[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day





On 02/01/2017 11:20 PM, jim bell wrote:


From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>
On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, jim bell wrote:
From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>
James A. Donald asked a stupid question:
>>You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I believe a proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.

>>Does it occur to you that if, as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that >>somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come to the same conclusion:  That it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply because >>you say it's okay to attack people solely because of what they thought or said.

>You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same as thinking it.

Okay, but TALKING about something is a kind of "promulgating" it, too.



Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone.

You can think whatever you fucking well like but once you try to spread it, you become susceptible to public opinion, and the general sentiment among most people in the US and Europe is DIE NAZI DIE! Whether the public is confused and vote for one is a completely different issue. You're seeing the backlash now.




>>You are hypothesizing a series of continued attacks, without specific examples.  How often do such attacks actually occur?  And when >>they do occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a fascist"?   Or, did they occur because somebody who didn't like nazis or fascists >>decided to attack the people they labelled as that?


>The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested.

You speak in a kind of jargon that I think most people (including myself) don't understand.


Existential has a definition, So does Eternal. Look it up if you don't understand the 'jargon'.




>You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label fits the definition...

In your mind, it might.  Problem is, it's only your own mind.



You use the word "Labelled" to describe something that's well-defined.  Humans "Label" things. As long as the 'label' fits the well-defined definition "Label" is simply a loaded word.




>>I also see a problem with the labels nazi and fascist.  I strongly suspect that people who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer >>to others who are:
>>1.  Conservative or very conservative.     AND

>Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to traditional definition of political conservative, can they be. Fascism is extremism

Sorry you missed the point.  Problem is, you are being too literal.


ROTF. Absolutely! If you want non-literal discuss this with someone else.


 Functionally, a Communist bullet will kill a person just as dead as a Fascist bullet will.  Don't get too caught up in these labels, particularly thinking that they have precise definitions.  To YOU, they might, but I think most people see totalitarian regimes as similarly dangerous.



Dead by firearm is dead but Totalitarian is not necessarily Fascist. Stalin wasn't Fascist. Fascism is a throwback. A 'return to the days of yesteryear... "Make America Great ... Again". Traditionalism. No matter the society's traditions. Read Eco. And yes Totalitarianism is dangerous, but not as dangerous as the IDEOLOGY of Fascism combined with a totalitarian state. Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. Fascism is never benign no matter what political system it leeches on.


>>2.   People they desire to attack.    (It's much easier to attack people if you can lump them with other people whose guilt or undesirability is already establlished.)

>>So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?


I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.



See the bottom where you essentially reiterate this ...




   fas·cism     ˈfaSHˌizəm/     noun      an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.


×
>>But that seems to be a circular definition:  It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is thought to be "right wing".   
>>I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government control (but not ownership) of the means of production.  But >>Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount to government control, too.  And >>Communism might simply be labelled a form of extreme Socialism.  So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

>Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology without politics. It 'shape-shifts'.

>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Yes, but does it 'shape-shifts' into Socialism and Communism, as well?  I think so:  Functionally, I think of extreme regimes of 'the left' and of 'the right' as functionally identical.   Don't talk as if "the right wing" is somehow especially dangerous, compared to "the left wing".


I answered in the follow up. Fascist Socialism is possible. As a matter of fact most national government who call themselves Socialist are in some way Fascist...  Fascism and Communism, as I mentioned about Anarchism, are contradictory.



>>Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like.  Lest >>they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you.  "Golden Rule"



I'll reiterate my main point "they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you" even if you've never done, nor have any interest in, "Doing a thing" to them. That's why proactive, 'preventative' if you will, response is an imperative.



>My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"... Even if >you've never had one bad thing to say about them or harmed them in any way except their deluded self-perceived harm because, lets say, >you're black, or Jewish.

You are utilizing a lot of history, including very old history,


Those who don't learn from it are condemned to repeat it. Someone a lot wiser than  me said that.


for the specific purpose of trashing people today, and based nearly solely on YOUR CHOICE to apply these labels to them.  I still want to hear from you a definition that actually helps a person to distinguish between "a conservative" and a "fascist".



A conservative holds traditional values but they ARE mutable in relation to change of times. For instance a conservative understands that the internet wasn't part of the founders of the US understanding and modifying laws to 'compensate' for that doesn't necessarily go against conserving the constitution in some 'pristine state'. With Fascism it's NEVER mutable and if the internet interferes with their tradition in any way it is eliminated. Just as surely as they'd eliminate a Jew or a Gypsy or any other scapegoat.

Rr