This begins from a slightly different angle, but I think it addresses the point by the end:
18 Likes
Familiar with this line of reasoning, before the conclusion anyway. The conclusion is pre-emptive violence is justified. I disagree.
As a side note, I donât know Patrick Tomlinsonâs personal history but to anyone who thinks pre-emptive punching is in any way a good idea, I ask if theyâve been in a street brawl or riot. Its really not a pleasant experience and not something to start so glibly.
1 Like
6 Likes
Nice story but the situation now is not the lead up to the second world war. This isnât war at all and attempting to drape the cause in glory cheapens the memory of those who died in that war.
Let me ask you directly then if you believe pre-emptive violence is correct & justified, have you been in or initiated a street brawl or episode of physical violence related to neo-nazis/white pride issues?
1 Like
Which, again, is a point where we differ.
Given that youâve spent the last year loudly scoffing at any suggestion that fascism may be in any way seriously involved in American politics, I donât see much reason to trust your judgement on this issue.
No, the only street brawling Iâve been involved in was against theocratic bigots at gay rights marches and riot cops during demonstrations outside Australiaâs refugee internment camps.
We donât have a major fascist problem here, fortunately. So far, anyway. Australian politics often follows American trends with a slight time lag.
The ethical justification for anti-fascist violence does not create an obligation for violence. The ethical obligation is to ensure that fascists do not gain power, by whatever means necessary.
Most of what antifa does is not violent, and the violence they do employ is defensive.
5 Likes
Iâve openly scoffed at hyperbole and shrill voices but am aware of slippery slope arguments from both democrats and republicans. Trust me or donât, shouldnât have anything to do with either of our political opinions after all.
I canât guess the level of violence you experience there, whether it was pushing and shouting or whether it was fists, bottles and improvised weapons. As someone who was involved in full violent street brawls with white priders back in the 80s, fights which got people hospitalized, its not an experience I want to have again and not something glorious or to brag about. Its something I advise people to avoid because you can end up dead pretty easily.
Youâve posted two examples above which either advocate or justify pre-emptive violence and by the âwhere we differâ statements, you have seemed to agree that pre-emptive violence is justified but here you seem to say the opposite. Which is it? Are you willing to start a fight or just fight back?
As for âwhatever means necessaryâ thats rather open ended when it comes to violence and if you are referencing âby any means necessaryâ then that goes as far as killing for the cause. Are you ready and willing to do that? To take a life outside of war? To be judge, jury and executioner?
1 Like
Australian police are nowhere near as casually violent as American police, so even the riot squad were fairly restrained. Shields, batons and a few cavalry charges, but no tear gas or rubber bullets.
The most notable of the gay rights incidents was when I was marching with a GLBT Kung Fu club. We got jumped half a dozen times in two hours, but they were all dealt with fairly easily.
Yes, you can.
Which is why antifa are using swarm tactics. The optics arenât great, but the idea is to get the fascist out before it has time to escalate into a dangerous melee. Despite repeated attempts by the right to frame them, antifa havenât stabbed, shot, or beaten anyone into a coma. They are holding their force to the minimum required to keep the anti-racist protesters safe.
Leaving the fascists to wander freely through the crowd is not an option. They have attacked repeatedly, and are a lethal threat.
Antifa arenât doing this for fun.
You use the minimum force necessary.
Preemption doesnât mean you are obliged to hunt down and assassinate nazis. It means that you donât have to wait for them to actually swing the bloody club before defending yourself.
Ideally, you have a tolerant, sane and educated society where the problem of fascism never arises.
If you canât manage that, you keep your fascists under control with legal and cultural restrictions on hatemongering.
If you donât do that, you need to carefully monitor the rise of fascism within your society, and work to counter it through exposure and political pressure. This is what antifa does in normal times.
If that is not done, and you end up with fascists in government, then you have an obligation to bring that government down. Your best chance of doing that is by peaceful means, of the sort advocated by Gandhi, MLK and Naomi Klein.
However, by the time that things get that bad, you are very likely already in lethal danger. In which case self-defence is required. This is what antifa is doing now, along with its peaceful activities.
If you insist on taking it to the worst case scenario, then yes.
Of course lethal violence is justified to bring down a fully-expressed revival of fascism, if such a catastrophe occurs. Not just from individual people, but from the entire world.
Which is why it is essential to stop it before it gets to that point.
8 Likes
Thank you for clarifying your views.
4 Likes
Legally, I think itâs clear that yes fascists can march around and shout dumb things. Morally? No, theyâre not obliged to be treated kindly in what they say. If that happens to include the occasional firing from a job, dehosting of a site, or simply not inviting them to a cookout thatâs wholly fine. As for physical violence, Iâm not going to pass judgment on others who use it in retaliation against fascists since the last time fascists got into power they threw the first punch and it turned into a world war.
