You can counter protest without being violent. You can be Antifa without being violent. And if we’re talking about image and optics, it’s going to awful if these clashes lead to some right winger getting killed.
1 Like
Yes you can peacefully protest against them and if that is your jam then do it. It shows people at home watching on TV that there are people against fascism and racism. However THEY do not see a big crowd against them and think “Oh gee all these people are against us I guess we’re wrong, sorry guys.” They see a crowd against them and see coloreds and queers and worst of all race traitors who are all weak cucks who don’t fight back, and THAT is the attitude that Antifa is there to fight against. And Antifa by definition takes the stance that violence against fascism and white supremacy is acceptable and necessary.
I’m not inflexible in my moral code, and as a lawyer, I know better than most that the law is fallible. The difference between me and the pro-punchers is that despite that fallibility, I don’t think that giving up on the law is a better alternative.
Laws will never be perfect, and there are some terrible laws out there. There will always be corrupt and bad cops, but that doesn’t mean we just throw the whole system into the trash, it means we try and fix it to the best of our abilities. It will never be perfect, but nothing is. Blaming the law for what the police did or didn’t do is like me blaming the car for the drunk driver that kills someone. Replace the driver, throw the drunk in jail, but fix the car. We have a major problem with the police in this country, but we’re at least starting to acknowledge it, it’s out in the open now which is more than we could have said even a couple years ago.
And I’ve already agreed with a couple other forum members here that if someone wants to punch a Nazi, and is willing to suffer the legal consequences of that, that’s fine with me. What I want, what I’m asking for, is clarification. We have two situations at the opposite extremes of the spectrum: Richard Spencer being punched while giving an interview, which some users have said deserves to be a crime, and Nazis carrying weapons and violently confronting people, which I’ve always said people can defend themselves against. What I want to know is what about all the situations in the middle of those two extremes? That’s where, for me at least, the law comes into play.
There’s a difference between First Degree Murder, Manslaughter, and Reckless Endangerment. While far from perfect, the law can take a situation and hopefully analyze it to apply the right outcome, at least in theory. Someone who drives a car while drunk and kills someone is treated differently from someone who goes out and buys a gun and plans on how to kill someone. The law handles these situations differently. But what the pro-punchers seem to be advocating for is to just let individuals decide when it’s OK to punch or not punch someone. There are no constants anymore. Anything goes. What you think is First Degree Murder, someone else may think is Manslaughter.
I’m getting a little tired of people making assumptions about me just because I happen to disagree with them. This isn’t just hypothetical for me. Just because I’m unwilling to give in to the anarchy doesn’t mean I don’t know first hand that it’s there. You want to disagree with me? That’s fine, I can respect a good counter argument. I actually enjoy it, and can respect that. But you don’t do that. Instead, you make assumptions about me without addressing my points. You try to dismiss me because you think I’m privileged.
You know what? I am privileged, but so is everyone on this forum, whether it’s our race, or our education, or our income, or the families we grew up in, or even the country we live in. In one way or another, everyone here is privileged, so get off your high horse. At least I can admit it. But even if I am privileged in some aspects of my life, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t experienced injustice, that I haven’t had my own confrontations with hate and bigotry.
You disagree with me? Fine, I’m OK with that. Lots of people disagree with me, but you’re the only poster in this thread that keeps attacking me personally again and again, instead of my arguments. You don’t know me, you have no idea what touches or doesn’t touch my life. I would never make that assumption about you. The least you can do is afford me the same courtesy.
2 Likes
Yesterday I had a weird thought: During Trump’s press conference he made the following statement.
Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at [indiscernible] – excuse me – what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?
First of all, it should be pointed out that the “[indiscernible]” is from a switch in the audio and seemed like he used the word “us”. You can draw your own conclusions from that. However, the whole statement also reminded me of something which I first couldn’t quite place. Then I remembered. It’s this:
It seems to me very much like Nazi-sympathizers, such as Trump is, are seeking any excuse whatsoever to make it the fault of counter-protestors and give themselves “permission” to become violent.
The whole system does need to go in the trash and be rebuilt from the ground up and giving up on the law is a viable alternative because the law does not do enough. And as far as I am concerned punching Spencer and fighting Nazis carrying weapons and violently confronting people are the same level of self defense.
