top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 85 points 5 months ago (11 children)

It's crazy that a group can't have a celebration saying something along the lines of "we like who we are!" without another group saying "no, you shouldn't exist!" and seeing the confrontation covered in media as if they are just two different sides of a coin.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Because we aren’t countering with militant leftist groups. The media works for the pedophile class. Follow the money. They need these fascist militants groups to preserve the status quo and growing disenfranchisement of the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Because we aren’t countering with militant leftist groups.

    Are you not aware of the terrorist group known as Antifa? /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Some of us are, when we can. Black Panther inspired open carry groups reemerged in Philly, but just like in California in the 80s, once 2A embracing black people start carrying legally, the powers that be change the rules.

    During the height of BLM we had a crew that legally carried during our nightly marches around town and during rallies because the counter-protestors showed up in droves dressed like Gravy Seals. Cops hounded us repeatedly despite consistent proof we within our rights; their team brandished and popped off “oops my safety was off” shots without consequences. I think the only reason they didn’t rewrite the rules is because I live in a red state with incredibly lax firearms laws and there’s no way to target one political group without hitting everyone, yet.

    And then there’s the problem of liberalism and Democrats. They’ve made gun control a hardline stance for years, and while there is a gun violence problem in the US, they’ve vilified the idea of “gun”, their supporters cling to notions that any form of militia-style open carry or organization is inherently violent, and have crafted legislation that makes it easy for corrupt and biased law enforcement and courts to turn against their political enemies while ignoring their own team.

    I get that going out to a protest, parade, or rally and seeing someone carry even if you know they’re there to support your cause can be nerve wracking because you never know if they take firearms ownership seriously or just bought it last week and have no idea what they’re doing. It has been nice to see the rise of leftist, queer, and women’s training groups rise, we’re just really behind the curve when it comes to matching the far right when it comes to projecting the image. And that’s what 90% of it is, not that it’s a threat or promise of violence, it’s just a reminder that if they want to come in with bluster and a threat of violence it can and will be matched in defense of our own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    These are all true but it doesn’t change the fact that having armed militias groups on the left will have to be part of a multilateral approach to reforming our government away from fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You don’t have to convince me, I’ve been armed for 30yrs. No armed militia is going to match the US military if the regime decides to unleash that on it’s own population, but matching what the right has been building for decades is going to require continued effort to deconstruct liberal/democrat ideas about the purpose of guns/militas and community defense. I think we’ve got momentum on that, we just can’t forget that the gun laws currently in place will perpetually abused to disarm us while go unenforced against their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Agreed as my democratic family (on both sides) has always been aware that the second amendment was of great importance. but I don’t think that everyone necessarily needs to be armed. I think the peaceful protest approach is absolutely vital but we just need to start adding more intimidating factions within the movement to actually force the fascists from destroying our liberties. I don’t know if you have time but this documentary is worth a watch. https://youtu.be/r7dNLt5mC1A

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 138 points 5 months ago (72 children)

    There’s no such thing as murdering a Nazi. It’s always self defense.

  • source
  • hideshow 72 child comments
  • [+] -65 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (69 children)

    Massive problems with this kind of statement. Dehumanization of any group shouldn’t be encouraged, it leads down a dangerous path.

    Edit: “I thought they were a Nazi so I shot them.”

    I’m not saying tolerate them, I’m saying dehumanization of any human isn’t acceptable. It’s kinda fucked that the reason y’all wanna dehumanize them is because they dehumanize others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 69 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    No one is dehumanizing them. They are humans. They happen to be humans whose beliefs and actions are an active harm to society and a threat to a large portion of the global population. So they should be removed. They aren't sub-human, they aren't bring targeted for being less than, they aren't being targeted because of race, ethnicity, orientation, religion, or anything like that. For society to grow and thrive they need to no longer be a part of society. How that happens is a judgment call, but it needs to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -35 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    I get what you’re saying, but stating that it is always acceptable kill a nazi no matter the situation is most definitely dehumanization. I’m not sure how you could twist it into anything else.

    There are so many other ways to remove them from society that doesn’t include labeling someone as something and deciding it’s okay to kill them based on that label.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    They labeled themselves. If someone admits to murder in a courtroom, and a judge sentences them to death is the judge dehumanizing the murderer? I don't think anyone would seriously make that claim.

    These people are openly wearing the symbols of a regime that believed in the extermination of people for a random set of traits. They are openly espousing the hatred and beliefs that some people are lesser and should be exterminated still. So people are passing judgment. This does not dehumanize them, it holds them accountable for their actions.

