9 Likes
No matter how often it has been claimed that the centrists think that both groups are equally bad, the people we have here have been loudly denying that. Now they could be lying to us because they are really Nazis in disguise, but in that case the planet is already fucked and we have no chance, because that means that the nazis already have a comfortable majority.
Or it might be that they do think that Nazis are a lot worse than Antifa, but that the disagreement is about under what circumstances they have to side with a “slightly bad” group in order to oppose the “really bad” group.
Now the refusal to side with something “slightly bad” over something “really bad” can be a bad thing in itself. But at what point does it become so bad that it is sensible to equate it with Nazis, as seems to be the fashion here?
I’m too lazy to photoshop @jeezers’ nice cartoon with the balance, but just imagine it showing a “Proud Leftist” in front of a balance scale comparing nazis (with their shootings, stabbings and car attacks) to centrists (with “refuses to punch nazis”). Surely we can all agree which is worse?
And at what point does it become bad in itself to forgo a chance to build a broader coalition against the nazis, because everyone was arguing about whether to punch them?
1 Like
I’m just pointing out that he completely misunderstood the cartoon, and disputed it on the basis of that misunderstanding. Jeezers wasn’t talking about a centrist who refuses to punch Nazis, he’s talking about the kind of centrist who makes the false equivalencies that lead to appeasement (which in turn historically thwarts broad coalitions against fascists).
3 Likes
Well, I was going to leave this alone, but lets take one last stab at it.
Context (always important): I was trying to get people to explain under what circumstances they would attack someone, to which the response I got was if it was a protest or a confrontation, and if they were clearly identified as nazis (illustrated with a picture of a bunch of fuckwits in nazi uniforms).
With this in mind, I was asking about the punching of Spenser because it filled neither of these criteria. He wasn’t confronting anyone and he clearly distanced himself from neo-nazis. Given that this then lies outside the already established circumstances for attacking someone, how do they square the circle?
The best response I got was basically that prior knowledge of what he’s said elsewhere showed that he was lying about not being a nazi. Which is a good response. I didn’t see a good response to the confrontation issue, though.
Please note, I didn’t assume he was non-punchable, I wanted to know how punching him was justified given the contradictions in what had been said. I’m not interested in nazis, I know where I stand with them (hint: I’m against them, like any decent right-thinking person should be), but I am interested in the ethical stances of the people on the same side as me because it’s important.
I never said we should hear them out. Rational debate only works with people who are willing to debate rationally. No-one asked me though, so if @jeezers did mean this then it’s a strawman all of his own making.
He posted it in direct response to me and it’s very clear the point he’s making. If he wants to claim that he’s making a different point then he should use his words instead of shitposting memes.
1 Like
I quoted your words, and assigned appropriate context in parentheses. Spencer has never been good at hiding his Nazi sympathies. Anyone who believes his lies is as gullible as, well, Neville Chamberlain (who, while not a Nazi or Nazi sympathiser is known to posterity as an appeaser of Nazis because Hitler “clearly distanced himself” from his movement’s expansionist policies and wasn’t being confrontational at Munich).
Spencer may not wear the uniform, but since he is an ethnic cleansing enthusiast the shorthand “Nazi” is good enough to describe him when using the phrase “Nazi punching.” But since you’re interested in ethical stances, what’s your opinion on left-wing allies who punch those who call for their ethnic cleansing (“non-confrontationally”, of course)?
Whatever your supposition as to why Jeezers chose the cartoon, the fact remains you misinterpreted the cartoon itself by claiming it describes an either/or position. It was posted in response to you, but there are ways to challenge it while not completely misinterpreting it as you did.
6 Likes
All right, please, tell me when, at what threshold, and in what manner I and others that Spencer and his ilk have said do not belong in the USA are allowed to respond to his rhetoric? Please, lay it out explicitly and with precise guidelines so that we know how we should respond.
Because, aftter all, in these discussions, the constant refrain from you has been “No, don’t stand up to them like that! Not with violence!” So, how should we go about it, then?
4 Likes
What you deny is irrelevant. You continue to perpetuate the lie that nazis are simply people with differing views that need to be heard because free speech is an absolute.
3 Likes
When faced with the inherently violent ideologies of fascism and white supremacy, it’s easy enough for a white non-Jewish cisgender male opposed to them to say “I would never respond with violence.” I wouldn’t begrudge him that privilege (although making an absolute statement like that about fascists can, per Niemoller, be foolish). What I do have a problem with is if he’s blind to that privilege to the point of not recognising that others don’t enjoy it and tut-tutting over their sometimes less peaceful reactions. That lack of perspective tends to alienate allies and destroy coalitions.
