Well, I’d like to think that I’d be willing to die in defense of my children, so these Nazis are in theory an existential threat to me as well.
But then so was a certain politician who loudly claimed “We will bury you” and meant every word. It turned out that violence wasn’t necessary to stop that threat, and turning to violence would have been a huge mistake.
Anyway, I certainly understand why those Nazis got punched. But if these Nazis do pose a direct existential threat, why confine the violence to non-lethality? My answer is simple, the cost of extreme violence is higher risk, so minimize the amount of violence - perhaps punching is the correct amount, but I tend to think it’s even less than that.
But since the idea that violence has any associated or long-term risks (I believe blow-back is the popular term) seems to have been dismissed here, I’m curious what is the factor that makes lethal violence a non-starter for you. (I fear the answer is often “it just feels right” and while I quite understand that, I’d hope for more from my fellow lefties over the right wingers who operate on instinct alone.)
Indeed, there are many Canadians who truly believe that the government is as much a threat, if not more, than so called criminals (the context of the Canadian/American comment was the government monopoly on violence).
At least anecdotally Canadians have a higher trust in government and a inherent suspicion of organizations that choose to enforce their concerns through violence where they feel the law is inadequate.
It was not certainly not meant as “all Canadians”, which is always meaningless.
Except that no one here is claiming moral equivalence between antifa and these modern day Nazis. That’s ridiculous. At least for me, the question is not whether it’s moral or ethical to punch a Nazi.
The question is whether it’s a wise long-term move for the left to be seen as supporting private violence as a means to achieve its goals. It appears the answer here is overwhelmingly yes (in certain contexts). I disagree.
What I really disagree with, however, is trying to equate lack of support for violence as tolerance, as some (but not all) here have done. It’s bad enough when the right does this. It’s appalling when the left has fallen to this.
Is good motive sufficient justification for any action? I beginning to worry that the answer for many of us is yes.
Agreed. But effectiveness is not the only thing that’s important.
So is lethal violence is acceptable? After all, it’s rather more permanent in its smashing effects.
Also, why this artificial threshold between non-lethal and lethal violence? Nothing you’ve written suggests such a threshold. And if you accept a threshold between punching and killing (here’s hoping), why not a threshold between staunch defense and punching?
And why stop at Nazis? Islamism (not Islam) has accumulated a rather higher body count than Nazis in recent years. One could argue its existential threat is considerably higher than Nazis. Is violence the best response there as well?
And to emo_pinata’s point, does failure to support violence as the solution equate to tolerance of Islamism? It seems quite a number of Republicans seem to believe so…