    And a person can absolutely come to the decision to kill another person while being fully aware and recognizing that persons humanity. It is just an incredibly awful thing to do. I still have zero compunction saying out and out Nazis should die.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

    The irony is that you can look at the responses to my comments, and see people quite literally say they aren’t human.

    This is the problem with statements like the top level comment. You’re giving people permission to dehumanize another group.

    And the “self label” isn’t even a good argument. You’re one step away from “they didn’t self label but look at what they believe”.

    The solution to a Nazi walking into a bar is to kick their ass out, not shoot them in the head.

    Edit: I want to clarify, my point with the “not just a self label” isn’t to say that someone can have Nazi beliefs without being a Nazi, it’s that the label can be applied by anyone to anyone when it’s convenient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I'm one step away from nothing. They are literally displaying swastikas. And given the chance they would kill me. That is not acceptable. They cannot be tolerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    Also saying someone lacks humanity isn't dehumanizing them, it is saying they lack empathy, goodwill, and traits required to be a contributing member of a healthy society. They mean different things.

    Admittedly I overstated things when I said no one is dehumanizing them. People can be hateful. What I should have said is that isnt the majority, and dehumanizing someone isnt required for the belief that they should be killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    You are giving them the same excuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Fuck off. They want to kill me for existing. I want to kill them because they want to commit murder on an industrial scale. If you can't see a difference between those two things, then grab onto your ears and pull really hard until your head is removed from your ass you fucking piece of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I don’t even know how to respond to this without being snarky so imma just head out.

    I’ll just leave you with the fact that killing isn’t a solution, because the reasoning for the killing can easily be usurped and tainted. As history has proven over and over.

    Bai

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Look up the paradox of tolerance.

    if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices

    That is exactly what tolerating Nazi ideology within a society leads to. If you allow objectively harmful ideology on the grounds of balance or fairness, they are allowed to continue and eventually take over.

    Even if you're a 100% centrist, you should never allow anyone to undermine or remove basic constititional or human rights. Yet that is exactly what Nazis do. Tolerating them means tolerating that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The number of people conflating “we shouldn’t dehumanize people” with “tolerate the Nazis” has me questioning people’s reading comprehension.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Everyone on the internet likes to talk like they're G.I. Bot, which is frankly understandable these days. The fact that no militant opposition showed up and tried to kill Nazis means (to me) that maybe the concern about overheated rhetoric, while laudable in absolute terms, might not be the biggest practical concern.

    People are blowing off steam. It just makes me sad that leftists seemingly prefer to vent at each other rather than go out and demonstrate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I’m actually kinda sad a counter counter group didn’t show up and send some to the hospital. And I suppose I did get a little too into arguing about this, as to your point it’s just a bunch of anonymous people saying things they likely wouldn’t do.

    I was just so taken aback that “hey maybe we shouldn’t take away peoples humanity” was something that the majority took issue with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    We see eye to eye about that, rough em up a bit would be fine by me.

    People don't really enjoy nuance when they're in their feelings about something. There's room enough for everyone, it's just a vibe mismatch imo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    rough em up a bit

    Here's where both your logic falls apart. Any time you commit violence on someone else, even something as simple as punching them — you invite death to the table.

    If we were more primitive we would stop sharing food with these people. Quite literally we would ostracize them from local community and they would simply wither and die. Do you think that's a better outcome, morally, than simply killing them? Do you genuinely believe a quick death is worse than starving to death? Or dying due to preventable illness?

    This wish-wash complacent bullshit is the reason the U.S. is where it is today.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    No, they took that as their entire reason for being from the very beginning of their existence, it’s not their excuse, it’s their modus operandi, it’s their birthright. They don’t need excuses, they have entitlement.

    If someone feels entitled to end your life based on theological racist bullshit then how is returning that sentiment, solely for reasons of wanting to stop others and yourself from their predatory intentions, anything other than self-preservation in the face of a deadly predator?

    There are bad people in the world, down to their core monsters, not everybody has a node of redemption and understanding hiding somewhere inside of them waiting to blossom. They are born and die as horrendous atrocities embedded among humanity. Not all of them are nazis but every single nazi has chosen to be one among those ranks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    it is always acceptable kill a nazi no matter the situation is most definitely dehumanization

    you imply that to kills someone you have to dehumanize them? we collectively kill people, period. Always have and rarely but sometimes for good reasons be it a serial killer or a fascist oppressor. Some people just need to be removed and if there was a magic wand to wand them away to their own little space ships where they don't harm anyone we'd use that but the wand we have today is a prison cell, rehab program or a weapon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's why we need to be sure they're a Nazi, because choosing to be a Nazi IS a declaration of intent to commit genocide, and you can't not respond to that.

