This is the same principle as behind the social contract of tolerance - intolerance is permitted, but only as a response to intolerance which isn’t being used to defend the tolerant.
Would you agree that Nazis utilized ultraviolence frequently, from day one in 1925 or so to their defeat 20 years later, and that they made use of truncheons and fought against the same from start to finish? To stop a bad guy with a bat you need a good guy with a bat.
I can see how someone might make that assumption.
Also, please recall that Baron Blood was a vampire bat, and he was defeated by Man Bat. Full stop, I win.
Hate this. This is not fascism. It’s arguably not even one of the tenets of fascism. That user has no clue what they’re talking about.
The reply under it was pretty good though.
Appeal to force is fascist. Necessary force to prevent abuse of force isn’t.
In a free society, we argue with words, not violence. We resort to force only when necessary to prevent imminent violence.
Okay well, the violence is happening now so I guess you guys can all stfu and get to the force portion of dealing with it.
This is the same principle as behind the social contract of tolerance - intolerance is permitted, but only as a response to intolerance which isn’t being used to defend the tolerant.
Would you agree that Nazis utilized ultraviolence frequently, from day one in 1925 or so to their defeat 20 years later, and that they made use of truncheons and fought against the same from start to finish? To stop a bad guy with a bat you need a good guy with a bat.
I can see how someone might make that assumption.
Also, please recall that Baron Blood was a vampire bat, and he was defeated by Man Bat. Full stop, I win.