Basically, the freedom of association is an equal right with the freedom of speech. If I donât want to associate with Nazis or their enablers thatâs my choice. And the sentiment that the right to speech means a right to an audience (especially a captive one) is a baffling view for me. Free speech absolutism shouldnât even include the right to an audience but itâs becoming part of the position as of late which it just echos too much of the Fairness Doctrine for me. No one owes anyone else a hearing of their ideas. You can speak all you want, but donât expect others to listen (me included).
7 Likes
Iâd suspect the rise of early mass media helped. Iâm sure youâre aware of the film Birth of a Nation and itâs impact on the post-WW1 era - the nadir of race relations, as it were. Since white supremacy was not just an underground movement, but a mainstream mode of thought, recruitment was able to be more public and a hell of a lot easier [ETA- fixing a sentence fragment] to spread during that time.
Thatâs entirely fair enough of a point, and I am inclined to agree. We do need time to work out all the factors involved (private vs. public spaces regarding regulations, the limits of speech, if there should be any, who gets access to speech, whether or not money IS indeed speech, etc). However, Iâd argue that we can probably figure this out in our life times, especially if we accept the fact that it will change down the road as technologies and mores change. We donât need to wait a few hundred years, when weâll all be dead anyway. I mean, isnât that part of the reason that this post was started? So that we (as citizens of where ever we live) can hash out ideas about what specifically constitutes free speech so that we can make informed decisions about who we elect to office?
7 Likes
I just want to note that this is not historically novel either. Mass media (whether in the forms of books, Newspapers, broadsides, magazines, early international telecommunications, film, radio, TV and now the net) has long been employed both by states and by groups operating outside of the purvey of states, to communicate and organize movements. Benedict Anderson wrote on this about the late 19th and early 20th century anarchists and Filipino nationalist movement, and Nancy McLean alludes to it in her book about the KKK in Athens GA, where she notes that white supremacists and fascists groups were organizing on an international level during the era that @Israel_B noted up thread in his last reply to me.
These questions have always been at play - who gets access to broadcasting on forms of mass media and who should act as gate keepers, because really thatâs what I think itâs about.
4 Likes
âUniversal Healthcareâ Nice euphemism there, snowflake, I think you mean DEATH PANELS FOR THE GENOCIDE OF PROFITS AND FREEDOM
8 Likes
Maybe we can. Or maybe not. Birth of a Nation was within living memory. Just barely but still. Since the SCOTUS has looked at lots of First Amendment issues. Right now people are very upset and thats the worst time to make long term big impact decisions.
Well, thatâs the thing here - this is an ongoing discussion from a long time ago, we just have a new form of mass media to add to the discussion. Back in that same period where Birth of a Nation was being shown and glorifying the Klan, you could not send âobsceneâ material in the mail (Comstock Laws), including basic information about human reproduction and birth control. People went to jail for that. Obviously, we are okay with discussions on birth control in all itâs forms now in the mail or in public places and donât consider it obscene.
So, yes, we should indeed not make hasty decisions on issues like this. But that doesnât mean we shouldnât continue to talk and figure out what we believe the limits of speech. As I said, it could change again in 50 years time, and then weâll have this discussion again⌠unless of course the fascists take over, and then we wonât. Because their stance on free speech is that it shouldnât exist at all.
8 Likes
The discussion may be ongoing but the attitude of may on either side of certain people shouldnât be allowed to speak is new.
I donât think thatâs true at all. What we consider to be protected under free speech has widened in many respects, even as what is considered ârespectableâ speech has changed. Some of the concepts and ideas promoted by the alt-right would have been perfectly acceptable not too long ago, as was the lynching of POC for just about anything at all. Ida Wells was run out of her hometown in the 1870s for daring to suggest that just maybe the reason her friend got lynched was because he had a more successful business than his white counterparts. Do we see the actions of citizens of memphis as blocking her free speech rights at that time? She was able to avoid memphis and write volumes on lynching in various papers in other parts of the US and the UK over the course of her life - but was her not being published in Memphis a violation of her free speech rights? Can we say the same for alt-righters whose websites are being taken down by private corporations due to the events of Charlottesville?
13 Likes
Iâll never condone violence past or present and have stated over and over that Iâm against vigilante action by anyone. I also donât confuse violent action and speech.
I wasnât suggesting that you have or would do so. Youâve in fact condemned what @wanderfound advocated with regards to violence against specific individuals in the white power movement. Iâm aware of your views on this.
I was pointing out that free speech has long been a moving target in regards to who is allowed access to speech. The reality is that white supremacists have long had the advantage of being allowed stronger protections for their speech and greater access to the public sphere. Weâve never had unrestricted speech in the US. Plenty of people have been denied access to speech based on race, gender, etc.
12 Likes
I think weâve said that at each other from different angles for a few comments now but its something we agree on as a matter of history.
Relevant article published today:
9 Likes