    It's not dehumanization to recognize that the survival of humanity at large is dependent on striking down depraved groups like this who are opposed to fundamental cooperation and mutual respect and who instead seek total dominance. Because they're not targeted because of a simple preference, or what they're born as, or where, but because they have chosen such vile goals and to be such a great danger to the rest of us.

    An example must be set so nobody else will dare to seek dominance because they will have seen what happens to somebody who organizes violence against the innocent. Aggression and instigation against innocent people has to end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I feel the same way about this as I feel for the death penalty.

    The number of people who look back at their life and seriously despise the person they used to be isn’t anywhere close to zero. Hell, look at the work of people like Daryl Davis if you need some actual proof that Nazis and white supremacists can be “brought back” from their extreme beliefs.

    Knowing that some of these people can be shown the error of their ways, how is killing them the answer? Because it really just feels like the “easy and loud” solution that just begets more problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "now now, let's hear them out, I mean all they want to do is enslave those damn [redacted] and torture those fairy [redacted], I mean really, we would be equally bad for shunning them and being mean :("

    education in this country, this world, is lacking so much that some people are seriously making this argument. absolutely insane.

    if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and proudly tells you that it's a nazi, you should probably treat it as it is a nazi.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago*

    education in this country, this world, is lacking so much that some people are seriously making this argument. absolutely insane.

    The main person making that argument here eventually settled on, "people can change."

    Makes me wonder why they're so upset about this Nazi killing talk... Maybe they used to be one? "Used to" maybe doing a bit of heavy lifting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (14 children)

    Don't even start with this "y so intolerant of intolerance?!?" BS. Tolerance is only a virtue when it's for inherent traits such as race, sex, gender, religion or culture. Not a full grown adult calling for the elimination of anyone they dislike. One is a human trait and the other is a choice to do evil.

    Coming to the defense of nazis doesn't make you compassionate it makes you an accomplice to their inevitable violence. Fascism is an existential threat to civilization and these monsters are actively acting on their violent rhetoric.

    I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action."

    -Dr. King

    You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Not gonna lie, I don’t know how to respond when it’s obvious you didn’t actually read my comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (12 children)

    Like it's a novel? 🙄 I read every one of your comments in this thread.

    Frankly. I think you remaining speechless is for the best if you're clicked this thread and decide that those literally in the process of committing violent acts are the ones who need to be shielded. "Kicking them out of the bar" isn't a solution in the slightest and the more you double down the more I see just another Nazi sitting at their table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    More that you’re either not bothering to read or arguing against a straw man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Whatever you got to tell yourself so you can justify ignoring critism. Not surprising, still disappointing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Me: “I’m not saying tolerate them, I’m saying dehumanization of any human isn’t acceptable.”

    You: “Why are you Defending Nazis?”

    Your responses are so far removed from what I was saying that I can’t even take it as criticism, you’ve assigned me a position I didn’t take, and are trying to take me to task over it.

    Good job man, you won the argument you’re having with yourself. Kudos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

    I’m not saying tolerate them, I’m saying dehumanization of any human isn’t acceptable. It’s kinda fucked that the reason y’all wanna dehumanize them is because they dehumanize others.

    The first sentence qualifier doesn't make the second sentence any less of a defense. The fact that you can't see that is historical ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    An eye for an eye.

    Anyway, I tried to make it clear that the problem I have is the dehumanization. And at no point did I afford them anything I wouldn’t afford literally any human.

    If you take offense with me saying that humans deserve to be treated as humans, I think that says more about you than me but I admit my opinion on that is more than a little biased.

    That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be dealt with in other ways. Kick them out of stores, refuse to let them take part in society, police their actions (or attempted actions.)

    There are many ways to deal with them without dehumanization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    There are many ways to deal with them without dehumanization.

    None that slow them down, much less stop them. They are flying swasitkas and self identifying as nazis. They clearly don't care if they are part of "polite society". Was the Third Reich defeated with shame? You're playing with monopoly money here.

    An eye for an eye.

    Out of sight out of mind. Forcing them out of the store only means they abuse victims down the street. It's not a solution.

    Nazis don't need an eye based provocation, their entire philosophy is based around blinding others. There is no offramp for the violence they execute since their hate and propaganda will always fuel another attack. They went to a pride parade because the mere existcane of minorities is seen as legitimate threat to the. There is no appealing to the humanity of those who gleefully call and execute violence indiscriminately.

    Advocating for the humanity of Nazis is to deny the humanity of their victims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Kick their ass dude, punch them square in the face I don’t give a fuck.

    I never said violence wasn’t an acceptable answer to their actions.

