That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.
Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.
Sounds like you don’t have a definition either. The problem with a loose definition of fascism is it gets used to justify lots of atrocities. Putin used it as a justification for invading Ukraine, for example.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
Why don’t liberals understand that there already are definitions for things such as fascism?
And why can I not do both? Both be violently opposed to fascism and also be fine with violence against my political enemies in general? There are plenty of justifications against other political enemies besides calling them fascists.
You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.
You absolutely can do that morally and legally. I’d say you’re even required to morally. Laws are written by those in power and therefore meaningless. Any new ruling class or clique can make their own ones.
There is nothing modern about your society which forces humanity down the drain. And the way you’re talking about modern society, law and social contract bullshit you definitely sound like a liberal. Or are you gonna tell me you’re a fascist with a thing for liberal capitalism and personal rights?
By the way it’s quite hypocritical to oppose violence only when your preferred ideology is in power. But before that or under other systems it’s of course fine to topple and fight and oppose them violently. One day violence may no longer be necessary, but in today’s world it still is.
I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.
Modern conservatism is a subset of liberalism. Unless you’re trying to say you’re an old school conservative believing in monarchy and feudalism.
And yes I believe in political violence. Attacking someone at polls is useless and stupid, but overall political enemies should fight. At least that is honest and provides a fair competition, unlike the parliamentarian scheming, compromising and hypocricies of modern legal and political systems which are designed to empower certain groups, and disadvantage or completely prevent certain opposing movements.
That pacifistic stance is based on ideals, but ignores the reality of history and politics. Not everyone shares those ideals, nor are they objectively right. Violence is the only good tool against fascism. Where it fails to stop it, non-violent means would also fail.
I agree, which is why I said violence is a last resort, not something that should be completely sworn off. I don’t think Spain is in imminent risk of a Francoist revival, though I can’t pretend to be an expert of Spanish politics. But if I’m thinking of European nations at grave risk of backsliding into actual fascism, I’m more inclined to think of Hungary rather than Spain.
How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.
Not this awful argument please. Why do liberals always come with the “everything I don’t like is fascism” argument when someone argues against fascism.
Sounds like you don’t have a definition either. The problem with a loose definition of fascism is it gets used to justify lots of atrocities. Putin used it as a justification for invading Ukraine, for example.
There are literally entire books written about fascism, by fascists too. Try the doctrine of fascism for starters.
The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?
Why don’t liberals understand that there already are definitions for things such as fascism?
And why can I not do both? Both be violently opposed to fascism and also be fine with violence against my political enemies in general? There are plenty of justifications against other political enemies besides calling them fascists.
You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.
You absolutely can do that morally and legally. I’d say you’re even required to morally. Laws are written by those in power and therefore meaningless. Any new ruling class or clique can make their own ones.
There is nothing modern about your society which forces humanity down the drain. And the way you’re talking about modern society, law and social contract bullshit you definitely sound like a liberal. Or are you gonna tell me you’re a fascist with a thing for liberal capitalism and personal rights?
By the way it’s quite hypocritical to oppose violence only when your preferred ideology is in power. But before that or under other systems it’s of course fine to topple and fight and oppose them violently. One day violence may no longer be necessary, but in today’s world it still is.
I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.
Modern conservatism is a subset of liberalism. Unless you’re trying to say you’re an old school conservative believing in monarchy and feudalism.
And yes I believe in political violence. Attacking someone at polls is useless and stupid, but overall political enemies should fight. At least that is honest and provides a fair competition, unlike the parliamentarian scheming, compromising and hypocricies of modern legal and political systems which are designed to empower certain groups, and disadvantage or completely prevent certain opposing movements.