Look, I agree with you on it being more than criticism. But people shouldn’t deny that it didn’t arise out of a vacuum. Being murderous for criticizing awful behavior doesn’t give you a great reputation.
Seems like people associate fascism with far right beliefs and behaviors rather than authoritarianism or nationalism. I was wondering earlier this week if that’s what people have been doing the way that the word “fascism” has been bandied about, I guess this answers my question.
Ah yes, the “free speech absolutist” take. Where yelling “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater is totally cool. Thats what you’re saying right? That all speech is acceptable? Even if the intent is violence? Terror?
Fascism is dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, belligerent nationalism and racism, etc.
If you think that describes the far right, then there you go. If the far right has these characteristics, there you go. You figured out why people associate the far right with fascism.
Well I mean inciting imminent violence or mayhem isn’t covered or protected by the First Amendment from what I can remember. I’m not saying that all speech that leads to violence should be illegal, but like, if you tell people to slash up folks with knives and they do that, yeah you should be liable for that.
People associate the far right with fascism because of desperate attempts to make the right wing in general unappealing, not because the right tends to support fascism.
For clarity, when I refer to “far right”, I’m speaking in terms of social values. So, things like white supremacism/segregationsim, misogyny, supporting the installation of a theocracy, etc.
Stuff like dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, etc. are pretty bipartisan positions. Folks on both the left and right support using such powers to meet their own ends. You yourself are doing so here, cheering on someone being jailed for criticizing Islam.
Well I mean inciting imminent violence or mayhem isn’t covered or protected by the First Amendment from what I can remember. I’m not saying that all speech that leads to violence should be illegal, but like, if you tell people to slash up folks with knives and they do that, yeah you should be liable for that.
Cool, cool, so a set of rules to apply based on a presumption of danger that could be created as a result?
So… What Germany did and this guy was charged with? Cool.
For clarity, when I refer to “far right”, I’m speaking in terms of social values. So, things like white supremacism/segregationsim, misogyny, supporting the installation of a theocracy, etc.
So the things I mentioned? And theocracies… You mean like the Islamist states? Yeah they are far right, I 100% agree with you. Those also trend towards fascism, yes.
Stuff like dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, etc. are pretty bipartisan positions.
Ehhh… No.
Thats more than a little bit of a reach to come to that conclusion, with a pretty wild definition of dictatorial control and a definition of violence that defies Merriam Webster.
You yourself are doing so here, cheering on someone being jailed for criticizing Islam.
He did well more than criticise, as one other was able to admit. Its a shame you can’t admit the truth as well.
Shocker then that it is, and that person was shot by the police at the time.
Are you not even aware of what happened, and just trying to make it seem like the only thing that happened was a hateful bigot got stabbed then arrested?
You seem to be living under a weird blissful assumption that arguing in terms of the prevailing law will naturally align you with what is right.
Laws are erected and upheld by people. They are not infallible, just like religion. And I know I don’t stand for shit laws that just make it convenient for cults to kill or maime people with no consequences over perceived insults.
Wild, its almost like both people got in trouble for their respective crimes.
Just crazy.
Shouldn’t be a crime to criticize a shitty religion and its shitty preachers.
It is though, so… Too bad?
Edit: and its quite a bit more than criticism, if you would be honest about things.
Look, I agree with you on it being more than criticism. But people shouldn’t deny that it didn’t arise out of a vacuum. Being murderous for criticizing awful behavior doesn’t give you a great reputation.
Neither does being a hateful bigot.
What’s your point?
you should be careful you aren’t going to bat for something you don’t entirely believe in. You don’t want to encourage religious fanatics.
Calling someone a hateful bigot is endorsing violent extremism?
Hope you’ve got a soft mat to land on for that wild leap.
Saying “too bad” about Fascism is wild
Hate speech and inciting being against the law is an interesting way to define fascism. Rather unique I’d say.
Now that’s a take.
Seems like people associate fascism with far right beliefs and behaviors rather than authoritarianism or nationalism. I was wondering earlier this week if that’s what people have been doing the way that the word “fascism” has been bandied about, I guess this answers my question.
Ah yes, the “free speech absolutist” take. Where yelling “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater is totally cool. Thats what you’re saying right? That all speech is acceptable? Even if the intent is violence? Terror?
Fascism is dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, belligerent nationalism and racism, etc.
If you think that describes the far right, then there you go. If the far right has these characteristics, there you go. You figured out why people associate the far right with fascism.
Well I mean inciting imminent violence or mayhem isn’t covered or protected by the First Amendment from what I can remember. I’m not saying that all speech that leads to violence should be illegal, but like, if you tell people to slash up folks with knives and they do that, yeah you should be liable for that.
People associate the far right with fascism because of desperate attempts to make the right wing in general unappealing, not because the right tends to support fascism.
For clarity, when I refer to “far right”, I’m speaking in terms of social values. So, things like white supremacism/segregationsim, misogyny, supporting the installation of a theocracy, etc.
Stuff like dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, etc. are pretty bipartisan positions. Folks on both the left and right support using such powers to meet their own ends. You yourself are doing so here, cheering on someone being jailed for criticizing Islam.
Cool, cool, so a set of rules to apply based on a presumption of danger that could be created as a result?
So… What Germany did and this guy was charged with? Cool.
So the things I mentioned? And theocracies… You mean like the Islamist states? Yeah they are far right, I 100% agree with you. Those also trend towards fascism, yes.
Ehhh… No.
Thats more than a little bit of a reach to come to that conclusion, with a pretty wild definition of dictatorial control and a definition of violence that defies Merriam Webster.
He did well more than criticise, as one other was able to admit. Its a shame you can’t admit the truth as well.
Enjoy your day.
Seems unfair that muslims don’t want to integrate into other countries but want others to follow their shitty religion.
Seems like thats not a crime in Germany.
Stabbing people should be a crime
Shocker then that it is, and that person was shot by the police at the time.
Are you not even aware of what happened, and just trying to make it seem like the only thing that happened was a hateful bigot got stabbed then arrested?
That fits.
You seem to be living under a weird blissful assumption that arguing in terms of the prevailing law will naturally align you with what is right.
Laws are erected and upheld by people. They are not infallible, just like religion. And I know I don’t stand for shit laws that just make it convenient for cults to kill or maime people with no consequences over perceived insults.
No, I’m just pointing out the stupidity of this article.