    I said killing them for existing is a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I never said violence wasn’t an acceptable answer to their actions.

    If you truly believe this, then you seriously need to drop the "kick em from the polite society" and "ask them to leave" platiudes. Because as I, and many others, have repeatedly explained to you, these thought terminating cliches only dampen actual resistance.

    Which is quite literally the first step of defending bigotry. Hence why I linked Letters from Birmingham.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Look, I’m not going to sit here and list off everything I think is acceptable. The only thing I said we shouldn’t be doing is dehumanizing by killing them for existing. Literally all of the replies stemming from that was because people took issue with that stance.

    You yourself took that to mean I was defending them. Others took it to mean I was simping. Others took it to mean we should be tolerant of them (despite literally saying the opposite >.>)

    Admittedly, some legitimately take issue with the idea that Nazis are humans. But at least those people are actually taking issue with a point I was making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    I’m not going to sit here and list off everything I think is acceptable.

    When you only list the things that are unacceptable to say about Nazis, then it's a blanket defense. No matter how much you insist it's not. This lack of care is the reason so many people have rightfully jumped down your throat. You seem well meaning, but your words are careless.

    But at least those people are actually taking issue with a point I was making.

    As I have explained, it's a difference without distinction. It's by definition impossible to scold those who speak against Nazis without defending Nazis. You're trying to have it both ways. If you truly do not wish to defend Nazis, then I implore you to be more considerate with your criticism. Because what you've been saying thus far has historically been a shield that fascist hide behind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You’re not going to convince me that killing people for existing is the answer.

    I’ve already said violence can be the answer depending on the situation, but a blanket “it’s fine to kill them in every situation” is way too far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Correct, I won't get you to say, think or do a single thing. Internet conversations don't produce change like that. That was never a realistic outcome nor my goal. I'm not asking you to do, say or think a single thing.

    I am trying to PREVENT you from repeating dangerous nonsense like paradox of tolerance in threads about bigots attacking a minority group.

    This

    I’m not saying tolerate them, I’m saying dehumanization of any human isn’t acceptable.

    does not negate

    It’s kinda fucked that the reason y’all wanna dehumanize them is because they dehumanize others.

    It's a dangerous false equivalence that was extensively linked to you because of how Nazis use the thought terminating cliche to provide themselves cover. You're giving them the cover for free. Stop. Just stop. All I ask.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Hard disagree. And that way of thinking is why we're in the mess we're in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Can I ask, what is the root reason we hate Nazis? Because the main reason I can think of is that they dehumanize groups of people. Yes, they do tons of heinous shit, but it all boils down to “they aren’t human so it doesn’t matter.”

    How is us dehumanizing them any different? Because we think our reason for dehumanizing them is correct? How does that make us any better?

    Again, I am in no way saying we should be tolerating them. I’m saying we shouldn’t be dehumanizing them. There’s a chasm between those two points.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    This is the same thing as arguing that you’re a nazi if you’re vegetarian because Hitler was a vegetarian. Intention and context matters.

    The root reason we hate nazis is the ideology of authoritarianism and theological views on hierarchy and superiority that makes them feel entitled to entirely eliminate the existence of others for reasons of misunderstanding genetics and entitlement issues. We hate them for what they choose to be. Nobody was born a nazi, it’s very much a choice, and very much a choice of pure and inarguable hatred.

    They surrendered their humanity when they refused it to others, the response to that is not trying to coddle their lack of humanity, if they had that in them to begin with then they wouldn’t have ever been a nazi in the first place, especially at this point in history. They chose to be what they are and they are telling everyone exactly who they are, if you’re too stupid to believe them then that’s on you, naivety and morality aren't the same thing.

    Nazis aren’t people, and you’re spewing the exact rhetoric they hope for from bleeding heart “humanitarians.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    How is us dehumanizing them any different?

    Jesus fucking Christ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I dunno man, personally I think shunning them, kicking them out of our establishments, severing ties with them, etc. is a much better solution than “oops I killed a Nazi but it’s okay they don’t count teehee”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] -13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Putting aside the fact that I explicitly and literally said “don’t tolerate them”, how exactly does “let’s not dehumanize people” turn into “tolerate them.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I'll take the bait.

    I'm struggling to separate the two. I have to dehumanize them to not tolerate them, because I love people and give them more chances than deserved in everyday life. To the point where my partner gets frustrated with me.

    So, how do you define human? How are you defining dehumanizing? Because frankly, they deserve to be dehumanized because in my definition they are barely human and should be kicked out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Just the plain old definitions of human and dehumanizing.

