This discussion reminded me of an article I read recently.
It’s a blog post by a pacifist ruminating on whether Antifa’s retaliatory violence allowed him to remain a pacifist and whether this was right. It’s a very interesting read.
8 Likes
Yes. That is why they need to be opposed by speech, by ridicule, by counter-protests, and by voting.
Here’s the problem. I can go onto Fox or Breitbart and find people saying the exact same thing about Muslims, and why violence against them is justified. They are just as convinced they are right as you are.
3 Likes
Umm… I can think of at least one white supremacist that may really get off on that.
(well at least if the rumors of the russian tapes are true…)
1 Like
There’s basically no american muslim groups advocating a takeover of the government and the destruction of all non muslims. None that are publicly acknowledged anyway.
There’s literally thousands of white supremacists who loudly and eagerly crow about how a race war is exactly the thing needed to make america great again.
You’re equivocating.
20 Likes
Ignoring them and punching them are not the only two options available. We have speech, counter-protests, ridicule, and the vote. All of these should be used.
There were plenty of Communists punching Nazis in the streets in the 30s. Unsurprisingly, that did not seem to fix the problem.
I am afraid you misunderstand my position. I an not a pacifist. Not even close. If someone literally pulls a knife, I have no qualms about pulling a gun. Violence should be met with violence.
Speech, however, should not.
We should not go around beating up white supremacists or Muslims or BLM members or Jews just because we can put ourselves in a panic about what they said or wrote. It does not end well and it only strengthens the extremists.
3 Likes
ETA: I tried to discuss with neo-fascists, assuming in good faith they were conservatives. They do have a thing we call geschlossenes Weltbild (and as far as semantics go, I’m not sure closed worldview comes close to the same meaning), so this was fruitless. This does not mean that you shouldn’t discuss with people you assume to be able to take in what you are saying. But if you know they are Nazis, because they say so, discussion is over.
8 Likes
Of course not. But those who advocate violence agist Muslims will point to lone wolf-attacks on US soil. the Koran and to Muslin groups overseas who do want that and then declare that the threat can only be countered with violence. Much like those who cheer violence against white supremacists point to Nazi Germany and pretend that the US is in imminent danger of such a takeover.
The truth does not matter. It’s whatever the righteous can convince themselves to believe.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I’ve been extremely consistent and direct.
2 Likes
It’s so strange to me that you seem to think these things are equivalent.
12 Likes
Maybe. Have you heard of Daryl Davis? More people really need to know about him. He is a black man who has convinced over 200 KKK members to leave the Klan and give up their robes. He did it by just talking with them.
The man should be a national hero. It’s easy to call for more violence, but this man has done more genuine good than all the modern-day Nazi punchers put together.
4 Likes
I am very glad he is doing what he’s doing.
I can’t ask black people to sacrifice themselves and put themselves in literal mortal danger just to make sure I never have to take up arms against genocidal fucks.
18 Likes
It’s equally strange to me that you read this as saying these groups are equivalent. I’m saying the mental gymnastics that we to go through to convince ourselves that violence against members of a bad group is a good thing are very much the same.
n.b. I’m not talking about physical self-defense, wars, imminent harm, or even fighting words.
1 Like
Do you not think “those people should be driven out of our country” constitutes fighting words?
6 Likes
They are not. “Fighting Words” has a legal meaning in the US. Even something like “those people should be killed” would not qualify under most circumstances.
1 Like
two points: re: “mental gymnastics”, and “bad groups.”
first, consider the hypothesis that many people here feel it’s pretty clear cut that punching nazi’s ain’t bad. given that, you may need to address your understanding of their position. the gymnastics you feel are needed could indicate contortions in your thinking, not theirs.
second, recognize that richard spencer is a white supremacist. you introduced additional groups: muslims, jews, black lives matter
white supremacists are nazis. they are advocating ending people’s lives because of differences in pantone. muslims, jews, and blm? pretty sure none of those groups have it out for the rest of the human race.
there’s only one of those groups then that can be easily and unequivocally considered bad™. no mental gymnastics needed.
i almost think you are arguing that there are no privileged world views. that even the wholesale extermination of people is not truly bad. just socially frowned upon. so, some other group of people could have a different world view about extermination. and we should consider those viewpoints equal.
religious folks might argue with you about good vs evil. even atheists would say something about morality. i would just ask which world would you rather live in?
a world post-violence where all the scary “others” have been bloodily removed; or a world where sometimes nazis get bopped in the face, and everybody else gets along just fine?
15 Likes
Substitute in the word Muslim, and that comment would fit right in at Fox Nation. Actually, it’s kind of a confusing dichotomy, since both the Nazi’s and the violent faction of the anti-Nazis are both advocating the bloody removal of those they disagree with.
However, I prefer to live in America where all people have the right to free speech and where violence used to suppress speech is considered both unlawful and un-American.
I make it a point to read sites from a wide range of political view points, and if you do that, you will find that everyone thinks they are the good guys. You will also find a subset of every group advocating or defending violence towards members of another “obviously evil” group. Those are the violent extremists.
I am not on their side. I oppose them regardless of group.
2 Likes
You can stop being a Nazi. You can’t stop being a member of a “lesser race”.
13 Likes
That’s sophistry.
Nazism isn’t a religion. It’s not a protected class.
And that’s why you’re attempting to defend your sanity in front of others on the internet, because you literally can’t tell the difference between Nazis and Muslims. Maybe you don’t know what Nazis are. If you’re not arguing in bad faith, that would explain a lot of your arguments.
Huh. What subset of Nazis are not extremists, again?
23 Likes
By definition nazis advocate genocide. To be in anyway deferential to them legitimizes a genocidal worldview. Giving them a chance to speak means you are willing to sacrifice someone else in order to hear a nazi out. It’s that simple.
If you are willing to hear a genocidal person’s arguments “fairly” that means you’re willing to grant someone else’s life is worth a person’s opinion.
YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SACRIFICE MY LIFE TO HEAR SOMEONE ELSE’S OPINION.
Now apply that all-caps line to all black and brown people.
22 Likes
I’m not defending my sanity, nor is there need to. I can’t imagine how an honest reading of my comments could lead you to conclude that I can’t tell the difference between Nazis and Muslims.
My point again is a very simple one and one that many sane Americans agree with. Ready? We should not use violence to shut down speech, even when we find that speech repugnant and offensive.
1 Like
No one is asking you to sacrifice your life so that someone from the alt-right may speak. No one’s life has to be sacrificed if a Nazi speaks. No one is even saying we have to give them a platform or listen to them.
The only point under contention is whether it is OK to use violence to shut down speech we find offensive. And it’s not OK. There is a very good reason that the protection of free speech is in the Constitution, and it has been one of the few rights that has expanded rather than eroded over the years.
1 Like
