The paradox says nothing about the ethics of using violence to achieve your ends. You’ve rest of the fucking owl’d them and name dropping Popper doesn’t hide that. Even the word intolerant is ambiguous and you’re using it to do a bait and switch.
They’re arguing that violent means against peaceful people is unethical. Their intolerance: words. Your intolerant response: violence. That’s what they’re asking you to address.
Some fascist-like groups do directly use violence (proud boys, patriot prayer, etc). Other groups rely on systemic violence implemented through law and stochastic terrorism to achieve their goals. Memes aside, it’s not very smart or helpful to engage in violence when it can’t be defended in court as self-defense. Violence does not change people’s minds; if anything, it probably cements their beliefs further.
I believe in very robust rights to self defense, and I think most of us believe in at least some self defense. It’s pretty popular to stretch definitions of violence right now or defend violence against noisy but ultimately peaceful bigots and edgelords. I don’t really like the idea of us fighting each other over words rather than fighting our overlords.
Countless fascists that went on to commit horrific acts of violence achieved power by peaceful means. We know that’s their end goal regardless of how “polite” and “peaceful” they are at the moment.
If you know someone is going to punch you it’s stupid to wait for them to take a swing before you hit them first. A Nazi’s mere existence is a threat of violence.
Connect can suck my dick. I’ve lost two long messages to you because I tried to fucking highlight text.
Conditions aren’t the same as 80 fucking years ago. Nice slippery slope.
And if you’re honest about how you label nazis, they want genocide. The only self-defense to genocide is obvious so don’t hide behind this punching bullshit. You’ve got a lot of illiterate rednecks to roll up on. Have fun.
The paradox says nothing about the ethics of using violence to achieve your ends. You’ve rest of the fucking owl’d them and name dropping Popper doesn’t hide that. Even the word intolerant is ambiguous and you’re using it to do a bait and switch.
They’re arguing that violent means against peaceful people is unethical. Their intolerance: words. Your intolerant response: violence. That’s what they’re asking you to address.
Some fascist-like groups do directly use violence (proud boys, patriot prayer, etc). Other groups rely on systemic violence implemented through law and stochastic terrorism to achieve their goals. Memes aside, it’s not very smart or helpful to engage in violence when it can’t be defended in court as self-defense. Violence does not change people’s minds; if anything, it probably cements their beliefs further.
I believe in very robust rights to self defense, and I think most of us believe in at least some self defense. It’s pretty popular to stretch definitions of violence right now or defend violence against noisy but ultimately peaceful bigots and edgelords. I don’t really like the idea of us fighting each other over words rather than fighting our overlords.
Countless fascists that went on to commit horrific acts of violence achieved power by peaceful means. We know that’s their end goal regardless of how “polite” and “peaceful” they are at the moment.
If you know someone is going to punch you it’s stupid to wait for them to take a swing before you hit them first. A Nazi’s mere existence is a threat of violence.
Connect can suck my dick. I’ve lost two long messages to you because I tried to fucking highlight text.
Conditions aren’t the same as 80 fucking years ago. Nice slippery slope.
And if you’re honest about how you label nazis, they want genocide. The only self-defense to genocide is obvious so don’t hide behind this punching bullshit. You’ve got a lot of illiterate rednecks to roll up on. Have fun.
deleted by creator