Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Preemptive strikes aren’t self-defense.

It isn’t a fallacy to say murdering a fascist makes you like a fascist because fascists kill people who don’t think like them all the time. It’s part of their whole deal.

In a nutshell, if it's already escalated to the point of open genocide, arguing to "be better" kinda reeks of bothsides to me.

If you feel the need to reduce yourself to the level of a fascist to win against a fascist, you’ve already lost. Political violence is not just a means to them, it’s a goal.

Except not making preemptive strikes just leads them to keep existing and spreading their ideology. Yes they are self-defense.

Also, fascism is more than just "killing people", and you fail to realize that. Political violence (against bigots) happens to be a goal for me too, and yet I am highly progressive. That is not fascism.

NRA did nothing wrong. Hope they go for Dugin himself too.

I don’t fail to realize that fascism is more than just killing people, you fail to realize that reducing yourself to their level won’t change anything. All it does is allow a fascist to now legitimately say that their own preemptive strikes are defending themselves against persecution from their opponents.

Political violence is a component of fascism. Engaging in your own political violence is acting like a fascist would. You see that yes?

This is why I have a problem with what you’re saying. It’s basically punching yourself in the face: fascists are bad, but acting like a fascist won’t mKe them go away, it’ll just draw attention to the fascist cause, which will draw more people to it. What’s the point?

Actually, political violence is also a component of Communism.  Before the Nazis usurped power in German, they would brawl in the streets with the Communists.

But this looks more like the actions of the French Resistance (see a wikipedia link, which I assume to be "close enough")

Thought experiment: Would Joseph Goebbels have been a valid target of the French Resistance? What if his wife died in a bomb attack meant for Goebbels?

Dude, this is the first sign of any organized rebellion in Russia. And yeah, they're gonna kill people. It's what rebels do.
Peaceful rebellions are a pipe dream invented by Governments to discourage violent ones.
EDIT: Also, the Joy of Democracy is that the rulers can be overthrown non-violently. In all other government systems, violence is the only way to change power.

[MaxTheFox]

Preemptive strikes aren’t self-defense.

It isn’t a fallacy to say murdering a fascist makes you like a fascist because fascists kill people who don’t think like them all the time. It’s part of their whole deal.

In a nutshell, if it's already escalated to the point of open genocide, arguing to "be better" kinda reeks of bothsides to me.

If you feel the need to reduce yourself to the level of a fascist to win against a fascist, you’ve already lost. Political violence is not just a means to them, it’s a goal.

Except not making preemptive strikes just leads them to keep existing and spreading their ideology. Yes they are self-defense.

Also, fascism is more than just "killing people", and you fail to realize that. Political violence (against bigots) happens to be a goal for me too, and yet I am highly progressive. That is not fascism.

NRA did nothing wrong. Hope they go for Dugin himself too.

I don’t fail to realize that fascism is more than just killing people, you fail to realize that reducing yourself to their level won’t change anything. All it does is allow a fascist to now legitimately say that their own preemptive strikes are defending themselves against persecution from their opponents.

Political violence is a component of fascism. Engaging in your own political violence is acting like a fascist would. You see that yes?

This is why I have a problem with what you’re saying. It’s basically punching yourself in the face: fascists are bad, but acting like a fascist won’t mKe them go away, it’ll just draw attention to the fascist cause, which will draw more people to it. What’s the point?

Killing fascists doesn't make someone a fascist because preemptive strikes indeed are self-defense when they are acticely harassing and attacking minorities. It's merely fighting back. Yes they will push back even harder but that just means they will get killed more.

Yes I do. However they did it first and there is no other way to deal with them so it's okay.

The point is to simply make them feel unsafe being open about it to force them underground. It doesn't make more people fascists or anything.

Peace will solve absolutely nothing, especially in Russia. The only way forward is for partisan groups to massacre government officials.

[hector13]

@EuchreJack: The French Resistance were fighting against a hostile foreign occupying force, and their local collaborators.

