Three of Spencer's neo-Nazi supporters arrested after shooting wildly at bus-goers

[jerwin]

hmm

He moved his arms away from his body and a flap of his chest folded down over his ribs. He had been slashed from above his left nipple down across the opposite side of his belly.
Even though he was muscular and lean, you could still see fat or something yellowish-white mixed in with the muscle. It reminded me of cleaning chickens, the yellow globs of fat you tear off.

My friend who got jumped at The Business show is the one who cut him. He went to prison for it.
The Nazi skins quit coming out for the most part after that. They wouldn’t show up in significant numbers or try to impose their will, anyway. Two or three would come around now and then, but they kept to themselves and didn’t start any trouble. They weren’t attacking people or seig heiling anymore. A couple of the older dudes lingered, but would say they were “retired” and never fought anymore.
It took several years of fighting, but we had created a safer — though still not perfect — space for our community. Yes, we used violence, but that violence was already there. We simply redirected it back at the source until the source relented and the violence dissipated.

gee, I feel safer already.

[anon34697667]

It took several years of fighting, but we had created a safer — though still not perfect — space for our community. Yes, we used violence, but that violence was already there. We simply redirected it back at the source until the source relented and the violence dissipated.

Keep telling yourself that, tough guy.

[john_c]

@aluchko

@john_c

The more you believe that the situation can only get worse (absent underlying, systemic change that is very difficult to arrange, to say the least), the more this point of unity should be your overriding concern.

More violence only accelerates the problem

Your response is not logical. I essentially conceded that point, so maybe you could try engaging with my actual argument?

You came in here talking about reason and dialog, and how you are open to learning something, yourself. Was that actually true?

[Mangochin]

But it demonstrates that “whiteness” is a matter of convenience.

Nazis of WWII worked constantly with Arabs and European Muslims (in Albania and Bosnia) and had ties with Turkey.

Modern Neo-Nazis actively attack Arabs, European Muslims and Turks

[Wanderfound]

Thread:

(((Yonatan Zunger))) (yonatanzunger)

[coherent_light]

So you don’t know what Nazis are, then.

[anon34697667]

Nice try! Next?

[aluchko]

@moortaktheundea

I have to ask. Have you actually dealt with Nazis, offline? I find that tends to be the primary thing that divides people who think that is possible to rely on reason and discourse and people who see Nazism as an intrinsic threat. Because honestly your posts read like someone who hasn’t been paying attention.There has been a steady drumbeat of these groups killing people and that trend line has been bending up.

No, thought I’d dealt with other dubious people, and if I think it’s safe to engage verbally I do, and if not I keep my distance (unless they look like they pose a danger to someone, then I’ll try to keep an eye on them).

To be clear, I don’t argue whether the white supremacist problem has been getting worse, it has. I argue whether instigating violence is our best strategy, and I say it is not.

@john_c

Your response is not logical. I essentially conceded that point, so maybe you could try engaging with my actual argument?

You came in here talking about reason and dialog, and how you are open to learning something, yourself. Was that actually true?

So can you restate your argument because I honestly am trying to be open minded and give people the benefit of the doubt but I honestly had trouble understanding what you were trying to get me to respond it.

I took your argument to be that the US is heading to civil war and that punching Nazis was a possible way to stop that outcome. My response was I disagree that it’s heading to civil war and I disagree that punching Nazis will improve the situation.

But I feel regardless of what we do Nazi violence will intensify because the major thing driving them isn’t Trump, left-wing violence, or left-wing pacifism. They’re fighting because they want a world where the US and Europe has a white ruling majority that largely controls the world, and the world they want is vanishing and it’s going to keep vanishing.

To me the question isn’t how to push them back under the rug because they were never under the rug to begin with, the question is how to restrain their political power and hold them back from killing people as much as possible.

[Wanderfound]

Existential Comics (existentialcoms)

[the_borderer]

The fascists like brown in their colour scheme too. The anti-fascists only like brown when its peoples skin colour and on FC St Pauli shirts.

[Editrix_Steph]

“This is the right thing to do. But I don’t want anyone to do it.”

Oy.

I’m done with this conversation.

[moortaktheundea]

When you say things like instigating violence you’ve already accepted the wildly inaccurate premise that violence isn’t already a part of the situation. This ignores the already present violence. What you are really asking is that people let themselves and their communities be attacked with the most vulnerable being picked off one by one. That is the difference with “other dubious people” and Nazis. You are demanding a tactic of submission.

