Then name a tactic that works without sacrificing someone else to your ideals.
I don’t see how they’re remotely contradictory. As the world the white supremacists want vanishes they’ll become more violent in an attempt to preserve it.
I think there’s much better ways to show courage and stand up to hate than starting fights with Nazis.
What violence and what situations? Some Nazis yelling stuff and being extremely offensive isn’t the same as violence. And a group of Nazis beating up someone at one place doesn’t mean a different Nazi yelling stuff in public is part of that violence.
Oh, and as an example of exactly what I’m talking about, that using violence against Nazi can lead to the Nazis responding with a disproportionate and potentially lethal amount of violence, I’ll refer to
the actual incident this whole discussion started with:
They told Gainesville police detectives a silver Jeep sport utility vehicle pulled up to them and one of the passengers began to praise Adolph Hitler. One of the protesters used a baton to bash the back window of the Jeep and Tenbrink, of Richmond, Texas, pulled out a handgun and fired a round.
And why do you think a felon drove from a few states away with a couple of handguns? Was he planning to have a nice reasoned discussion and maybe a fun snuggle party?
That wasn’t the question, though. As I see it, you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m done.
You should edit your post to remove the final part. Victim blaming is against the rules here. Your post may get eaten.
Is it your contention that he would have fired the gun at the crowd regardless? If so I disagree. He may have thought about using it, he was likely looking for an excuse to use it, but I think it was far from inevitable that he’d find that excuse.
Really I think he was a Nazi who got pissed off that someone smashed their window so he listened to his buddy’s excuse to fire. For that act he and his buddy should go to prison for a very long time.
I am arguing in good faith, though to be honest I find your writing obtuse so I may not be answering the exact question you want.
Victim blaming is shifting the blame for an action from the perpetrator to a victim, a victim who may have been irresponsible but didn’t actually do anything wrong and had no reasonable expectation that their act would have that consequence.
Actual victim blaming would be claiming they shouldn’t have been out protesting if they didn’t want to get shot at, but I didn’t claim that.
Rather, I think it goes without saying that:
a) Smashing someone’s window is an act of violence.
b) Shooting a gun at someone who smashed your window is a massively disproportionate and unjustified response and the vast majority of the blame belongs with the shooter.
My claim is:
c) It’s reasonable to assume that Nazis often respond to violence with massively disproportionate and unjustified responses, therefore that consequence should be weighed when discussing the merits of instigating violence against Nazis.
If your definition of “victim blaming” means to take whatever action you want and absolve yourself of the consequences then I don’t know how you can evaluate any course of action.
A lot of our grandpas shot nazis, some firebombed them. Others even gutted them with bayonets.
My grandma built machines for killing them. Her sister built ships for carrying those weapons.
Are they no better than nazis?
I don’t disagree with cap.
Your squeamishness isn’t worth minorities sacrificing themselves on the pyre of your self-righteousness.
I know, some people have difficulty understanding the difference between the past and the present.
What makes nazis now adays any better than they were back then?
Nazis nowadays are mostly trolls on Twitter, a few dumbasses who protest in public and occasionally beat beat people, and a small handful who actually kill people.
Nazis back then committed the holocaust.
Tthey seem pretty committed right now. Seeing as they’re scrambling to power, bullying the public, and making the government pay for it.
Fuck, there’s at least one in the white house, turning it into a pigsty. Yet you keep telling me that there’s nothing to worry about and that nothing is seriously fucked up, and doing anything that’s worked in the past to get rid of them is the worst thing ever.
That makes me think you might have a dog in the fight here.
What exactly guarantees that Nazis now won’t do the same or even worse now, if given the opportunity?
WHY should Blacks, Jews, Transfolks, Gays, Women, Latinos, Muslims and pretty much everybody else on the freakin’ planet who isn’t White, male and supposedly Xtian take that chance?!?
History repeats itself, especially if we don’t learn from it; and I’m not willingly going to a mass, unmarked grave for anyone else’s puffed up sense of false morality.
No, I don’t think he would have fired it at that specific crowd. That isn’t the way they usually act. They would have found someone walking home that night screamed the same shit from their car and then gotten out and beaten someone who they outnumbered. To you someone screaming these things is some kind of rare mildly bothersome occurrence. For a lot of people they are the way that the worst night of their lives began. I’m sorry if I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to the felon who traveled across state lines to glorify genocide then shot at some people. But if you are so concerned about the effectiveness of Nazi punching as a tactic, what are you doing? What more effective tactic are you using? Because if you are calling for Ghandian non-violence on the part of someone else I want to know how you are making them safer.
Lots of groups are doing that. It doesn’t mean they have a hope of succeeding.
Huh? Trump is a lot of terrible terrible things, but he’s not a Nazi.
And where did I ever say there’s nothing to worry about, I said it’s probably going to get worse. The problem is your “solution” of violence is going to add to the problem.
And do recall the thing that actually created the conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis was WWI. The more violence the more people will turn to strongmen who they think will protect them.
Then smarten up.
Because there’s not that many of them. The only way they’d get the opportunity is if the alt-right as a whole became massively radicalized.
Here’s the history to learn, the ends don’t justify the means, the means become the ends. Most people here agree that drone strikes to kill terrorists just end up radicalizing people and creating more terrorists, why is it so absurd to think that using violence against Nazis will further radicalize Nazis and their sympathizers.
To me this honestly reads like a bunch of people who want to feel tough by saying they’re going to go punch a Nazi, just like that protester wanted to feel tough my smashing the car window. I’m not willing to sacrifice lives so someone can feel like a badass.
And they get presidents elected. And they’d most certainly commit a genocide once again if they could. And they most certainly regularly advocate for such on a regular basis. And they most certainly commit acts of violence when given the chance, against the people they view as their “racial” enemies. This is not subjective on our part, it’s documented facts. Go see what organizations like the Southern Poverty Law center have to say about these groups.
Possibly, not assuredly.
I agree completely.
Fighting disinformation wherever I can and advocating for empathy and reasonable actions. Engaging with the most radicalized people I know to try to pull them back towards the centre. Trying to figure out the proper tactics for my own side.
I don’t claim to be an activist doing great work in the fight against extremism. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize counterproductive actions driven more by a sense of outrage and righteous indignation than a clinical attempt to combat the problem.
Exactly. Hey, BoingBoing tough guys: want to punch a Nazi? Kyle Chapman has an offer for you!
Or you could, you know, not stoop to his level.