Civil war: Whose side are you on?

Which millions do I wish death on?

I won't wish death on anyone, but I had family die fighting the fascists they last time they rose up, and I'm not gonna pretend here that people who support fascists in power are anything other than complete shitbags.

This seems pertinent:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPRjamYlbYy/?igsh=MWRud2doejF6Y3lwMA==

Anyone who doesn't conform under the white supremacist system in which we live. You can deny it as much as you want but, again, what you advocate causes immense suffering, not just here but around the world, but because the system works outside of most people's awareness, you can pretend you have nothing to do with that. It doesn't erase the blood, but you can pretend the blood is on someone else's hands. That you're a fascist collaborator and a white nationalism supporter plays into it.

You can "who me?" as much as you want, but people here know you from what you've posted.

@Ancalagon isn't wrong. He and I disagree on things from time to time, but we both have an intense hatred of Nazis and their collaborators.

Never again means never again for anyone.

My father fought real fascists. I'm proud of that.

The word fascist is used far, far too quickly today. If you think I'm a fascist because I want secure borders and men barred from girls' sports teams, that's your choice.

Real fascism often starts with demonizing your perceived enemies so you can do awful things to them. And that seems to be happening all too often.

That's where your mistake is.
A simple disagreement is something like "I think we shouldn't permit minors to take puberty suppressors" or "I'm firmly in support of the electoral college".
But you've gone into the area of "I see no problem with masked federal agents shooting a priest in the head with a pepper pellet."
At a certain point, you can't just say "I disagree." You have to realize the people espousing opinions like that are actually dangerous.
The people who hear Stephen Miller say "We must fight the enemy within," or Trump saying criticism of him is no longer free speech and just nod along with it, they are dangerous.
Now, you might hide behind saying "Well, I never said I wished anyone dead", but it's a fairly hollow defense when stacked against actions you either outright support or refuse to condemn.

(Without accepting the premise that the system in which we live is "white supremacist"...)

No, I don't. I'm content to live and let live, though I demand others return that courtesy.

Like what?

So, list my crimes. Be specific.

Calling someone--indeed, calling whole swaths of society--Nazis when they clearly aren't is just mental prep for killing them. It lets you be savage and uncivilized while believing yourself moral.

Sure, Klan.

Please show where I said that. In your fevered mind doesn't count.

Maybe they see dangers you don't? Or they see dangers differently.

Socialism killed 100 million people in the 20th Century, so I'm anti-socialist. History backs me up that it's a destructive dangerous system. Therefore I'm justified in initiating violence against socialists. Right?

If not, what principle limits me that doesn't limit you?

Both my grandfathers fought fascists.

I would say that I fought Islamo-fascists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You could disagree with that statement but I can say it.

Non-response.

You don't have to update us on the status of your brain. We know.

Hey look, something we both agree with on both points.

You're missing out.

True story.

The reason that my Dad didn’t go to Vietnam was two of his uncles fought in the Pacific.

If you haven’t done it read up on Paupa New Guinea. What the American and Australian troops suffered there needs to be recognized.

My uncles Sam and James paid for his college to keep him out of the draft. First Johnson to graduate college.

I believe you did, and I respect you for that.

It interests me, by the way, when Paladin and others like him say that fascist is used too much, or Nazi is used too much because their objection sounds reasonable on the surface. Then again, if I were dropped into 1938 Germany and said "Goddamn, there's a lot of Nazis here," it would make perfect sense. Why? Because observing what is going on and commenting on it is reasonable. We are currently living under a system of fascism here in the US. What ICE, CBP, Trump, Miller, Vance, and the cretins that make up the administration are doing is fascist. It fits the definition of fascist.

We easily meet those requirements.

