Sure, people that disagree with your viewpoints lack critical thinking and morality. Painting people who disagree with you as immoral idiots just sounds like you're not able to defend your beliefs.
People start with moral intuitions first and work backwards to find reasons. Fallacies, ignorance, and sloppy thinking is quasi-deliberate, to satisfy a priori values of what is sacred and what is profane, who are the good people and who are the bad people.
Naming yourself "the good guys" doesn't mean anyone who opposes you is bad. It's like if someone said disliking 'Make America Great Again' means you don't want America to be great. Or opposing the Patriot Act makes you not a patriot.
You know this, everyone else reading this knows this, stop pretending we don't.
In the UK, the British Union of Fascists organised a march in London in 1936 and were countered by ten times as many people organised by anarchist, communist, socialist and Jewish groups. The ensuing violence sent an extremely clear message that fascism is not welcome in the country.
>> Antifa literally exist to use violence upon people who don't share their politics
Your reply:
> Using violence to achieve political goals is not in itself a "hallmark of fascism".
Agreed. But I didn't write that it was.
You live in the UK. How would you compare the IRA of the 1920s with the provos in the 1980s? Would you say they're the same group? They have the same name.
In my experience (as a mainsteam left person) Antifa consider anyone not on the hard left to be either 'fascists' or 'bootlickers'. Everyone else I know who has had any contact with Antifa has had the same experience. Many Antifa people would say this is an accurate view of anyone who does not share hard left political views.
The genocide became widely known after the war had already started. The allies did not join the war out of their goodwill but rather due to their own geopolitical and economic interests - they never intended to stop any genocide (the US engaged in eugenics and mandatory sterilisation and only stopped because hitler did it too - they even put the Japanese living in the US in concentration camps), it was just a side-effect.
Regardless (and this is a bit offtopic), I wonder, would you support WWII if only to save people from genocide? In the same spirit would you support war against China in order to save the Uyghurs and other suppressed groups? I personally would reply yes to the first one but I am debating about the second.
No, for two reasons: I don't actually have any concrete information on what is happening in China, and 2 the USA does a lot worse to suppressed groups both inside and outside the country than China has ever done, so I'd support a dismantling of the US State (today, maybe during ww2 I would say first go to war with germany and then dismantle the USA) before I support any kind of intervention in any other place in the world.
I mean, no, it happened, so obviously you cannot prove it didn't happen.
> It’s possible this has occurred
Ah, but "they were not real anti-fascists".
Have we still not gotten over this line of argument?
The fact that nazis exist doesn't invalidate it. Again you probably know this so I'm not going to bother replying further.
So no, I really, truly have no clue what you're getting at. Like as far as I can tell you're saying "being willing to punch a Nazi makes you a Nazi". Which, like, no.
>> Naming yourself "the good guys" doesn't mean anyone who opposes you is bad. It's like if someone said disliking 'Make America Great Again' means you don't want America to be great. Or opposing the Patriot Act makes you not a patriot.
Your reply:
> Like as far as I can tell you're saying "being willing to punch a Nazi makes you a Nazi".
ok
Please elaborate. Please don't just re-quote yourself. You know, follow the guidelines and engage in good faith. I did, it why I asked a genuine clarifying question which you seemed to ignore.
No, you did not address GP in good faith. And GP did address your question by quoting himself: the problem is not "fighting against the bad guys", the problem is whom you consider the bad guys. Anti-fascists calling themselves such in no way means that everyone they oppose is actually a fascist.
I did. Please don't presume to know my thoughts.
> Anti-fascists calling themselves such in no way means that everyone they oppose is actually a fascist.
This doesn't address my comment, nor is it what GP said. Id suggest you reread their comment. And mine.
I'll break it down:
> Antifa literally exist to use violence upon people who don't share their politics
This is overbroad. Many people don't share antifa politics. I don't. They don't threaten me with violence. Something is missing here.
> which is one of the hallmarks of fascism
So this is only sensical in an overbroad generalization of antifa to mean "violent left wing people who are violent towards anyone not suitably left wing", which isn't antifa under any reasonable definition, and is an entirely circular argument.
So yes, please: explain.
smart enough to learn to code or to polish a pitch to a vc, but lacking any critical thinking skills or morality that would cause them to reflect on their position in society.
flocking to the right at the first hint of something that does reflect these truths.
supporting fascists because you're scared or uncomfortable is even worse than supporting fascists because you're a bigot imo