There is a difference between resorting to force to push down and cull the scum trying to topple the world and resorting to violence like they are, to butcher those they see as worthless, unfit, different.
So, given that the average fascist considers anyone who does not subscribe their narrow view of the world as worthless and disposeable and are known to be very expedite on devising cruel and brutal ways to dispose of those they dislike, it would be fair, on your understanding, that the fascists underwent the exact same treatment?
Stop saying that. Nazism is a subset of fascism with extra hate. Fascism has a strictly nationalist component, Nazism has a further racist component beyond its own borders. The “master race” argument is specific to Nazism.
If they salute like a nazi then they are a nazi. Modeled after the German variety of fascism venerating Hitler etc. Neo-nazi would work I guess, but everything they’ve been doing is straight out of Hitler’s playbook so I feel comfortable using the term nazi.
As for projection of force, you don’t really have any to project. Any resistance would need to be very asymmetric in nature ie high value targets using guerilla methods. I think the difference between force and violence is semantic and really only serves as a euphemism. Moreover you need to create a spectacle of violence. Luigi mangione didn’t use force.
That’s your prerrogative; I respect that. It won’t be small differences like those putting us on opposite corners.
Will I call the act of Mangione as brutal? Yes. But it ended there. The guy did not went on a rampage, after the man’s family and others. So, it was a resort to force, not to violence.
We’re seeing violence being enacted towards groups and individuals. Mass killings in Gaza, torture, starvation, exposure… that is violence.
Going up against a group, even if well organized, by attacking and eliminating key figures, that’s force.
Allow me a more down to earth example: you see an ICE raid mounting. You organize a group of neighbours, hold the cops at gun point, beat the lights out of them, in extremis, a few die, and warn them they are not to come back there.
That’s force.
You kill everyone, raid and destroy their station, go after their families and friends, and hit on sight every single agent.
Criminal law doesn’t work on Nazis. They control the courts. Very few non violent options left I’m afraid.
Try this: fascists.
The German National Party is no more.
There is a difference between resorting to force to push down and cull the scum trying to topple the world and resorting to violence like they are, to butcher those they see as worthless, unfit, different.
Force, not violence.
I only wish in them what they wish on me. Anyone who has an issue with that is enabling fascism.
So, given that the average fascist considers anyone who does not subscribe their narrow view of the world as worthless and disposeable and are known to be very expedite on devising cruel and brutal ways to dispose of those they dislike, it would be fair, on your understanding, that the fascists underwent the exact same treatment?
You know why no one uses the phrase “Nazi apologist”? Because there’s a word for it already. Nazi.
Fascist.
The proper word is fascist.
Stop saying that. Nazism is a subset of fascism with extra hate. Fascism has a strictly nationalist component, Nazism has a further racist component beyond its own borders. The “master race” argument is specific to Nazism.
No. Fascism is fascism. Same shit, different bucket. Fuck’em.
A lone anon does not simply prescribe linguistic standards — unless they’re certifiable.
If they salute like a nazi then they are a nazi. Modeled after the German variety of fascism venerating Hitler etc. Neo-nazi would work I guess, but everything they’ve been doing is straight out of Hitler’s playbook so I feel comfortable using the term nazi.
As for projection of force, you don’t really have any to project. Any resistance would need to be very asymmetric in nature ie high value targets using guerilla methods. I think the difference between force and violence is semantic and really only serves as a euphemism. Moreover you need to create a spectacle of violence. Luigi mangione didn’t use force.
That’s your prerrogative; I respect that. It won’t be small differences like those putting us on opposite corners.
Will I call the act of Mangione as brutal? Yes. But it ended there. The guy did not went on a rampage, after the man’s family and others. So, it was a resort to force, not to violence.
We’re seeing violence being enacted towards groups and individuals. Mass killings in Gaza, torture, starvation, exposure… that is violence.
Going up against a group, even if well organized, by attacking and eliminating key figures, that’s force.
Allow me a more down to earth example: you see an ICE raid mounting. You organize a group of neighbours, hold the cops at gun point, beat the lights out of them, in extremis, a few die, and warn them they are not to come back there.
That’s force.
You kill everyone, raid and destroy their station, go after their families and friends, and hit on sight every single agent.
That’s violence.