Originally posted by Eutychus:
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:(This obviously applies to the US in ways that it won't in other places -- hate does not have the same rights in Germany that it has here. Here, hate speech is protected speech. So shipmates contributing to this thread might want to indicate the context in which they're responding.)
From the pdf of this document:
6 CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE
Do not attend a hate rally. Find another outlet for anger and frustration and for people’s desire to do something. Hold a unity rally or parade to draw media attention away from hate.
Hate has a First Amendment right. Courts have routinely upheld the constitutional right of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups to hold rallies and say whatever they want. Communities can restrict group movements to avoid conflicts with other citizens, but hate rallies will continue. Your efforts should focus on channeling people away from hate rallies.
DO NOT ATTEND A HATE RALLY
As much as you might like to physically show your opposition to hate, confrontations serve only the perpetrators. They also burden law enforcement with protecting hatemongers from otherwise law-abiding citizens.
quote:I would demonstrate peacefully too. If trouble started I would either stand my ground or melt away depending on the trouble. I would not stand up to the police.
Originally posted by Kitten:
I think my inclination would be to confront them peacefully, I hope I would be brave enough to.
quote:Because often the locus of the rally is significant. A counter-protest elsewhere does not have the same impact.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Folks who would opt for peaceful confrontation: why? Why would you choose that instead of attending a peaceful event elsewhere?
quote:Because peaceful events elsewhere have absolutely zero impact on the people we are protesting against. The fascists are free to march and chant and wave their flags and give their speeches.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Folks who would opt for peaceful confrontation: why? Why would you choose that instead of attending a peaceful event elsewhere?
quote:I simply refuse to be that guy.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
quote:Do you mean having a protest elsewhere vs standing up to the Neo-Nazis? Or some other approaches that are being suggested..?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do any of the posters arguing strongly for either approach have empirical evidence that it works? I appreciate that empirical evidence in this context is hard to define.
quote:I can see bringing my daughter to a planned, peaceful demonstration. Not now, as she is at the height of her terrible twos, and getting to the demonstration alone, much less standing around listening to speeches, would take a whole lot of energy, and frankly, she would not appreciate it. But some day in the future? Sure.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And there is a power in bringing children
quote:The Womens Marches are a variation on the "peace-rally-across-town". They were not organised to counter protests by pro-Trump supporters. A long way from protests standing in the face of Nazi thugs.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I went to the Womens March in Washington DC in January. It was amazing. So many people! I had not known that there were millions and millions of people who felt as I did. It was enormously encouraging and empowering.
And there is a power in bringing children, in having the dog along, in clergy wearing their robes and grannies in pink hats. When there's that many people, clearly not planning to be violent (there were people with strollers, people carrying toddlers on their shoulders) there is a sense of good will, of safety even. We were together.
quote:In the military cemetery where my father's cousin is buried in Michigan along with other German WW2 POWs some of whom also committed atrocities, there is a memorial service each year, and German consular officials attend. The focus is probably completely different than your BNP involvement. Though I do consider my family in Remebrance services, and object to the promotion of troops and military versus the sorrow in some of these ceremonies and services (if you read in hell, I outline my extended family's Nazi past a little).
Originally posted by Callan:
The US is different to the UK, but when I was a student in London I attended the anti-fascist demonstration at the cenotaph when the BNP were laying their wreaths (presumably in memory of the Horst Wessel Panzer division). Both my grandfathers served in World War II and I thought the presence of Nazis at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday was an insult to their memory.
quote:I had in mind the first question. I suppose my issue is that anyone of moderate intelligence who's had to write essays at school can come up with reasons why an approach might work, and reasons why it might not.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Do you mean having a protest elsewhere vs standing up to the Neo-Nazis? Or some other approaches that are being suggested..?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do any of the posters arguing strongly for either approach have empirical evidence that it works? I appreciate that empirical evidence in this context is hard to define.
quote:But genuinely, does attempting to be intimidating ever actually work?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because peaceful events elsewhere have absolutely zero impact on the people we are protesting against. The fascists are free to march and chant and wave their flags and give their speeches.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Folks who would opt for peaceful confrontation: why? Why would you choose that instead of attending a peaceful event elsewhere?
A counter-demonstration that dwarfs the fascists, with their own banners and whistles and and voices, is there to be intimidating. That's the whole point.
quote:Not to those people, no. It may be too late for them. But it might make them less attractive to disaffected youth who are looking for someone to identify with, but are not as of yet tied to any one disaffected group's ideology. There is a book written by just such a person who became a newnazi and then left when his daughter was born. He wasn't a neonazi at first, just feeling rejected and needing someone to identify with. The neonazis took him in and groomed him, and before long he believed their lies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the current context we're talking about people who, however wrongly, perceive their "culture" to be under threat. I'm not terribly persuaded that trying to outnumber them is going to do anything other than reinforce that view.
quote:Yes. In my experience, it does work. And again especially if they're opposed by a multitude of faces that look like their own.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But genuinely, does attempting to be intimidating ever actually work?
In the current context we're talking about people who, however wrongly, perceive their "culture" to be under threat. I'm not terribly persuaded that trying to outnumber them is going to do anything other than reinforce that view.
quote:That is wonderful. How could it be implemented in Charlottesville?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I heard about this strategy from 2014 to co-opt a Nazi march. The creatively subversive nature of it tickles one's fancy and reminds me of Walter Wink's creative resistance.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But I'm not Jewish, and doing that would make them even more of a target.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But shaming the white supremacist posters in social media has a down side: some people were misidentified. Similar thing happened after the Boston Marathon bombing. Some New Yorker was mistakenly identified as one of the terrorist brothers, and IIRC things got pretty tense.quote:Great idea!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I heard about this strategy from 2014 to co-opt a Nazi march. The creatively subversive nature of it tickles one's fancy and reminds me of Walter Wink's creative resistance.
quote:Brilliant. Right up there with the Iron Ovary awards. Unrest at its best.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Great idea!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I heard about this strategy from 2014 to co-opt a Nazi march. The creatively subversive nature of it tickles one's fancy and reminds me of Walter Wink's creative resistance.
quote:Huia, it pains me to say the following - I am a believer in non-violence, I consider myself a student of non-violent methods and theory and I have in the past considered myself a follower of MK Gandhi and his methods (that got increasingly hard to sustain for reasons too complex to go into now).
