The United States is a fascist police state, no longer a democracy

[Randomizer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-consul ... 29047.html
Trump considers avoiding Congress to order illegal actions until courts rule otherwise.

Except for funding bills and judicial appointments, very little legislation passed the Republican controlled Senate. Trump rarely even send other office appointments to the Senate for consideration and just uses temporary ones since he fires them so quickly.

[orathaic]

This isn't necessarily Trump (though he is associated with the story but https://twitter.com/RuckSacWoods/status ... 21894?s=19

Judge Sala’s son killed and husband shot as she was taking over the Deutsche Bank/Jeffery Epstien case. Kind of sounds like something that might happen in Russia.

[orathaic]

The use of federal law enforcement to intimate protesters in Portland, dissappearing people, failing to identify themselves, and acting without the state governor or City mayor's invitation/approval, is actually one of the scariest power grabs on Trump's executive part.

For a legal perspective see: https://youtu.be/uglv-fV1CqI

[Octavious]

Meanwhile in the UK...

We must not fetishise “debate” as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act. The very act of debate in these cases is an effective rollback of assumed equality and a foot in the door for doubt and hatred

- Nadia Whittome MP, Labour

Sends shivers down the spine that this sort of nonsense can come out of mainstream politicians

[orathaic]

Meanwhile in the UK...

We must not fetishise “debate” as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act. The very act of debate in these cases is an effective rollback of assumed equality and a foot in the door for doubt and hatred

- Nadia Whittome MP, Labour

Sends shivers down the spine that this sort of nonsense can come out of mainstream politicians

Yeah, about that.

The problem with tolerance (that is the freedom of speech position you are taking) is that when you tolerate intolerance, you have a self defeating system.

But then the UK already recognises reasonable limits on freedom of speech, so this shouldn't really be an issue.

[Octavious]

The problem with tolerance (that is the freedom of speech position you are taking) is that when you tolerate intolerance, you have a self defeating system.

Ah, I see where you are getting confused.

When you allow intolerant views to be openly debated they are defeated.

When you are intolerant of opposing views you not only have to live in an intolerant society, but the people who hold those views remain unchallenged and grow in numbers until they reach a critical mass and cause problems.

[orathaic]

The problem with tolerance (that is the freedom of speech position you are taking) is that when you tolerate intolerance, you have a self defeating system.

Ah, I see where you are getting confused.

When you allow intolerant views to be openly debated they are defeated.

When you are intolerant of opposing views you not only have to live in an intolerant society, but the people who hold those views remain unchallenged and grow in numbers until they reach a critical mass and cause problems.

Nice fantasy, is that how Nazis were defeated in Germany in the 20s and 30s? They were debated into giving up their views? I'm sorry I must have missed that bit of history.

[Jamiet99uk]

Yeah sorry, the way you defeat Nazis is not in polite debate.

The way you defeat Nazis is by killing as many of them as you have to.

We had a world war about this.

Please don't ban me for speaking this truth, Zultar.

[Jamiet99uk]

Polite debate is about resolving the differences of those who wish to invest in additional public transport subsidies, compared to those who would rather devote the funds to improving cycle paths.

Reasonable discourse, supported by evidence, is a good way to understand whether we should increase funding for the fire department, or tighten the building regulations so that new homes are better at resisting fire.

"Open debate" does not work when one side's opening position is "let's round up the blacks and the gays".

[Jamiet99uk]

You might say I am being over the top, but I am not.

Octavious, if you were a gay man in Poland today, would you have 100% confidence that open debate would be sufficient to protect your rights?

What if you were a Jewish man in Warsaw in 1943? Open debate? Happy and safe then?

No.

Fascism is a violent ideology that cannot always be opposed gently and politely. History has tried to teach us this lesson.

I may very well be banned for these posts as this forum is meant to be a safe space for the ultra-right, but I don't actually care.

[Randomizer]

Open debate only works when both sides are willing to listen to the other. When one side keeps repeating false and debunked information as if it was the truth, then it isn't a debate. Spreading unsubstantiated information with no attempt to provide a source isn't what was meant by discourse. Sadly at some point violence may be the only solution.

[Octavious]

Nice fantasy, is that how Nazis were defeated in Germany in the 20s and 30s? They were debated into giving up their views? I'm sorry I must have missed that bit of history.

That's the lesson you take from history? Dear God, but that's depressing. If webDip is at all representative of left wing thinking then the left truly is intellectually and morally bankrupt. The lesson of the rise of Nazism is that violence and intolerance is the answer? Mindblowing.

Germany of the early 20th century had extreme racism hardwired into their culture. They had yet to develop any great tradition of democracy or public debate. This was combined with millions of dead father figures providing millions of reasons to hate foreigners, and national humiliation, and a genuine economic crisis that stole away the hopes and dreams of most of the population who ever aspired to make a normal life for their families.

It was not because Hitler just happened to be good at debating. In anything approaching modern circumstances he would have failed utterly.

