Stalin’s regime wasn’t communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.
I’m well aware of Mussolini’s kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out… Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.
As for Hitler, the numbers you are talking about aren’t his takeover of Germany - they’re WW2.
…which kicked off because…? Moron.
You are are saying, over and over, that killing people to stop suffering is right. You are absolutely talking about killing people who are SAYING things you don’t like. Fuentes is not an active shooter - I can’t even find a criminal record for him of any kind.
Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn’t matter - we’ve already established that you can’t have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.
Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I’m saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I’m not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I’m saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that’s likely, but I don’t think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.
I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3. That was half the comment and the whole point. You aren’t talking about killing Hitler and Goebbels, you’re talking about killing the newspaper writers in 1933 Germany and assuming no one else takes their place so their stance is “silenced”. You talk about good faith arguments…
“Stalinism is the totalitarian means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1924 to 1953 by dictator Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953. Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that became the largest faction of the communist movement in the world in the years following the October Revolution. It was developed in Russia by Joseph Stalin and drew on elements of Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, and the works of Karl Kautsky.” Stalin dissolved the Comintern, his “long arm of the Soviet state” during WW2. "Invoking the “judgment of the founders of Marxism and Leninism” as a kind of holy writ, the resolution renounces any reliance on “organizational forms that have outlived themselves.” I think you are confusing dictatorship and one-party states (ways of ruling) with fascism (political ideology).
Now you’re strawmanning by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis. If you really are intellectually honest you need to give me that. I’ve been exclusively arguing against your original stance that killing people (and we started by talking about Fuentes, a podcaster) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering, a stance you have reiterated as the greater good multiple times now.
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3.
I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.
Stalinism
Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?
Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis.
I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.
killing people (…) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering (at the scale we’re talking about)
Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.
You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?
Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good? Can you please post the quote of me saying that? Don’t just tell me I said it either, or that what I said means it even if it doesn’t say it.
I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.
Exactly! You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law. I said “Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering?” You said that wasn’t true, that you don’t support killing anyone you want, but simultaneously tell me you do want people you think are future threats (if it does reduce suffering) killed.
Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism
Webster’s work for you?
Fascism: populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.
Communism:
A: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. B: a theory advocating elimination of private property. C: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Soviet Union.
Pretty sure you’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism. For starters, Stalin made private ownership a serious offense. Hitler supported private ownership. I even gave you an example of Stalin dissolving his Comintern - a move a fascist would never ever make. If I give you that they’re similar in many meaningful respects, will you in turn concede there are important differences?
tell me what I’ve mischaracterised
You told me that because I don’t want to kill podcasters/journalists (not even leaders) that you “spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.” Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered doesn’t mean I excuse the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take. I accuse you of bringing in that attack because you’re outraged, wanted a strawman to support that outrage, and are at best slippery sloping me - not because I said that.
you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal
Dude, I stopped talking about legality the moment you made it clear you have no regard for the law. Since then it’s been all about morality, which you say is your only compass.
Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good?
The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.
You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law.
Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?
Fascism
What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?
You’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism.
I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered that means I support the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take.
No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.
Dude, I stopped talking about legality (…) Since then it’s been all about morality
I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered
Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people decided whether to kill civilians based on that metric? Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you want protected will harm their nation (and your willingness to seriously consider their murder wouldn’t help). Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion that you’d somehow know when it would save “tens of millions”.
let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
You using him as an example of Western fascism.
Pick one.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you say, policies can be determined by either. I think a person should get a trial where they can defend themselves and punishment can be administered equitably because of morality, not because it’s in a book. If I had to rule a country, I would design a system for trials if none existed, i.e. not because of existing law. I wouldn’t sign mob rule and vigilantism in law and then say it’s alright because I made it legal. We’re not going to agree. You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
Why I don’t support fascism: I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I would not support telling random people to march into a German newspaper and open fire on civilians in the hope they kill the right people to stop Hitler’s rise. Which is the WW2-era equivalent of killing Fuentes in his podcast studio as a check to Trump.
Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?
You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.
Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.
Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.
You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.
it’s not murder, it’s combat
What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?
The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.
I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians
…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.
Stalin’s regime wasn’t communist, and it checked all the boxes for fascism. Go look up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - they only got antagonistic because their expansionism started treading on each-others toes. The ignorance.
I’m well aware of Mussolini’s kill count - go ahead and scale things to the population and average it all out… Or skip that, and explain me the difference this makes to the point.
…which kicked off because…? Moron.
