In the US when you kill random people it’s murder and when you take random people who aren’t breaking any laws and child them captive, then it’s kidnapping.

Yeah you might be right. Any government will inevitably grow corrupt and needs healthy fear of the people to keep them honest. Or as a wise man once put it: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.

You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.

The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?

Removed by mod

How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.

Too many people in the world crave an identity that is original enough to be interesting, but not so original that it can’t be quantified or defined by accepted or understood identity templates. They need to be able to put a name to their identity so they can talk about it.

Well you got my entire backstory created. I’d ask you to roll me for stats now, but I don’t think you are playing with a full set of dice.

I can’t believe you spent that much energy creating an identity for me in your head.

Jews are native to that area and it’s not a race thing. If we can’t agree on those two facts then we have no basis for discussion.

But is that any worse than defaulting to the side with less power? At the end of the day if you have to side with one or the other, whoever happens to have power at the time seems like pretty arbitrary criteria. If instead Israel were the lesser power being bullied by a powerful Palestine, would you side with Israel? How about if Nazi Germany were getting bullied by Western powers, would you side with them? It wouldn’t make sense because Nazis are very obviously the bad guys. Anyway it’s not just about power.

Mass shootings weren’t even defined before. We didn’t talk about them because they weren’t tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn’t settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.

I guess maybe we are using the terms differently.

My whole point was that the cultural revolution was a disaster because of unchecked progressivism, and that more conservative voices could have averted the disaster. This was in response to an unhinged rant about conservatives being good for nothing and how they should be silenced. Not sure why I engaged in that insane premise to begin with, but anyway that’s how we got here.

So let me get this straight, communism failed in China because it was like Trump?

Ok you’ve got to be trolling me. Goodbye.

Mao may not have been progressive, I don’t need to argue that point. But he definitely tapped into a progressive spirit driven by progressive youths and the result was a tragedy.

Eradication of the “4 olds” was a deliberate effort by the communist party to destroy old culture, in order to replace it with something new. Since when do conservatives strive to destroy and overturn existing, established culture? That literally the opposite of conservative. Or is your argument that it isn’t necessarily conservatives, but it’s not progressives either?

There will always be conservatives since it’s a relative term. But I’m guessing that you are referring to the Republican party, of which roughly half of the country belongs to, comprising everything from moderates to extremists, just like the Democrat party has. How can you preach about subverting democracy in the same breath as advocating to silence half of the country? People who cannot coexist with different opinions or world views, who lack empathy and cannot understand nuance, cannot function and don’t belong in democracy. Why don’t you drop the mask and admit to being an extremist authoritarian? and in that case don’t even bother talking about democracy.