Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?


Recommended Posts

@Finishuser4444

"Did you know that Nazism stands for National Socialism?"

Yes, as a person who has read 100+ books on the holocaust and authored some of my own I do, but it is an ironic name given that the Nazism was anti socialist anti communist movement. Putting socialism in the name doesn't make it socialism, national socialism was all nationalism. As Mussolini said Fascism could more accurately called corporatism.

Link to comment
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, I'm going to disagree about Antifa being a terrorist organization.  My reasoning? They don't actually seem to be an organization, they seem to barely exist, many of the acts attributed to them s

Of course not how can being anti fascist be terrorist lol. Were people fighting for the allies in WW2 terrorists? I miss when everyone reasonable was anti fascist! We have actual fascists trying

Antifa is not even a official organization as it just means a shared ideology of being against fascism, which everybody should be against. Whenever people bring up the idea of anti-fascism being terro

23 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Also, you do realize that the original Antifa was explicitly a militant group affiliated with Germany's Communist Party, right?

I'm pleasantly surprised to find a person who's well educated on that topic here. And yes, I most certainly do realize that. However, given the choice between Hitler and Stalin (as you know, communism came in a lot of different flavors over the course of USSR's development and eventual demise), I'd take Stalin every day - not because of his idealogy, but because he fought a defensive battle where the end (survival) justified the means.Those were different times, so zero shame about that.

4 hours ago, DesperateJill said:

If Obama used the bathroom they would say it was part of a global communist plot.

I KNEW he never used one in his entire life! This must be a martian conspiracy!

 

Edited by Lisk
Double post (see edit history)
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Lisk said:

I'm pleasantly surprised to find a person who's well educated on that topic here. And yes, I most certainly do realize that. However, given the choice between Hitler and Stalin (as you know, communism came in a lot of different flavors over the course of USSR's development and eventual demise), I'd take Stalin every day - not because of his idealogy, but because he fought a defensive battle where the end (survival) justified the means.Those were different times, so zero shame about that.

I KNEW he never used one in his entire life! This must be a martian conspiracy!

 

Oh sure, he was, by all means, we were right to back him over Hitler, but Stalin was no saint, in fact he killed more people than Hitler did, millions more (unless you attribute all the non-warcrime deaths of World War II to Hitler, which would be disingenuous because about half of those were killed in areas where Japan had started the fighting, particularly China).  Hell, some of them he tried to pin on the Germans, like the Katynn Forest Massacre (which the Russian government quietly admitted was committed by the Soviets in the 1990s), He just doesn't get villainized for it so much because he was one of the winners of World War II, coupled with...shall we say...some very sympathetic intellectuals and artists carefully curating the official account of some aspects of the Soviet regime for half a century.  Even now, with the former KGB's archives open, we still don't know the details of some of the crimes committed in Stalin's name.

Also I have to admit that most of the conspiracy theories about Obama are pretty amusing, though not all of them started with the Right (for example the Birther rumor was started by Hillary Clinton during the '08 primaries when it was pretty clear who was going to get nominated, because according to accounts from people who know her, she's a very sore loser).

  

9 hours ago, DesperateJill said:

@Finishuser4444

"Did you know that Nazism stands for National Socialism?"

Yes, as a person who has read 100+ books on the holocaust and authored some of my own I do, but it is an ironic name given that the Nazism was anti socialist anti communist movement. Putting socialism in the name doesn't make it socialism, national socialism was all nationalism. As Mussolini said Fascism could more accurately called corporatism.

It was not anti-socialist, it was anti-communist.  Hitler saw communism as a subversion of socialism by Jews, according to his own writings (how he came to that conclusion was...complicated, and only makes sense if you believe in certain fallacies regarding both capitalism and communism).  As for the reason why he didn't actually implement full socialism while he could, as much as he stated his intent to do so...well, in his mind, he couldn't do that until he had Russia's resources under his control (largely due to a common belief among socialists in the "Shrinking Market" fallacy, one he believed in).  Socialism is not inherently internationalist or antinationalist, that's only a facet of communism specifically.  The defining aspects of socialism are two things: some sort of demographic-related struggle (whether it's class, nationality, or race), and government seizure of the means of production and the consolidation of said production into more easily controlled syndicates.  If you don't think the Nazis did this, you might want to look into what happened to Hugo Junkers (founder and owner of Junkers Flugzeugwerk) when he decided he didn't want to play ball.

