But you’re also making the mistake of taking the one sport, where there is a general culture of clashes between gangs, and mapping that onto all sports rioting.
Lots of this sports rioting is just because a team lost and people want to burn shit.
It’s still appalling, certainly.
No, actually I didn’t need to hear more apologia for people who advocate and commit murder as the normal course of action.
It was never made. Because I am honest enough to discuss things in context and not use overarching terms to obscure the issue.
For Nazis, violence is not just used to further their agenda, ultimately it IS their agenda. That puts them on a far different level than any counter examples you are going to throw at me of people with a potentially beneficent cause using violent means to achieve them.
I’m not a philosophy student, but as I understand it, Marxism doesn’t have hatred and genocide as a built-in component. When Marxist countries have committed genocide in the past, they’ve twisted Marxist ideas to support that genocide in the same way that Darwin’s theory of evolution was twisted into Social Darwinism to promote racist ideas. Nazism is inseparable from genocide and racism- take away those components and it’s no longer Nazi ideology. Regardless, why bring up Marxism at all?
And yes, I agree that expanding free speech restriction laws too far is dangerous and a bad idea. I’m not seeing how expanding it to cover Nazis is taking it too far.
Fair point, but then the difference I’m concerned with is the way technology is accelerating the divide.
Also, we’re in a technological world now, with technologies that mean one mistake, and humanity potentially experiences a major setback…
Well, yes. Only there was the Second World War and the Holocaust as unexpected side effects, plus most of the German communist leaders died in the concentration camps.
Oh, absolutely. No German politicians of the '30s are entirely blameless of the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, even as none of them are fully to blame for it. (I’m obviously excluding Hitler and the other Nazis here.)
What it teaches us is that the Nazis and other far-right white supremacists of their ilk should be shut down as early as possible, and trying to use them as political pawns or tools can blow up in your face with terrible consequences.
I’m guessing he feels that antifa is the thin edge of the red wedge…
Respectfully, you might ponder this question more – if Marxist ideology wasn’t linked to the outcomes, why do the outcomes keep happening, across cultures and time?
People always think they will be the ones to better implement Marxism. Somehow, that always fails… ; )
1860, with primitive technology by our standards, led to a war. We’re not there yet.
Additionally, while it’s contributed to the divide, it’s also brought people together, too. the problems with mass media, it’s distorting effect, aren’t new… Just go read Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle for example, and the construction of reality as the ultimate reality.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with attempts to (often violently) undermine marxism in practice, both from within and without. And pretty much many of things you’re concerned with here illustrate failures of liberal democracy to really address the needs of real human beings.
I’ll apologize for my wording: I never meant to imply that you’re in favor of white supremacists killing people, or that you think it’s an okay thing for them to do. Merely that, twice in this thread, your response to white supremacists or suspected white supremacists murdering people is essentially “they’ll be arrested, we have laws”. Why is that not your response to antifascists punching Nazis in the head? What makes that so much worse?
I do sincerely apologize for the implications of using the words “okay with” in my post. I disagree with you, but I’m not trying to paint you as some kind of monster!
You could also make these kinds of assertions to provide a context to Nazi Germany – and even more strongly, actually (plenty of historians have).
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Same with Western democracies – lots of powerful players have tried to disrupt them as well, often violently.
No it isn’t. Football hooliganism has been linked to the far right for decades. I used to work in crowd control for a EFL team. The banned people list nearly always closely matched up to a list of known fascists (Birmingham Zulus are the only exception I can think of, and Birmingham City were in a different league at the time so I never had to deal with them).
Antifa, on the other hand, are associated with Clapton FC who are at least five years away from the professional leagues. They are ultras, not hooligans, because they are not there to fight, and they would have been banned from the ground years ago if they were.
The context was the desire to annihilate the Jews. They managed to get the political then military power to be able to do that.
As far as anyone can tell, Marxism does not consider murder and genocide to be primary goals of its platform. Same can’t be true of Fascism.
Interestingly abuse of libel and slander laws is very difficult in the US because the standards of making out a case are rather high.
In the UK such laws are abused in order to force another party into threats of paying exorbitant legal expenses. Something Nazi POS Holocaust denier David Irving tried to do to his most vocal critic. It backfired spectacularly when Deborah Lipstadt litigated the matter and brought it to trial.
That’s not the context.
There are some great works out there that map out all the complexity that gave rise to the Nazis.
Some will try to use that complexity to excuse the aims of the Nazis. No good.
Just as some will use the complexity around various implementations of Marxism to excuse that particular ideology… No good.
I think your notion of Fascism is incomplete, and your understanding of “primary STATED goals” versus “primary ACTUAL goals” is problematic.
That’s like sayin the American civil war wasn’t about slavery. Hitler said from the start what he was about. The targeting of the Jews helped them come to power and helped them maintain it and consolidate it. The economic situation didn’t have to lead to a dictatorship, but it did. The rise of fascism in Italy likely helped popularize it as a response to the depression and globalization, but anti-semitism was the car that made it possible.
the Nazis stated and actual goals were the same - the destruction of Jews (and other enemies of the Aryans). the war was the means to that end.
Nope. I am just too lazy to distinguish Nazis from the less genocidal forms of Fascism which have zero relevance in this country or this discussion.
Richard Spencer advocates genocide and murder as the stated goal of his platform.
maybe we just haven’t met the right fascist yet?
You’ve spent this entire thread arguing in defense of nazis. Nobody gives a shit about your popped monocle over somebody calling you one.
Oh I guess all those murders in Chile, Argentina, and Spain were carried out by people who weren’t real fascists.
What about the ones who just advocate repatriation? Do we still punch those?
