I’m not handwringing over anything, my position is clear. I’m in favour of the rule of law which involves not punching anyone (self defence is an exception) over vigilantism.
If you’re advocating vigilantism (which is what this is) then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what framework you’re making those decisions in. Who you’re willing to attack, under what circumstances you’re willing to attack them, what damage you’re willing to do to them (and still no-one has answered this).
There’s a general consensus around punching nazis if they attack you, but what if they’re not attacking you, what if you’re not 100% sure they’re nazis?
In the punching video, Richard Spencer specifically states he’s not a nazi, and is not confronting anyone so if it’s acceptable to punch him there how does that fit with your vigilante framework?
Why does your framework support punching but not anything else, especially given the threat they represent? Why stop at a punch? Punch a nazi and you’ll stop him for a day, shoot a nazi and you’ll stop him for the rest of his life.
The only reasons I don’t shoot Nazis and plead self-defense is because I don’t own a gun, because I’ve had suicide ideation thoughts in the past, plus the pragmatic view that a punched Nazi is a Nazi who remembers facing consequences for his hate and will be a coward like Spencer, but a dead Nazi at the hands of someone like me is a martyr to the Cause and a recruitment bonanza.
And Spencer has specifically called out for my people to be forcibly removed from the USA because we aren’t White, and his followers are more than willing to murder us. That’s how it’s acceptable to punch him.
And my target criteria is this:
“I’m a White Supremacist and/or Nazi!” announced via tattoos, badges, flags, outfits, their speech, white supremacist podcasts or putting it as their goddamn “occupation” on the police report.
I’ve said this several times, but I’ll say it again: for me it would be direct self-defense against a real or perceived threat to me or those around me. I’m unlikely to be a target if I keep my mouth shut, as I’m a white woman. But it isn’t up to me or you to decide what is a threat to another person. As @SocialJusticeMonk notes, some people are in more direct dangers from white supremacists than others and as you don’t know their or others situation, you maybe shouldn’t be so quick to judge what they do in their own defense. I stand by others right to defend themselves, their families, and communities. If that includes punching a shitstain like richard spencer while he’s busy stoking hatred against minorities on the public airwaves, so be it.
And no one said that there shouldn’t be consequences under the rule of law for people’s actions. But the current rule of law comes down much harder on non-whites, than whites.
Good for you; glad you have the complexion for the protection, which means that your rights may actually be upheld under the law as it is written.
I have no such assurances, and the track record for this country enforcing the rights of its “minority” citizens is fucking abysmal.
Asking me to have the same faith in a broken system (which was designed to keep minorities oppressed) as someone who has always been in the ‘protected class’ is beyond unrealistic.
We can have this hamster wheel conversation ad nauseum every single time the topic comes up, and it still won’t change a thing; MDub often argued the exact same ‘all violence is always wrong’ talking points, and he ended up leaving instead of swaying anyone to his POV.
I’ve stated repeatedly that I never throw the first punch, and that I never go seeking trouble out… but if trouble comes to me, I WILL defend myself and those I care about.
That’s the end of the story, fullstop; sorry if ‘self-preservation’ is too primitive of a concept for others to grok.
But I’m not judging. I’m asking how you make those decisions. I’ve asked repeatedly where you draw the line and if you can’t answer that then it makes me think there is no line.
I agree, but that’s why we should press for better law enforcement, which would have the added benefit of keeping the nazis suppressed.
The citizens of Germany in the 1920s didn’t all wake up Nazis one morning. Fascism slowly became normalized, then socially acceptable, until young women didn’t have to feel embarrassed at dating those strapping young blond men in brown shirts.
Fascism had some success in Britain and Canada in the 1930s. The Battle of Cable Street sent a useful message, not just to Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts, but to society at large, that fascism was not socially acceptable, that there were consequences for espousing it, and that those who opposed it did not have to feel alone.
On a smaller scale, the Christie Pits riot in Toronto had a similar effect.
Because several people have said ‘I make my decisions, you make yours’. With vigilantism everyone makes their own decisions on who to punch. So you do need to ask everyone.
I think there is an attribution error here, whereby you come to a decision about yourself, but tell me (or us) it’s what I (or we, but definitely !you) need to do.
Under the current rule of law, Deandre Harris was arrested and tried in court for defending himself against white nationalists who attacked him… on camera.
If it hadn’t been for the camera footage, I have no doubt in my mind he would have been found guilty.
(Hell, even with the footage, I was dubious; Say ‘Rodney King’ for me, one good time.)
By your reasoning should he have not fought back, as that might have averted the later legal ramifications?
Even though not defending himself could have easily resulted in receiving far worse injuries, or in his death?