 

But I think we've gone far enough off-topic now.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment

"The defining aspects of socialism are two things: some sort of demographic-related struggle (whether it's class, nationality, or race), and government seizure of the means of production and the consolidation of said production into more easily controlled syndicates.  If you don't think the Nazis did this, you might want to look into what happened to Hugo Junkers (founder and owner of Junkers Flugzeugwerk) when he decided he didn't want to play ball. "

No it isn't at all, socialism is about making sure public infrastructure and services (like schools, hospitals, public transport, the police and judicial system, libraries, roads, and energy infrastructure) are run for the public good, and kept out of the hands of private profiteers.

These same profiteering people want you to believe socialism is some sort of failed system, or some sort of sinister political idea like you describe above, but that's just because they don't want a fairer, more equal society.

 

Link to comment

@kittyearsamy

"The defining aspects of socialism are two things: some sort of demographic-related struggle (whether it's class, nationality, or race), and government seizure of the means of production and the consolidation of said production into more easily controlled syndicates.  If you don't think the Nazis did this, you might want to look into what happened to Hugo Junkers (founder and owner of Junkers Flugzeugwerk) when he decided he didn't want to play ball. "

No it isn't at all, socialism is about making sure public infrastructure and services (like schools, hospitals, public transport, the police and judicial system, libraries, roads, and energy infrastructure) are run for the public good, and kept out of the hands of private profiteers.

These same profiteering people want you to believe socialism is some sort of failed system, or some sort of sinister political idea like you describe above, but that's just because they don't want a fairer, more equal society."

This 1000x! It always restores my faith in humanity just a tiny little smidge to see somebody who realizes what socialism is actually about rather than the bogeyman that it is in the minds of right-wingers. I think that the average person in the United States socialism is pretty much like a curse words, like saying you are a socialist is like saying you are a baby eater, and on that topic what's wrong with baby eating anyway, babies are an excellent source of protein! But it's true, the average person cannot seem to distinguish between giving food stamps out to poor people and a Stalinist dictatorship that puts people in gulags. Socialism works for most Western industrialized societies, America is the only major industrial nation that hasn't really embraced some degree of socialism on a large scale, the only one with a for profit healthcare system, and we see the negative effects every day in our society where millions are food insecure as the billionaire class saw their wealth double in the past year. Of course the right says anything liberal is naturally communism, and how much I wish that were actually true. Nothing would please me more than if everything that the right says about the left being communist was actually true because that would be a society I would really want to live in. Even Bernie Sanders & AOC, the bogeymen of the the right, would be considered extremely moderate or even conservative by the standards of most other industrialized nations.


But I find that these political discussions always go around in circles. But I said I have said my part and I think at this point there is nothing more to add to this thread. People have their own political opinions, and in the current day political climate no one's going to budge one way or another, and I always feel that getting involved in a political discussion on a fetish site, it just does not seem like a productive use of time that I could be better used turning these ideas into satirical stories and dystopian fiction. Plus politics always puts my mind ill at ease and makes me think of violence admittedly, I'm no moderate, I'm about as hyper partisan as anybody will get. So for that reason I don't feel I have anything more to add to this thread at this point.

Link to comment

I thought my more conservative friends in England would never budge on Boris Johnson no matter what came out about him but they are doing now so although it's like banging your head against a wall sometimes (pointless and only feels good when you stop) sometimes eventually the penny drops lol for some people anyway.

ugh I just want to be six again and wet my panties all the time 😂 life was soooo much simpler!

Link to comment
Guest WetterArgento
2 hours ago, DesperateJill said:

I think that the average person in the United States socialism is pretty much like a curse words

And there are a lot of so called "politicians" in other countries trying to make people think like that as well

1 hour ago, kittyearsamy said:

ugh I just want to be six again and wet my panties all the time 😂 life was soooo much simpler!

