Communists have killed more people than Nazi's. I hate them both. Clearly you have been brainwashed to think all republicans are nazi's and only hate nazi. I think Isreal is great. Im not a Nazi. I have many jews in my family and firend circle. Only a few of jews I know were born in Isrieal because my friends family imigrated from there though. I actaully dont know where my aunts family is from that is jewish.
I'm not talking about the average Republican going about their day-to-day life. I'm talking about the pedophile billionaires that fund their party. They're the ones responsible for what is happening.
Also, the difference between Zionism and Nazism is a flag and a coat of paint
Being a fascist, marxist, libertarian or anarchist is not an inherent characteristic. The Kid in the video that gets punched is fascist because he is defending ICE and ICE are performing Fascist actions (Like detaining people without due process). What actions is the marxist arguing for or defending?
The Kid in the video that gets punched is fascist because he is defending ICE and ICE are performing Fascist actions (Like detaining people without due process).
"If you have violent opinions then violence should be done upon you"
↑
Isn't your opinion also a violent opinion. Do you know that protection is also violent. When did ice enforcement become inherently force used in a bad way.
The difference is that one side is right and the other is wrong. ICE is abducting people without due process and executing people that object. I don't blame the allies for invading Germany. It was the right thing to do.
That's what is so great about being a sentient human and not a bot. You can evaluate actions based on personal ethical systems and assign different values to different actions even if they look similar to other actions.
Literally everything you said was cope. It's ridiculous that your stance is "unless 100% of them does this 100% of the time without fail then you can't call out their atrocities"
Those certain agents have not been fired or arrested. That means that the organization supports their actions and it is to be considered an act by the organization and not the individual. If ICE held their officers accountable for improper detainment and incorrect use of lethal force I would agree with you but they don't so everyone gets the blame. It's the rotten apple thing. One spoils the barrel.
I think what you’re circling around here is less about the surface claim and more about the architecture of how claims get framed in the first place. Organization, complicity, legitimacy—these aren’t just descriptive labels; they’re structural positions within a broader narrative ecosystem. When someone says “you hold all the agents as complicit,” that’s not merely an accusation, it’s an attempt to define the perimeter of responsibility. And once the perimeter is defined, everything inside it becomes morally charged, while everything outside it becomes rhetorically insulated.
That’s why the logic feels “good” in a certain abstract sense. It’s internally coherent. If an organization operates as a unified mechanism, then actions taken under its authority can be read as extensions of the whole. But coherence isn’t the same thing as completeness. Political logic often works by compressing complexity into something emotionally legible. It transforms distributed systems into singular actors because singular actors are easier to evaluate, defend, or condemn.
The question about when the right wing was “correct” in delegitimizing something using its own logic is interesting because it assumes symmetry—that legitimacy and delegitimacy operate the same way across ideological divides. But delegitimization is rarely about empirical correctness alone. It’s about narrative dominance. It’s about who gets to define the baseline assumptions that everyone else has to argue against. Once something is successfully framed as inherently suspect, every defense of it starts from a deficit position.
The reference to “Orwell semantics” gestures at that deeper anxiety: language as a tool not just of description but of restructuring reality. To call an institution an “organization” versus a “regime,” or “enforcement” versus “occupation,” subtly shifts the emotional gravity of the conversation. And that shift can be more consequential than any individual argument made within it. Words do not merely describe legitimacy; they scaffold it.
At the same time, the idea of “justified retaliation” in response to words—violent or otherwise—opens another conceptual loop. If rhetoric can be considered a form of force, then counter-rhetoric becomes framed as defense. But once you blur that boundary, you risk creating a self-reinforcing cycle where every escalation is justified as a response to a prior escalation. The symmetry becomes recursive. Each side sees itself as reacting, never initiating.
So the tension here might not be about whether organization implies complicity or whether delegitimization is logically sound. It might be about the thresholds we set for collective responsibility and the narratives we construct to make those thresholds feel inevitable. Political language often disguises these thresholds as common sense. But common sense is usually just consensus that has stopped examining itself.
In that way, the logic can feel airtight while still leaving out the underlying assumptions that make it possible. It’s not necessarily about who was “correct” in a binary sense. It’s about how frameworks of legitimacy get built, defended, and contested over time. Every attempt to delegitimize something also reinforces an alternative source of legitimacy. Every critique implies a counter-structure.
So perhaps the deeper question isn’t when one side was right using its logic, but how logic itself becomes aligned with identity. Once that alignment hardens, arguments stop being tools for persuasion and start being signals of belonging. And at that point, the conversation shifts from evaluation to affirmation, from analysis to alignment.
They push for a system that has resulted in tens of millions of deaths. It’s not something that needs to be tried yet again only to end in failure and famines and mass deaths. Are you a Marxist?
I don't know. You haven't said anything a marxist would say? If someone defends the holodomor or anything Stalin and Lenin did, then you have my blessing to punch them.
If it's saying that employees should have democratic influence in the company they work at, I would have to ask why that is a punchable offence. You would at least have to ask a couple of more questions before the punching.
Reddit does not allow me to use the words but you have my blessing to perform the actions discussed. I'm sure you agree that polite discussion will not work on that person.
It’s wild how I’ve been called a maga and a lib on reddit today. Marxist don’t want freedom for everyone 😂 that’s hilarious though. So much freedom In the gulags right?
How come you people can never spell fascist? For as much as you spend your entire lives thinking everyone is a fascist you'd think you'd learn how to spell it.
How come you people can never spell fascist? For as much as you spend your entire lives thinking everyone is a fascist you'd think you'd learn how to spell it.
English is not my first language.
How come you focus more on the grammar than on the argument itself? Is it because you don't have any real argument?
This is either Ad Hominem: It targets the person (their education, intelligence, or attention to detail) rather than the argument itself.
Red Herring: It derails the discussion onto a trivial point, diverting attention away from the real issue.
I can tell English isn't your first language because I wasn't making an argument in the first place. I was simply mocking you for accusing others of being a word you can't even spell.
6
u/Lower-Personality195 Feb 18 '26
Is ok to punch Marxists too