You must log in or # to comment.
My eyes are bad without my glasses, I’ll just pick the red and black one.
If you think they only jail dissenters, I have some bad news for you
Where does it say that?
Fifth line
Nah, Fascists dont want to build a white ethnostate, some want a Jewish, Indian, etc. ethnostate.
Nationalism is nationalism and it all depends on the culture and race group
White Caucasians want a white nationalist state
Blacks want a black nationalist state
I’m Indigenous Canadian and I know a few extremely minded Native people who believe in a Red Nationalist State … I’ve known a few that if they saw a white guy on their home reserve, they’d beat up the white guy just because they were white.
It’s a human emotion … we like to be part of an ‘in’ group … and we want our ‘in’ group to be the one in control and hold power over all the other groups.
Any fascist state no matter the culture or identity is a fascist state that no one should ever tolerate
The word you’re looking for is “people”.
What a bunch of bastards.
Indeed, that’s pretty much what people are. Still, is pretty dumb fuck trying to separate them in groups thinking one is better of the other.
As Douglas Adams says in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy: People are a problem.
Adams was sort of all over the place on his opinion of people.
I am on board with antifa’s efforts to reclaim red and black.
Totally the same thing /s
They’re both violent! Or, at least, I’ve been told they’re both violent and the news wouldn’t just lie to me, right?
Who owns these big publications again? Bari Weiss and the Free Press, you say? Well, it’s got Free Press right there in the name, so I’m assuming they’re on the up-and-up.
I just started watching the film The Apprentice and I’m just trying to figure out how people like Trump and his mentor Cohn can get away with so much shit. Is professionalism just a fairy tale? Cause it looks like behaving like the biggest asshole in the nation is a viable way to get ahead.
Trump and his mentor Cohn can get away with so much shit
An army of lawyers and PR experts, and some mobsters. That the bastard made use of his buffoon imagery to even allow himself to enter a WWE ring because “sports entertainment” is bread and circuses – and the audience loves kayfabe.
Professionalism is just a fairy tale, yes. Superficiality deluxe
If you’re interested, this video might shed some light on it.
hotel? Trivago
Hotel Rwanda
I’ve never been a fan of red, white, and black. As far as I’m concerned the Pride Progress flag is the ideal flag of egalitarianism and anti-fascism.
I mean, that’s pretty damn queer-centric don’t you think? The actual and potential victims of fascism go way beyond just queer people. And there’s plenty flags, both now and historically, that are linked to antifascism. Most of them aren’t red, white and black
Plus I’ve always found the progress pride flag kinda ugly, but that’s just personal. As a queer person who’s into vexillology, a fair few of our flags have that problem. It’s also been used by so many capitalists to falsely give themselves the appearance of being egalitarian
Democrat “centrists”:
True Centrism is when you’re in favor of a Centrally Planned Economy.
Everyone else is some variant of political extremist.
based and statist pilled.
also
is some variant of political extremist.
I can’t believe you would call the vigilante oligarch arms dealer a political extremist.
Free speech: yes, even for Nazis advocating for evil shit. Throwing people in jail over words is stupid unless they meet the harm principle. The older US antifascists didn’t fight to weaken fundamental civil rights. In the Skokie Affair, some Jewish lawyers knew that offensive Nazi speech is not a credible danger, but that chipping away at fundamental rights is a danger that gives fascists what they want: those lawyers were antifascists.
That letter addressed the Village of Skokie’s ordinances that sought to prevent the Nazis’ demonstration. It explained that “…the Nazis are not the real issue. The Skokie laws are the real issue.” It pointed out that the ordinances were so broad that, “Skokie had already used the same law[s] to deny the Jewish War Veterans a permit to parade.”
An antifascist chipping away at fundamental rights is a bad antifascist helping fascists clear a path to fascist totalitarianism.
It’s not hard to oppose fascists & advocate for free speech.
If you allow nazis to keep promoting nazi ideas, you will inevitably have to fight more nazis at some point.
If ypu ban nazi speech as the one major caveat to free speech, then they will never be able to exist in large enough numbers that you HAVE to fight them.
Its the logical conclusion of the paradox of tolerance.
If ypu ban nazi speech as the one major caveat to free speech, then they will never be able to exist in large enough numbers that you HAVE to fight them.
That’s deluded speculation & the old antifascists knew that.
I remember other instances of unexpected support, too. There were times when, during speeches I gave about the Skokie case, Holocaust survivors courageously stood up to say that I was right to have represented the Nazis. Several years later, another survivor sent me a letter saying the same thing. These survivors said that they did not want the Nazis driven underground by speech-repressive laws or court injunctions. They explained that they wanted to be able to see their enemies in plain sight so they would know who they were.
It just drives fascists underground & not by much: the German AfD aren’t struggling. Better to see them right where they are.
Such legal restrictions are trash. Are we going to ignore their nonspeculative harm mentioned before when such restrictions already denied the Jewish War Veterans a permit to march in Skokie? Look how they work for Germany: live police suppressing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-semitic, raids & arrests over calling a politician pimmel, internet patrols penalizing vitriol, insults, & satirical images of politicians showing fake quotes. Look how they work for UK: designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, arrest pro-Palestinian protesters, arrest someone over a social media post backing Palestine Action.
Your claim is a reach: it’s arguing for a doubtful benefit at the cost of a clear, definite harm to democratic society that really serves a fascist agenda.
Its the logical conclusion of the paradox of tolerance.
It’s a paradox without a single logical conclusion, and you likely misunderstood it.
text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩︎
Agreed, but it’s still a tough line to draw. Here’s a scale:
We’ve got some problems, and it’s probably because of “someone”.
Aren’t the X suspicious? We should keep an eye on them.
All the X have rights but it’s their fault for all our problems.
We should give jobs to everyone before all the X.
We should expel all the X.
We should genocide all the X.At which point is it ok for the cops to come have a conversation with you?
I think abstract support of genocide should probably be legal, I don’t think organizations, institutions, or people should be forced to tolerate it though. Anti-fascists being anti-free-speech in regards to pro-fascist speech seems ok and natural?
Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance.
So no, intolerant nazi shit should never be tolerated.
We’re fucking living in 1984 Jesus. Straight up newspeak
Certainly indistinguishable from one another /s
Antifa calls dissenters (anyone to the right of them like social democrats) fascists and and would put them straight into gulag if they could.
Regarding Jews, it depends for both of them.
By dissenters you mean nazis? in which case to the gulag it is.
gulac?
you fool!!!
i corrected my error, leaving your comment meaningless, no one will understand what you are asking, and will assume you made the mistake.
I’m 13 parallel universe ahead of you
Instead of slop they feed you guac.
Antifa calls dissenters (anyone to the right of them like social democrats) fascists
Who exactly is antifa? Did you meet them recently?