Originally posted by Huia:
Mr Cheesy, I didn't see your post before I posted, but my impression is that you think face -to-face confrontation is the only/best way of dealing with this. (if I've got it wrong, I apologise), whereas I think there are more options as demonstrated by those opposing the Nazi march to Rudolph Hess' former grave and the Southern Poverty Law Center's list mentioned above.
Huia
quote:Why let them set the rules of the game?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But now I'm thinking that if the Nazis come to my town I'm going down there and getting right in their faces.
quote:I don't believe in passive anything. Non-violence is not a method of passivity conducted by people who haven't the strength to do anything else.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why let them set the rules of the game?
If such a group has the initiative (e.g. by organising a march) the best response to my mind is one that subverts it; otherwise one is stuck in their game, their rules. Cliffdweller has offered one means of subversion; passive resistance of one kind or another is a different one. I think the Kingdom of God is all about subversion.
quote:I think that distinction makes jack shit difference. If a mob is trying to surround someone to lynch them, then the right thing to do is to get in the way. If they start swinging weapons, then one can legitimately counter them with anything one has to hand to protect the innocent.
Also, I think it makes a big difference whether one is facing up to the authorities in place (in one form or another) or a distinct group.
quote:It seems to me that tactics are going to be different depending on whether law enforcement can be relied upon to fulfil a role of crowd control or whether law enforcement is perceived as the adversary.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think that distinction makes jack shit difference. If a mob is trying to surround someone to lynch them, then the right thing to do is to get in the way. If they start swinging weapons, then one can legitimately counter them with anything one has to hand to protect the innocent.
Also, I think it makes a big difference whether one is facing up to the authorities in place (in one form or another) or a distinct group.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I refer the honourable Shipmates to this, and especially this part:
quote:I simply refuse to be that guy.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:So what if law enforcement are not the adversary but are not doing anything to protect the public from the neo-Nazis either?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that tactics are going to be different depending on whether law enforcement can be relied upon to fulfil a role of crowd control or whether law enforcement is perceived as the adversary.
quote:I don't know. All I'm trying to say is that it's yet another significant variable. These things seem to vary a lot from country to country, as Rosa Winkel's post illustrates.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:So what if law enforcement are not the adversary but are not doing anything to protect the public from the neo-Nazis either?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that tactics are going to be different depending on whether law enforcement can be relied upon to fulfil a role of crowd control or whether law enforcement is perceived as the adversary.
quote:I know, right.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm still having trouble getting my head around a legal armed militia in Charlottesville being more heavily armed than the local police and having enough discipline not to open fire.
quote:And again, I think this overlooks too many levels of detail. Are the police rules of engagement to suppress violence on all sides? Contain violence on all sides? Contain violence to demonstrators as opposed to non-participants? Allow one side to attack the other but not vice versa? Is there a bad order from the top or is there a single operational bad decision counter to rules of engagement that just happens to take place in front of a smartphone? Whose smartphone? Is the incident representative of the event as a whole? Was it provoked in the knowledge that the recording device was there?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think if police don't intervene to stop neo-Nazis attacking people, they are part of the problem. It can only be tacit support.
quote:Acetylene torches are hard to manipulate, especially on the QT. A friend of a friend has noted that there is epoxy glue. And plastic dildoes. Colored ones. I'm thinking a nice hot pink.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And somebody tear that FUCKING statue down. Ram a truck into it. Cut it down with oxy-acetylene.
quote:That's what we've been doing the last 50 years. It didn't work.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If those who oppose leave them alone, and the media controls itself by not covering their activities, will they not fade into darkness?
quote:They choose a more vulnerable target.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My personal experience is that bullies, ignored, never just go away. They come back, and back, for more of their sick entertainment.
quote:If they were an isolated, fringe group your suggestion might have merit. The problem is that they are larger than their presence indicates. Both directly, in the people who completely share their beliefs and indirectly, in the people who share some of their beliefs. Lack of opposition emboldens. These are not Nazi Kardashians, or fascist Hiltons. Publicity is part of their strategy, but only part.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
In my opinion, people like this want attention. They crave publicity. Now, I may be wrong about that, but if I am right, those who oppose them should just let them do their thing.
quote:Counter protesting is contesting their narrative, not their right to speak.
Why don't we allow them the freedom to express their opinions, even if we believe them to be hateful? Surely we expect them to allow us the same freedom?
quote:You honestly think this is likely? The media care most about selling content and this content sells. They are not giving that up. Especially not now, when established media is struggling. They cannot afford not to cover anything like this. Even had they actual morals.
and the media controls itself by not covering their activities,
quote:There is a difference between a decent German ceremony mourning the German war dead and allowing a neo-Nazi party to lay a wreath at the cenotaph. The first I have absolutely no problem with.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:In the military cemetery where my father's cousin is buried in Michigan along with other German WW2 POWs some of whom also committed atrocities, there is a memorial service each year, and German consular officials attend. The focus is probably completely different than your BNP involvement. Though I do consider my family in Remebrance services, and object to the promotion of troops and military versus the sorrow in some of these ceremonies and services (if you read in hell, I outline my extended family's Nazi past a little).
Originally posted by Callan:
The US is different to the UK, but when I was a student in London I attended the anti-fascist demonstration at the cenotaph when the BNP were laying their wreaths (presumably in memory of the Horst Wessel Panzer division). Both my grandfathers served in World War II and I thought the presence of Nazis at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday was an insult to their memory.
quote:You wrote what?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Surely we expect them to allow us the same freedom?
quote:As far as I understand, Germans don't commonly have ceremonies for the war dead and do not apparently have war memorials in every village like in England.
Originally posted by Callan:
There is a difference between a decent German ceremony mourning the German war dead and allowing a neo-Nazi party to lay a wreath at the cenotaph. The first I have absolutely no problem with.
quote:This is some crazy shit. One side can to a protest with machine guns, helmets and shields and talked of killing people in the street if they got in the way.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
What I've seen going on over the last good while is like how Ennio Flaiano described Italy. "In Italy, fascists divide themselves into two categories: fascists and antifascists."
