Sigh... I miss the days when Rage Against The Machine focused on music and wasn't political.
Tap for spoiler
I feel obligated to say this is sarcasm, just because of the way things are. (There are actually some people who said this to Tom on Xitter lmao.)
I know right! The band didn't start getting political until 1991.
spoiler
The band was founded in 1991.
Now that I think of it the whole 90s didn't start getting political until around 1991.
Stupid conservatives think, "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me," is speaking to them. Your spoiler / deflection is absolutely necessary. There are a lot of people who don't understand what they take in.
There are a lot of people who don’t understand what they take in.
Sorry, that went way over my head. /s
What machine do these people think they are raging against? A dishwasher?
Hp printer
To be fair, it'd definitely be justified...
It's entirely possible HP printers acted like a gateway to first experiencing true rage, that later led people into the maga cult.
Right wing guy in my discord said it was one of his 1st concerts. Like dude, are u deaf?
Organize and protect yourselves and those you care about, Nazis won't care.
Arm yourselves.
The Nazis are already armed.
Yep, becoming familiar with firearms is something I wish was unnecessary, but until the working class is liberated it's necessary. I dream of a future where the working class has won triumphantly, worldwide, and that violence fades into urban legend outside of somber historical remembrance.
Diesel, bear spray, propane, and gasoline don't care if you're wearing a bulletproof vest.
Just pointing that out in case it becomes relevant.
hE sHoULd sTAy oUt oF puHLityiCks
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
In a tolerant society we must be intolerant of intolerance.
Edit - My mistake, I somehow was blind to the first in-.
In a tolerant society we must be intolerant of intolerance.
No we musn't. The intolerant have broken the social contract and are no longer extended that latitude.
Screw the paradox. Tolerance is a social contract. Intolerant people aren't covered by the contract, therefore intolerance of intolerance isn't hypocritical or paradoxical.
Nazis deserve exactly as much mercy and tolerance as they give to others.
Saw him play recently in Alabama. They were selling this phrase on a shirt. Much to my surprise, that shirt was sold out by the time I went to pick it up. I was pleasantly shocked.
Reading that makes me very happy! I try tell people this whenever I can: there's hope everywhere in America, no matter how red a state is now it can become blue one day. I was a Trump supporter myself and changed, other people can too! Think about all the people in Alabama who bought that shirt. If they banded together they could change Alabama for the better. Things won't be instant but perhaps they get a better mayor elected, then a better state representative then send someone better to the House, then one day a better Senator. If we try and work together it can happen!
Saw someone wearing that shirt in a shopping mall in the UK!
The only viable solution when Nazis take control of government is violence. There is no reasoning with them, they are not logical.
This is correct, and also, Nazis don't care about good faith argumentation. They're explicitly anti-liberal (as in, liberty, freedom) and will only pretend to have these values to try and point out an apparent contradiction ("You believe in rights to speech and democracy, so why are you censoring us?")
In this video of former white supremacists talking about how they left the ideology, one brings up that on their Nazi website, it was normal and common to argue for points they knew were garbage, like the Great Replacement theory. It's about power and results, not liberalist idealism.
Violent methods usually aren't the preferred way of dealing with Nazis (because it's harder to get a mass movement to join in and support it, and because it's riskier, legally, which makes it harder to sustain), but it works. It broke up the BUF in Britain, it's kept the local turds scared to show their faces or reveal their true thoughts (don't worry, they still usually get revealed by researchers anyway). Violence works. They know it and we know it. But when they're the government, their violence is now legal.
History has proven this.
Violence against Nazis isnt the answer, its a question and the answer is always yes.
100% agreement here.