No, I don’t think so. If everyone is using their own framework for deciding who to punch, and I want to know what framework people are using then you can give me your framework, but how do I know if that’s the same framework everyone else is using? That’s why I was asking everyone.
I’m not telling people what framework they should be using to decide who to punch, and I myself do not use a framework because I am not punching anyone.
Is this clearer?
MLK advocated for non-violence but he was no Pollyanna – and he recognized that violence has its place.
And so-called Christians haven’t? Ok, ok, setting aside the whataboutism, anarchism does not imply violence. In fact, many anarchist movements are explicitly against violence – and many that do advocate for violence do so only in self-defense.
Yes, to the mainstream, he’s an “Identitarian” and downplays the whole genocide/ethnic cleansing part.
However, in private and leaks, he’s quite more open about what he wants. I bet if I keep digging down into his altright . com site, down past the altright plus pay section, that he’s very open indeed.
A few months ago, there were leaks from sites like his which outlined the whole strategy of avoiding the open Cosplaying Nazis, pretend to be alt-light, call yourself Indentitarian rather than Nazi, recruit people on a slow gradient rather than trying to radicalize people in one shot.
When Spencer says that he’s a not a Nazi, he’s just playing word games, and laughs off slips in his mask as jokes.
No, and I’ve never said that people shouldn’t defend themselves. If you think I have could you quote it for me?
I keep bringing up the Richard Spencer clip because however repugnant his views, whatever he was advocating or however shitty he is as a person, that punch was not in any reasonable sense self defence.
And my question is still - if that is acceptable (and there’s plenty of people here that think it is), what else is acceptable? Where’s the line?
You might want to double-check your own understanding of the word. Equivocation is the logical fallacy of false equivalence, applied to avoid taking a stance in an argument, or to justify inaction. Quite literally the definition of what you are advocating here. You’re equating Nazis with minority groups, and Nazi-punchers with…Fox News(?) because you are concerned that punching Nazis will encourage others to punch people they don’t like.
Especially when the F’ing president of the US is egging them on. “very fine people on both sides…”, “why can’t the cops rough them up a bit more…”, his campaign against the 5 kids accused in the Central park crime.
Yet you keep acting as if everyone you respond to is actively advocating seeking out nazis unprovoked and physically attacking them; that’s the absolute, black-and-white-no-shades-of-gray, zero-sum argument you present.
For the last damn time; the answer is WITHIN YOURSELF, WITHIN EACH OF US.
That’s where “the line” is; each person draws it for him or herself.
There will never be a more definitive answer to your esoteric question than that, because no grouping of people is monolithic.
But despite that individuals like myself have repeatedly framed their own personal parameters, you steadily ignore our input, and just keep hitting the ‘reset’ button; returning to your earlier arguments as if all context and nuance is somehow irrelevant.
And just like with Mdub, ‘good intentions’ be damned; that kind of devil’s advocacy and those who espouse it are no allies in the fight for justice and equality; they are yet another obstacle to be overcome.
They LOVE watching, hearing about, talking about black people getting the shit beaten out of them and not resisting. They think this kind of suffering redeems society, like the Blood of the Lamb. It’s spiritual pornography for rich white liberals.
(Actual Nazis like it too. Sometimes you can barely tell them apart!)
Like I said upthread. These supposed pacifists love sacrificing other people’s safety and lives so that they can remain ideologically pure.
Yup.
Yeah, fuck that noise; I’m no one’s punching bag for their misplaced fucking aggression. Anyone who comes for me needs to realize that I ain’t no “easy win;” I may not necessarily prevail, but I will go down swinging.
The idea that the BNP weren’t violent is pure horseshit. I know people who’ve been targeted by them, I know people who infiltrated them and exposed what they were, I know the groups they sprang from, who had links to loyalist terrorists in Ulster, who firebombed houses, who beat people in the streets. Nazi is as Nazi does.
no, what does it have to do with me?
I hope you’re just confusing Leninists and Maoists for your average Marxist joe. And you should known that anarchists are the strongest opponents to the Revolutionary Communist Party you’ll find in the states. We’re not fucking friendly. But when it comes to fighting Nazis we put that shit on hold.
I’m pretty sure we were talking about the ones who do advocate violence. That was the whole point. I’m all for protesting Nazis, Westboro Baptists, and assholes in general. I’m also happy to support self-defence, but when it becomes the provocation of violence, when it becomes a means to silence others (even assholes), then I’ve got a real problem.
The BNP? Yeah, we punch them.
Fine. A dick punch it is.