It appears events such as in Charlottesville and the like will be happening more often and draw large crowds of people that are a real drag to be around.
quote:That may be a recent convention. Triumph of the Will features a famous scene of Hitler, flanked by Heinrich Himmler and Viktor Lutze, laying a wreath on the German memorial to the First World War (though I imagine at the time it was simply "The Great War"). Of course, such infamous imagery may be why German officials don't do that anymore. A later war cemetary visit by a German Chancellor and an American President was a more than adequate illustration of the potential pitfalls of such actions, though at least it inspired a song by the Ramones which is more than you can say for most presidents.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As far as I understand, Germans don't commonly have ceremonies for the war dead and do not apparently have war memorials in every village like in England.
Which makes it a bit odd to hear of an official German delegation to a war cemetery abroad. I didn't think that happened.
quote:What I've seen going on over the last good while is the perniciousness of "bothsideism". I used to think it was just a lazy way of trumpeting one's own moral superiority ("both sides are always equally and symmetrically bad, and it's the morally superior option to simply denounce both"), but I've come to see it as one of the big factors driving a lot of contemporary American extremism, particularly on the right. After all, there's if there's no action you can take that's so extreme (e.g. deliberately running people down with a motorized vehicle) a significant chunk of the punditocracy and internet bloviators won't automatically and reflexively blame equally and symmetrically on your opposition, concerns about reputational damage and public image are minimized.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
What I've seen going on over the last good while is like how Ennio Flaiano described Italy. "In Italy, fascists divide themselves into two categories: fascists and antifascists."
quote:I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is some crazy shit. One side can to a protest with machine guns, helmets and shields and talked of killing people in the street if they got in the way.
The other side was made up of a group which says it promoted and protected Muslims, Jews, LGBT+ people, atheists and others.
The one is about inclusion the other is about exclusion and hatred.
quote:Well, you do have a point. There is such a thing as the nicest guy in prison.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I've seen going on over the last good while is the perniciousness of "bothsideism". I used to think it was just a lazy way of trumpeting one's own moral superiority ("both sides are always equally and symmetrically bad, and it's the morally superior option to simply denounce both"), but I've come to see it as one of the big factors driving a lot of contemporary American extremism, particularly on the right. After all, there's if there's no action you can take that's so extreme (e.g. deliberately running people down with a motorized vehicle) a significant chunk of the punditocracy and internet bloviators won't automatically and reflexively blame equally and symmetrically on your opposition, concerns about reputational damage and public image are minimized.
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:They are often (but not always) the ones to watch out for.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There is such a thing as the nicest guy in prison.
quote:I resent the implication that those not ready to throw punches lack courage.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My personal experience is that bullies, ignored, never just go away. They come back, and back, for more of their sick entertainment.
My policy is: turn up; counter-protest peacefully; be prepared to defend anyone whom the Nazis intend to hurt; be ready to throw the second punch. I've done the first two, and I hope I would have the courage to follow through with the second two if necessary.
quote:That's a decent, honorable and wise response. Why do so few seem to understand that if you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy but the pig likes it?
Originally posted by leo:
The EDL marched through our city one Saturday so on the Sunday afternoon we did a prayer walk, led by our bishop, in the opposite direction.
When the National Front marched down Cable Street, the then parish priest, Fr. Ken Leech, followed behind them saying the Litany and sprinkling the ground with holy water.
quote:And right there is the nauseating levels of moral equivalence and gaslighting which gives credibility to Nazis.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:That's all well and good, but the Nazis don't recognise lines of clergy. And, as I've shown above, the clergy themselves - including those who say they believe in non-violence - say that they were only protected from being killed because there were other people who were prepared to swing fists to protect them.
Originally posted by Twilight:
A line like the line of clergy to protect others is a good thing, but throwing punches is going to result in a big photo in the news of you punching the Nazi with a caption saying "Trump was right -- there was violence on both sides."
quote:I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:After Wrocław anti-fascists decided to not do a counter-protest in 2012 and do some alternative event instead, away from the fash, I popped along to the neo-fascist "march of patriots" and despite walking along on the market square, a firework was thrown in my direction. I wasn't protesting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also fascism and violence go together like horses and urinating in the woods. The idea that if nobody provokes them then they'll march quietly is quite ridiculous.
quote:Cenoptaphs are more or less just as resplendent in Germany as in the UK. I've worked and been in many towns and villages all over Germany and seen them, largely built for WWI (though there some within Brandenburg for the various wars Prussia had) with then added names for WWII; I've seen chapels and memorial within churches dedicated to "the fallen".
As far as I understand, Germans don't commonly have ceremonies for the war dead and do not apparently have war memorials in every village like in England.
Which makes it a bit odd to hear of an official German delegation to a war cemetery abroad. I didn't think that happened.
Generally speaking, those who are seeking to commemorate the Axis war dead are Nazis. Which seems weird to me, but there it is.
quote:Why do you fail to understand that swinging fists to protect a man from being lynched is in no way the same as a mob dragging a man away to be lynched?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's a decent, honorable and wise response. Why do so few seem to understand that if you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy but the pig likes it?
quote:And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:And right there is the nauseating levels of moral equivalence and gaslighting which gives credibility to Nazis.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:Fair enough, I was talking to my German relatives around Armistice Day who suggested that the British poppy memorialising about fallen German soldiers was not a thing. Maybe I misunderstood what they meant.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Cenoptaphs are more or less just as resplendent in Germany as in the UK. I've worked and been in many towns and villages all over Germany and seen them, largely built for WWI (though there some within Brandenburg for the various wars Prussia had) with then added names for WWII; I've seen chapels and memorial within churches dedicated to "the fallen".
I don't know if every village has them though.
Berlin has a "Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Victims of War and Dictatorship", the
Neue Wache, a controversial memorial, as it remembers both victims and perpetrators. Premiers and presidents have been known to lay wreaths there on November 11th, though I'm not sure if it happens every year.
quote:I don't fail to understand it. People were there from both sides to have a gang fight. They went home happy. Good for the people, if any, who tried to keep them from going at it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Why do you fail to understand that swinging fists to protect a man from being lynched is in no way the same as a mob dragging a man away to be lynched?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's a decent, honorable and wise response. Why do so few seem to understand that if you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy but the pig likes it?
quote:I wholeheartedly agree that non-violent protests are anything but passive, and they require considerable strength and courage.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't believe in passive anything. Non-violence is not a method of passivity conducted by people who haven't the strength to do anything else.
