yeah!!!!

Boo-yah!

Woot! sock it to em!.

You should wear that insignia on your sleeve and go around in groups, break windows of suspected nazis, threaten their families, bomb their houses. Ya know, by any means necessary to bring fear to those you hate.

That's not fascist at all. Nope, because you are doing it in the name of "good".

Every day furry gets shittier with people like you advocating violence.

STOP romanticizing violence for virtue signalling points.

It's actually a metaphor about not sitting silent, not standing by and letting people spew shit like that without standing up and making a point, calling them out on it, and exposing them for what they are. Not an actual call for going out for physical violence.

But take it how you will.

Additionally the only time I would use violence is in defense of someone getting physically attacked.

I strongly agree with your right to commission, and upload such an artwork.

Art is art, it can be used to start conversations, raise important issues, or just making something cool (along with many more reasons, obviously).

Now, as you stated the following "It's actually a metaphor about not sitting silent, not standing by and letting people spew shit like that without standing up and making a point, calling them out on it, and exposing them for what they are."

I completely and strongly agree. I, and others, should not stay silent when many others are normalising the use of political violence against those with different viewpoints. Yes, it is important to call those people, who advocate political violence purely for the aspect of 'they have a different view and I have decided that it is therefore ok to use violence against them', and expose them for the abhorrent behaviour and views that they have.

Heck, the artwork and the description under it seems to indicate that you advocate for violence against others purely based upon what you categorise them as. Not even what they are. It was only in your responses later on that it became clear that you apparently only advocate for violence in defense.

When it comes to political violence and when it starts to be justified in such a weak and flawed manner it is far too easy to escalate, and the question of who gets to decide what is and is not an appropriate target comes up as well.

Violence should only be used in self defense and competition, not to attack those without provocation to whom anyone has a different political view. That is dangerous, and morally horrible.

Also, issuing threats that then start off a cascade that ends in so many threats that shut down a convention due to different political views is also abhorrent.

1: Interesting terms "political violence" - something which is carried out by regimes, dictatorships, and the like. And totally non-related to any subject herein displayed.

2: I've never heard a single person who talks about the "punch nazi's" ever once even conceive of the idea of "you have a different view so I've decided it's ok to use violence" but I do hear nazi's and their ilk say it all the time.

3: You're third point about "what I categorise (sic) them as" has never applied to anything the antifa movement use, but again is a talking point used by extremist right wing, hardcore xenophobes to make themsleves be the victim.

In sum up, you're post reads like an appologist for nazi's saying we should just accept their views and leave them be. Fuck that. They identify and portray themselves as nazi's I'll call em out. Wear the armband, throw the zeig-heil, talk about white power and killing jews, it's kinda obvious who and what you are.

1: Interesting terms "political violence" - something which is carried out by regimes, dictatorships, and the like. And totally non-related to any subject herein displayed.

Incorrect. Political violence is a broad term used to describe violence perpetrated by either persons or governments to achieve political goals. This is exactly what antifa are doing. They are using violence to achieve political goals. As they believe that the violence that they are perpetuating will result in political change. Therefore, the term is used correctly.

2: I've never heard a single person who talks about the "punch nazi's" ever once even conceive of the idea of "you have a different view so I've decided it's ok to use violence" but I do hear nazi's and their ilk say it all the time.

Interesting. So then all of the times that people classify people as nazi they are correct? That when antifa are recorded as calling people nazi before using violence and violent means, that they are correct? That they somehow can see into the very essence of the other person who has not declared themselves a nazi, and can in fact see that they are without any verbal or external qualifiers? Interesting. I have heard many people talking about punching nazis, and then declare people who have different views AS nazis. So, yeah, we have obviously had different experiences then.

3: You're third point about "what I categorise (sic) them as" has never applied to anything the antifa movement use, but again is a talking point used by extremist right wing, hardcore xenophobes to make themselves be the victim.

Yes. What you categorise them as (and I am Australian, therefore we spell it without a 'z' like you yanks, interesting that you feel the need to include the [sic] part), as in nazis. Wasn't talking about antifa. Was talking about the content of this topic and artwork. Punching nazis. You are categorising people as nazis. That is what I am talking about. And it does apply to what antifa does and calls people before they use violence. As they consistently use violence to try and achieve their means.

In sum up, you're post reads like an appologist for nazi's saying we should just accept their views and leave them be. Fuck that. They identify and portray themselves as nazi's I'll call em out. Wear the armband, throw the zeig-heil, talk about white power and killing jews, it's kinda obvious who and what you are.

Well. You must be reading things in a very flawed way then. I also don't support violence against communists, antifa or any group. Violence for the sake of violence is bad. Political violence is bad. I do not support violence except in self defense and competition. You have read into the concept that because I don't support violence, I am therefore a nazi apologist, or I read like a nazi apologise. That is insane. That is also a perfect example of the current problem.

Many would read what I wrote and then call me a nazi, and then violence against me is justified purely because I don't believe that violence to target flawed and bad political and personal views is the answer. And no, I do not think that attacking people physically for wearing an armband, doing a zeig-heil, talking about white power and killing Jews is justified. I believe that it is important to shine a light on bad ideas and concepts, as there is no better sterilisation to a horrible idea than talking about it openly and shooting down the flawed concepts. Pushing it to the darkness just breeds contempt and has less information around able to destroy the talking points.

See? It's easy to make judgemental sweeping statements based on ones need to create them eh?

Uhh yeah. You responded with flawed logic to someone who said they don't support violence...

See? It's easy to make judgemental sweeping statements based on ones need to create them eh?