I agree. Showing up to show you support for those out here that still don’t accept defeat as an answer and fight the good fight for the few that read this far.

Have you ever tried to out crazy the crazy and force them to try to take the reasonable stance? It’s cathartic.

I guess the message I’m not getting is that they believe WWII didn’t solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today’s issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.

I get you and respect your approach. I’m referring primarily to a discussion I’ve had with them before. I’ll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn’t make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He’s arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn’t becoming more fascist. This isn’t an oddity, it’s part of a dangerous message.

Whether they’re cognizant or not isn’t important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I’m at risk of sounding like I’m trying to argue your point with that.

I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual’s control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.

This kid isn’t advocating for what you think they are. They’re advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won’t use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They’ve made it clear they don’t actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That’s why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.

When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You’re just not that intelligent.

You’re still advocating for hugging Nazis into peaceful coexistence out here, huh?

Your ignorance is on full display. Karl Popper said that. I’m guessing you’re also one of those who, when backed into a corner, can’t answer a simple yes or no to this question: “Do you support violence against violent fascists?” Can you, without attempting to twist the words or make it about me, answer that question in simple yes or no terms? Just to be absolutely clear; I’m not implying anyone is the violent fascist in this question. Just a simple yes or no will do. Answer that and I’d be happy to entertain the rest of your questions.

Ugh. Hate tourists. They ruin everything. Where is this again? Still planning my next vacation, I need a good location to catch up on some books.

So that’s how it got there!

Let me ask you, out of curiosity, when people said intolerance must be met with intolerance; what did you think that looked like? Peace? Tears? Or do you even understand the Paradox of Tolerance? All my sympathy goes to the victims and families of the victims of the actual tragedy that happened that day. The school shooting in Colorado. I guess I just have nothing left to spare for a fascist mouth piece.

They think if everyone just agrees with them, that in and of itself presents a solution. That’s their schtick. They said they don’t believe the United States is becoming more fascist – I’ll assume because it’s already fully institutionalized. They’ll point out problems and never solutions because they offer nothing of substance. It’s just a child-like mind with access to an LLM. Their post history should reveal everything you need to know.

When someone that promotes gun violence and decries justice to its victims dies by gun violence, it’s not a tragedy; it’s poetic justice. Unless you mean it’s alright to live by the sword, but wrong to die by the sword.

We all know they spoke wingdings and not words. ✈️

Shut up, nerd.

It’s almost like authoritarianism and despotism are still authoritarianism and despotism regardless of what ideological dress they wear.

They’ll keep using this ‘your intolerance feels like their intolerance’ argument, and this is the answer. It’s like they’re surprised about what intolerance for intolerance feels like. It feels like intolerance. Treating fascists like fascists by acting fascist doesn’t make someone a fascist. It makes them reasonable. They mocked the tolerance of the left so much, now they can meet the intolerant left.

You’ll hear them whine more and more about ‘horseshoe theory.’ This is what they’re crying about. Remember that they can choose to not be a fascist or fascist apologists, and be met with tolerance. But they victimize people based on things that are not choices.

Nobody is bound to be civil towards the uncivil, you stupid fuck. Learn how to break away from the Paradox of Tolerance like an adult. The intolerant will be met with intolerance. Treating fascists like fascists by acting like a fascist doesn’t make anyone a fascist. It makes them reasonable.

Shut up, fascist apologist.

*Kappa Talisman.