amongst more
It is especially troubling to have a community leader who equates speech with violence, even "hate" speech, which in that gist is clearly demonstrated to be completely subjective.
--------------
[This link] takes a thing I said on Twitter and uses it to say something I don’t mean.
My twitter reply re: violence is based on the tweet it’s replying to: general activity by groups who call themselves ‘antifa’. I thought my parent was making a false equivalence, but rather than arguing with them about this false equivalence, I decided to just say ‘cool’ and bow out, hence my response. I believe “antifa are just as violent as the fascists” is wrong on multiple levels, but I don’t really care to get into it here, to be honest.
--------------
... and I still don't. That's all I'll be saying here about this.
You then said, "the only things fascists respond to is violence. Ignoring them or letting them attack you doesn't help."
You then linked to a Woody Allen video where he confidentially states a Nazi march in NYC should be attacked with "bricks and bats" rather than taking a civilized approach against them.
You explicitly endorsed violence against political groups you dislike several times, don't try to pretend like you didn't now..
Fascism is horrible thing in all it's form and sizes. Even if Steve blurted out that he agrees that the only way to fight fascism is with force (which I haven't divulged from the context, twitter is horrible for conveying meaning), it makes sense once you stop and consider it an emotional response and not an ideology of person that said it.
> I fundamentally don't believe that information can be violent in any way.
For example. You arrive in a communist hating community (let's pretend it's during the Red scare). Someone accuses you of being a communist. Witch hunt ensues.
define: violence "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
It's clear that the meaning of "violence" is physical, not emotional.
> Someone accuses you of being a communist. Witch hunt ensues.
As I said: "It can facilitate violence, surely".
I never said witchhunt needed to end with violence. You can become black sheep, losing job, family, friends without a single follicles of your hair being torn. Your freedom could be taken, without you suffering any violence, e.g. house arrest.
He explicitly celebrated it. He talked about it being a natural order. He argued that "the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery."
This is pure, racist drivel. This is an evil way of thinking. There is a reason that racism, genocide, slavery are so abhorred in the modern world; they are poisonous ideas that have caused some of the largest atrocities history has known.
He also explicitly argues for a dictatorship beholden only to landowners: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/seces.... He admits that his influences and design are similar to those of the Nazism and Stalinism.
He is a fascist, arguing for a violent dictatorship, and arguing that slavery is a natural order. These are not mere rhetorical devices; this is the core of his argument. His entire argument is steeped in violence.
> Of course, we are on equally safe ground in noting that both Hitler's party and Stalin's originated as political parties, and reading both genocidal maniacs as accidents of democracy.
I read Moldburg and I see an intelligent guy exposing the hypocrisies of politics left and right in an erudite, reasoned manner. I read yours and I see outright dumb slurs and lies.
And btw, this "legitimizes slavery" is bullshit. This is the article in question.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c...