Are you trying
to convince me you're not worth listening to? This is one of the most content-empty objections to what I said that you could possibly have come up with. It's an exercise in huffing, puffing, dropping your monocle, and crying "I object to your tone, sir!"
actual fascists are toxic, they are parasites on the political process, they are a threat to
the political process. They are exactly as welcome as cockroaches in my apartment.After all the time you've spent talking about how 'worrying' things are, you should know that. If you have a problem with that, I'm not going to apologize to you.
Are you capable of understanding that their is a distinction between opposing and condemning someone, and explicitly treating them as non-humans who need to be exterminated?
If your "tone" is "these people are vermin who need to be killed", then yes I object to it, and I
will not apologize for that.
Moreover, using that kind of rhetoric in a discussion about Nazis is pretty much a way of saying you fail irony completely.
And the only one I see "huffing and puffing" here is you, with your over the top, self-righteous outrage at my criticism. While neither of us is under any obligation to be polite to the other, you are the one here who just opted to respond to criticism with hostility.
That's an awfully 'fuck context, I have a pretext for disagreeing with my fellow left-winger' stance.
I object to the insinuation that I am being disingenuous, that I am looking for a pretext to disagree with others on the Left.
I also object to your repeated insinuations that I am being hyperbolic when I object to you describing people, even loathsome people, as vermin to be exterminated.
But don’t worry- you’re not the first poster to trade on my reputation for hyperbole to discredit me, rather than refuting my argument.
You know what I'm getting at, you're not a complete historical illiterate. There are times and places where there exists a genuine threat of democracy being overthrown and society being cast into tyranny. Not "too many brown people around," not slaveowners complaining about losing their slaves, real tyranny. "Tyranny" is not just a word we use when hyperventilating about Republican politicians.
Yes, I am aware of all that, and I believe that I already acknowledge that there are circumstances where the use of violence can be justified. Repeatedly.
I also feel that we are not yet at one of those times and places in contemporary America, but that their is a real possibility of overheated rhetoric driving us more quickly toward that point, while it is still avoidable.
And that a scenario that would likely result in a great many people losing their lives, with no guarantee of it actually improving the situation in the long run, is to be avoided if possible.
That this is apparently now seen as a controversial or even offensive stance is, frankly, terrifying.
Incidentally, it wasn't just the slave-holders in the South who were using overheated rhetoric and violence that escalated tensions. They may have been the primary guilty parties, but there were people in the north who dialed up the hostility as well. Now, when it came down to it, when the South seceded and fired on a Union fort to preserve and expand slavery, then the government was entirely within its rights and duty to respond with force. And its likely that in that case, the South really wouldn't have altered course without a war, or at any rate, that the point where an alternative solution could realistically have been reached passed decades earlier. But the point of the comparison was that we are now, like then, facing a situation where people on both sides of the political spectrum increasingly view the other side as enemies to be fought and destroyed, and that should be concerning to anyone who values the democratic process or the rule of law.
Proportionate to the level of threat of this happening, there will arise a good and understandable reason to relax restrictions on violent efforts to stop the political process itself from being violently overthrown.
If their was an immediate danger of the political process itself being violently overthrown, as you put it, I would be a lot more open to the use of force (though still not and never as a terror tactic against civilians).
Let's cut through the bullshit and get right to the point: Do you or do you not feel that we are in such a situation in America now, and if not, at what point would you feel that we were?
Either acknowledge the validity of the point and stop throwing around passive-aggressive "you're right but I don't like your tone" crap,
I have acknowledge that your points are valid to the extent that I feel they are valid.
And your choice of words matters
, because it affects both your meaning, and how others perceive it. As someone who has frequently been criticized for their tone (including by you in this very post
), believe me, I know.
or provide a substantiative criticism of the point and stop throwing around passive-aggressive "you're right but I don't like your tone" crap.
Substantive criticism like that we are not yet in a state of armed revolt, and recklessly advocating on behalf of political violence might push us closer to it? Or that you can criticize, even condemn someone and oppose them without portraying them as sub-humans who require extermination? And that using such rhetoric in a discussion about Nazis shows a stunning lack of self-awareness, to put it mildly?
I mean, just stop and think about what you’re saying for a moment. You are getting outraged at me for objecting to your description of a group of human beings as subhuman animals that need to be exterminated. Hell, you could have just said “I didn’t mean it literally”, but no, you chose to double down and defend that position. Is this really
a position you want to stand your ground on?