PC Principal: Get Off My Lawn

[Andalusian girls]

Also, I was only rebutting AG's attempt to equate nazism with some college freshman thinking communism is rad.

reading is difficult but the 'equations' were Nazism to communism, and then some hypothetical student publicly calling for the death of the bourgeoisie with the tubby idiot above, who, spoiler alert, represents slightly less of a threat than did The Third Reich.

Where did I espouse vigilante justice, again? I've said before in this thread that violence is generally inappropriate.

I'm also not going to protest the punching of someone who walks around wearing a swastika, verbally assaulting minorities until he gets himself knocked on his ass. He seemed to know he was at fault, too, considering he walked away without acknowledging the police or filing any report.

It's not about an ideology's body count, lest we bring up religion. It's about what the symbols these people adorn themselves with mean to public memory. Someone walking down the street reading the Communist Manifesto isn't going to project the same visceral menace, the same threat to existence that someone wearing a swastika armband will to minorities.

Doubly so when that individual is wearing that while actively verbally assaulting minorities they come across. Do you not go outside, or exist in the real world? People get punched for far, far less, and I will not lavish concern on this extremist who incited the violence he begot.

this line of thinking i see bandied about quite frequently and is a fundamental failure of comprehension. concern for the extremist and his well-being is not the impetus for objecting to mob violence. it is not a matter of sympathy. there are higher principles of speech and law that apply to all, no matter how disagreeable. incidentally of course this particular individual was violating said law and it would have been ideal to see him thrown in the back of a police cruiser.

nice ad hominen, though.

[EternityEnd]

reading is difficult but the 'equations' were Nazism to communism, and then some hypothetical student publicly calling for the death of the bourgeoisie with the tubby idiot above, who, spoiler alert, represents slightly less of a threat than did The Third Reich.

Wow, really? It's almost as if the anti-white nationalist movement isn't against this individual, but against the ideology that minorities should be eradicated or disenfranchised.

It's also almost as if this individual was intentionally provoking a response from resident minorities, knew he was acting illegally, and refused to engage with police as a result.

this line of thinking i see bandied about quite frequently and is a fundamental failure of comprehension. concern for the extremist and his well-being is not the impetus for objecting to mob violence. it is not a matter of sympathy. there are higher principles of speech and law that apply to all, no matter how disagreeable. incidentally of course this particular individual was violating said law and it would have been ideal to see him thrown in the back of a police cruiser.

The unwillingness to comprehend seems to be yours? Most of us do object to mob or vigilante violence. I don't approve of antifa tracking down nazis and bringing violence to their doors. I don't think the provoked man in this instance is inculpable.

I understand the action, though, considering myself and most Americans are indelibly linked to those targeted by nazism. I also don't feel bad for this provocateur. Controversial opinions, to be sure.

nice ad hominen, though.

um

[Andalusian girls]

then what are we even talking about if we are in agreement speech is not cause for violence, the violence demonstrated above is understandable but not legally or morally justifiable, and no one feels bad for white supremacists when they get punched, they just think they deserve to be protected by the law. no one arguing for the rule of law even began to express sympathy for the oreomensch.

[thetruepandagod]

Someone walking down the street reading the Communist Manifesto isn't going to project the same visceral menace, the same threat to existence that someone wearing a swastika armband will to minorities.

What about someone wearing a hammer and sickle armband shouting at people they deem to be in a privileged class? Will I get the same quasi 'look the other way' approval on BG for laying them out?

[tyven]

then what are we even talking about if we are in agreement speech is not cause for violence, the violence demonstrated above is understandable but not legally or morally justifiable, and no one feels bad for white supremacists when they get punched, they just think they deserve to be protected by the law. no one arguing for the rule of law even began to express sympathy for the oreomensch.

Its just the usual BG smarm

[Talint]

What about someone wearing a hammer and sickle armband shouting at people they deem to be in a privileged class? Will I get the same quasi 'look the other way' approval on BG for laying them out?

Hi false equivalence. It's nice to meet you.

[archibaldcrane]

What about someone wearing a hammer and sickle armband shouting at people they deem to be in a privileged class? Will I get the same quasi 'look the other way' approval on BG for laying them out?

no because they aren't nazis

this is actually really easy

[Day]

communism dindu nuffin

[Day]

https://twitter.com/BasedMonitored/s...66757980524545 what they doin at Georgia tech?

[Ksandra]

Not going to lie I don't like calling these shitheads Nazis. I don't mind calling them white supremacist sister-fucking jackasses, among other things, but something about the word makes me feel like it should remain reserved for those that actually shoved people into gas chambers.

[GoggleHead]

Hi false equivalence. It's nice to meet you.

How is this a false equivalence? Communism is every bit as bad if not worse than the Nazis in terms of harm to society and sheer body count. Communism leaves every single nation it touches with massive starvation, oppression and general strife for the populace, particularly those already most vulnerable in society. Communism is every bit as vile and arguably moreso, so why would you hold it to a more lenient standard?

[tyven]

How is this a false equivalence? Communism is every bit as bad if not worse than the Nazis in terms of harm to society and sheer body count. Communism leaves every single nation it touches with massive starvation, oppression and general strife for the populace, particularly those already most vulnerable in society. Communism is every bit as vile and arguably moreso, so why would you hold it to a more lenient standard?

You guys cancer is worth than both

[Talint]

How is this a false equivalence? Communism is every bit as bad if not worse than the Nazis in terms of harm to society and sheer body count. Communism leaves every single nation it touches with massive starvation, oppression and general strife for the populace, particularly those already most vulnerable in society. Communism is every bit as vile and arguably moreso, so why would you hold it to a more lenient standard?

