I think some people here have be advocating using violence in self defence. IMO this is more than fine, the right should not think they have a monopoly on violence. But there is a massive difference between giving a chud a good whipping in self defence and going out to actively cause violence as a political tool.hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 12:59 pmi have been saying the same thing and got accused of policing others' speech on here.Frankie99 wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 12:48 pmI mean, there's the illusion of leftist goals at the end of the road they're advocating we take, but that road is not the road any human should ask other humans to travel to get to the other side.penningtron wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 11:55 am
It's funny that FM AttackChimp 3 pages ago was like "there's no way leftists believe any of that right!?" and then here we are.
Or maybe it's not a leftist position at all. Seems closer to Ron Paul or Tulsi Gabbard in some ways.
IOW I think it's a foolish and juvenile leftist who wants to further current violence in the name of a "better" outcome. AKA accelerationism.
There is a grey zone, when does "the best defence become a good offence". But even so, that to me would be something like beating a fascist hipster that thought their <insert here> privilege would protect them from opening their trap or hold up some shitty sign to Own the Libs.
There is nothing wrong with punching a Nazi, if you are comfortable doing that, but starting violence as a political tool against ideas is bad politics.