Will people 200 years from now, when they look back at history...

Haha this is a really creative and funny comment congratulations on your originality and political awareness :D

>Fascism cannot be overcomed by debate, but rather shame and physical/moral violence.
There are two kinds of fascists: fascists and anti-fascists.

>we should learn from our past mistakes and make sure to identify harmful social processes
>we should oppress and perpetuate violence against those we think have harmful beliefs

Truly a utopia like none seen before will soon be realised if only more people thought like you

>if we let fascists organize and take power we win :^)

We should just lock up fascists and communists and basically everyone who proposes an anti-classical liberal ideology.

All with due process, of course.

Chinggis Khaan didn't do anything wrong though. He united the tribes of the steppe and secured his borders, along with building a united Mongolian identity and functioning imperial government.

No purges, no colonial wars, no genocides. He probably "raped" some sexy Mongol ladies, but can you blame him?

>parenthesis meme

(((Parenthesis)))

>fascism taking power
>bad
This is what a brainwashed sheep looks like. I pity you.

Wrong. Actually there are fascists and fascist enablers.

>THEYRE EVIL MONSTAHS GOYIM KILL EM!!!!

Or, you know, debate them using words rather than validating their ideology

Fascism is on the rise.
There's no stopping it, only steering it.

>she punches the Nazi slug
>she goes to jail for assault
>Nazi slug is now free to keep preaching his ideology, gets to power and makes a dice bag out of her kid's scrotum

You can't "win with words" because they don't care about being right, they care about the ideology.

>these people are just fucking ideologues, they're so evil and wrong that it's okay to kill them because they're wrong and I'm right

How does one argue against "might makes right"?

You know fascism is openly irrationalist, right? You literally can't persuade them because they don't think in ways that allow persuasion. The fascist mindset is so that if you put enough will into something it is bound to become true.

That's true of every ideology. Yes, including leftism.

Yes, there are people who hold opinions that should be a death sentence.

Does it trigger you?

Well yeah. No-one has a problem with killing extremest muslims and Britain imprisons both extremests Muslims and Fascists because we don't have the free speech nmeme. You're allowed to say what you want until you start threatening people.

I hate leftists too. Communists, anarchists, antifa and general scum should also be locked up alongside fascists, preferably in the same cell.

t. fascist
Threats != ideology

t. moderate liberal who still believes in the "progress" meme

youtube.com/watch?v=27RXiA0qkrM

Like what this guy did. Yes, out of the 350 000 people who watched that video there'll probably be 1-10% who'll agree with Spencer no matter what. But for the 90-99% they'll see that when he's engaged in reasonable debate his views can be challenged pretty easily.

If Roland Martin got pissed off and just tried to punch Spencer, that 90-99% would have instead thought "fuck, maybe this Spencer fellow has a point."

Different ideologies thrive in different narratives. The Marxist frames his argument through one of class struggle, because Marxist arguments make more sense in that worldview. The free-market Capitalist instead will frame his argument through one of wealth creation and private sector ingenuity, because capitalism makes more sense in that worldview.

You know what the worldview in which Fascism makes sense is? One of violence.

Considering the ideology IS a fucking threat, yes it is. Its the same as radical Islam or totalitarianism. Notice that Communism, although bat shit insane, doesn't inherantly include nativism or militaristic expansion.

The difference is that IS TERRORISTS are the threat, people who are violent. Arresting people for holding a view is totalitarianism.

It's not about convincing them you mong, it's about convincing the middle man.
You will NEVER win a debate AGAINST a fanatic. No matter how many times you shut down their arguments they will always keep believing what they believe.
What you can do is win a debate WITH a fanatic. The fanatic will go away believing he won or that he's still right, but the middle man will side with you because they are not tainted with fanaticism.

Humanity trends towards the center, the extremists and outgroups will always be a minority of the population. The die hard Nazis were always less than 1% of the German population, but what they convinced was the average German to go along with them.
You don't beat them by changing their opinion, you beat them by swaying the opinion of the centrists. This is how it goes for anything. If you appeal to minority groups and only minority groups you LOSE. You must appeal to the majority. That is how Trump won the US election, he got Middle America on his side.

Trump was never going to get the blacks to vote for him, never going to get the SJWs to vote for him, he never had a chance in hell to get the Mexican vote.
What he did have a chance to do and what he did was appeal to Middle America. The Rust Belt. The Blue Collar workers, and he won because of it. He appealed to the moderate left and the moderate right while Hillary went all on the die hard believers who were going to vote for her no matter what she did short of sacrificing a live baby on television.

Hitler didn't win his elections because he appealed to the people who were already fascists, he achieved power because he promised the average German a job and food and a house for his family.

Conservative here. Liberals are scum that are too tolerant towards your kind.

Keep sucking private sector dicks, kid

>Notice that Communism, although bat shit insane, doesn't inherantly include nativism or militaristic expansion.

