News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I mean I shouldn't need to cite it. Its literally history, and if you don't know these things, maybe you shouldn't be in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism
And that's just one among hundreds or even thousands of other examples. Its practically all of history that agrees with what I'm suggesting: Effective resistance which begin early and use all tools at their disposal are more effective than ones which begin late and or arbitrarily hamstring the approaches they are willing to engage with. The very act of what you are doing now, this conversation we're having, a version of this played out among the Weimar political parties.
The civil resistance took too long to take the threat of Nazism seriously and allowed themselves their opponents to dictate the terms of engagement until it was too late to be effective. Nazism in Germany could have been stopped, but too many liberals either didn't take the threat seriously, or had the mistaken believe that the institutions of the republic would save them.
And
That doesn't support your argument. If anything it undermines it. By not resisting earlier, and more fully and more directly, Jews and Communists became victims of the Nazis. If you wait too long to resist, the door closes. If you allow your opponents to become entrenched, you make civilian resistance untenable.
Come now, that's a double standard. My examples are also litterally history.
You link a generic wikipedia article. That's fine, but could you be a bit more specific? How does it support your position?
I think it does support my argument. Here you make an argument to resist early, which I agree with. Not to resist violently.
The fire of the Reichstag was blamed on a communist and the Nazi's used it to their advantage. They used an emergency law to effectively get rid of the democracy.
The murder of Ernst vom Rath was used to vilify jews and stage the Kristallnacht.
These were acts of violence that the Nazi's used to their advantage. Violence can backfire like that. Whether it was really their opponents doesn't matter, what matters is that they can blame them. And if it really is their opponents, great. Then it's easy to blame them.
And to clarify, I do think that a point can be reached that violence does become justified and the only option left. I just don't think the US has reached that point quite yet.
Show me evidence where non-violent resistance has been effective at stopping regimes which have stopped believing in/ following their own rule of law.
And more broadly, my point is that if you wait until:
That use of violence will be utterly ineffective. Violence as a form of practical resistance needs to be on the table, from the beginning. This hand-wringing around the use of violence is an ineffectual liberal response.
You're just here to argue, or because you like the sound of your own (ignorant) words.
Yeah, why be charitable. I'm obviously just a pretentious asshole because I seemingly disagree with everyone here.
Charity is fine for purely performative exercises, but it's now to the point where these arguments and discussions have real bearing on people's ability to live and survive. The basis of charity is that both parties must fundamentally agrees that the other side is human, and that is not the situation when discussing fascism or white nationalism.
The choice to not fight now is the choice to sacrifice people without the privilege of a racial, gender, or immigration status which is preferable to a white nationalist ethnostate. Maybe you have that privilege or maybe I have that privilege: but the difference between us is that I'm willing to sacrifice my privilege to fight for those who aren't afforded the same courtesy a despicable fascist might afford me, simply based on their assumptions around my skin or gender identity.
You wanting to police the use of violence until it's too late for that violence is something fascists are fully aware of, and which they have historically been able to manipulate to their advantage. If every time a fascist stuck their head up above the sand, it got cut off, there would be no basis for this conversation.
May I ask you what kind of violence you are already partaking in and condoning? Is it resistence to ICE, which I can sympathize with, or also stuff like the killing of Kirk? Because I think the latter is a really bad idea.
No, you may not. You should stick to the discussion at hand instead of trying to derail it into something it isn't and deal with the obvious and substantial issues with the argument you've taken.
How can you disagree with everyone here, if you're not listening to them? You are drowning in your own "wisdom"....