Oh look, a gish gallop tactic in the wild! Combined with some strawmen and moving the goalposts and the sealioning from earlier. You’re just a lovely can of logical fallacies and bad faith debate tactics, aren’t you?
All those words just to easily be disproven by the fact that the people who beat this shitstain asshole weren’t members of the government in any way or form. They weren’t even cops. It was other random citizens who beat him up. Ergo, not fascism when it’s literally not the government doing it, aiding it, promoting it, or even siding with the ones who beat the asshole. In fact, the government arrested those people.
Oh, and just you get it out of the way - in the video, the ones beating him up aren’t promoting their own ideology, they just think the asshole is an asshole for saying bullshit. No different than beating up a drunk at a bar who’s calling everyone’s mom a whore. So, not terrorism. Probably why they aren’t being charged with terrorism. Not that you can trust the application of UK laws anyway as intended, but even a government happy to label every but of uproar as “terrorism” these days hasn’t labeled it as such.
You are accusing me of “strawmanning” and arguing in bad faith, but you seem to have forgotten how a comment thread works. I was responding directly to the specific claims made by the previous commenter.
The person I was replying to explicitly claimed that the mob’s violence was politically motivated—they called it a “crucial defense of democracy” designed to ensure people “stay afraid.” I responded directly to their stated ideological motive. It is not a “strawman” to quote a person’s exact words and reply to the argument they actually made.
Now you have jumped in with a completely contradictory defense. You are arguing the mob had no political ideology at all, and was just acting like unprincipled thugs “beating up a drunk at a bar.”
I had no reason to address your alternative explanation at the time, because the person I was talking to was actively claiming this was a noble political crusade. Ironically, by stripping the mob of their political motive, you are actually arguing against the person I was responding to.
If you want to completely scrap their defense and present your own distinct viewpoint—that this wasn’t about defending democracy, but was just a senseless, apolitical street assault—I’m more than happy to address your argument separately. Let me know if that is the premise you want to go with.
Both can be true at the same time, Sir Gishgallop.
You can beat up an asshole who threatens to destabilize democracy just because he’s an asshole spouting violent bullshit while that in itself happens to strengthen democracy, much like an angry person beating up a drunk person at the bar causing a ruckus will bring order back to the bar even if they were just beating up the drunk for also being an asshole.
Listen, it is clear your responses are devolving into bad-faith, contradictory claims just to avoid admitting that a mob committing battery isn’t a noble political act.
I’ve said everything I intend to say. Either sit on it and reflect on why you are so desperate to justify vigilante street violence, or keep doing logical backflips to defend a mob. Either way, I am leaving the conversation here. You can have the last word if you need it.
Oh look, a gish gallop tactic in the wild! Combined with some strawmen and moving the goalposts and the sealioning from earlier. You’re just a lovely can of logical fallacies and bad faith debate tactics, aren’t you?
All those words just to easily be disproven by the fact that the people who beat this shitstain asshole weren’t members of the government in any way or form. They weren’t even cops. It was other random citizens who beat him up. Ergo, not fascism when it’s literally not the government doing it, aiding it, promoting it, or even siding with the ones who beat the asshole. In fact, the government arrested those people.
Oh, and just you get it out of the way - in the video, the ones beating him up aren’t promoting their own ideology, they just think the asshole is an asshole for saying bullshit. No different than beating up a drunk at a bar who’s calling everyone’s mom a whore. So, not terrorism. Probably why they aren’t being charged with terrorism. Not that you can trust the application of UK laws anyway as intended, but even a government happy to label every but of uproar as “terrorism” these days hasn’t labeled it as such.
You are accusing me of “strawmanning” and arguing in bad faith, but you seem to have forgotten how a comment thread works. I was responding directly to the specific claims made by the previous commenter.
The person I was replying to explicitly claimed that the mob’s violence was politically motivated—they called it a “crucial defense of democracy” designed to ensure people “stay afraid.” I responded directly to their stated ideological motive. It is not a “strawman” to quote a person’s exact words and reply to the argument they actually made.
Now you have jumped in with a completely contradictory defense. You are arguing the mob had no political ideology at all, and was just acting like unprincipled thugs “beating up a drunk at a bar.”
I had no reason to address your alternative explanation at the time, because the person I was talking to was actively claiming this was a noble political crusade. Ironically, by stripping the mob of their political motive, you are actually arguing against the person I was responding to.
If you want to completely scrap their defense and present your own distinct viewpoint—that this wasn’t about defending democracy, but was just a senseless, apolitical street assault—I’m more than happy to address your argument separately. Let me know if that is the premise you want to go with.
Both can be true at the same time, Sir Gishgallop.
You can beat up an asshole who threatens to destabilize democracy just because he’s an asshole spouting violent bullshit while that in itself happens to strengthen democracy, much like an angry person beating up a drunk person at the bar causing a ruckus will bring order back to the bar even if they were just beating up the drunk for also being an asshole.
Listen, it is clear your responses are devolving into bad-faith, contradictory claims just to avoid admitting that a mob committing battery isn’t a noble political act.
I’ve said everything I intend to say. Either sit on it and reflect on why you are so desperate to justify vigilante street violence, or keep doing logical backflips to defend a mob. Either way, I am leaving the conversation here. You can have the last word if you need it.