It does, however, include totalitarian control of society by a party-state and disastrous economic policies which will leave the population without basic supplies at best and kill millions by famine at worst.

>Humanity trends towards the center, the extremists and outgroups will always be a minority of the population.
This is blatantly wrong.

Keep socializing your ass, kid.

Are non-violent fascist being arrested?

No, but the guy I responded to () clearly advocates for that

>supporting the killing of everyone who doesn't agree with you
>at the end of the say you can still call yourself a moderate
The first rule of politics is that nobody is a moderate.

>LET'S USE VIOLENCE AGAINST FASCISTS, THAT WILL SHUT THEM DOWN
>mfw Weimar had plenty of street clashes between Nazis and communists and that didn't stop the Nazis from taking over power.

Listen, shitheads, there are two reasons you shouldn't start street clashes with fascists.

One, because fascists are probably BETTER than you at street fights. They are better trained and stronger than you and they will probably pummel your liberal ass into oblivion if things get to that level, and they probably have less qualms about doing it than you do. Richard Spencer only got punched because he was distracted talking to some reporter.

Two, and the more important one, as Weimar demonstrated, violence by itself DOESN'T STOP FASCISTS. Violence, however, introduces a great deal of unstability into the political enviroment and it is precisely in this atmosphere of unstability that fascists thrive.

The only thing that will stop these parties from taking over is only a political solution that involves BANNING THEM. Germany did pretty well in this regard.

No, it isn't. There will always be a center. The center changes exactly what it is, but humanity is slow to change. The largest single group of a population will always hold the "moderate" belief even if they lean to one side or the other of the debate.

The center today might have been the extreme of yesteryear, but that doesn't make it any less the "moderate" idea in the here and now. Normalization makes the old extreme the new average, and humans always tend towards the average in everything.

So if I think IS are good guys, terrorist attacks are justified and ran around with a "If you insult Allah I will behead you", I am OK as long as I don't actually do anything?

Terrorist attacks aren't justified but we can't arrest you for thinking the IS are good guys.

the narrative from which the nazi slug obtained his ideas is one that actually exists, and responding to him rather then the narrative reinforces the narrative.

the correct response is to use cultural relativism, realize that different environments produce different ideologies, and work to make sure his environment doesn't produce said ideology while simultaneously making sure his environment is prosperous and isn't under anyone's thumb, as has been done in the past in relation to other impoverished societies.

we should either unify (work to crush segregation and cultural differences) or divide (take away their external control and give them internal control, and vice versa); subjugation should not be an option.

absolutely; you learned that from some cultural environment which is the real threat, not you. you might need to be paid more attention by security forces, but actual action? fuck no.

this is the unified stance of basically everyone except nazis, but for some reason people fail to make the leap to also applying it to nazis. we really just need to stop using words like "evil" when applied to people; it's always a bad thing when someone is harmed and always a good thing if they're helped, even if they themselves haven't been morally pretty and/or they hold ideas the implications of which aren't morally pretty.

Nazis are evil, Islamists are evil, communists are evil. Nobody should be allowed to express a single word in support of these ideas.

Idiot.

>evil
I want this meme to end

But what happens if someday the average belief is that democracy is evil, or capitalism is evil, or welfare is evil, or Buddhism is evil?
You may scoff at that idea, but those Islamists you think should be illegal think everything you hold near and dear is evil.
If you ban ideas and ideology you set forth a prescient that any idea and ideology can be illegal so long as most people agree it's bad.

Germany is a perfect example of this. Hitler didn't rise to power on a platform of industrial genocide, he got there on what was at the time quite moderate and standard platform. Jobs for Germans, German land for German people. 12 years later 40 million people were dead.

Banning ideas is evil if you ask me. You laugh now, say humanity is peaceful and loving and kind, we'll never go back to fascism in the Western world.
Yeah well back in 1918 everyone thought war was over for good. Something so terrible could never be repeated, the people would never again put people in power that would lead to such massive loss of life right?

If we ban what you don't like today there's nothing but a thin line stopping others from banning what you like tomorrow and what I like the day after that. You cannot police the human mind, you cannot be on the right side of history.
There is only one side of history and it is lined with graves on both sides. The graves of the killers and the graves of those they killed.

moral universalism/globalism is a meme and is the exact same meme that nazis and islamists embraced

thankfully our society seems to be getting to the point where moral relativism/nationalism can be accepted; hopefully the people who should be the ones to bring it to the mainstream aren't all lulled into accepting the only superficially different globalism that is nazism instead

The Nazis weren't moral universalists. They believed in one law for the Aryans and one law for the other races. So much that they didn't even bother attempting to "convert" the Eastern or Jewish peoples, they just killed them off. Islam is a better comparison, but the fact that they were universalists doesn't mean jack when their particular version of universalism is wrong.