8 Likes
This is entirely false, and you should feel bad to continue this train of thought.
He gave a speech using Nazi references throughout and gave the Nazi salute as a non-comedic response to Trump’s victory in the election (receiving Nazi salutes in response, something done all the fucking time at NPI). To take his word that he is not a Nazi when there is clear, widely-distributed footage of him being a Nazi goes into levels beyond simply foolishness and wrongheadedness and into the zone of purposely falsifying your argument because it is too weak to stand on its own.
So stop defending the Nazis, and at least have an ounce of rigor in your attempts to prove your moral high ground.
EDIT
You were also told that he was an active part of the (violent) white supremecist counter-protest at the inauguration that day, but because a reporter chose to legitimize a Nazi that means he’s a character above the violent dregs of society that was seeking fame and fortune anonymously punching the most famous Nazi alive.
10 Likes
Nothing new there:
Letter from Birmingham Jail (ext)
By Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
5 Likes
Well I’m glad I was able to provide you with the actual context.
It’s a tricky one, and my thinking on it isn’t anywhere near finished. Everyone has a right to exist, and has a right to defend that existence. But at what point does defending become oppression?
Take as an example the Israeli/Palestinian situation. There’s a strong Palestinian element that wants to see Jews driven into the sea. Israel has a right to defend itself against this, but does it give it a right to bottle up the Palestinian territories, controlling what goes in or out? Or to lock up hundreds of children, often holding them in solitary? What about when they call for ethnic cleansing?
So, taking it back, if Israel is allowed to ‘punch’ Palestinians, and Palestinians are allowed to ‘punch’ Israelis, do we end up with a situation where extremists on both sides walk scared of being ‘punched’? In this situation it’s ended up with a long and bitter occupation with terrible acts on both sides, moderates squeezed out of any debate, because how could you talk to them and ordinary people on both sides suffering and dying because of the blowback form it all. I can see how both sides can get to the actions they take, I can support both sides right to existence and right to defend themselves, but I can’t condone what they do.
Lets take another example, one with a different ending. The Troubles. This time, violence against Catholics led the IRA to defend Catholic communities with arms. It was bad enough that the army got sent in (although this didn’t work out well in the long run). This one’s less morally ambiguous, you don’t have both sides calling for each other’s destruction. This time it’s Loyalist violence against Catholics, so they should be able to defend themselves, right? Of course, what we actually got was decades of bombings, organised crime, punishment beatings, kidnappings, assassinations and reciprocal attacks.
None of this frightened the extremists, only the ordinary people who had to live in fear. All the violence did was to entrench the sectarianism. All this ended with the Good Friday Agreement, where all sides agreed to only use democratic means to resolve disputes. Life in Northern Ireland is considerably better than it was 30 years ago.
So where does that leave the original question? I still don’t know. I don’t have a clear cut answer and I certainly don’t have the moral certitude that a lot of the posters here have. I instinctively distrust violence and I’m suspicious of anyone who calls for it, especially if they say it’s the only way. It makes me think they haven’t tried anything else, or don’t want to put the effort in. Violence has a way of escalating and the unforeseen consequences are, by definition, unforeseen. What happens if/when someone decides punching isn’t enough? Or that the best defence is attack? Or that the way to gain change is a ballot and bullet strategy*, because I’ve seen where that ends up.
So I want to know where the line is drawn, or at least have some indication that you understand that there should be a line. Because I’m also aware that there are occasions where violence may be necessary, and this scares me.
So, I’m sorry. I don’t have an answer for you, but this is where my thinking on it is up to so far. It’s a hard ethical problem, and if you want to discuss it then spin it off into a separate thread and we can chat. But if all people want to do is misrepresent my position, argue against strawmen and shitpost memes then you don’t need me here for that.
*Interestingly, I went looking for this because I know it from Northern Ireland, but it turns out it’s actually from Malcolm X.
Possibly unfair. From accounts like Ponting’s 1940, Chamberlain was stuck with an overextended British Empire, the nightmare scenario of conflict in the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific at the same time, and starting a re-armament that Britain couldn’t afford. He was stuck saying “nice doggie” while waiting for someone to give him a stick.
