3 ms·
Can't you be a holocaust denier (i.e. a strictly historical perspective) without also being pro- "outright violence"? That's like removing all of BLM just becau
by tomp 6y ago
Can't you be a holocaust denier (i.e. a strictly historical perspective) without also being pro- "outright violence"? That's like removing all of BLM just because some of them are also violently rioting...
- TeaDrunk 6y agoFrom what I understand the violent rioting is a small minority and distinctly not the objective of the greater BLM movement. Holocaust deniers turning out to commit hate crimes, encourage violence, and going on to aim for violence towards minorities is well-documented to be a significant proportion of that group.
- UncleMeat 6y agoThere is no strictly historical perspective that leads to denialism. It is fundamentally tied to antisemitism and providing ammunition to modern day fascists and racists.
- tomp 6y agoSure, but surely you can be a fascist without also being violent? I mean surely you can be a communist without supporting violent revolutions...
- UncleMeat 6y agoI don't believe that you can. The core belief system of modern neonazis is the protection of the white race by excluding non-whites. It takes violence to remove non-whites from their nations. And then, because of the one-drop rule, the ratio of white people will always drop across time. This necessitates violent responses. All neonazis agree on the goal and there is just one means to possibly achieve that goal: ethnic violence.
- tomp 6y agoYou’re pretending that all political goals can only be achieved through violence.
- UncleMeat 6y agoNo I'm not. Many political goals can be achieved without violence. Creating a white-only nation is not one of those goals. That one specifically necessitates violence and this makes neonazis fundamentally violent. Do you honestly believe that if the neonazis were in charge that I'd be given speech rights?