Couldn't agree more with that statement

Link to comment
1 hour ago, tenck5k said:

Not if it's against actual Nazis. When you decide that the thing you want to support is actual fucking genocide, then you deserve any beatings you get. This is the issue with "both sides" bullshit. Being conservative is one thing. If the political opinion you are brandishing is something like "I think abortion is bad" or "I think we shouldn't tax the rich companies" or whatever, then that's different. I think you're wrong, but I'm willing to talk about it. When your opinion is "I think these Nazi guys were alright. You know, the ones who killed 6 million jews, 6 million soviet citizens, 1.7 million polish citizens, and many more, all for the crime of being Jewish/LGBQT/not Aryan enough/a political enemy. I'm gonna wave their flag around!" then there can be no discussion. Waving that flag and supporting those views, should not, CAN not be tolerated. A tolerant society must not tolerate intolerance, and certainly should not harbor those that are so intolerant that they resort to mass murder.

I disagree, you should never physically attack someone based on their politcal opinions. Unless they physically attacked you first.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, tenck5k said:

Not if it's against actual Nazis. When you decide that the thing you want to support is actual fucking genocide, then you deserve any beatings you get. This is the issue with "both sides" bullshit. Being conservative is one thing. If the political opinion you are brandishing is something like "I think abortion is bad" or "I think we shouldn't tax the rich companies" or whatever, then that's different. I think you're wrong, but I'm willing to talk about it. When your opinion is "I think these Nazi guys were alright. You know, the ones who killed 6 million jews, 6 million soviet citizens, 1.7 million polish citizens, and many more, all for the crime of being Jewish/LGBQT/not Aryan enough/a political enemy. I'm gonna wave their flag around!" then there can be no discussion. Waving that flag and supporting those views, should not, CAN not be tolerated. A tolerant society must not tolerate intolerance, and certainly should not harbor those that are so intolerant that they resort to mass murder.

Here's the problem: "Nazi" has been so overused as a perjorative by certain groups that it's meaningless now. It basically just means "anybody we don't like" now.

This is why I add the qualifier that they have to actually be doing something that immediately endangers you or somebody else.  If they're giving a speech?  Heckle them, call them out, but there's no need to get physically violent unless they directly threaten you or they attack first (and if your heckling is what provokes them to attack you, even better, because it makes them look even worse); that's self-defense, and I'm perfectly fine with that.  Mel Brooks (a guy who fought the actual Nazis in World War II) put it best: the way you beat Nazis is to make them look ridiculous, make fun of them, so that nobody takes them seriously again.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment

I think you can justify intolerance to Nazis since their basic viewpoint is that you should be intolerant of anyone who isn't straight and white and not a gypsy or a jew etc etc etc... basically if you tolerate that then you normalise the viewpoint that that is okay and then you make the world a less tolerant place... the paradox of tolerance I think it called, there's a meme of it somewhere but I can't find it.

"Here's the problem: "Nazi" has been so overused as a perjorative by certain groups that it's meaningless now. It basically just means "anybody we don't like" now. "

Has it though, or is that just another excuse to try and justify tolerating actual nazis, or racism etc etc?

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, D0nt45k said:

Here's the problem: "Nazi" has been so overused as a perjorative by certain groups that it's meaningless now. It basically just means "anybody we don't like" now.

This is why I add the qualifier that they have to actually be doing something that immediately endangers you or somebody else.  If they're giving a speech?  Heckle them, call them out, but there's no need to get physically violent unless they directly threaten you or they attack first (and if your heckling is what provokes them to attack you, even better, because it makes them look even worse); that's self-defense, and I'm perfectly fine with that.  Mel Brooks (a guy who fought the actual Nazis in World War II) put it best: the way you beat Nazis is to make them look ridiculous, make fun of them, so that nobody takes them seriously again.

That's a non-problem. I'm not discussing randos on the internet calling people they don't like Nazis. I'm discussing disgusting excuses for human beings on Ottawa waving around flags with swastikas and advocating for white supremacy. And I'd argue that allowing them to show their flags or publicly speak about their views is not something that should be tolerated. It certainly isn't in multiple European countries. Reminds me of a story that's been passed around the internet, starting from this tweet here about how, if a bar tolerates 1 Nazi who is acting peaceful and nice enough, they bring their friends who are also Nazis, and they bring theirs, and once they have a majority they stop acting so nice but it's too late, you're a Nazi bar now.