So when someone supports those policies, what does that make them? A bigot? Yes. A racist? Yes. A fascist? Yes! If you support fascist tactics, you are a fascist. If you support what ICE, CBP, and all of those fuckers are doing to innocent citizens and to immigrants then you are in favor of fascist policies and tactics. That makes you a fascist and a collaborator. I'm sure there were Nazis who didn't like being called Nazis because their own self-image couldn't believe they could be thrown in with that lot, but they were Nazis all the same.

I think you'll find my mind is far from fevered. Have you so quickly forgotten your fervent defense of ICE's tactics? Your attempts to excuse them by comparing them (ineffectively) to riot squads? Your refusal to even condemn something as egregious as an ICE officers, masked, aiming a weapon at an unarmed reporter in a moving vehicle?

Honestly, that's a terrible argument. The KKK sees dangers I don't. ISIS sees dangers I don't. The Unabomber saw dangers I didn't.

You completely dodged your tacit endorsement of Trump and Miller's rhetoric.
I'm not endorsing the tactics of Stalin or Mao. But you are literally endorsing the words and tactics of Franco and Hitler, though you refuse to acknowledge it as such. "Poisonibg the blood". "The enemy within." Designating opposition groups as terrorists.
So, what principal limits you? The principal that one should not endorse the tactics of despots.

If you torture the definition of "socialism" to the point of post-modernist deconstruction, sure.
By the same standard of goalpost widening, everyone dies of oxygen consumption, because oxidation is involved with aging.

"Socialism" killed a big old pile of Russkies, but somehow it saved just as many if not more with Social Security, Medicare, and food programs.
So, either "socialism" is some weird magical substance, or someone somewhere in the information chain was fucking lying.

Very little of that describes me.

Populist? Eh, not really. I don't necessarily think of any of my priorities as being about the common man.
Exalts nation? I'm patriotic and love my country, but exalts? Nah.
Race? Nope. I try to be blind to race and judge "by the content of character."
Centralized...? Hell, no.
Autocratic? Nope. I believe in the rule of law and limited government.
Dictatorial? No.
Economic and social regimentation? No and no. Live and let live, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Forcible suppression of opposition? Certainly not.

This. Without getting into that whole tangle of a discussion, early socialist reforms saved a hell of a lot of people and put the newly formed USSR on track to go from an agrarian society to being the first nation to put a satellite into space. All inside of 40 years. The advances in medicine and agriculture helped the society leap forward and kept them alive when setbacks happened early on as well, as they often do when a system is trying to restructure everything.

People don't have to like communism or socialism to realize it has done a lot of good. People who are educated understand this about socialism, but in the US there are many people who are exceptionally stupid or incurious and swallow what they're told while they're trying to flirt with the girl in front of them in 7th grade history.

Ah, so here's where you start splitting hairs to explain how even though you support Trumpian policies, you yourself, can't possibly be a fascist using the definition describing the fascist power structure. You try to turn the systemic definition into a personal definition that can be dismissed. Fucking weasel shit.

No, I call you someone who supports fascists in power because of the fact you are someone who supports fascists in power.

And you know what, I hope I'm wrong. That is the good outcome, that your government doesn't continue down the road it is speeding along. But right now that's the path things are taking, and after this many years I honestly don't care if you're lying to us, yourself, or are just too naive to see it. End result is the same, and in the records of history that distinction doesn't much matter.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. Media arms which should be calling things out loudly and stridently are too busy paying Trump off so they can do their business mergers and have access to the White House Briefing Room.

ICE is beating up citizens. Kidnapping people. Black bags and unmarked cars. Local police forces are helping. Trump is declaring Antifa a terrorist group, but Antifa isn't real, it doesn't exist as an organization, but people in the media are accepting that framing and running with it. There seems to be this wide eyed fascination with what Trump might do next. Will he go further than just sending National Guard troops into cities? Will he start bombing cities he believes to be holding terrorists? It is certainly possible. It is possible and likely he will suspend habeas corpus as soon as someone explains to him what it is.