...
If a mob is trying to surround someone to lynch them, then the right thing to do is to get in the way. If they start swinging weapons, then one can legitimately counter them with anything one has to hand to protect the innocent.
quote:I am a pacifist and I believe in non-violence.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
quote:Some of the anti-fascist side are violent thugs, no doubt. At least some of the antifa leaders don't think damaging property is violent, and some of those people are the same people who go around torching cars and smashing windows when the G20 comes to town.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:If the only alternative to passivity is violence, then I choose violence. To paraphrase Gandhi.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wholeheartedly agree that non-violent protests are anything but passive, and they require considerable strength and courage.
Where I fail to follow your argument is when you then switch from non-violence to justification for countering the use of violence with "anything one has to hand". Surely the whole point of non-violent action to protect the innocent is that it's done without accepting the need to grab whatever you can find to do that. A line of people linked arm in arm standing between the mob and those they seek to harm protects the innocent. Period. And, while linked arm in arm you are unable to swing a punch, or grab a convenient whatever. You just stand there and take a beating, if that's what it takes. It takes courage, it takes strength, it doesn't require hitting out in response.
quote:This is why I am a pacifist but not an absolute pacifist. This is also why I believe in Gandhian non-violence but allow that it isn't always the best available technique.
It's a course of action that many in our world would describe as foolish. But, what's wrong with being foolish? Maybe we should live up to the name we've given ourselves and be a Ship of Fools.
quote:I don't believe the the qualitative difference is enough to find a good guy because they both have crossed the line. Crossing the line is crossing the line.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I am a pacifist and I believe in non-violence.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
I'm not giving anyone a pass, thank you very much. But I do believe there is a qualitative difference in the violence of antifa and the Nazis and saying so doesn't give the Nazis a point whatsoever.
quote:In other words "Heather Hayes had it coming".
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't fail to understand it. People were there from both sides to have a gang fight. They went home happy.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:And with this, you're appeasing the violence from the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:There is a group with torches, chanting "Blood and soil", to keep a statue of Lee in place. This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't believe the the qualitative difference is enough to find a good guy because they both have crossed the line. Crossing the line is crossing the line.
quote:So we'll be nicey-nice and wait for the Nazis to do the same. And they won't, and they'll take over.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Some of the anti-fascist side are violent thugs, no doubt. At least some of the antifa leaders don't think damaging property is violent, and some of those people are the same people who go around torching cars and smashing windows when the G20 comes to town.
They are thuggish bastards, and I abhor them.
quote:I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements. Determining one is worse just isn't good enough.
But the other side are actual Nazis. Their entire ideology is thuggish violence and terror against anyone who happens to be black, or jewish, or whatever else. Hate is what defines them. It's not just that hate and violence is a tactic that they use - it is that hate and violence is their entire ideology.
quote:I can see that. It seems preferable to me that statues of various leaders of the confederate and union armies be at civil war battlefields. That way, one can still see them if the chose to go to the battlefield but they don't have to see it in their normal course of life, for those bothered by such things. But that's not to limit statues of union leaders in non-confederate towns. Nor would I mind a statue of Abe Lincoln. The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles should have considered his ideas about how to treat a defeated foe. We may never have even heard of Nazis if they had. The only civil war memorial or statue I can think of around here is a memorial to the soldiers from this county who were killed in the war. To me, the statue in Charlottesville is a matter for the people of Charlottesville to decide. If they are wanting to sell it, bid on it.
And as far as Trump's "good people" go, I'm entirely prepared to believe that there are a bunch of basically decent people who don't want Confederate statues taken down. If they are basically decent people and they think that, then I don't think they have properly thought through what those statues mean to their black neighbours, but that doesn't stop them from being basically decent, naive or stupid people.
quote:Absolutely. The same thing goes if you stand with antifa. This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest. One thing I noticed from the video was one of the chants were "black lives matter, blue lives don't". We have some black lives and blue lives in our congregation. One should be ashamed to cross the line like this.
But here's the thing - if you're a basically decent person, and you find yourself standing alongside a group of Nazis, you need to go somewhere else. If you choose to stand with them, well, then you'll be judged with them.
quote:Then you're not looking clearly. The core belief of the antifa people is "We're not going to tolerate Nazis because they are vile hateful scum". The core belief of the Nazis is "We are vile hateful scum".
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements.
quote:Why isn't it?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements. Determining one is worse just isn't good enough.
quote:Right, so to be clear - your one bit of evidence that they're all the same is that one guy attacked a cameraman and was denounced by the rest of the group... and who oddly maybe wasn't part of them in the first place.
Absolutely. The same thing goes if you stand with antifa. This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest.
quote:Mmm.
One thing I noticed from the video was one of the chants were "black lives matter, blue lives don't". We have some black lives and blue lives in our congregation. One should be ashamed to cross the line like this.
quote:Aye, if Christians won't step up to absorb the violence, war it is.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And with this, you're appeasing the violence from the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
You prefer a fake peace to real justice, just like MLK said of the whites who wouldn't stand with him.
quote:And if that doesn't show the difference between the two sides to you, then nothing will, and you will continue to act as if they're the same, and play right into the Nazis' hands.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest.
quote:There aren't any confederate towns. There was a war about it - remember?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems preferable to me that statues of various leaders of the confederate and union armies be at civil war battlefields. That way, one can still see them if the chose to go to the battlefield but they don't have to see it in their normal course of life, for those bothered by such things. But that's not to limit statues of union leaders in non-confederate towns.
quote:Though, non-violence isn't the same as passivity. Pacifism can, indeed should, be proactive and forceful. Diametrically opposed to passive.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the only alternative to passivity is violence, then I choose violence.
quote:I'm not suggesting other people do anything. I had misunderstood your pacifist position as foregoing violence under any circumstance. However, if a sufficiently large number of people act together in non-violent opposition to the Nazis then force is not necessary.
