Anonymous #1 7w

freedom of speech has limitations already. refusing to expand on those limitations to accommodate for the speech of outspoken fascists makes you merely someone who is advocating to protect the speech of fascists. something that people refuse to acknowledge in these conversations is that fascist ideology is inherently violent. someone advocating for fascism is someone inherently advocating for violence against others. this should be covered under the current limitations for freedom of speech,

1

Anonymous #3 7w

specifically the limitation in cases of speech that incites imminent violent.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 7w

and furthermore, regulating the first amendment is not inherently violating the constitution. I implore you to research both the longstanding limitations on the first amendment’s freedom of speech as well as the “paradox of tolerance”

0

but fascism is inherently violent, that is not true for every ideological belief system. this is why I said the statement regarding “someone who is merely advocating to protect the speech of fascists”

0

Comment Deleted

0

see how you’re fixating on that word “inherit” I’m not talking about inheriting, and most forms of governance in practice end up committing some form of violence; which need to be addressed and reconciled. however, not all forms of governance or ideological belief systems are fundamentally built of the idea of committing violence towards others. that is the difference. intent vs impact. fascism is built of intentional violence.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 7w

to conclude: there is no fascist belief system that does not commit violence. Every single form of fascism is reliant on the vilification and violent targeting of an “other”; an outside group. that is not the case for all ideological belief systems. someone advocating to protect another’s ability to advocate for such an ideology as fascism is not upholding the freedom of speech, they are merely defending fascists.

1

Comment Deleted

0

hence why I said impact needs to be addressed and reconciled, but there’s a clear difference between an accidental death such as a car crash, and an intentional murder. you can “both sides” this as much as you want, but it doesn’t change a single thing. the intentional violence within fascist belief systems set them apart from others. I’m curious as to why you’re intentionally defending the right of fascists to spread their ideological beliefs though?

1

it’s interesting that you think you’d be able to eat in a society that intends for you not to. you wouldn’t, by the way, but what kind of egotistical nonsense is this?

1

solely because we live within a violent sociopolitical world structure, being capitalism, does not mean that the inherent violence within fascism is somehow less detrimental than it is. since I need to “dumb this down” for you: Capitalism = violent; reliant on the exploitation of others, nearly all political systems within inherit that. Fascism = excessively violent; considered by some as an “end state” of a hypercapitalist society in collapse.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 7w

the world being violent is not an excuse to justify accelerating the world into excessively relentless violence. fucking accelerationist bullshit.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Disliking a statement does not disprove it. and to respond to your earlier statement, no. an authoritarian has multiple avenues to manipulating the masses, “looking like a victim” is barely one of them. Overwhelmingly propagandizing the masses is the most common way. having the ability to propagandize the masses is immensely helpful to authoritarians and fascists, and is what’s currently helping the fascist regime committing a coup on this nation.

1

Comment Deleted

0

your dogmatic beliefs are causing you to advocate for conditions favorable to fascists. no one ever stated that feudalism was better than capitalism, merely that capitalism is violent (just like feudalism was). take a step back, and rethink the things you’re saying.

1

Comment Deleted

0

it’s a factual statement, which is why you had to reframe and twist what I stated. capitalism is indeed violent. you glazing capitalism doesn’t change that. just like if you were a monarchist and got pissed about someone stating that monarchism is violent, your opinion would not change that fact.

1

Comment Deleted

0

I did not say that, like I said, your dogmatic beliefs are causing you to advocate for conditions favorable to fascists. go ahead and reread the simple statement I provided you above. I did not state that capitalism is the “root of all violence”, that is you attempting to put words into my mouth to provide yourself with better footing in this argument that youre currently losing. (the same argument you chose to join)

1

Anonymous #3 7w

the only reason I brought up capitalism was to provide you a comparative reference as to the excessive level of violence inherent in fascist belief systems. aka saying “capitalism = normal violence (normal meaning what we currently have), and fascism = super violence”

1

Comment Deleted

0

what the fuck are you talking about? the founding of our country was rooted in genocide and we led a nation built on race-based slavery and oppression for centuries? we have seen a fucking uptick in violence with his administration. we have masked agents kidnapping citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants alike, on the premise of their ethnicity or race; the same masked agents that consist of a the more you talk, the more I realize *you* are the fascist in question.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

to finish that second paragraph (I forgot I added that final statement, meant to include it in this comment): functioning private militia consisting of former proud boys and other white supremacists, the admin started an illegal war by aggressive attacking Iran despite being the same president who revoked the formed nonproliferation treaty that prevented Iran from enriching uranium to a weapon-ready level, which they were abiding by; the same admin which is setting records for court order

1

Anonymous #3 7w

violations regarding the unconstitutionality of the ICE operations; the same admin that released the NSPM7 which classified anyone who is anti-capitalism, anti-Christian, anti-Trump, non-gender conforming, trans, etc, as a domestic terrorist, the same admin which called the entire DNC domestic terrorists; and so on and so forth. that’s without even discussing how the president is a convicted sexual assaulter and is mentioned prolifically in the Epstein files, while refusing to release them

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 7w

Unredacted despite ordered to do so by a judge. the Trump admin and their benefactor are indeed the fascists in question, and they are indeed committing a coup on this country. Now I know why you’re so insistent on protecting the speech of fascists. You’re looking out for yourself.

