My point was that a more accurate critique of the use of the cartoon would be “you’re saying that I’m a supporter of the fascists because I’m opposed to the antifa, but that cartoon is portraying a completely different situation in which the dithering centrist is too busy making false equivalencies to choose either side. So which is it?” jeezers might answer “both” or something else, but at least the discussion is now based on the correct interpretation of the cartoon.
I’ll try to unwind what happened in the other thread:
Someone said “I’m ok with Nazi punching.”
strokeybeard replied to the effect of “oh yeah, then how do you square that with someone punching Spencer, since he claims he’s not a Nazi and because he was being non-confrontational in the interview? Where does your vigilantism end?”
Now that would make no sense as a rejoinder because Spencer is quite deserving of the shorthand “Nazi” and because publically advocating for ethnic cleansing, even in a calm way, is confrontational in and of itself.
The only way it would make sense as a rejoinder would be if strokeybeard were taking Spencer’s word that he was not a Nazi and/or did not consider publically advocating for ethnic cleansing to be confrontational behaviour. Since strokeybeard stubbornly stuck with that rejoinder as making sense despite its ridiculous premises, people responded badly.
To his credit, after a lot of explanation by people more familiar than he is with history and current U.S. events, strokeybeard later acknowledged that it’s reasonable to call Spencer a Nazi in the context of Nazi-punching, and seems to acknowledge that calling for ethnic cleansing is confrontational. Which leaves us with an effective admission that his initial rejoinder made no sense.