One cannot expect other people to lay down and die in front of Nazis and one cannot criticise people who are protecting others using reasonable force.
quote:The allies were weak in 1939?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements.
quote:Added to which the core of the counter-protest was not antifa. There were plenty of non-antifa people doing interviews and talking about their groups protesting the Nazis.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Then you're not looking clearly. The core belief of the antifa people is "We're not going to tolerate Nazis because they are vile hateful scum". The core belief of the Nazis is "We are vile hateful scum".
quote:Talking of the allies, this reminds me of the threads we had where it was argued that the allies were just as bad as the Nazis. Both wanted territory, the allies didn't really know about the holocaust so can't claim that as justification and Churchill was a racist. Both sides were violent, and hey presto "moral equivalence".
Originally posted by mousethief:
The allies were weak in 1939?
quote:Well sorry, I've studied non-violence and Gandhism for many years and I don't think it works against fascists and Nazis who don't give a shit.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, non-violence isn't the same as passivity. Pacifism can, indeed should, be proactive and forceful. Diametrically opposed to passive.
So, I don't think there are just two options. There is a range of options between the extremes of passivity and violence. Placing yourself in harms way to protect another is not passive, it need not be violent either.
quote:Bullshit. Gandhism worked because the British didn't like to be seen as a violent race. MLK worked because he pricked people's consciences with acts of non-violence.
I'm not suggesting other people do anything. I had misunderstood your pacifist position as foregoing violence under any circumstance. However, if a sufficiently large number of people act together in non-violent opposition to the Nazis then force is not necessary.
quote:Bullshit.
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness. And, I believe that the cause of anti-fascism is strong enough that we don't need to take that route.
quote:It was Czechoslovakia. 20 years after the US contributed to the League of Nations in every way except by actually joining and participating in it after suffering a proportionately much smaller fraction of Anglo-French losses in WWI. Democracies were no longer prepared to make 'unreasonable' sacrifices. Starting with the US.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And England and France can say, "Okay we'll give you Poland but no more."
quote:It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Gandhism worked because the British didn't like to be seen as a violent race.
quote:
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
quote:
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
quote:
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness. And, I believe that the cause of anti-fascism is strong enough that we don't need to take that route.
quote:I think there are many different historical views about why the Gandhi-led Indian movement of Satyagraha worked.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
quote:And there's the heart of it (as I know you know). Ultimately what set India free was the conscience of the British. When they had to turn inside and look, they decided they were a decent people, and that was more important than Empire.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
they couldn't stomach the idea of doing it any longer.
quote:Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think there are many different historical views about why the Gandhi-led Indian movement of Satyagraha worked.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
I think it probably was largely at least partly due to a growing understanding that a small number of British could not control millions of Indians who didn't want to be controlled. And the British lost heart when the realised that their most violent actions were not stopping or crushing Gandhi's rebellion and because they couldn't stomach the idea of doing it any longer.
Again, that's not going to work with people like the Nazis who don't care.
quote:I'm not sure what you are saying here. Hitler and the brownshirts were going around murdering and killing opponents in the 1920s before they got power as far as I remember.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
quote:One could, perhaps, make a case for the bigger battle at the moment not being with the comparatively small number of actual Nazis, but with the very much larger number of people who are prepared to stand by and make excuses for them.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you can stomach endless violence, you can get away with anything, if not stopped. And if the only thing that will stop you is violence, then you must be stopped with violence.
quote:Yeah, the Brits did some pretty disgusting things around the empire even following this - but I think the end of British India set the ball in motion to end the Empire.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And there's the heart of it (as I know you know). Ultimately what set India free was the conscience of the British. When they had to turn inside and look, they decided they were a decent people, and that was more important than Empire.
quote:Yep. And once again fascism and Nazism are literally about the strong overcoming the weak. Violence is baked into the ideology.
If you can stomach endless violence, you can get away with anything, if not stopped. And if the only thing that will stop you is violence, then you must be stopped with violence.
quote:What we do isn't primarily directed at the Nazis who don't give a shit. As you note, they don't give a shit. We're concerned with those who are hanging onto the coat tails of Nazis, those who need the wake-up call of seeing the violence inherent in the system. We're interested in showing that there isn't bad on both sides. In shaming, in society disowning the Nazis.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well sorry, I've studied non-violence and Gandhism for many years and I don't think it works against fascists and Nazis who don't give a shit.
If there is some point in laying down a life before a Nazi, then ok. But if he is just going to walk over your dead body to get to someone else, then your non-violence becomes rather pointless.
quote:I don't understand what you are saying here (which seems historically inaccurate) or what you think the difference is between Nazis in 1920s Germany and in 2017 USA. If you explained rather than announcing and discussed rather than pontificating, this might go better for both of us.
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Mr cheesy. They fought with communists, enforced Jewish store boycotts from '31 in increasing societal antisemitism above the European high norm. The game changer was Hitler's '33 chancellorship.
There is NO comparison with the American street. There is NO mandate for Christians to attack fascists on America's streets.
quote:There is no comparison between the USA's current Neo-Nazis and the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the 1920s. OOokay then.
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no comparison.
quote:Again you're talking in a way that is largely impenetrable. And is very likely bollocks.
The German state imprisoned Hitler but couldn't stop rising institutional and popular antisemitism. The American left is not run by Comintern. The violence of the German left encouraged that of the of the bourgeoisie by proxy through the hard right - that IS a dangerous parallel. Fascists THRIVE on violent opposition by the left. Not so much against the state.
quote:Added to which "should Jews, blacks, women gays have the same civil, political and human rights as straight white men?" isn't a question like "should we nationalise the railways?" or "should we raise or lower taxes?" or "should we reform the electoral system? or even "should we overthrow Saddam Hussein". The other questions we can argue about and people who hold profoundly erroneous views can fall well within the decent human being spectrum.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You wrote what?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Surely we expect them to allow us the same freedom?
You expect fascists to allow people who disagree with them the freedom to oppose them? Fascists don't believe that. That's one of the core things that makes them fascists.
No. That's exactly what we don't expect them to allow us, which is why we're protesting now, while we still can, in an effort to stop them from ever coming to power.
quote:To repeat, I think there's a significant difference between a state confronting Nazism as a state, as a national authority, and a bunch of progressives speculating about confronting a bunch of Nazi thugs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The allies were weak in 1939?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness.
quote:It's not one I'm happy with. It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
There is a group marching to oppose them. This is a good thing to be associated with. There are some bad guys in that group.
See the difference?
quote:I think we are all talking about different things. To be clear, I'm only really addressing the spectrum of situations ranging from small Nazi protests like some of the EDL marches we've seen in the UK, through to the sort of thing we saw in Charlottesville. So, not the situation where the Nazis have got their vile ideas enshrined in law, or where Nazi states invade other nations and engage in mass murder.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are talking about different things, Alan.
...
But when it gets to the point where they are heavily armed and invading a town, then all non-violent bets are off. The non-violent tools have already failed and one has no alternative but to reach for something else.
quote:There is no need for Christians to illegally attack fascists in the US. What's to discuss?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:There is no comparison between the USA's current Neo-Nazis and the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the 1920s. OOokay then.
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no comparison.
quote:Again you're talking in a way that is largely impenetrable. And is very likely bollocks.
The German state imprisoned Hitler but couldn't stop rising institutional and popular antisemitism. The American left is not run by Comintern. The violence of the German left encouraged that of the of the bourgeoisie by proxy through the hard right - that IS a dangerous parallel. Fascists THRIVE on violent opposition by the left. Not so much against the state.
Simply stating things is not a discussion Martin.
quote:OK, to be clear whilst witnessing an EDL march in Dover I stood and watched and didn't punch anyone. I agree that violence is not required in that scenario and even the police didn't really do very much.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we are all talking about different things. To be clear, I'm only really addressing the spectrum of situations ranging from small Nazi protests like some of the EDL marches we've seen in the UK, through to the sort of thing we saw in Charlottesville. So, not the situation where the Nazis have got their vile ideas enshrined in law, or where Nazi states invade other nations and engage in mass murder.
quote:I think it is really hard to see how. I agree that some of the anti-Nazi violence might have been counter-productive (for example pepper spray in the face of the neo-Nazis did not seem to serve any useful purpose) but in the vast majority of situations seen in the many videos, the violence was in response to attacks from the Nazis and was for the purpose of protecting others.
I just don't see that Charlottesville had exceeded the limits of non-violent protest. Those who responded with violence have muddied the waters, justified the presence of armed militia and gave space for people to talk about both sides being to blame (stupid though that was).
quote:It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's all well and good, but the Nazis don't recognise lines of clergy. And, as I've shown above, the clergy themselves - including those who say they believe in non-violence - say that they were only protected from being killed because there were other people who were prepared to swing fists to protect them.
quote:Again I don't see the comparison.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm not sure what you are saying here. Hitler and the brownshirts were going around murdering and killing opponents in the 1920s before they got power as far as I remember.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
Mosley and the British blackshirts tried and failed because people stood up to them.
quote:I'm going to bed - but if you read the links posted above, it wasn't the police that protected them.
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
quote:Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm going to bed - but if you read the links posted above, it wasn't the police that protected them.
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
quote:Dr. Cornel West, who was with the clergy group, has expressed gratitude to those who defended them against the Nazis. I don't know whether his sentiments are shared by everyone who was there.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
quote:But what about when one is in a state that is going Nazi? I can't wait for the state to oppose these people because the state supports these people. At best to follow your advice I would wait until they completely take over, and for some other state (UK, say) to come and oppose them for me. I'd rather not let it get that far if I can do anything about it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I feel this more than I can articulate it, but I suspect it's to do with things like casus belli. It strikes me as dangerous to reason like a state when one isn't one. Isn't that more or less the reasoning of the militias in Charlottesville?
quote:How can you call someone a ni**er and then turn around and say you're not racist? :headdesk:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Interview with one of the wastes of carbon who was in Charlotte.
Equivalent my arse.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
There is a group marching to oppose them. This is a good thing to be associated with. There are some bad guys in that group.
See the difference?
quote:That's quite a leap. It suggests that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is doing a fundamentally worse thing than the things that everyone on the anti-Nazi side is doing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not one I'm happy with. It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
quote:Nazis on one side, people who don't like Nazis on the other.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
quote:I didn't say nothing should be done. I said one should't reason like a state. The moral responsibilities and prerogatives aren't the same.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But what about when one is in a state that is going Nazi? I can't wait for the state to oppose these people because the state supports these people.
quote:Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Interview with one of the wastes of carbon who was in Charlotte.
quote:Hyperbole as a form of response is precisely the kind of thing I'm kicking back against.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not sure what you are proposing. A Nazi with a heart of gold? A counter-protester who secretly kicks puppies?
quote:I think any human being has intrinsic value irrespective of their convictions.
I really don't think you have a firm grasp of the word fundamental.*
quote:Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people's views might be fundamentally worse than others', but that doesn't make them as individuals fundamentally worth less than other people.
quote:The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are, not necessarily in what they do.
In fact I thought that was, um fundamental to the concept of civil rights.
quote:And I find it tough to see the word repulsive slapped equally on an insult directed at a vicious racist thug and on the vicious racist thug themselves. You risk sounding dismissive of the degree of hurt and visceral reaction felt by some of us towards the Nazi movement.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
quote:Whoa. No. Their dependents might win less financial compensation in a lawsuit in the event of them being found to have died through third party negligence due to their poor life choices, but no way do I believe those people have less fundamental value as a result of those poor choices.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Precisely. That's why they aren't "wastes of carbon". You or I might think that what they do is wasting carbon (indeed, one of the early google hits for 'waste of carbon' appears to refer to the practice of rolling coal...) but that doesn't make them wastes of carbon. There's a difference.
The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are.
quote:Sorry about that. I've no doubt about the hurt or the degree of the visceral reaction or its justification, and I know that doesn't come across enough in my posts.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:And I find it tough to see the word repulsive slapped equally on an insult directed at a vicious racist thug and on the vicious racist thug themselves. You risk sounding dismissive of the degree of hurt and visceral reaction felt by some of us towards the Nazi movement.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
quote:Then we shall disagree. They might redeem themselves, but until they do, they are worth less. Poor choices. They have not failed to complete schooling, they have chosen to hate entire groups of people. Poor choice is an entirely insufficient term.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but no way do I believe those people have less fundamental value as a result of those poor choices.
quote:Worth isn't a comparison against others, but of what one can be.
