• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

Norman Alexander said:
Nobody feels "good" about that. Quite the opposite. We all thought they had been eradicated in 1945.

But is it, though? Is it, really? I mean...Americans are shooting each other by the dozens every day of the year, regardless of Trump or any political persuasion. So what's a couple of useless dead Nazis to add to that stinking pile? Make the best use of a bad situation. You can still take out the trash during an ongoing national disaster.
Click to expand...
Nothing quite like blatantly advocating for violence.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think due process was implied, so your comment is irrelevant as well as irrational.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong and do not understand Kirk's audience. Simple solution was for him to say that Biden should be tried for treason, no ambiguity in that statement. Since he didn't he chose how to phrase it for a specific reaction.
 
theprestige said:
Arrested for treason? Probably not. Convicted of treason? Totally reasonable. Treason carries the death penalty. There's a huge difference between violent fantasies about murdering your political opponents, and pragmatic recommendations for the disposition of someone convicted of a capital offense.
Click to expand...
Big supporter of Stalin style show trials I see.
 
johnny karate said:
Why calling someone “Nazi” is inflammatory and an incitement to violence but calling someone “fascist” isn’t.
Click to expand...
Anyone who reads just a couple of pages from Arendt—or who happens to already be familiar with the historical differences between Fascism and Nazism described in those pages—should be able to deduce that easily enough. Those who believe those words mean the same thing will probably have significantly more trouble, but there's not much anyone can do for those who don't bother to familiarize themselves with the words they are using.
Flo said:
There is a nuance, a bit like between communists in general and the Khmer Rouge
Click to expand...
This strikes me as a fair comparison, since the former ideology operates openly in the U.S. (they have a table at my local Peace Festival) and hasn't yet become famous for murdering millions of their political opponents, at least here in North America.
theprestige said:
There's a huge difference between violent fantasies about murdering your political opponents, and pragmatic recommendations for the disposition of someone convicted of a capital offense.
Click to expand...
When the truth comes out that Biden was secretly responsible for some nonzero number of capital offenses then it will forgivable to openly fantasize about him being punished accordingly. Until then, it comes off as bloodlust rather than justice.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Anyone who reads just a couple of pages from Arendt—or who happens to already be familiar with the historical differences between Fascism and Nazism described in those pages—should be able to deduce that easily enough. Those who believe those words mean the same thing will probably have significantly more trouble, but there's not much anyone can do for those who don't bother to familiarize themselves with the words they are using.
Click to expand...

I'm running about of ways to explain that it's not about what the words mean but why one is considered dangerously inflammatory and the other isn't. Two words that mean different things can both be inflammatory. Just because one of them is, doesn't automatically mean that the other one isn't.

Your refusal to understand this simple concept seems willful.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Perhaps you misunderstand, I'm not saying you're "contorting" anything. I'm saying that no matter what those on the right say, you have a way to rationalize them saying it. Even when it comes from some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that made a living out of telling women to shut up and do what they're told.

However, you're here repeatedly talking about how the terrible, reckless way that the left talks will get those innocent people on the right killed. You've perpetually demonized the left, and not just in this thread. Yet we have multiple real-world examples of Trump literally calling the left demons and you can barely summon a whimper of protest.

Lastly, I will never "knock it the ◊◊◊◊ off" when I see people openly being hypocrites. Not you, not d4m10n, not theprestige, not anyone. You've made repeated posts about how you're a feminist and a centrist but every time that's tested you fold like a chair. I'll continue to point that out whenever I see it, no matter who it is. Stay consistent.
Click to expand...

If Trump posts on ISF, I absolutely will call them out for inflammatory rhetoric. If any of the extraordinarily few conservative posters on ISF post inflammatory rhetoric, I will call them out for it too. But I'm not going to ignore the inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric being posted by members here just because you say so.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Show me where I've taken an extremist interpretation of what some leftist has said, and contorted it all out proportion. Otherwise just knock it the ◊◊◊◊ off already.
Click to expand...

This took me all of 30 seconds to find:
I Am The Scum said:
You ever notice how funny it is that every single time someone tries to make this argument, they protest the implications without addressing the facts? Maybe these people should change the facts if they don't like the sound of the truth.