Equally so, it’s significant that the communists were brawling with Nazis… you know the fascists known for political violence? :p

I’ve seen you make this point about MLK and Malcolm X before and it’s… just… very wrong. MLK organized non-violent protests that got media coverage, that’s how he was effective. He stood by his non-violent ideals despite some of these protests being put down brutally by the authorities, as well as pressure he received personally from those authorities,and that’s why he’s still celebrated today, not because Malcolm X was in the wings threatening violence.

Further, if civil disobedience is so ineffective, why do organizations like Extinction Rebellion still engage in it today?

The answer is not “ecoterrorists” :p

Indeed, I’m pretty sure you suggested civil disobedience as a tool in a thread you made about people gluing themselves to art or something.

@Max: I’m sorry you feel that way.

The winner in the political violence stakes is the most violent. That means when they win and take the reins of power, the violence won’t end, the cycle just starts anew.

Political violence won’t solve anything, it ultimately just changes who gets persecuted for a while until someone else rises up to replace them.

[EuchreJack]

The preemptive strike theory, under which it is ok to kill someone because they actively harass and attack minorities is a bad theory.
It's the theory that Russia used to invade Ukraine.

It can also be easily twisted, as anyone can put whatever they like in the "because" portion to justify the killing. So, bad theory, maybe stop using that particular one?

War is Hell is sufficient. A Civil War upon Russian Government necessitating the killing of Government Officials and those who aid the Government is sufficient.
The National Republican Army has to pick targets that can't be denied.  This is probably not their first attack, but rather the first one they could claim without contradiction.

@hector13: You're an idiot. Russians don't have the freedoms for non-violent protest to be effective.  They'd just be signing up to be harassed, killed, or conscripted to die in Ukraine. The comparisons to the French Resistance are accurate, since Putin's Russia is basically as democratic as Nazi Germany.
They also weren't the ONLY violent resistance. Bombs were a frequent tool of the German Resistance groups
I also feel it important to note that the Allies only knew about Nazi Germany's Auschwitz concentration camp due to the Polish Resistance. So yeah, we gotta support these guys, even if you personally might not like everything they do.
At this point, it's important SOMETHING is going on.  And the Terrorists of today tend to mellow out and become the Politicians of tomorrow.

Also, I'm questioning the MLK & Malcolm X argument on moral grounds.  While I think violence draws attention making non-violent actions more powerful, it's not a particularly moral position to take in a democracy. But Russia ain't a democracy.

[MaxTheFox]

@Max: I’m sorry you feel that way.

The winner in the political violence stakes is the most violent. That means when they win and take the reins of power, the violence won’t end, the cycle just starts anew.

Political violence won’t solve anything, it ultimately just changes who gets persecuted for a while until someone else rises up to replace them.

The alternative is to let them kill minorities. I'm fine with the shoe ending up on the other foot and bigots getting persecuted because I despise them. Peace solves nothing. I used to support peaceful protest but now I am too jaded to believe in peace. The only solution is the full discreditation of the far-right as a whole. I would not support killing or imprisoning them if I believed they could be changed or confronted on their own terms, but I don't. Not anymore.

Is your only definition of fascism "political violence"? Because if no, then I am not one. If yes, it's a bullshit definition. I refuse to treat the people who want me dead with hugs rather than harassment.

The preemptive strike theory, under which it is ok to kill someone because they actively harass and attack minorities is a bad theory.
It's the theory that Russia used to invade Ukraine.

It can also be easily twisted, as anyone can put whatever they like in the "because" portion to justify the killing. So, bad theory, maybe stop using that particular one?

Slippery slope argument. You think I value all people and ideologies equally. You are wrong. An action can be wrong depending on the target of said action. You are overgeneralizing.

Your second point I agree with but doesn't it contradict this?
The time for peaceful protest is over, at least in Russia. For America it's debatable and I'm not focusing on it. But here, the only way is to kill. Kill them like we killed Nazi occupants. The partisans were heroes, and so are these new partisans.

[hector13]

Russians don’t have the capacity to protest violently either. One fascist has been murdered, to what end? Nobody is being inspired to rise up, it’s being spun as a lovely young lady who was all about Russia being killed by enemy agents because of her dad’s loyalty to Russia.

Even years after the fact, “enemies” of Russia get murdered by Russian agents, even in foreign countries as a message not to turn against the state. Putin won’t get overthrown by targeted assassinations, it requires widespread mass uprising that just won’t happen while he controls the media, and can effectively imprison, murder - or both! - anyone that tries to organize anything.

Edit:@Max

Political violence is a significant component of fascism, but obviously not the only one. I’m also not saying you’re a fascist for wanting to engage in political violence, just that it makes you like a fascist/no better than a fascist/something like that for wanting to.

I’m not saying you should hug a Nazi, nor am I saying you shouldn’t defend yourself, just that I don’t think the way you want to do it will be effective in achieving anything other than more violence, win or lose.

[MaxTheFox]

Russians don’t have the capacity to protest violently either. One fascist has been murdered, to what end? Nobody is being inspired to rise up, it’s being spun as a lovely young lady who was all about Russia being killed by enemy agents because of her dad’s loyalty to Russia.

Even years after the fact, “enemies” of Russia get murdered by Russian agents, even in foreign countries as a message not to turn against the state. Putin won’t get overthrown by targeted assassinations, it requires widespread mass uprising that just won’t happen while he controls the media, and can effectively imprison, murder - or both! - anyone that tries to organize anything.

Nice deflection. That is a problem with Russian mentality, not violent protest as a method. If the Russian people ever radicalize enough again, then I'd much prefer for there to be an armed revolt than just some people standing around with signs. The former has far more of a chance of succeeding in this climate, since the government will simply ignore peaceful protests.

As for "to what end"... well, she deserved it.

[Strongpoint]

So if murdering fascists is okay, is it okay for fascists to defend themselves against this mortal peril?

Mmmm, imagine trying to worm your way into both-sides'ing the idea of targeting fascists for having already committed crimes against humanity, as if they haven't already been doing this shit without the theat of partisan reprisal to give them an excuse. :V

Someone has to be the better person. Do you think that’ll be the fascists?

By all means defend yourself against the fash, violence is what they do, but once you cross the line into actively seeking them out to kill them, well… that sounds like something a fascist would do.

How do you defend yourself without killing your enemy? Seriously, how? Non-violent resistance, Gandhi style? It doesn't work when your enemy doesn't mind killing you.

Belarus 2020 is a good illustration of that approach. It must be the most pathetic failed revolution in the history of humanity. They had the majority of the nation on their side, They had streets of the capital full of people... They had numerous police and military officers switching sides.  And yet they failed because there were not ready to fight for freedom.

And no, killing a serial killer doesn't turn you into a serial killer. It is not some Star Wars bullshit "kill the Emperor in rage and the Dark Side will win". The real world doesn't work this way.

[Strongpoint]

Russians don’t have the capacity to protest violently either. One fascist has been murdered, to what end? Nobody is being inspired to rise up, it’s being spun as a lovely young lady who was all about Russia being killed by enemy agents because of her dad’s loyalty to Russia.

Assuming that NRA does exist (which is debatable).

Murder of Dugina (and attempted murder of her father) is an act of terrorism with a set of goals 1) Eliminate an enemy who hurts your nation 2) Scare other enemies (it is what terrorism is about). After all, their manifesto clearly says - stop cooperating with Putin's regime NOW or you WILL be among the targets. Make no mistake. It is plain, simple, classic terrorism

Murdering Dugina is not aimed at changing the minds of pro-Putin Russians or "inspiring" them to anything. They are an enemy to be destroyed, not a recruitment pool. So, it is irrelevant how will Russian propaganda portray her death.

[ChairmanPoo]

Honestly I dont get how can anyone think this is anything other than a false flag. Which not so coincidentally happens to be Putin's speciality; managing internal black ops are the one thing he's actually decent at.

Using a "terrorist group" about which noone heard  anything until now and simultaneously blaming a random Ukrainian spy seems like a particularily lazy way to go about it though. Maybe he's losing his touch. 

