree with your viewpoint actually illustrates how far our opinions are apart on the broader issue.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 19 2020 01:10pm

I haven't made a larger point lol

You guys are just coming off as really desperate to paint me as supporting all of Antifa's actions.

The standard argument is that violence against fascists is acceptable insofar as fascism is inherently violent. Fascists are thus "aggressors" by definition. You've taken this and added "innate" as an additional criterion in an effort to head off criticism of the antifa position. The issue that I see is that there's not a compelling reason to privilege "biological" markers over other, often just as innate, characteristics. You're splitting hairs to render a moral decision that "kill all of "x"" is worse when it targets things like hair and eye color, and better when it targets land ownership status, language, or culture. If we agree that those things have a right to exist, there is every reason to punch or otherwise physically assault someone who openly advocates for the death of members of those groups.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Aug 19 2020 01:29pm

BWAHAHAHA

On a related note, fascist 60 year old women physically assaulted by men who identify as women for not assimilating into progressive tolerant culture
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/trans-rights-terfs-and-bruised-60-year-old-what-happened-speakers-corner

Land ownership status, language, and culture aren't as inherent as your skin color though. They can all be changed.

And, land ownership status is far different from language or culture in that it's totally separable from you as a person. There's whole cultures that didn't have land ownership the way we understand it now. You can literally just give your land away in our current system, it's not as trivial to change your language and culture, so I find it laughable that you tried to slip that in.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 19 2020 03:31pm

Language is not separable from the individual. It fundamentally shapes the way we think. Whole cultures have had different conceptions of land ownership. Whole cultures have also thought that various racial / ethnic groups were inferior. If a culture does something, does that make it good? We have concluded that land ownership is a morally acceptable construct. Why should we accept people who actively threaten that social order?

Yes, you can give your land away. You can also give up your culture. You could give up your language, and you could agree to never utter another political thought aloud. But why should you? These things are normal, legal, protected things in our society. Why should we accept people who threaten to violently kill people over these non-issues?

This post was edited by bogie160 on Aug 19 2020 03:56pm