[Randomizer]

Germany was still considered the most civilized country in Europe by the Jews. Compared to the surrounding countries it was considered safe compared to a generation earlier. France had the Dreyfus affair, the Soviet Union had the pogroms under the Tsar, Great Britain was getting better, and you could see anti-Semitism still in other places. Germany was one of the few countries that hadn't forced Jews to leave in the past like Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, and a few other countries.

After all until Hitler came to power Jews were prominent in its universities, there was a Jewish judge on its Supreme Court, and they had successful businesses.

[Octavious]

Ah, a typical Randomiser post. What it lacks in substantiated facts it makes up for in invention. Remind me when exactly Great Britain forced Jews to leave?

The way you defeat Nazis is by killing as many of them as you have to.

Your fetishisation of extreme violence grows increasingly disturbing, all the more so when combined with how many people meet your ever widening definition of Nazi these days. I think you've got a genuine problem that you should address. Quite seriously, mate. This ain't healthy.

Sadly at some point violence may be the only solution.

See, Zultar? This is what happens when you smother mainstream political debate and hide it in the dark corners of the forum. You create little echo chambers where similarly thinking people can bounce increasingly extreme ideas off each other and delude themselves into thinking it's mainstream and sensible. You have created the conditions in which Jamie, Random, and possibly even Ora now think it's perfectly acceptable to preach intolerance and talk openly about committing acts of violence. In the old forum they would have rightly been called out as being twats by scores of members. In the new politics forum they can delude themselves into thinking this is normal.

Bloody disgraceful.

[orathaic]

Google the paradox of tolerance, I found scholarly results appears before Wikipedia, because this isn't some echo chamber of odd leftist thought, it is a well recognised and studied problem which academics have looked at since ~1945.

Go do some reading.

And Octavious, your fantasy is really misguided.

it was not because Hitler just happened to be good at debating. In anything approaching modern circumstances he would have failed utterly.

This entirely misrepresents my point. You are the one claiming that debate is the reasonable way to deal with intolerance. And thus conclude I believe Nazis won in Germany because Hitler was a good debater (though he was a good Orator by all accounts).

I am not claiming this at all. Because those who do not value truth, rational debate and understanding, don't care about debating you, they will waste your energy making a lot of noise to spread their hate, without actually engaging in debate. But this tactic is just a distraction for them while they proceed to encourage violence (using free speech which you tolerate). And when that violence proves more successful than debate you have a serious problem.

Maybe it starts with calling [insert_target_minority] cock roaches, and spreading hate, genocide isn't something they choose to advocate publicly at least until they have assumed control of the state (even then it may be quietly talked about so they can kill more effectively).

Tolerance of these kinds of ideas is not good. You can't debate someone who doesn't think you are human.

And I know you disagree, but this is which anti fascists believe that punching a nazi saves lives (violence can be justified only in self-defence or defence of others). By punching the Nazis today, we don't have to kill them later... (and nobody has to die).

I don't have a perfect solution, I can acknowledge that forcing them to hide away and build resentment may not be an actual solution. That ideas germinate into violence (like the white supremacists, misogynist and fascists who go on killing sprees in the US, eg: Orlando's Pulse massacre (targeting lgbt folks), Incels (targeting women), fascists (driving cars into Anti-Fascist protestor)).

But providing them with a public platform to debate you also does not work.

[orathaic]

You have created the conditions in which Jamie, Random, and possibly even Ora now think it's perfectly acceptable to preach intolerance and talk openly about committing acts of violence. In the old forum they would have rightly been called out as being twats by scores of members. In the new politics forum they can delude themselves into thinking this is normal.

I'm sorry, do you not like the views we are advocating, are you not willing to debate them? And yes, violence ONLY in self defence or defence of others. I am probably a pacifist by traditional definitions, and if drafted would likely be a conscientious objector (though that is unlikely in Ireland, whose military has a history of peacekeeping missions that I probably wouldn't object to).

[orathaic]

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[Octavious]

Go do some reading.

I'm aware of it. What exactly do you imagine me reading that will change my view?

And when that violence proves more successful than debate you have a serious problem.

No. When the population starts to believe that violence can be more successful than debate you have a problem. Violence only trumps debate when the people have abandoned it.

Tolerance of these kinds of ideas is not good. You can't debate someone who doesn't think you are human.

Yes you can. Rather easily too. You may not win over the person you're debating with (although you may... Gandhi was rather successful I believe) but the more important battle is with the wider audience. People listening to a debate are often considerably more open minded than those taking part.

And I know you disagree, but this is which anti fascists believe that punching a nazi saves lives (violence can be justified only in self-defence or defence of others). By punching the Nazis today, we don't have to kill them later... (and nobody has to die).

And here's the major problem with this philosophy. Punch a Nazi and it's damned tricky for the people watching to tell which of the angry violent mobs are meant to be the bad guys and which are meant to be the good guys. Debate with a Nazi and it's obvious. Punch a Nazi and you let them dictate the terms of the battle to those they are most comfortable with. Punch a Nazi and you confirm a vast chunk of their propaganda to be true. Punch a Nazi and you give them exactly what they want, and a genuine chance at winning.

[orathaic]

Nope.

[Octavious]

Yarp