British appeasement of Hitler did not start with the Munich Pact. In 1935, the British and the German governments signed the so called Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which relieved Germany from her Versailles Pact limits, and without consulting Britain’s allies. Chamberlain was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. The then leading Conservatives seemed to think that they could work with Hitler, and that the Mein Kampf program was not what the Nazis really intended to implement.
3 Likes
You projected the opposite perception in your earlier posts, which is perhaps why you’re getting a bad reaction.
With regard to the current situation in Israel/Palestine and the historical situation ofThe Troubles, in both cases ethnic cleansing enthusiasts are/were influential parties if not senior decision-makers on both sides. Taking sides in a dispute between two groups of ethnic cleansing enthusiasts is the act of an idiot.
In the case of Spencer vs. the antifa, the ethnic cleansing enthusiasts only hold sway over one side, so it’s easier to chose who to support or at least chose which is better and which is worse. That’s not a hard ethical problem for me to solve at all.
4 Likes
I’m sure that their friends in Germany, industrialists and aristocrats, were telling them that too. Being a pre-Holocaust Denier was easier then.
1 Like
Chamberlain brought the reputation on himself. Diplomacy in the sense of Will Rogers’ maxim would have been to go to Munich, quietly buy as much time as possible by selling out the Czechs, and then go home and immediately put British industry on a war footing as much as possible while getting the colonial mess sorted to deal with war (both things happened. but only after war was declared). Appeasement is going to Munich, coming back waving a piece of paper at the newsreel cameras as “proof” that Hitler is a reasonable fella who’s not at all interested in war and expansionism, and then doing dick-all over the next year to prepare for the second war to end all wars.
If anti-Semitism is the “socialism of fools” then appeasement is the pacifism of fools – especially entitled and privilege-blind ones. Which brings us back to those who wring their hands over Richard Spencer getting punched.
What we now call the Holocaust was already rolling in 1938, despite the fact the term “Final Solution” was still three years away. The Nuremberg Laws had been in place for three years and Dachau had been in operation for five years and was already taking Jewish inmates. The denialists in the British Tory Party, in the America First Movement, and within Germany’s conservative establishment were just too blinded by the glare of their own privilege and their own casual or not-so-casual racism to see what was out in the open.
2 Likes
I don’t know. there’s a lot of mis-reading, mis-representing and straw manning going on. If I’m being generous I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction.
Not true for Northern Ireland, Catholics were very heavily discriminated against and certainly weren’t senior decision makers. One of the justifications for the violence was that it would bring the British to the table, although it actually hardened reaction to them (“we don’t talk to terrorists”).
And yet we do it with Israel.
But that’s not the hard ethical problem I’m trying to look at. The problem isn’t who you support (that one’s easy*), but how you support.
Is violence useful? Is violence necessary? If it is, how much violence do you use? How do you pick the targets? How do you deal with fallout and blowback from it? These are the hard questions.
*I’d like to point out yet again, I do not, and have never, supported the right or far right.
There were two main parties in conflict during The Troubles. The Catholics were discriminated against by the British and by Irish protestants, but the ethnic cleansers were a big influence within the IRA.
The American right specifically does it with Likud and its allies (including ethnic cleansers). While I support the wider and original conception of the state of Israel, U.S. support has been so perverted toward equating the Israeli political right with Israel itself over the past 30 years that it is indeed foolish to ally with them.
Correct. And sometimes support involves giving an ally who’s not as privileged as you are a little understanding, instead of alienating them by making false equivalencies between those for whom violence is part of their ideological agenda and those who use it in self-defense or occasionally in anger. Doing that is one of the things that puts one on the road to appeasement.
The law, which is still operational in the U.S. even for those who advocate ethnic cleansing. The U.S. in 2018 isn’t Weimar Germany, any more than the antifa are the 1920s and 1930s KPD. I’m all for Spencer filing assault charges against the guy who punched him on-camera, but he won’t because a trial would raise other hard questions about his words that he’d rather not enter public discourse.
1 Like
Yes, they were willing to accept second-class citizenship for some and persecution by category. And this is why we don’t have public forum debates with genocidal racists, because there is no room for discussion, compromise or middle ground.
If a bunch of rape enthusiasts wanted a public platform for their views on the benefits of rape, I doubt there would be a discussion.
4 Likes
Ultimately, I think that this is why Spencer’s getting socked on camera happened. The assailant saw an ethnic cleansing enthusiast being given a public platform by a media outlet to spew his garbage and, perhaps in a fit of rage, reacted by deciding he’d turn it into another kind of “media opportunity.”
3 Likes