[hector13]

Russians don’t have the capacity to protest violently either. One fascist has been murdered, to what end? Nobody is being inspired to rise up, it’s being spun as a lovely young lady who was all about Russia being killed by enemy agents because of her dad’s loyalty to Russia.

Assuming that NRA does exist (which is debatable).

Murder of Dugina (and attempted murder of her father) is an act of terrorism with a set of goals 1) Eliminate an enemy who hurts your nation 2) Scare other enemies (it is what terrorism is about). After all, their manifesto clearly says - stop cooperating with Putin's regime NOW or you WILL be among the targets. Make no mistake. It is plain, simple, classic terrorism

Murdering Dugina is not aimed at changing the minds of pro-Putin Russians or "inspiring" them to anything. They are an enemy to be destroyed, not a recruitment pool. So, it is irrelevant how will Russian propaganda portray her death.

Do only pro-Putin Russians consume Russian media? Hearts and minds is the first step in any revolution.

So if murdering fascists is okay, is it okay for fascists to defend themselves against this mortal peril?

Mmmm, imagine trying to worm your way into both-sides'ing the idea of targeting fascists for having already committed crimes against humanity, as if they haven't already been doing this shit without the theat of partisan reprisal to give them an excuse. :V

Someone has to be the better person. Do you think that’ll be the fascists?

By all means defend yourself against the fash, violence is what they do, but once you cross the line into actively seeking them out to kill them, well… that sounds like something a fascist would do.

How do you defend yourself without killing your enemy? Seriously, how? Non-violent resistance, Gandhi style? It doesn't work when your enemy doesn't mind killing you.

Belarus 2020 is a good illustration of that approach. It must be the most pathetic failed revolution in the history of humanity. They had the majority of the nation on their side, They had streets of the capital full of people... They had numerous police and military officers switching sides.  And yet they failed because there were not ready to fight for freedom.

And no, killing a serial killer doesn't turn you into a serial killer. It is not some Star Wars bullshit "kill the Emperor in rage and the Dark Side will win". The real world doesn't work this way.

I never once said defending yourself has to be non-violent. I said don’t seek out violence, ‘cause then you aren’t defending yourself.

That metaphor does not work. What I’m saying is engaging in political violence, funnily enough, won’t end political violence.

[MaxTheFox]

Honestly I dont get how can anyone think this is anything other than a false flag. Which not so coincidentally happens to be Putin's speciality; managing internal black ops are the one thing he's actually decent at.

Using a "terrorist group" about which noone heard  anything until now and simultaneously blaming a random Ukrainian spy seems like a particularily lazy way to go about it though. Maybe he's losing his touch.

If they wanted to do a false flag, they would kill or destroy someone or something people actually cared about. Like a kindergarten, a school, an apartment building. And they would not contradict themselves like that. That would turn the people against their target. Putin being decent at false flags is actually a point against the false flag hypothesis.

I never once said defending yourself has to be non-violent. I said don’t seek out violence, ‘cause then you aren’t defending yourself.

That metaphor does not work. What I’m saying is engaging in political violence, funnily enough, won’t end political violence.

1. Except it would indeed be defending yourself, because they are attacking, and they attacked first.
2. I don't really want to end political violence either, I stated my desires. Again, the time for being nice to the fascists is over.

[Strongpoint]

What I’m saying is engaging in political violence, funnily enough, won’t end political violence.

Actually, it will. Once you eliminate those who are engaging in political violence against you, it will end.


You seem to treat Russia as a democratic country and try to apply the logic of a democratic country. Yes, if, let's say LGBT Americans will start killing radical Christian bigots it will only increase the amount of violence in the USA.

[King Zultan]

Why the hell did people go back to this stupid ass nazi argument, we've already gone over it and everyone knows everybody's stance on this shit.

[McTraveller]

The sad state of things is that in the physical universe, might does in fact make reality.  (I won't say might makes "right", because that's demonstrably untrue.)

Also, as the quote says, when you can make people believe absurdities you can get them to commit atrocities.

The sad part is that ultimately it likely will require deadly force against those stirring up trouble.  I don't envy the people who have to make that choice - to literally have to give up your life in the attempt to save others.