this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jesus dude. I know right wingers can be absolute cunts but wishing death on them? Really?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The only good fascist is a dead fascist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Yeah.

I don’t tolerate the intolerant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wishing him dead is fine in my book (since I don't believe in magic anyhow) however encouraging assassination of political figures (as this may turn out to be) is not wise because in future it will be your guy who gets assassinated.

It is in everyone's interest to have peaceful elections to sort out our differences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"our guys" are being assasinated every day, dying from tough working conditions, starving away on the streets, getting killed by police, dying in another pointless war to see which group of rich people get to exploit a certain corner of the earth, being led to suicide by homophobic and transphobic retoric spread by these people...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people's death.

Edit: spelling

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

If you tolerate the intolerant, the tolerant society shifts to intolerant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don't see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The last resort according to whom? It's no law of nature or physics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The last resort according to basic self preservation.

The other side have guns too. What do you think they're gonna do when you start killing their people?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they're already shooting. that's why we're mad in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And sure, shoot at the fucker that's a threat to you. That's no justification to shoot at persons 2 and 3 that had similar belief systems but wasn't shooting at you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The right is already directly and indirectly killing innocent people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, the entire right wing is killing people? So how much blood is on the hands of the elderly couple down the road that go to church every Sunday?

Such rhetoric is not only incredibly immature and lacking of insight, it encourages the extremism that leads to violence. Grow up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The right as in the political right wing in the context of Spain.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohhh okay. So, the political right wing of Spain, which is far less prone to political violence than that of, say, America?

Do you not understand how introducing violence to that equation is an even worse idea?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Violence is already in the equation. Do you want there to be no response to the attacks on marginalized groups?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you said right wing in the context of Spain, of which there has been only one single incident since the 1980s, and no one was hurt or killed in that singular instance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_terrorism_in_Spain

Violence is very much not in the equation in the context you yourself mentioned.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The national police did nothing wrong during the catalan referendum and riots. No politicians are advocating for the genocide of refugees by sending them back to the opressive regimes they're escaping from. No politicians are advocating for the genocide of queer people by spreading harmful retoric that leads them to suicide. There are no apologists of the Franco regime in the government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The national police did nothing wrong during the catalan referendum and riots.

Wasn't a far-right thing.

No politicians are advocating for the genocide of refugees by sending them back to the opressive regimes they’re escaping from.

Executing politicians would not solve this. It would instead make the anti immigration crowd violent.

No politicians are advocating for the genocide of queer people by spreading harmful retoric that leads them to suicide.

Spain is one of the world leaders in LGBTQ+ freedom. There is too much pro LGBTQ+ support here to make this a viable campaign platform. Making martyrs out of anti LGBTQ+ politicians will boost support for anti LGBTQ+ stances, not lower it.

There are no apologists of the Franco regime in the government.

And those government officials are about as popular as holocaust deniers at a bah mitzvah. Franco apologism is literally illegal here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.

Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One side is gonna lose in the end.

And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.

Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.

Yes. As a last resort. That doesn't mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it's time for the last resort is too late. You're not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power.

Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you do not tolerate yourself?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I'm quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don't just respond based on this quote

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.

[…]

If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.