1

child exploitation and rape isn’t violent? a masked private militia consisting of white supremacists kidnapping non-white people isn’t violent? the president classifying people as domestic terrorists based on their identity or ideology and threatening them with the FBI isn’t violent? you are the threat, to your neighbors and this country.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

I think its a slippery slope. It can quickly turn into “I can say this but you cant say that”. It realistically gets dangerous.

3

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

tbh I’m with you about the investigation, but I’m of the opinion that it’s probably why he’s holding onto the presidency as much as he is. If he’s actually guilty, being the president provides him with as much protection as is realistically possible in his scenario.

1

my friend, I am not here to talk about capitalism vs communism vs whatever yk, I’m merely talking about the threat of unregulated fascist speech. the only reason I brought up capitalism was as a comparison, to say that fascism is far more violent.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 7w

it’s fair that it’s a slippery slope, but we already live on that slippery slope; we might as well utilize it for the betterment of the public good.

1

are you joking? The Holocaust. South African apartheid. Israel’s genocide of Palestine. Like what the fuck are you saying?

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Well your version of the public good varies from another persons, its too subjective to be regulated is my point.

7

and personally I’d argue that our country was immensely fascistic in our founding, that term just inherently can’t apply to us back then, and it didn’t even exist yet. there’s a major argument in linking the origins of fascism to the United States itself.

2

The Soviet Union literally killed tens of millions millions of people, genocide isn’t a political issue, its a human issue

7

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 7w

ahh I see what you mean, the subjectivity can absolutely be an issue here; I guess that’s why my main argument was the topic of inherent violence; but really in hindsight that could be twisted and spread to other topics or belief systems as well, that aren’t even inherently violent. it’s a bit tricky, then there’s the whole issue of rebranding and such…

1

Do you literally know anything about russian history 😭

8

Comment Deleted

0

Oh, i was scared for a sec

5

Dipshit, you are the one who made the outlandish claim.

1

Comment Deleted

0

you did not say in the US, do I need to repost your own comment once again? and regarding the US, were the primary funder of Israel’s genocide of Palestine, as well as gearing up our own genocide of trans Americans while also engaging in ethnic cleansing of non-white Americans. this isn’t the gotcha you think it is. instead of moving the goalposts, just admit you were wrong.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

trying to downplay the severity and violence of fascism does not change anything about the inherently violent nature of it.

1

Comment Deleted

0

once again, you utter dipshit, here is your own comment; still highlighted. you said “of this country” when you mentioned the founding, then you explicitly stated “while nothing to that scale occurs today under a fascist one”.

1

Comment Deleted

0

word your comments correctly then. you stated “under a fascist one”, implying you were referencing all current fascist countries. arrogance is not helping your case.

1

Comment Deleted

0

do you not remember the words “gearing up” and “early stages”, additionally trans people have been getting murdered throughout the United States in addition to denied public services. genuinely shut the fuck up, you’re solely confirmed my earlier critique.

1

Comment Deleted

0

and nothing to say about how we are the predominant financiers of Israel’s genocide? or were you going to deny the existence of that genocide?

1

confirming* I thought you were all about “context”? that totally wasn’t just a scummy way to avoid having to acknowledge being wrong.

1

Comment Deleted

0

or you could just acknowledge when you’re wrong instead of twisting and manipulating semantics in order to avoid doing so.

1

let’s see, a typo vs an explicit statement.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

did I explicitly say the government was outright killing trans Americans? or are you, once again, pulling some manipulative bullshit to try and downplay the scenario and avoid acknowledging when you’re wrong? are you not aware that the government is segregating trans people in prison from the rest of the prison population?

1

Comment Deleted

0

a genocide does not have to kill 55-60m people in order to be a genocide or be taken seriously? do you dismiss the severity of the holocaust due to the death count being a fraction of the indigenous population’s death toll? or, once again, are you playing these manipulative and disingenuous games to avoid acknowledging that you’re wrong?

0

Anonymous #3 7w

here, I’ll even provide you with the UN definition of the term genocide.

1

no, it’s not. I’ll provide you with the UN definition here as well.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

the *only* argument against the topic of the gearing up trans genocide in America is that the UN convention does not explicitly include gender identity as a protected status. that is it. and that argument isn’t a good one either. all that says is that the convention needs an expansion.

1

Comment Deleted

0

except it is explicit as the federal government is targeting access to medical care and the ability to travel via the reissuing of passports with misidentifying gender markers. additionally various states are revoking licenses as well, and establishing criminal consequences for using certain bathrooms. So no, you’re also wrong on intent being non explicit.

1

Comment Deleted

0

did you forget where I stated how fascism was only inapplicable to our country’s founding due to the age of our country and the non-existence of the term itself, but despite that, there are strong arguments linking the origins of fascism itself to the United States itself and its founding. like I’ve been trying to tell you this entire time, this is not the gotcha you think it is. go sit the fuck down, turn off this app, and stop incessantly trying to defend fascists for some reason?

-1

Comment Deleted

0

🤦 fascism = violent no matter what. USA = violent since founding, predates the creation of fascism; some historians link the USA’s behavior as a nation to the creation of fascism itself capitalism = violent, yes, but nowhere near as violent as outright fascism.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

that’s as simple as I can make it for you, i’m done w this otherwise.

1