[john_c]

Alright. “regardless of what we do Nazi violence will intensify.” (you stated it more strongly, even, than I was willing to.) And, “the world they want is vanishing and it’s going to keep vanishing.” These statements are almost beautifully contradictory, thank you.

I disagree with the latter, because white supremacy is so useful to rightwing politicians in service to the pro-corporate agenda (particularly with Republicans and the US). The daily headlines should be enough to convince you of this.

You ask what could possibly “restrain their political power and hold them back from killing people.” Presumably, not punching. It’s important to ask this question of instrumental action, sure. If that’s all you do, though, then you’re being absolutist in your moral reasoning. The opposite error, which you so detest: punching a nazi is ethical because nazis are so very bad. It’s a purely value-rational good. It’s not any less sophisticated than what you’re up to. Now, you told me to read up on history. Well, fine. I want you to read about pluralism (in moral philosophy, specifically).

One important moral virtue is courage. This weighs heavily on the scales for me, given the contemporary situation, and–as you sort of admit–the undoubtedly difficult road ahead. The ethic that says nazis should be punched when they come out in public is the kind of thing that gives succor to all the other important efforts that communities undertake, to fight back. It doesn’t mean that one desires to see violence escalate, by holding that view. It only says, to the antifa activist who adopts the ethic in action, this is a justified response to horrible provocation; we are with you.

Have you seen the documentary about Daryl Davis, Accidental Courtesy? The thing that was so interesting about that movie is his meeting with Black Lives Matter activists, and how he could no longer relate, in what he was doing (outreach to Klan members), to them and to their important and, frankly, more consequential work as activists. It ended up being a tragedy. The man who sets out to make peace with his adversaries ends up stuck in the no man’s land between camps. You can see it as a personal failing, I suppose. It seemed to me like he wasn’t willing to have the same patience with those on his side, as he did with KKK members espousing blatant racism. But I don’t think it’s just personal, and you may be fooling yourself if you think you can do better. Interpretive labor is alienating, is the basic problem there.

[anon34697667]

So, to sum up:
Physically attacking people is not okay, but physically attacking people whose beliefs you dislike is perfectly okay.

[anon34697667]

@moortaktheundea

What you are really asking is that people let themselves and their communities be attacked with the most vulnerable being picked off one by one . . . You are demanding a tactic of submission.

No. Punching Nazis reinforces their fascist narrative: the strong rule the weak through violence and intimidation and the only message you communicate is Nazis need to bring more violence, which ultimately sucks for everyone. We have better and more effective ways to deal with Nazis without stooping to their level. If all you can do is punch Nazis, you’re no better than them.

[moortaktheundea]

Then name a tactic that works without sacrificing someone else to your ideals.

[aluchko]

@john_c

Alright. “regardless of what we do Nazi violence will intensify.” (you stated it more strongly, even, than I was willing to.) And, “the world they want is vanishing and it’s going to keep vanishing.” These statements are almost beautifully contradictory, thank you.

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.

@john_c

One important moral virtue is courage. This weighs heavily on the scales for me, given the contemporary situation, and–as you sort of admit–the undoubtedly difficult road ahead. The ethic that says nazis should be punched when they come out in public is the kind of thing that gives succor to all the other important efforts that communities undertake, to fight back. It doesn’t mean that one desires to see violence escalate, by holding that view. It only says, to the antifa activist who adopts the ethic in action, this is a justified response to horrible provocation; we are with you.

I think there’s much better ways to show courage and stand up to hate than starting fights with Nazis.

@moortaktheundea

When you say things like instigating violence you’ve already accepted the wildly inaccurate premise that violence isn’t already a part of the situation. This ignores the already present violence. What you are really asking is that people let themselves and their communities be attacked with the most vulnerable being picked off one by one. That is the difference with “other dubious people” and Nazis. You are demanding a tactic of submission.

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.

[moortaktheundea]

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?

[john_c]

@aluchko

I think there’s much better ways to show courage and stand up to hate than starting fights with Nazis.

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.

[aluchko]

@moortaktheundea

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?

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.

@john_c

That wasn’t the question, though. As I see it, you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m done.

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.

@john_c

You should edit your post to remove the final part. Victim blaming is against the rules here. Your post may get eaten.

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.