If Republicans don't want the calories, they should stop eating the cake.
Click to expand...
Emily's Cat said:
Well, I guess you get some internet points for advocating political violence and civil war. Congratulations, you.
Click to expand...
 
Emily's Cat said:
If Trump posts on ISF, I absolutely will call them out for inflammatory rhetoric. If any of the extraordinarily few conservative posters on ISF post inflammatory rhetoric, I will call them out for it too. But I'm not going to ignore the inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric being posted by members here just because you say so.
Click to expand...

Strange that the people on the right you are willing to criticize are those limited to this forum, but the people on the left you are willing to criticize are all of them, everywhere.

It's almost as if you have wildly hypocritical double standards.
 
Emily's Cat said:
If Trump posts on ISF, I absolutely will call them out for inflammatory rhetoric. If any of the extraordinarily few conservative posters on ISF post inflammatory rhetoric, I will call them out for it too. But I'm not going to ignore the inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric being posted by members here just because you say so.
Click to expand...

Another ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rationalization for your bias. In fact, it's not even close to true. The fact is you just agree with the hateful ◊◊◊◊ people on the right say. Hell, theprestige just got done saying, in a thread you participate in, that ICE ripping nude children out of their home, breaking their ◊◊◊◊, and treating them terrible, is good for them. It helps them.

That's terrible stuff, but you don't have anything to say about it because you agree with it. It's not hateful to you because that's your worldview.

Make no mistake, I'm not upset you do it. I find it funny. Selling out your feminism repeatedly is actually one of the highlights of your posts, to me. It gives me a front row seat to see the mindset of women who vote for someone like Trump. How people, in general, will sell out things they believe are important in heartbeat just because. Trust me, I love it. Every time you're challenged on it you ignore it.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
I'm running about of ways to explain that it's not about what the words mean but why one is considered dangerously inflammatory and the other isn't.
Click to expand...
I'm running out of way to explain that the inflammatory impact of different words is indeed "about what the words mean."

That's how words work, people react to them based on the meanings they are perceived to convey.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm running out of way to explain that the inflammatory impact of different words is indeed "about what the words mean."
Click to expand...

All you're doing here is begging the question. You haven't actually established any rationale for why calling someone a Nazi has "inflammatory impact" but calling someone a fascist doesn't. You're just insisting that it is so.

d4m10n said:
That's how words work, people react to them based on the meanings they are perceived to convey.
Click to expand...

Then all that is left for you to do is explain why you insist that "fascist" is not perceived as inflammatory.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Because unlike "Nazi" it doesn't imply mobile genocide units and death camps, as I already explained way upthread.
Click to expand...

Historical inaccuracies about the atrocities that fascists committed aside, the ask was for you to explain why calling someone a fascist isn’t inflammatory at all, not why it’s less inflammatory than calling someone a Nazi.
 
d4m10n said:
Both useless Nazis whom no one would mourn should they "happen to turn up dead with a bullet in the head," according to you. To the extent discussion is predicated upon common models of reality—with just a few disparate premises worth arguing about—we've reached an impasse. I expect at least one of those two would become a martyr to their ongoing (fascist) movement.

I listed the major ideological features of fascism at #2,162 and don't recall anyone making any counterargument regarding its applicability to the movement of which Kirk was a leading light. That said, I'm not at all confident that you understand what sets Nazis apart from fascists. Hannah Arendt wrote that nowhere did the differences between German Nazism and Italian Fascism "come more conspicuously into the open than in the treatment of the Jewish question." She goes on to explain how the OG fascists preserved a strong supermajority of Italian Jewry throughout the war despite Nazi disapproval and occupation; it only takes up a couple of pages if you are interested. Calling someone fascist isn't the same as saying they are the kind of person who would happily build and operate a system of death camps, and that difference really should matter when talking about the ethics of violent resistance to a political movement.

When we label someone a "Nazi" these days we are not thinking of the NSDAP at the beginning; we are deliberately invoking the specter of the death camps among various other horrors. One of the major problems with unifying a political movement around a single all-powerful leader is that whatever goals he has become those of the party even if that wasn't part of the original charter. For a contemporary example, the GOP used to be strongly in favor of international free trade.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself. I think of the rise of Nazism because that is what we need to study and prevent. By the time they assume total power it's already too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom