It varies by jurisdiction, and in all of them someone would be way out on a limb if they were depending on it for a free pass for punching someone.
I think it was the “close your mouth and let the people prepared to risk their freedom protect yours.” Sounded very Colonel Jessup to me.
As for the differences between Liberals and Socialists, I think it’s more a matter of “means” and “ends”. We milquetoast Liberals worry that the “end” is never the end, and we’re often stuck with the social cost of the “means” long after the “end” is a distant memory.
It must be nice to not be in one of the minority groups that Nazis have targeted for eradication. You’ll have to excuse those of us who are less pure if we see these assholes as a very much existential threat and act accordingly.
There are many Canadians who post here. Don’t try to claim us as supporters of your position.
Not taking a position is still taking a position. So not supporting Nazis, but definitely tolerating them through false equivalence.
Violence can be used to control nazis. It’s the last tool in the kit, but it’s an effective deterrent. Nazis have literally been killing people, all the time, and you haven’t been paying attention. Antifa has been cleaning up your mess for years, you just didn’t hear about it until recently. Fascism is not to be debated. It is to be smashed.
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…
You use the minimum force necessary.
Ideally, you have a tolerant, sane and educated society where the problem of fascism never arises.
If you can’t manage that, you keep your fascists under control with legal and cultural restrictions on hatemongering.
If you don’t 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.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” - Desmond Tutu
Violence absolutely WAS part of the response to that threat.
The views of the white nationalists, while odious, do not rise to the level of threat the German Wehrmacht.
Look, hate is easy, and violence is simple once you get hate in place. "It is acceptable, or even necessary, to respond to members of Group X with violence because they have horrible beliefs, they plan violence against us, and their goal is to end our way of life.’
Upstanding leftists say it about white nationalists, white nationalists say it about Muslims, upstanding rightists say it about Black Lives Matter, and the original Nazis said it about the Jews. And, in case I have not been clear. All of those views are wrong.
It’s a strange and sad genetic quirk that the most effective way to prove yourself a member in good standing to one group is to begin shouting hatred at and advocating violence towards another group.
Ah yes. We didn’t like hitler back in WWII, so we decided to control germany with violence. What a terrible thing.
These people aren’t arguing a difference of opinion. They’re advocates of genocide. We can’t let them gain power unless we’re willing to have genocide be the payment for “free speech.”
The Nazis were a tiny speck of nothing in the 1920s, and the Wehrmacht at that time was slightly less formidable than the defence force of Luxembourg. Ignoring them then was a terrible mistake.
Do you like repeating terrible mistakes?
Summary:
- you seem highly principled
- you appear to be woefully under educated or under-informed about history
- you live a life of relative privilege
In the abstract 1) is good. Worthy, even. But coupled with 2) and 3) it’s leading you to advocate a position related to 1) that is actively harmful for many people now, and quite probably you in the not-too-distant future, were it not for folks like antifa. Logan Rimel came to different conclusions than you did, even though he started in much the same place.
I do not advocate for violence. I trust, however pig-headedly, that all of creation – including all people – is both capable and worthy of salvation. That there is no such thing as a lost cause with God. I cannot explain this trust; it is a part of me deeper than rational faculty. To commit violence against another human being is to commit violence against the image of God in them. To me, it is a sin. I do not believe God requires us to sin. But it seems apparent to me that the world sometimes does.
…
If you are unwilling to risk your bodily integrity to stand against literal Nazis, but you are willing to criticize the people out there who are taking this grave threat seriously but not in a way of which you approve….I just don’t know what to say to you. Truly. Your moral authority is bankrupt and you’re not helping. You’re a hypocrite.
What the hell are you talking about? They believe that all non-white races are inferior, should be treated like sub-humans and don’t belong in America/Europe wherever the white nationalists happen to be.
How do you think they’d enforce that if they came to power? The US is already deporting and imprisoning people at a breakneck pace. I’m sure people who view other races as a bit less than human wouldn’t find it so very troubling when presented with final solutions. After all, all the hard planning has already been done for them.
Is Trump Hitler?
No.
For the same reason as why Mussolini wasn’t Hitler and Franco wasn’t Hitler. No two fascists are the same; every country that falls down this hole gets its own unique horrorshow.
Is Trump as dangerous as Hitler?
No.
He is much, much worse.
Hitler was leading a broken nation that was militarily matched by the Western Allies and outmatched by the Soviets. He had an intelligence apparatus based upon radio and typewriters.
Trump has the most ludicrously over-funded military in the history of the world, with global reach, instantly apocalyptic potential and no real competition. And an espionage apparatus that would have made Himmler cum in his pants.
This is what appeasement gets us.
(Please don’t make me talk about 2004 again)
Did someone say cowards? Like these Nazi fuckers? (Behind the brave as fuck gentleman in the turquoise shirt.)
We could pat them on the back, but that may be misinterpreted…
