Reply #196: I use the language that is appropriate

[alcibiades_mystery]

I seek precision, where you seek misdirection and slander.

I could care less what the OP's intentions were, and I haven't been arguing about his or her intentions. I have been talking about the rhetoric and the styles of engagement it authorizes. I have been clear in my criteria for calling these fascist rhetorics (and not calling the OP a fascist). These are different claims, and you appear to be pretending not to understand that here in order to score some points. The OP can say NO all he or she wants; it doesn't change the fact that he or she is engaging in rhetorical forms that dehumanize and desire a conflict-free (or totalitarian) politics.

You can dispute that point, but it is dishonest in the extreme to impute other claims to me. You can argue that the OP doesn't use these forms of engagement, or that these forms of engagement aren't inherently fascist. Those would be good arguments. Instead you hide behind two completely irrelevant points: 1) that I argue against self-defense (false), and 2) that I accuse the OP of BEING a Nazi (also false, though some of my earlier posts were closer to that, and I have explicitly drawn back from that position).

There is also the third strategy, the most dishonest - that I am some priss theorist who has no connection to the concrete action of resistance. This has now descended into the appearance of my language, and the relative cleanliness of my hands - all code for the same sneering contempt for ideas, the hallmark of one who refuses to engage, only furthering your disgraceful posturing. You don't know jack shit about me, but that's the underlying slander that you think will best serve your case.

In none of these do you "choose" to address my points directly. One example from your post should suffice. I said "My hands have been plenty dirty on plenty of occasions, and that is the reason I decry the OP's rhetoric." In your dishonest rebuttal, this clear statement against the form of argument used by the OP turns into a statement against the OP's right to make any argument at all, or some other such incoherent misrepresentation: "Yuo may use fancy language, and decry the OP for going on a rant."

I did nno such thing. You can address my points or not. It appears that you'll opt for "not."