favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
The only thing I can come up with is you're defending people's personal freedom to be fascists?
Not being shot, at least.
If your opposed to calls to violence against those that are trying to take away trans rights that's fine. I'm just curious about calling authoritarianism.
In calling for violence against fascists...who's authority are we upholding?
Enforcing your preferred kind of politics with guns sounds like a bad idea. I’m German, we did that a few times in our history.
Wait... I'm sorry I have to respond again because this really just hit me. Did you really use GERMANY as an example of why you SHOULD NOT stand up to facisim with violence? GERMANY???
How did letting the facisim play out for ya there champ?
The street fights in 1932 did not do much to prevent fascism, to say the least.
Sounds like they should have tried harder.
Sounds like they should've had guns
Probably.
Yet here you are saying if you stand up to fascism with violence you're being authoritative.
Because my country has seen what happens when political disagreements are fought out in months of street battles.
And the world has seen what happens because you gave up on those fights.
The street fights in 1932 did not do much to prevent fascism, to say the least.
1933 would like to ask a question or two about that.
Are you falsely claiming if those mean ol' KDP hadn't punched Hans over there in the face the Nazis wouldn't have burned the Reichstag?
Because taken to end you would seem to be arguing for more violence, and 1945 has some followup questions for you.
I wouldn't be so proudly proclaiming "I'm German" as if that gives you automatic and universal knowledge, or authority, if you'd like, on, well, anything, if I were you, instead I'd get out of the way, humble myself, and go study some history.
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." -Adolf Hitler
having interacted with an austrian, whom i refer to as german on the regular (it's an ongoing joke) It's almost like that one time that one thing happened is a part of every german/austrias personality now. That explicit kind of speech is so heavily regulated that even merely mentioning it i've been yelled at before.
It's kind of like living somewhere where a mass shooting has happened, that you were tangentially related to. Nobody talks about it. But also everybody knows about it.
Oi, can you perhaps not ask for humility and then condescendingly lecture other people about the history of their Nations? Thanks.
I bet you know about the armed conflicts in the streets of Germany before the Nazis were elected into power and the role of the SA, right? And you know that what's was implied here was that the Weimarer Republik tried to "reign in" the Nazis instead of opposing them openly, especially the catholic Zentrum party. And you know that behind the war-like rhetoric of Hitler there is usually a kernel of political nature, and his warmongering style is identical if he talks about real armed conflict or political stuff, right?
You know all that so you can lecture Germans on German history, right?... Right?
Stepping out of the way is the exact opposite of what should be done. This may never happen ever again.
Sure. That's fine. I'm questioning how you call that authoritism. Would you call the black panthers this? After all they certainly did some violent things during the civil rights movements.
What about the IRA?
Combating fascism at embracing it are two wildly different things, any appearance otherwise is simply superficial
Enforcing your preferred kind of politics with guns sounds like a bad idea. I’m German, we did that a few times in our history.
Yeah, and people with guns fucking stopped you.
it's a paradox by nature, either you let them take rule, and then you get a german history moment, or you forcibly oust them, which is also kind of tangential to said german history moment.
I suppose it's a question of which you value more, and how many of your people are ok with it.
in essence, that statement essentially says "you can listen to authority, and have to follow them, however, in exchange for that trade off, you no longer have the personal freedom of not doing that"
Have tolerant people to be tolerant towards the intolerant?
This question has claimed the coherence of so many philosopher's brains. Poor souls.
The "paradox of tolerance" has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.
If only someone had taught them about social contracts, which only conditionally requires us to tolerate people so long as they tolerate us.
this is my favorite philosophical fact. You can only have a defined definition if that definition excludes things, otherwise it is not appropriately defined. And therefore broad.
The only thing I can come up with is you're defending people's personal freedom to be fascists?
Not being shot, at least.
If your opposed to calls to violence against those that are trying to take away trans rights that's fine. I'm just curious about calling authoritarianism.
In calling for violence against fascists...who's authority are we upholding?
Enforcing your preferred kind of politics with guns sounds like a bad idea. I’m German, we did that a few times in our history.
Wait... I'm sorry I have to respond again because this really just hit me. Did you really use GERMANY as an example of why you SHOULD NOT stand up to facisim with violence? GERMANY???
How did letting the facisim play out for ya there champ?
The street fights in 1932 did not do much to prevent fascism, to say the least.
Sounds like they should have tried harder.
Sounds like they should've had guns
Probably.
Yet here you are saying if you stand up to fascism with violence you're being authoritative.
Because my country has seen what happens when political disagreements are fought out in months of street battles.
And the world has seen what happens because you gave up on those fights.
Yes they did.
1933 would like to ask a question or two about that.
Are you falsely claiming if those mean ol' KDP hadn't punched Hans over there in the face the Nazis wouldn't have burned the Reichstag?
Because taken to end you would seem to be arguing for more violence, and 1945 has some followup questions for you.
I wouldn't be so proudly proclaiming "I'm German" as if that gives you automatic and universal knowledge, or authority, if you'd like, on, well, anything, if I were you, instead I'd get out of the way, humble myself, and go study some history.
having interacted with an austrian, whom i refer to as german on the regular (it's an ongoing joke) It's almost like that one time that one thing happened is a part of every german/austrias personality now. That explicit kind of speech is so heavily regulated that even merely mentioning it i've been yelled at before.
It's kind of like living somewhere where a mass shooting has happened, that you were tangentially related to. Nobody talks about it. But also everybody knows about it.
Oi, can you perhaps not ask for humility and then condescendingly lecture other people about the history of their Nations? Thanks.
I bet you know about the armed conflicts in the streets of Germany before the Nazis were elected into power and the role of the SA, right? And you know that what's was implied here was that the Weimarer Republik tried to "reign in" the Nazis instead of opposing them openly, especially the catholic Zentrum party. And you know that behind the war-like rhetoric of Hitler there is usually a kernel of political nature, and his warmongering style is identical if he talks about real armed conflict or political stuff, right?
You know all that so you can lecture Germans on German history, right?... Right?
Stepping out of the way is the exact opposite of what should be done. This may never happen ever again.
Sure. That's fine. I'm questioning how you call that authoritism. Would you call the black panthers this? After all they certainly did some violent things during the civil rights movements.
What about the IRA?
Combating fascism at embracing it are two wildly different things, any appearance otherwise is simply superficial
Yeah, and people with guns fucking stopped you.
it's a paradox by nature, either you let them take rule, and then you get a german history moment, or you forcibly oust them, which is also kind of tangential to said german history moment.
I suppose it's a question of which you value more, and how many of your people are ok with it.
in essence, that statement essentially says "you can listen to authority, and have to follow them, however, in exchange for that trade off, you no longer have the personal freedom of not doing that"
Have tolerant people to be tolerant towards the intolerant? This question has claimed the coherence of so many philosopher's brains. Poor souls.
The "paradox of tolerance" has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.
If only someone had taught them about social contracts, which only conditionally requires us to tolerate people so long as they tolerate us.
this is my favorite philosophical fact. You can only have a defined definition if that definition excludes things, otherwise it is not appropriately defined. And therefore broad.
This seems fine.
that’s wacky.
everyone is authoritarian.