I believe you are conflating despotism with communism? I'm not sure.

You guys cancer is worth than both

You can't punch cancer tho.

[Dimmauk]

How is this a false equivalence? Communism is every bit as bad if not worse than the Nazis in terms of harm to society and sheer body count. Communism leaves every single nation it touches with massive starvation, oppression and general strife for the populace, particularly those already most vulnerable in society. Communism is every bit as vile and arguably moreso, so why would you hold it to a more lenient standard?

Nazis seem to be more in your face with their holocaust than the other examples you think are just as bad.

[GoggleHead]

I believe you are conflating despotism with communism? I'm not sure.

Jesus fucking Christ, are you for real right now? Look at every single instance of the implementation of Communism throughout history. Do the phrases Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward mean nothing to you?

Nazis seem to be more in your face with their holocaust than the other examples you think are just as bad.

Fuck off Dimmy, no one cares about your 6 million in the face of Mao's 40 million and Stalin's several dozen million. Communism is the greater evil by every metric.

[Zealot]

The end goal of Nazi-ism was a billions-strong genocide. Communism got the chance to do more damage because people of all political beliefs were of the opinion that the Nazis had to go.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[GoggleHead]

You really think Communism wouldn't match them corpse for corpse in their quest for ideological purity? That just tells me you haven't studied Communism.

[Zealot]

I think if you're talking about murdering millions in the name of ideological purity you might be the one needing to brush up on what Communism is about.

If you're talking about the brutal dictatorial regimes that often lead communist countries, sure. If you're talking about the concept of Communism itself, no.

Communism is a political philosophy about worker's rights and the equalization of wealth and property. Nazism is about scouring the gene pool until only white people of Western European descent are around.

Buh buh buh Stalin and Mao and Castro Great Leap Forward hurr durr and capitalist policies brought about the Dust Bowl, slavery, and human trafficking. Democracy got us interventionist decision making that upset governments in South America and the Middle East resulting in millions of deaths and decades of war. Everyone has shit leaders and administrations, Communism just happened to take hold in regions where due to regional histories of oppressive regimes by a powerful ruling class the machinery was already in place post-revolution to establish yet another in the chain.

If you want to argue that Communist regimes have done more damage than Nazis did, okay, but don't try to conflate them as ideologies and say Communism is worse. Nazis are always worse, on paper and in practice.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I think if you're talking about murdering millions in the name of ideological purity you might be the one needing to brush up on what Communism is about.

If you're talking about the brutal dictatorial regimes that often lead communist countries, sure. If you're talking about the concept of Communism itself, no.

Communism is a political philosophy about worker's rights and the equalization of wealth and property. Nazism is about scouring the gene pool until only white people of Western European descent are around.

Buh buh buh Stalin and Mao and Castro Great Leap Forward hurr durr and capitalist policies brought about the Dust Bowl, slavery, and human trafficking. Democracy got us interventionist decision making that upset governments in South America and the Middle East resulting in millions of deaths and decades of war. Everyone has shit leaders and administrations, Communism just happened to take hold in regions where due to regional histories of oppressive regimes by a powerful ruling class the machinery was already in place post-revolution to establish yet another in the chain.

If you want to argue that Communist regimes have done more damage than Nazis did, okay, but don't try to conflate them as ideologies and say Communism is worse. Nazis are always worse, on paper and in practice.

Gonna disagree. Communism's theory fails so spectacularly because it ignores human nature, and its implementation on a large scale either results in active purges of those who aren't politically in line enough (because anyone trying to make an extra buck is upsetting the system, and needs correcting), or through incompetence (central leadership dictating things that it doesn't fully understand, something particularly disastrous with agriculture). Communism does not function without rigid control of the populace, because it flies so dramatically in the face of human nature and human motivations. When put into practice, it didn't just become brutal because those regions were already brutal-- it brought a level of brutality never before seen in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. You can make a (probably legitimate) claim that the Spanish domination of Cuba in the 1400s-1700s in Cuba was worse than what Castro did, but that's not really saying all that much. These regimes weren't just another evil link in a long evil chain; they were orders of magnitude more destructive than anything that had been in place in those nations in their long and, yes often bloody, histories.

Communism is as evil as Nazism. One is a purge of races, which is evil; the other is an absolute extermination of deviant thought-- something that is just as evil.

I'd also counter that human trafficking on a massive scale and slavery began before we had anything like what we'd consider capitalism today, and that in fact capitalism (and industrialization) were major factors in the removal of slavery as a system of practice (particularly as capitalism demanded more industrialization). It was the increasing efficiency in non-human power that reduced the efficiency of slave labor, and it was the mid-to-late 1700s re-examination of economic theory that brought us away from Mercantilism (which is what lead to the slave trade and expanded slavery to levels unseen since Rome), that dominated the Renaissance. Industrialization accelerated that, and The Wealth of Nations put the final nail in the coffin.

The Dust Bowl gets the blame of capitalism, particularly short-sighted capitalism, but that was much more a combination of factors, headed by massive drought. It was also no where near a level of disaster of the Cultural Revolution-- in fact, both disasters featured many of the same uncontrollable elements, but the way that capitalism handled the recovery from the disaster without, y'know, 40-120 million people dying, is a fairly good indication that something just might be working better here.

Most of the interventionist policies we had in Central and South America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia were rather incidental of the politics behind it-- the Communists tried their hand as much as we did, after all. Socialists not as much, but the socialist countries haven't been big players in world affairs so it's hard to really assess their influence as much as China, Russia, Great Britain, mid-century France and America.

[Talint]

I don't know how you can handwave away slavery as "well what was capitalism back then really" and at the same time argue about what true human nature is, and how it's definitely 100% not community because that's just evil.