It was just a fairly tone deaf reply given the topic. It comes off very much like the standard nazi defense when they get called out on dog whistles. Maybe that wasn’t your intention but I’m sure if you read them again you can see how it gives that impression.
You are taking all this time to run defense about how it’s actually bad to force Nazis out of spaces like the punk scene because some of them might just be mislabeled. I assumed if you were going to talk shit you’d at least have a solution? If it’s bad to force Nazis out of spaces then should they be allowed in all spaces or did you perhaps receive a divine revelation about how it’s actually possible to beat them in the marketplace of ideas or some such nonsense?
So what’s your solution? Just accept all the Nazis for fear of it really being a mistake? That’s how you get a nazi bar.
Who is people like me? Non whites? Who have I called a nazi? You replied to a post about nazi punks (a hyper well documented phenomenon) and how punks have to make it clear they are not welcome much like bars to avoid becoming nazi bars. What is your point? Nazis should be welcome? Because your spiel about mislabeling isn’t relevant.
The statement you replied to was specifically about Nazi punks a well documented issue? Are you fucking illiterate?
“Nazi opinions are just as valid as everyone else’s”
No. All Nazis should be shot.
Lmao typical crackkker straight to badjacketing when you get caught out in your lies. 🤣 👉
I checked the modlog and you were very much banned for concern trolling about “Israelis being victims” while Gaza was getting flattened. You had another gem just before that where you fantasize about re-educating “brown folk”.
Both sidesing genocide is still bad even if you are “debunking” hard-line pro genociders. If your position is anything short of Israel shouldn’t exist it’s liberal Zionism. You should have nothing but support for the liberation movements of oppressed nations even if they don’t fit your pr standard.
“Nuanced” Both sidesing in the face of a genocide? Condemning the oppressors and oppressed in equal measure? Do you not see the issue with that?
Who would’ve thought that somebody with an account on an anarchist instance has problems with other people telling them what they can and can’t do?
Sure sounds like you’re against moderation. Or are you just a liar who only cares because it’s about shunning Zionism.
So all moderation is wrong? Also you seem to very clearly not understand what anarchism is beyond the infantile “tyranny of bedtime” surface.
The linked definition doesn’t match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.
Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society
Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.
Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but “people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.
Not to be mean, but I think you’re approaching this from a place of pretty immense privilege, where it’s possible to sidestep the fact that the “stability” and social care you’re talking about are materially predicated on the largest, most advanced, and most comprehensive immiseration machine in human history, currently headed by the US and enforced by its hunting dogs.
I understand what you’re saying about intent, but I think you’re putting far too much weight on intent and far too little on material outcomes. From the perspective of people in the periphery, whether harm is done out of malice, fear, or ignorance doesn’t change the harm itself. The status quo imposed by the imperial core is anything but neutral; it is actively sustained through extraction, coercion, and violence, regardless of how polite or well-meaning its defenders may be.
The claim that Liberal voters “aren’t thinking about” neocolonialism doesn’t really mitigate anything. Apathy and ignorance aren’t accidental flaws of the system, they’re systematically reinforced. Liberal politics trains people to narrow their moral horizon to national borders and to treat global suffering as unfortunate but external. Wanting stability at home while refusing to interrogate how that stability is financed is still a political choice, even if it feels passive or unavoidable.
I’m about to make an inflammatory comparison, and before it’s taken the wrong way I want to be clear that I’m not calling you, or Liberal voters, Nazis of any kind.
What I’m pointing to is a similar moral logic to the “clean Wehrmacht,” but applied to liberalism: the idea that all the real harm belongs to the obvious villains, while those who uphold the same system in a more moderate, respectable way are merely ignorant, apolitical, or trying their best. That framing launders responsibility. It treats liberal participation as an unfortunate accident rather than a core function.
From the standpoint of those who live with the consequences of your stability, calling it “misguided but not bad” reads as a refusal to take structural violence seriously.
I am talking about how the status quo of the entirety of the imperial core is built on and sustained by the pillaging and superxploitation of the periphery through imperialism and neocolonialism.
The status quo is bad if you view us of the periphery as equal humans whose suffering matters the same as you.
Anecdotal story and all but I feel this encapsulates why most people support kicking Nazis out even if they seem polite to start.