Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter leaders hold joint conference: We 'denounce White supremacy'

Antifa: We hate fascism!
America: Cool story bro.
Antifa: Disavow fascism right now!
America: I'm good.
Antifa: You'll disavow fascism or we'll scream in your face at dinner.
America: Go back to your mom's basement.
Antifa: Disavow fascism or we'll burn down this Starbucks!
America: I'm more of a Dunkin guy.
Antifa: Disavow fascism or we'll shoot this random guy walking down the street.
America: Listen, Son. Do you understand that your attempts to violently force me to say and believe what you do are fascism?
Antifa: Can't you read? My shirt says I'm anti-fascism!
America: That's not how that works.
Antifa: Lemme show you how this bat works.
America: Exactly my point.
Antifa: Whatever, fascist.

 

BLM: Defund the police!
Conservatives: Okay... Not so sure that's such a great idea, but lemme just pick up a few extra boxes of ammo.
Progressives: Defund the police! Militias are bad! Guns are bad! RAcism! Fascisms everywhere! I'm on your team little guy, I'm on your team!
BLM & Conservatives: :::Share a knowing glance, an eye roll, and shake their heads:::.

 

From the American Right Wing?

 

What history? The segregationist were Populist Democrats.

 

Except that is what is wants...........

 

American history.

Populist leaders can hold a lot of appeal to racists. But racism is a thing unto itself. If you look into this in detail, there is a constant ferment, with or without a populist leader looking for a cheap date.

Yeah, but they're in the Republican party now.

 

Who knows, repeat that often enough and someone might actually believe it.

 

They display it constantly with their violence and anarchy.

 

No the Republican party is not the Segregationist Populist Democrats, they are all dead and 99% of them died as Democrats, in fact the calls to segregate again are coming from the Liberal Populist Democrats again.

 

We've kicked out a bunch of racists. You've been inviting them in, for half a century.

I know what tedious absurdity you will spout next. The guys that changed could stay, some of them eventually gained overwhelming support from the Black community.

But that's back in the real world, you and reality have divorced.

 

Why is it inherently wrong for a group of people to arm themselves for their own self-defense?

 

Have no issue.

Driving to another city with a weapon and getting into a violent situation is not self defense bubany definition of it.

 

No.
Speech is the conveyance of an idea and can take innumerable forms.
Ideas can be violent, but the speech that conveys them cannot.
Why do you choose to be so impossibly wrong?

 

Your right to self-defense exists wherever you are, so driving to another state is irrelevant to the issue.
Getting into a violent situation is typically how the issue of self-defense comes up, so being in a violent situation,m in and of itself, does not matter.

If you have a right to be where you are, you have done nothing illegal to provoke violence against you, and if you have met whatever requirement the state you are in has for flight prior to the use of deadly force, you have the right to use violence in self-defense, should you be faced with reasonable fear of bodily harm.

 

Bull, you can't be the aggressor than claim self defense.

 

99% of the segregationist Democrats who found their home in the Democrat party for decades even after running as the Dixiecrats when they all went right back into the welcome arms of the Democrat party died as Democrats. That's the real world that the Democrats have been trying to hide for decades.

 

I said:

If you have a right to be where you are, you have done nothing illegal to provoke violence against you, and if you have met whatever requirement the state you are in has for flight prior to the use of deadly force, you have the right to use violence in self-defense, should you be faced with reasonable fear of bodily harm.

Explain how your response is relevant.

 

We’re originally talking about Militia crossing all over the country in search of trouble and being the aggressor. You came in and brought up a different situation.

 

"In search of trouble" and "being the aggressor" are unsspecific allegations with unspecific meanings.

Does going someplace you know is likely to be visited by violence "in search of trouble"?
Does legally standing someplace you have every right to be, knowing people might take exception to your existence, make you the "aggressor"?
Do either of these things inherently and necessarily negate your right to self-defense?

 

Antifa IS FA....

 

You should tell him or his mom.

 

Yeah it must have been the guys trying to conserve individual liberty, and not the guys that want a top down central command structure that tells people what they must spend their money on, what they must say and can't say in public, and what they are allowed to think in private.

 

Authoritarianism/Fascism... they're two sides of the same coin. Both want to force you to do something and will violate your Rights if they think it necessary...and have no problem doing it. So yes, it can be put simply. Anything more is just sophistry.

 

What guy are you talking about? Rittenhouse? He never entered the situation with his gun at the ready. In fact he was going around offering medical aide to anyone that needed it. He had even stated that he supported BLM.

And no, gun advocates do not go around wanting to carry their gun at the ready position. That's a silly claim to make. Especially since you know you can't prove such a claim.

 

So the words have no real meaning. Fascism is just "anything I don't like" and/or "anyone telling me what to do"

Fascism involves a near worship of the state along with the submergence of the individual within it and that's not an inherent part of any other type of authoritarian system