The evil is that which works against man's life by blocking the usage of his means of survival (his reason and the features of his body). It is not a meme.

Hey c'mon nigga you can't reply to the two easy questions then ignore my actual big relativist issue with the idea of banning ideas. That's cop out.

>The evil is that which works against man's life by blocking the usage of his means of survival (his reason and the features of his body). It is not a meme.
It's a shitty meme but you are actually spooked

>fascists are probably BETTER than you at street fights. They are better trained and stronger than you and they will probably pummel your liberal ass into oblivion
>implying modern fascists aren't just far retarded people

Look at Millenial Woes and Mike Enoch. Milo Yiannopolis isn't very threatning either.

>the media plants I see on CNN are representative of fascism
>Milo is a fascist
fucking w e w

Who's they? Illuminati or something?

This, fascism is inherently evil, no positives or good can come of it.

Killed them off, or, er, made them equals and honorary Aryans under the Axis of anti-communism.

Just like how they supposedly didn't tolerate gays, except for that one gay who was Hitler's right hand man during his rise to power...

The (((Jews)))

Apart from some wealthy individuals though white people have a lot more power than jews do.

To all of the anti-fascist in this thread, I have two (2) questions for you:

1. What is your idealogy?

And 2. Do you think Freedom of Association would be a fix to the Fascist problem, i.g. allowing them to buy and leave to to their own land? Assuming that once on their own land they are not a physical threat to anyone.

huey long and gabriele d'annunzio seem pretty based

fpbp

>Apart from some wealthy individuals though white people have a lot more power than jews do
>implying
Check who runs the information. Any capitalist will tell you that the primary key to successful capitalism (and thus a successful capitalist society) is free flow of information. Control the information, control the society. Again, check (((who))) controls the information.

see, by moral universalism you mean "thinks all men are created equal". i don't mean that; i mean it in the sense of "there exists an ideal state of the world and to fight against it, or even to not fight for it, is wrong".

>Napoleon
>Evil

>Fascism cannot be overcomed by debate

Doesnt this mean that fascism is correct? If you cannot argue against it with any meaningful arguments, but have to resort to shaming and hurting those who promote it, does that not mean fascism is correct and you are wrong?

This is probably bait anyway

Attila the Hun at best.

This. Unlike Hitler he actually did nothing wrong.

No, it means that fascists won't care about your arguments and will just brute force and demagogue their way into power anyway.

Hitler only lost once

Did Napoleon genocide anyone?

No

My feelings, yeah.

That can be said about most leftards nowday
Trump's election showed us how intolerant and fascist-like the modern left is

>Normalization makes the old extreme the new average, and humans always tend towards the average in everything.

That's usually the contrary, unless we're talking about extreme and blind tolerance of everything

I don't know, I skipped to the middle and only watched two minutes but roland seems to employing the most annoying fallacy by forming an argument based on a falsehood he insists is true and unquestionable. Thus he argues "You cannot disagree with Z because X led to Y" but refuses to admit the possibility that Z is wrong, and refuses to discuss it.

Fascism is good though

Is that why an anti-semite has been elected president?

>an anti-semite

Oy vey!

Full disclosure, I'm basically historically illiterate, but my understanding is that other historical figures killed a lot of people but they also accomplished things by doing so. Conquered enemies, built empires, amassed wealth, spread their ideals, culture and knowledge, and so on.

What did Hitler accomplish?
He killed a lot of what he'd consider undesirables obviously, but it seems like everything he stood for has been defeated, and again forgive my ignorance if this is wrong, but I always assumed his actions may have been part of what caused it.
Would people be as against antisemitism, racial supremacy theories or just general /pol/ shit today if it weren't for him? It might not always be that way, of course, which will obviously affect how he's viewed in the future.

Is it actually possible for a rational discussion in this country. No matter who is doing the interview they purposely attempt to bait and trick the other person into saying something stupid, and rather than that other person realizing this and addressing it they pussyfoot and it makes everyone look stupid. One side is trying to argue semantics and orgasm at his trivial victory and the other side looks like a stammering fool who was supposed to give a speech about a novel but didn't read the book.

>wikipedia as a source

dropped

> Milo
> fascist

what's with this board and the increasing number of autists?

((Sheldon Addelson)) detected

>no sources

dropped

...

>8ch

stop trying

>You should give your government the power to ban ideologies! What could go wrong!?

fuck off /pol/

>Notice that Communism, although bat shit insane, doesn't inherantly include nativism or militaristic expansion.
>Communism doesn't have militaristic expansion

>8ch
You can go back there

/thread

>Yeah well back in 1918 everyone thought war was over for good
In 1919 there were numerous voices that denounced the Peace of Versailles a temporary armistice. It's why France went right into building a giant line of fortification on its border with Germany immediately after the war. Nobody really thought war was extinguished for good.