The other danger I see in your response is that you or I are worth more because we, unlike "them", have made the right choices.
quote:I find it equally tough to respond to the idea that in this scenario we focus on the phrase "waste of carbon" rather than the spitting and racist epithets. Or even the alcohol.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Imagine if the internal discourse of your counter-protest group is phrased in terms of "wastes of carbon". You have one rather marginal supporter who is not that smart, a bit impulsive, and he comes to your counter-protest armed with a baseball bat. Maybe he's had a bit to drink to gve himself Dutch courage. He sees a Nazi protestor built like a US football player spit on some defenceless young teenage girl on your side that he rather fancies, and call her all the worst racist epithets you can imagine. This guy boils over, gives the thug - just a "waste of carbon", as he has repeatedly heard - a good blow to the head and shatters his skull as RuthW has described earlier.
quote:You're right, we're going to disagree. I have absolutely no doubt about the relative education levels of both sides here, or about the link between educational failure and crime. None at all.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They have not failed to complete schooling, they have chosen to hate entire groups of people.
quote:So much not this!
Worth isn't a comparison against others, but of what one can be.
quote:The question to my mind is to whether it's ever justifiable to talk in those terms in the context of a discussion that seeks to determine what we would actually go and do faced with a local Nazi protest.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Suggesting that people who describe a Nazi as a waste of carbon are partly responsible for fueling the violence in that scenario seems disproportionate to me, and on the butterfly wings to hurricane in Tibet level of causality.
quote:I don't see it as casual. I see a lot of emotion here. Certainly I feel it. Why would you see it as a casual use?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
quote:I would tend to reverse things. The value of a human being is constant, related to being human rather than what they think and do. Whereas rights are something that people can give up by their choices and actions - in most societies it's universally accepted that people who commit crimes give up the right to freedom (we put them in prison), for example, indeed in some cases that people give up the right to live (when there is a death penalty).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people's views might be fundamentally worse than others', but that doesn't make them as individuals fundamentally worth less than other people.
quote:The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are, not necessarily in what they do.
In fact I thought that was, um fundamental to the concept of civil rights.
quote:We're discussing what we would or should actually do in a counter-protest.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I don't see it as casual. I see a lot of emotion here. Certainly I feel it. Why would you see it as a casual use?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
quote:I guess you missed reading the eyewitness accounts from the clergy I posted above. Here it is again.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
quote:I really hate that phrase. It adds nothing to a conversation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least from a Christian perspective*. Maybe that's another thread.
quote:Nonsense. In the context of this discussion nobody has said that they should be wasted. That's a figment of your imagination.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If, in the context of this discussion, "waste of carbon" is not being used casually, i.e. as mere hyperbole, that's even more alarming: it suggests a deeply-held belief that means what it says, with the implication that any action taken to put an end to that waste of carbon is legitimate.
quote:Thanks for that, I'd seen a few things on FB but I had missed that particular set of accounts. Though I accept that the actions of the more violent anti-fascist protesters did prevent injury (or worse), and that is generally something to be thankful for. But, the accounts I've read (including that) link state that a) the clergy were prepared to get beaten, b) committed to non-violence and would not themselves use the tactics of those who prevented their injuries, c) once violence had broken out they left because the time for non-violence had passed, and d) were too few. If instead of 20 clergy linking hands there were also 200 members of their congregations and other residents there, would the Nazis have attempted to get through at all? Would there have been any need for others to intervene with violence? Though without doubt many are thankful they were not injured as a result of others intervening with violence, that outcome was not what was sought, the aim was to counter the actions of the Nazis without recourse to violence.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I guess you missed reading the eyewitness accounts from the clergy I posted above. Here it is again.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
quote:On this point: I saw a very persuasive argument yesterday that was saying that the black and progressive journalists who had been interviewing some of the most vocal neo-Nazis were actually being drawn into a trap because they Neo-Nazis are very clever at manipulation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can you call someone a ni**er and then turn around and say you're not racist? :headdesk:
quote:I suspect there would have been a massacre if there had been more people.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If instead of 20 clergy linking hands there were also 200 members of their congregations and other residents there, would the Nazis have attempted to get through at all? Would there have been any need for others to intervene with violence? Though without doubt many are thankful they were not injured as a result of others intervening with violence, that outcome was not what was sought, the aim was to counter the actions of the Nazis without recourse to violence.
quote:I don't think casual means hyperbole. It means relaxed and unconcerned. I took your description of casual use to imply a lack of concern in describing someone as worthless.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If, in the context of this discussion, "waste of carbon" is not being used casually, i.e. as mere hyperbole, that's even more alarming: it suggests a deeply-held belief that means what it says, with the implication that any action taken to put an end to that waste of carbon is legitimate.
quote:It respectfully concedes that Lilbuddha's position (that not everyone is always intrinsically worth the same no matter what they do) may not be informed by Christian convictions.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I really hate that phrase. It adds nothing to a conversation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least from a Christian perspective*. Maybe that's another thread.
quote:Maybe there is. But that does not justify the former. What does language like that add to a rational discussion of what should actually be done?
I think there is a real and material different between calling something a "waste of carbon" or "a pile of shit" on one hand and a *Nazi* calling someone else a cockroach on the other.
quote:I meant "casual" in the sense of "not really thinking about what that language brings to the topic at hand", and I persist in thinking that it is not helpful in that respect. We have Hell for that.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think casual means hyperbole. It means relaxed and unconcerned. I took your description of casual use to imply a lack of concern in describing someone as worthless.
You were critical of the term "casual" so if you thought it simply meant hyperbolic something doesn't add up.
quote:It worries me that you are more concerned with someone saying something that is literally true (ie the Nazi is made of carbon and his life is wasted) than the fact that there are other people on the other side who want to create a white homeland with violence.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Maybe there is. But that does not justify the former. What does language like that add to a rational discussion of what should actually be done?
quote:I can't justify my own existence. But I do know that I stand for light and wholeness and they stand for hate and violence. And I know that that is a real and not a minimal pretend difference between me and them.
Unless your rationale for what should be done is actually, seriously based on the fact that the human being facing you across the street is actually more of a waste of carbon than you are.
quote:...you were implying that there was another use that could have been made that you wouldn't find so tough?