It's not just Trump running the show, either, it's the white nationalists behind him like Stephen Miller, and those who have no qualms of enacting deadly policies that will kill thousands or millions like RFK Jr. We truly are in danger right now, more than we have ever been in a generation. I don't want things to get worse either, but short of a political miracle, it seems that's where we're going to go for certain at this point.

So, I didn't say it then?

Source: trust me, bro.

You're so close!

You'd probably say that what distinguishes you from them is that you are right. If course, that's what they'd say, too!

You didn't answer.

You'll know my opinion when I give it.

Watch out! I'm gonna invade Poland and gas the Jews next!

Like socialists or communists or the nanny state or globalists or...

All the people who watched lynching, and took body parts home as souvenirs, they weren't racist, or complicit, they were just extreme performance art enthusiasts.

Indeed, and I am 100% certain many of them watching those lynchings with glee, and then went to church the next Sunday fully comforted in the knowledge that they were good and decent Christians.
The banality of evil.

Like @Bailey said, whether you are lying to yourself or to us, the end result is the same. But I think it's telling that you are falling into @Uncle Albert levels of rhetoric, which is disappointing since just a few days ago I distinguished you from him on that basis. You're now refusing to say anything about certain subjects so that you can claim we don't know your position.
But the question is, why? Why would you want to hide your position? Yes, it makes it impossible to pin you down to a particular stance beyond the very nebulous, but we're not in a court of law. And no one here is fooled by it.
I mean, you are now literally at a point of arguing that the Unabomber and the KK think they are right, as if that somehow justifies anything.
So, you don't like being called a fascist supporter?
Then tell us it's wrong for ICE to fire on unarmed protestors from the rooftops. Tell us it's wrong to tell your supporters to prepare to fight the enemy within. Tell us it's wrong to say criticism of the president will not be treated as free speech. Tell us it's wrong for the President to say he's going to have the military practice on Democratic cities.
I don't think you will, though.

UA- Fuck your need for performative morality! Fuck, fuck, fucketty fuck it! Also, cock!!

*ICE performs the shit out of their dogshit morality*

UA-.................

No, but I'm sure Paladin will do better.

It's the whole being coy aspect of it that gets frustrating. UA, FF (done poorly), Paladin, and others will play around with the words. They'll do a Bill Clinton impression of asking what the definition of 'is' is, and put paragraphs into saying absolutely nothing concrete and it's because as trolls they have no interest in actually conversing, sharing knowledge, learning from one another. They're not here to impart actual meaningful dialogue, they're here to be shit sticks for their own amusement.

For the far right wing words have no meaning other than to be played with as shields and bludgeons against people and ideologies they find inferior or boring. You and I and Crosis and Bailey and Ancalagon and everyone else here will disagree with one another on occasion, but we tend to try to talk through it because we're trying to share what we think and how we feel about something. You know, like human beings who actually have values and principles. It's easy for trolls to have fun with that because they don't actually believe in anything outside of the latest thing that benefits them personally.

Example? UA's hundreds of pages of running in circles while saying nothing and yet somehow disagreeing with his previous statements ten posts back because none of it matters.

Whatever keeps you engaged with them to entertain them is the goal. How you really feel and think? Never mattered.

Paladin wasn't always like that, but he has settled into it by now and can be as lazy as he wants and be entertained because people who give a damn will put in the effort for him.

"And the argument that "your civilian guns aren't any good against the military" is an argument against gun control, not for it."

That doesn't make any sense unless you assume the only reason anyone ones one of those guns is to be ready to resist an authoritarian government.

NO ONE who argues for gun control founds their case on the argument "well, you can't beat the army anyway" - rather the central argument is "too god damn many kids are getting killed"

This is an argument for gun control that has fuck-all to do with whether or not you could succeed against the army. The correct inference from your comment is "SINCE you cannot stand against the U.S. Armed Forces with your civilian weapons, that premise as an argument for the right to keep your weapons fails."