Thank you. Thank you for coming right out and saying that.
I think that comparison is ludicrous, but at least if you believe that, than your internal logic is consistent. You and I will never agree on this topic, but at least I can understand your worldview based on it.
2 Likes
And Antifa by definition takes the stance that violence against fascism and white supremacy is acceptable and necessary.
I don’t know if there is a concrete definition of antifa right now. Although there are claims to historic groups, as far as I can tell everyone is winging it.
I know my privileges and intersections. Calling out privilege isn’t an insult, or a personal attack. It’s saying your language and argument is emblematic of someone who does not see nor acknowledge their blind spots. It’s asking if you want to be a more aware person, and see outside your own experience and perspective.
I’m basing my conclusion from your posts, not my imagined version of your life.
One example:
- Yes, just turn oneself in because police will protect you, not shoot you. when you call for them. Or when you display perfect passivity. Or are obeying the law. And they will not beat you to death. for reasons? Or subsequently charge you for resisting arrest. Or rape you. Or cavity search without warrant or consent. etc
- Meanwhile, you’re still expecting other people to conform to your arbitrary personal principles, despite all the evidence that it would be at risk of life, or engage in courteous debate with you, as though your hand-waving of injustice, brutality, and death isn’t incredibly offensive.
I’ll leave you to argue with the courteous ones.
5 Likes
I think I see a difference in how people are thinking on both sides of the debate.
Think about the difference between the sports team that cheats, wins the cup, pays the fine and keeps the cup and the sports team that cheats and has the cup taken from them as the penalty.
The situation informs whether you should cheat or not.
Those advocating for violence think that the personal fines or jail is worth the price of victory. Those advocating for law think that a violent victory is one that will be taken away.
Can anyone explain why necessarily violent opposition to Nazis gives a more sustainable victory scenario?
Well is quite simple. The old bobbies back in bingbongshire have got special booty-boots that stop your lower pegs from being knobbled my a scakklywag with bigger booty-boots that can run you a-mucker. Does that help?
Buy me a beer sometime, and the story’s yours.
I thought I did a good job of explaining.
This is late, but I was trying to find this yesterday and couldn’t.
You show up, you call them friend, you march with them? You’re a Nazi. You want genocide. You want domination. That’s what Nazism is and you’re supporting it. Get punched, imo.
2 Likes
They never weren’t. I’m happy these tech giants are being shamed into refusing these people’s money. Now if we can just get twitter to ban them, that’d be great.
Mate, if I get the chance, I think just 1 beer isn’t enough for all the awesome you’ve brought me over the years.
Cribblins the bongle brie old boy do you mean that you don’t understand my banter?
Do people actually believe the “don’t try to erase history!” argument or are they just using it as a cheap tactic accusing people of nonsensical bullshit a la a gish gallop. Nobody ist trying to change history. They are just saying that horrible people like the confederates do not deserve effigies of reverence built for them and keeping those around only serves to validate their despicable deeds.
I’d say it’s 50/50, but I’m an optimist.
It’s just another one of those arguments that makes logical sense if you view the world very very simply. Ever see someone make this stupid argument?
- Feminism contains the root “fem”
- I believe that ALL people should be equal.
- If feminism contains the root fem, it must not be for equality. It must be a believe that women should be above men. Just like manism would be a belief that men should be above women.
- Therefore, I am an equalist, not a feminist.
This seems very logical on the surface. To a naive person who doesn’t know much, it is logical. To understand why it is wrong requires subtlety and complexity. It takes quite a bit to explain why this is wrong. A complex message is a difficult message to sell.
Let’s say I go find some historical monument in a NYC park (there are plenty) and destroy it. This seems obviously wrong. So why is it not wrong to destroy a confederate monument? Vandalism is wrong, so how can one instance be wrong and another instance not be wrong? Explaining this is complex. It requires subtle understanding and lots of facts. For example, you need to know that these monuments were put up long after the civil war during the civil rights movement as a threatening symbol to African Americans. It’s not easy to explain. It’s complex. It’s hard to sell the message. And to people with a very unsubtle view of the world, it seems illogical.
It’s kind of like how punching a nazi is ok, but punching someone else is not ok. It’s hard to make someone understand that when they simply believe that all punching is wrong. Or that all property destruction is wrong.
5 Likes