And we should protect the working class from religious violence, which is what this law attempt to do and you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be doing this but rather let the blood flow.
this has nothing to do with protecting working people, right wing infighting is not my problem. its curious how defensive u are of religion in this context like if nazis and libertarians fight u would bat an eye but when these 2 particular right wing ideologies fight its a huge deal for u, maybe u have some stuff to think about.
You’re projecting so fucking hard, man. I’ve been fully atheistic for going on 3 decades. Here’s what’s going on. There’s a proposal to outlaw inciting violence on religious grounds. I support it, because I know so many working class people who are religious, and because I understand the colonizer’s definition of religion to include the cultures of colonized people. You are against it because you’re cool with Christians inciting violence against Muslim. We may both be atheists, but we are not the same. And you are just doing everything you can to make this about my failure of to remain pure to your imagined ideology that all scientific revolution communists must adhere to, when the reality of history is that the USSR’s oppression of religion was actually a tactically bad move that did more harm than good to the revolution, and pretty much anyone who’s studied this case is aware of it.
You are literally opposing a law to keep people safe AND developing a dogmatism in order to maintain the consistency between your position of revolutionary liberation and your urge to violence driven by your emotional hatred, fear, anger, and disgust at religion. That is a bad place for you to be. It’s OK to walk back your position to something more reasonable, something more historically informed, and no one is going to punish you for it. But it is contradictory to hold the desire for revolutionary liberation while simultaneously holding the position that religious groups should be allowed to persecute each other violently. That path will only lead to fascism.
Burning a book is not inciting violence, you can’t blame someone for the acts of others. It’s legal to burn books, it’s not however legal to assault and conspire against someone committing a legal act. You speak of fascism while promoting fascist ideology ie. Banning harmless speech.
There is no legitimate purpose for burning something other people symbolically recognize as important to their culture. Burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is an incitement of violence. Burning qu’ran books is part of a long tradition of incitement to religious violence.
Banning speech is literally the only way to fight fascism. The propagandists of the Third Reich literally wrote about how liberal free speech laws are the perfect conditions for fascism to develop and spread.
Seriously, stop trying to reconcile your violent fantasies with your desire for revolutionary liberation. Understand the use of violence as a necessity, not something we wish upon others. We should not be trying to create conditions for violent christo-fascists to invite violence against marginalized people. This isn’t that hard.
Paper is holy in my religion, not burning it is offensive to me and could drive me to religious violence, are you responsible for my actions because you aren’t burning paper? To be clear burning a cross on someone else’s property is a crime, biting one on your own property or even public property is not only legal but a first amendment protected act, perhaps a shitty one but still. Once you let the government decide which speech is ok you start running down the hill of fascism. Sure it may be a ban on something you agree with today but the next administration might have a more sinister use for it and you’ve given them the path to do it.
No you fight fascism with policy and munitions, there had never once been a successfully overthrown fascist government with words alone, not once.
Please explain how I’m displaying “violent fantasies” if anything I’m calling both sides ignorant and foolish and little like you short-sighted and historically ignorant but all appearances. I didn’t want to resort to ad hominem but I’m certainly willing to return the favor homie.
And we should protect the working class from religious violence, which is what this law attempt to do and you seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be doing this but rather let the blood flow.
this has nothing to do with protecting working people, right wing infighting is not my problem. its curious how defensive u are of religion in this context like if nazis and libertarians fight u would bat an eye but when these 2 particular right wing ideologies fight its a huge deal for u, maybe u have some stuff to think about.
You’re projecting so fucking hard, man. I’ve been fully atheistic for going on 3 decades. Here’s what’s going on. There’s a proposal to outlaw inciting violence on religious grounds. I support it, because I know so many working class people who are religious, and because I understand the colonizer’s definition of religion to include the cultures of colonized people. You are against it because you’re cool with Christians inciting violence against Muslim. We may both be atheists, but we are not the same. And you are just doing everything you can to make this about my failure of to remain pure to your imagined ideology that all scientific revolution communists must adhere to, when the reality of history is that the USSR’s oppression of religion was actually a tactically bad move that did more harm than good to the revolution, and pretty much anyone who’s studied this case is aware of it.
You are literally opposing a law to keep people safe AND developing a dogmatism in order to maintain the consistency between your position of revolutionary liberation and your urge to violence driven by your emotional hatred, fear, anger, and disgust at religion. That is a bad place for you to be. It’s OK to walk back your position to something more reasonable, something more historically informed, and no one is going to punish you for it. But it is contradictory to hold the desire for revolutionary liberation while simultaneously holding the position that religious groups should be allowed to persecute each other violently. That path will only lead to fascism.
Burning a book is not inciting violence, you can’t blame someone for the acts of others. It’s legal to burn books, it’s not however legal to assault and conspire against someone committing a legal act. You speak of fascism while promoting fascist ideology ie. Banning harmless speech.
There is no legitimate purpose for burning something other people symbolically recognize as important to their culture. Burning a cross on a black persons front lawn is an incitement of violence. Burning qu’ran books is part of a long tradition of incitement to religious violence.
Banning speech is literally the only way to fight fascism. The propagandists of the Third Reich literally wrote about how liberal free speech laws are the perfect conditions for fascism to develop and spread.
Seriously, stop trying to reconcile your violent fantasies with your desire for revolutionary liberation. Understand the use of violence as a necessity, not something we wish upon others. We should not be trying to create conditions for violent christo-fascists to invite violence against marginalized people. This isn’t that hard.
Who determines legitimate purpose? You?
Paper is holy in my religion, not burning it is offensive to me and could drive me to religious violence, are you responsible for my actions because you aren’t burning paper? To be clear burning a cross on someone else’s property is a crime, biting one on your own property or even public property is not only legal but a first amendment protected act, perhaps a shitty one but still. Once you let the government decide which speech is ok you start running down the hill of fascism. Sure it may be a ban on something you agree with today but the next administration might have a more sinister use for it and you’ve given them the path to do it.
No you fight fascism with policy and munitions, there had never once been a successfully overthrown fascist government with words alone, not once.
Please explain how I’m displaying “violent fantasies” if anything I’m calling both sides ignorant and foolish and little like you short-sighted and historically ignorant but all appearances. I didn’t want to resort to ad hominem but I’m certainly willing to return the favor homie.