Gandhi was more violent than hitler

>gandhi was more violent than hitler
>sniff sniff sniff sniff sniff
why are marxists so retarded?

If you seriously think Zizek is the first person to propose there is very clearly a form of violence in Gandhi's pacifism or that Hitler's faux-revolution was nothing more than a way to do what european governments did through the age of colonialism you're the retarded person

fuck off leftypol

I might fuck off but it won't make you any less of a brainlet, you cunt

This.
OP is a fag a always.

go back to your safe space, leftcucks

He's a modern day gadfly, a Socrates for the social-democrats of Europe. He's not serious half the time. But this is where that comes from.

And you need to go back to your containment board. Your kind make this place dumber than ever.

That would be Veeky Forums, you orange-cockslut

nice butterfly, special snowflake

I'm assuming it's some sort of an inside-joke.

Hitler wanted to protect black ppl from Gandhi

Can you recommend some reading I can do on that subject?

It sounds interesting

Looks like accelerationism is back on the menu boys!

keked

He doesn't know what the fuck he is, let alone have any solid philosophical tenets.

Ghandi's pacifism is overblown and he allowed a certain level of violence, but equating him with the guy who started WW2 and committed a genocide is ridiculous.

explain

>Stop saying things I disagree with.
>go back to your safe space

topkek

>very clearly a form of violence in Gandhi's pacifism
Could someone explain this?

>started

ahimsa will fuck your shit up bro. You will never recover.

>There are white ""men"" who actually think like this

>why are marxists so retarded?
We are talking about people who fell for the equality meme, OP.

>Veeky Forums
>not /pol/

>implying equality isn't a liberal meme
from each according to his ability to each according to his need

>Hitler started WWII
wew lad how's 8th grade history treating you?

People just aren't capable of thinking abstractly and seeing past apparent paradoxes.

Hitler just went with the status quo of violent subjugation and colonialism that Europe had had for a while. Gandhi effected significant social change and damage to the British hegemony in India. Violence as a word is being played on. Gandhi was more "violent" in that he was more new, more radical, and made more significant change.

also didn't like a million dudes die during the partition which is closer to the actual holohoax count than the 6 gorilz

>special snowflake
The expansive vocabulary of insults displayed by an alt-right shill

>Faux revolution

You're like a retarded brother, but you're /our retarded brother/.

>People just aren't capable of thinking abstractly and seeing past apparent paradoxes.

What logical conclusion are you actually arriving to by this paradox you're claiming of pacifism being apparently more violent when directly compared to germany's involvement in WW2?

>Hitler just went with the status quo of violent subjugation and colonialism that Europe had had for a while.

You could say there are similarities in practices carried about in colonialism and the third reich. But I don't believe hitler was "following" some status quo set out by colonialism as it was pretty much dying/dead at that point of history. I would also argue that the third reich was much more unusual/cruel in their policies as a government compared to most other European government counterparts (although it was still a hazardous situation in Europe at that age but germany went well beyond in certain aspects).

>Gandhi effected significant social change and damage to the British hegemony in India.

That is true but does change necessarily entail violence? The whole point of pacifism is non-violence.

>Violence as a word is being played on.

I understand but at what point does a word lose it' meaning? In my opinion it's essentially nonsensical to apply the absolute opposite denotation of the word to that exact word. I haven't really understood any real argument you've brought to justify this linguistic alteration either.

>Gandhi was more "violent" in that he was more new, more radical, and made more significant change.

Again you seem to closely associate Change and Violence. I believe you firstly need to justify this relationship and elaborate on this before you can flesh out your theory regarding the paradox you're trying to set forth.