Why would this argument not absolve Hitler or Goebbels of all fault for the Holocaust? It doesn’t matter - we’ve already established that you can’t have a moral issue with their actions because they were legal.
Your arguments amount to straightforward Nazi apologia as you ether lie or paint what I’m saying as my playing judge, jury and executioner. I’m not dishing out death sentences to Fuentes - I’m saying that his death would be good if it prevents more death and suffering. At this point, I think that’s likely, but I don’t think I can know yet. Go spend 5 minutes familiarising yourself with consequentialism or act utilitarianism.
I spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.
Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3. That was half the comment and the whole point. You aren’t talking about killing Hitler and Goebbels, you’re talking about killing the newspaper writers in 1933 Germany and assuming no one else takes their place so their stance is “silenced”. You talk about good faith arguments…
“Stalinism is the totalitarian means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1924 to 1953 by dictator Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953. Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that became the largest faction of the communist movement in the world in the years following the October Revolution. It was developed in Russia by Joseph Stalin and drew on elements of Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, and the works of Karl Kautsky.” Stalin dissolved the Comintern, his “long arm of the Soviet state” during WW2. "Invoking the “judgment of the founders of Marxism and Leninism” as a kind of holy writ, the resolution renounces any reliance on “organizational forms that have outlived themselves.” I think you are confusing dictatorship and one-party states (ways of ruling) with fascism (political ideology).
Now you’re strawmanning by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I believe. Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis. If you really are intellectually honest you need to give me that. I’ve been exclusively arguing against your original stance that killing people (and we started by talking about Fuentes, a podcaster) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering, a stance you have reiterated as the greater good multiple times now.
You’re back?
I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.
Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?
I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.
Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.
Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good? Can you please post the quote of me saying that? Don’t just tell me I said it either, or that what I said means it even if it doesn’t say it.
Exactly! You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law. I said “Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering?” You said that wasn’t true, that you don’t support killing anyone you want, but simultaneously tell me you do want people you think are future threats (if it does reduce suffering) killed.
Webster’s work for you?
Fascism: populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.
Communism: A: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. B: a theory advocating elimination of private property. C: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Soviet Union.
Pretty sure you’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism. For starters, Stalin made private ownership a serious offense. Hitler supported private ownership. I even gave you an example of Stalin dissolving his Comintern - a move a fascist would never ever make. If I give you that they’re similar in many meaningful respects, will you in turn concede there are important differences?
You told me that because I don’t want to kill podcasters/journalists (not even leaders) that you “spit on the feigned outrage and moralism of someone whose prescriptions excuse the fucking Holocaust, and condemn intervention against it because it was legal - absolutely monstrous and utterly moronic.” Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered doesn’t mean I excuse the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take. I accuse you of bringing in that attack because you’re outraged, wanted a strawman to support that outrage, and are at best slippery sloping me - not because I said that.
Dude, I stopped talking about legality the moment you made it clear you have no regard for the law. Since then it’s been all about morality, which you say is your only compass.
The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.
Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?
What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?
I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?
No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.
Pick one.
Because you don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to think you can magically know for sure that premeditated murder of Fuentes would prevent suffering (“I support it if it does”.) Forget legality, morally you shouldn’t get to decide that someone dies because you “know” their death will prevent suffering. Like I said, what if other people decided whether to kill civilians based on that metric? Imagine if the “enemy within” extremist right start making decisions that way - they probably think you and people you want protected will harm their nation (and your willingness to seriously consider their murder wouldn’t help). Especially when it’s a podcaster, which again, is the origin of your argument as per your “silencing the voices” assertion that you’d somehow know when it would save “tens of millions”.
You using him as an example of Western fascism.
That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. Like you say, policies can be determined by either. I think a person should get a trial where they can defend themselves and punishment can be administered equitably because of morality, not because it’s in a book. If I had to rule a country, I would design a system for trials if none existed, i.e. not because of existing law. I wouldn’t sign mob rule and vigilantism in law and then say it’s alright because I made it legal. We’re not going to agree. You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.
Why I don’t support fascism: I’d support a war to unseat Hitler and the SS, but at that point it’s not murder, it’s combat. There would be moral boundaries in such an event. I would not support telling random people to march into a German newspaper and open fire on civilians in the hope they kill the right people to stop Hitler’s rise. Which is the WW2-era equivalent of killing Fuentes in his podcast studio as a check to Trump.
Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?
Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.
Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.
So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.
What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?
The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.
…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.