    We don’t dehumanize murderers or rapists, but we certainly don’t tolerate them. How exactly is a Nazi such an extreme that the only way to not tolerate them is killing them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    "They go low we go high!"

    This kind of cancerous thinking made people stop advocating for even stronger secularism, because the US had a "good christian" in the white house, so it's not religious fundamentalism that is the problem, but "fake christians" wanting to implement Project 2025.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I see what you're saying. Using the rhetoric of "There’s no such thing as murdering a [...]" is the same shit the Nazi said about Jews. I would rather take a nonviolent approach to this kind of thing, but as another person commented the paradox of tolerance can become a problem. I don't want to deal with Nazis. I don't want them in my community. They know they aren't welcome, so they hide, and only show their faces when they have strength to intimidate. But they're still here and they still teach hate wherever they go.

    One of the things they did to indoctrinate people into Nazi ideology was to brainwash them as children. The Hitler Youth was a big driving part of his power. I think the first step to combat Nazi hate is to teach empathy first. There's a reason a lot of tattoo artists will do free cover-ups of hate symbols. People change; I want to believe people are inherently good. But until a Nazi sees how evil their beliefs are, they won't listen to reason and need to be treated as such: an evil bastard.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    The man who seeks to subjugate, oppress, and destroy the lives of others will find no greater ally than the one he finds in "seekers" of peace.

    The rational man is the first enemy of the people, and their expression of freedom.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Nazis aren’t human. Tagging you as Nazi simp.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    "Nazis aren't human but we are" is how we got to the point of having Nazis everywhere again. It's this kind of thinking that makes people complacent. Nazis are ordinary humans, ordinary people. Becoming a Nazi is a thing regular people do. That's why Nazism is so dangerous. They're not weird monsters, they're regular humans acting as a poison in society. Every society should be on guard for signs that its people are turning Nazi.

    Which isn't to say we should be gentle and tolerant towards these poisonous people. Left undealt with, Nazi poison will destroy everything. It has to be dealt with decisively, and when the government is full of Nazis it's up to the people to fight back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Sorry I disagree with your sympathy for Nazis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    It's not sympathy. It's recognition that Nazism is a disease any society can succumb to. It's refusal to take the cheap option and say they're not human. Their being human is what makes Nazism so dangerous. And we probably agree that you can't pull punches in dealing with Nazis.

    I suspect we're using the term "human" differently. In my book it's neutral: humanity means great potential for good and evil. Nazism is the great evil in humanity's potential. But by "human" people sometimes mean to focus on what makes us capable of compassion and selflessness and not just brutes. There's none of that in Nazism: it's sheer brutality and selfishness. So in that sense Nazis do lack humanity.

    I reject your claim that I'm sympathetic to Nazis. There's no sympathy for Nazis here, just a recognition of how deeply dangerous Nazism is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Hey man, I also don’t agree with the death penalty, so you might wanna revise that tag to include murderes, rapists, and anything else you can think of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Lucky for them we aren't psychotic enough to drive a car through a group of strangers.

    I like how they advertise being pieces of shit. That'll remain if we ever get back to a proper society.

    And now for the part I post every time:

    Worth noting, Patriot Front had a huge leak of data in 2022 (400GB).

    Patriot Front Fascist Leak Exposes Nationwide Racist Campaigns

    You can download it at the following torrent address:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2c87816e4c81990fb25bbca43dd8d578eaa55886&dn=patriotfront&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2920&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969

    I'm seeding this on a permanent basis. I have gigabit uplink. Please leach and share. Expose these nazi fucks.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Like personally I wouldn't drive a car through them for the simple fact of mass, a tank or a even a bulldoze though? Absolutely. I know all I need to when they start waving their flag about, same goes for the fucking Christian flag mind you.

    Only reason I don't is that I don't think I could get away with it, survival instincts conflicting with morality and all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    If they're out in full force its time to put them down. Shit, its too late and you need to work double time.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 35 points 5 months ago

    See now this is why federated social will win; you can talk about shooting nazis like a decent person without somebody wielding the cudgel of summary banishment on the grounds of “tone policing” .

    Fuck these skinhead assholes.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    These days in the states she would get sent away for life or deported to who knows where for assaulting him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    Let that be a lesson, unless it’s filled with bricks, use something more effective than a purse to strike a nazi. If you’re in for a penny then you’re in for a pound, at that point, why not use a lead pipe or a baseball bat?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Maybe. You still have to be convicted by a jury of your peers. In some areas, you might be safe. Like the sandwich throwing guy, the jury might decide to tell the government to fuck off. Another example, but bad, is Rittenhouse. It turns out you can get away with murder if you're able to get a sympathetic jury.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›