But yea I get it, you can't just go running around vigilante killing Nazis, even if you confirm that they're the real deal first. But if they're out their waving flags and pushing their viewpoints on the public, then if they get decked for it they deserve it.

 

10 hours ago, Finishuser4444 said:

I disagree, you should never physically attack someone based on their politcal opinions. Unless they physically attacked you first.

Aight. Well "I'm cool with Genocide" is the fucking worst 'political view' to be defending. Also for the record I think that trying to declare "Anti fascists" as a terrorist group is like trying to declare "fascists" as a terrorist group, or liberals, or conservatives. These aren't organizations (vs the Republican or Democratic Parties, which are actual organizations with set members and leaders), these are political stances. When fox news tells you that "Antifa" is doing something, there's no actual organization they're talking about. They're attempting to scare you with a political bogeyman, and clearly it's working.

Edited by tenck5k (see edit history)
Link to comment

I see that there's no getting through to you.  You'll get your reality check the hard way the next time you try to pick a fight with these so-called "Nazis" (99% of the people you accuse of being such a thing aren't), because I guarantee you, few people will fight harder, and with more righteous fury, than somebody who just wanted to be left alone, and got sick and tired of the slander, the abuse, and the hate.  The far left has had it their way without any serious opposition for decades, and now that somebody actually starts hitting back, you cry foul?  No, it doesn't work that way.  The pendulum is swinging back the other way in direct response to the left running amuck, attacking people, burning cities, abusing their political power to ruin the lives of anybody that dares to protect themselves or others from their wrath, and then having the audacity to claim it's everybody else's fault, and groups like Antifa and their allies defend such behavior.  To quote a historical figure, "they have sown the wind, now they shall reap the whirlwind."

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment
2 hours ago, tenck5k said:

Holy shit. You are defending actual Nazis. With Swastikas. And Nazi Flags. You need to reconsider who needs to be gotten through to.

It's hilarious, honestly. I didn't even say Republicans are Nazis. Or Conservatives are Nazis. Or any sort of "X are Nazis." I stated that I have a problem with...Nazis. Actual fucking Nazis. So when you say "99% of people you accuse of being [a Nazi] aren't", it's a bit odd since I have accused actually no one of being a Nazi during this conversation. Unless are you suggesting that people who call themselves Nazis, wave flags with actual swastikas around, and subscribe to white supremacy are somehow not, in fact, Nazis? They seem to think they are. And yet for some reason, you feel the need to defend them from "slander" from the "far left." How strange.

Stop defending Nazis. It's not a good look.

By the way, that quote is from the Old Testament (Hosea 8:7) which is definitely not a "historical figure." It's actually a book that Nazis wanted to ban in Germany around 1933, fun fact.

Man this thread needs to be locked.

You're deluded.  You know damned well that the ones flying nazi flags are a fringe minority (if they're even legit - it's a known fact that agents provocateur have been used by both sides to harm their opposition optically over the years), and are always disavowed whenever they appear in public, but that doesn't stop you from associaing them with unrelated groups just because it's convenient for you to label all of your opposition as such.  I used to be a far leftist, I know how people like you think, and I left the Left behind eight years ago precisely because of people like you.

All I said is that it's not a good look when you're advocating attacking people just for speaking.  If you're really that sure that you're right, and they're wrong, let them talk and make asses of themselves when they actually have to answer questions about their platform  (or, as I said, heckle them, let them lose their temper and lash out, and then they appear to be the aggressors and you can claim self-defense).  Violently silencing them and centrists when none of your opposition has made any indication towards violent intent doesn't help your cause, quite the opposite in fact.  All you're doing is pissing people off and turning them against you, and when their patience finally runs out...I'd find a place to hide if I were you.

You're right, this thread does need to be locked, and you need to do some soul searching before you make a decision irl you might seriously regret.

Edited by D0nt45k (see edit history)
Link to comment

"The far left has had it their way without any serious opposition for decades"

That's hilarious... what countries have a far left government???, New Zealand maybe? America hasn't had anything approaching far left in years, UK the same... we have Trump and Boris Johnson who are frighteningly close to far right.... we have Fox News, GBNews, Daily Mail, all right wing newspapers and media, rupert murdoch owns big chunks of the media and is very right wing...

 

Yeah the far left really has it their way 😂😂😂

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...