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
quote:The neo-Nazis were walking through the university campus of the University of Virigina with lighted torches and shouting neo-Nazi and anti-Jewish slogans.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't think the clergy were defending the statue?
quote:"
No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.
quote:If by "use" I can take you to mean context, yes.
Originally posted by mdijon:
So when you said;
quote:...you were implying that there was another use that could have been made that you wouldn't find so tough?
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
quote:But people here who are arguing against a violent response aren't talking about "tolerating" the Nazis; they're arguing that in resisting them and the ideas they're trying to spread, the power they're trying to sieze, de-humanising them and resorting to violence can end up with playing the same game that they're playing - which then simply becomes a race to the bottom. It's the argument that however despicable their aims, intentions and actions are, however warped they have become, they are still human beings in the act of resisting and seeking to stop them, still have to be seen as such. Violence won't stop the Nazis - hell, World War 2 stopped Hitler's regime but hasn't stamped out Nazi ideas, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now - violence and fights are what they're looking for.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This image
quote:I think that's the question I'm wrestling with in all this, Ian: how do you "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", how do you "do to others as you would have them do unto you", how do you forgive "not seven times, but seventy times seven" in these situations? On the one hand, ISTM that if you're going to follow these then you have to do so in every situation, even when it seems you're going to lose everything by doing so. On the other, that's easy for me to say being so distant from this situation.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Doc Tor: I want to agree. I think I do agree. Facists are vile. And deadly
But.
As with Eutychus, despite my ever-increasing lack of faith, I feel I need to follow the words of my Saviour who even said not to call your enemy a fool (failed above), let alone do not hate. What is the response? I do not know.
Do we turn our back on people and shake the dust of our shoes once people reach a certain level of offensive or dangerous behaviour?
How do you engage while remaining true to the Gospel message? Can you? Or am I misunderstanding?
quote:This is very helpful and I agree with most of it. It is perfectly possible, as shown here, to argue for a pacifist response, and explore what that could involve in practice, without needing to imply that those opting for a forceful response are in some way contributory, lacking in morality and need admonishing.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I don't want to and am not going to criticise the actions of anyone who resisted the Nazis in Charlottesville; the gratitude from the religious leaders to antifa seems genuine, even if it's tinged with disappointment that what they'd hoped to do didn't happen. There aren't 2 sides and I don't see many, if any, posters here suggesting there are - certainly not those who are advocating nonviolence and refusing to dehumanise those who dehumanise others. The question of whether or not we should resist the Nazis isn't complicated: of course we should. But the question of how we do so is, I would suggest, much more complicated.
quote:Yes, I'd agree with that, even if it didn't come across in my post. I think WW2 was necessary at that time (though I do struggle with a line of thought that suggests that that means a violent response to fascism and Nazism is the only means of dealing with them).
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:This is very helpful and I agree with most of it. It is perfectly possible, as shown here, to argue for a pacifist response, and explore what that could involve in practice, without needing to imply that those opting for a forceful response are in some way contributory, lacking in morality and need admonishing.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I don't want to and am not going to criticise the actions of anyone who resisted the Nazis in Charlottesville; the gratitude from the religious leaders to antifa seems genuine, even if it's tinged with disappointment that what they'd hoped to do didn't happen. There aren't 2 sides and I don't see many, if any, posters here suggesting there are - certainly not those who are advocating nonviolence and refusing to dehumanise those who dehumanise others. The question of whether or not we should resist the Nazis isn't complicated: of course we should. But the question of how we do so is, I would suggest, much more complicated.
Having said that in agreement, while it is obviously true that fascism is still with us despite WWII, that doesn't mean that we would still be where we are today without a military response.
I think more oppression, death and injustice would have occurred had there not been military opposition to fascism. The military response sometimes becomes necessary to prevent greater evil, even though it isn't sufficient to solve the underlying problem.
quote:No. Non-violence is a tactic. And I absolutely believe it is a very powerful tactic. I would say that in more than 99% of all situations we are likely to come across non-violence is the best way forward.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The point about nonviolence, I suppose, is that if you're going to follow it, you stick to it even when it is to your detriment to do so, even when it risks you losing your life. You can't drop it when violence occurs against you, otherwise it's not nonviolence at all. That was Martin Luther King's principle wasn't it: even when the temptation to resort to violence is so strong, even when to resort to violence seems to make total sense, you stick with what you've committed to. Or you end up making the same arguments that people make when we go to war against some terrible regime again: this'll be the one that sorts it out, this'll be over quickly, and peace and freedom will be restored quickly. It never is in those cases; it won't be in this case.
quote:I can't honestly see the problem here: if a Nazi needs medical help and you can help, you do. If he asks for a cup of water, you give it to him.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I think that's the question I'm wrestling with in all this, Ian: how do you "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", how do you "do to others as you would have them do unto you", how do you forgive "not seven times, but seventy times seven" in these situations? On the one hand, ISTM that if you're going to follow these then you have to do so in every situation, even when it seems you're going to lose everything by doing so. On the other, that's easy for me to say being so distant from this situation.
quote:Oh, I've no doubt that Luther King and Gandhi were tacticians, that they planned and did those things deliberately and with particular intentions and messages they wanted to send.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:No. Non-violence is a tactic. And I absolutely believe it is a very powerful tactic. I would say that in more than 99% of all situations we are likely to come across non-violence is the best way forward.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The point about nonviolence, I suppose, is that if you're going to follow it, you stick to it even when it is to your detriment to do so, even when it risks you losing your life. You can't drop it when violence occurs against you, otherwise it's not nonviolence at all. That was Martin Luther King's principle wasn't it: even when the temptation to resort to violence is so strong, even when to resort to violence seems to make total sense, you stick with what you've committed to. Or you end up making the same arguments that people make when we go to war against some terrible regime again: this'll be the one that sorts it out, this'll be over quickly, and peace and freedom will be restored quickly. It never is in those cases; it won't be in this case.
But one cannot claim that therefore the believer in non-violence is forced in all situations to stick to non-violence. Otherwise we're saying that defending oneself from a mugger, protecting one's family from assault etc is wrong.
I do enjoy it when people bring MLK into this discussion because so often the examples used are so ridiculous. MLK was the consummate tactician. He absolutely didn't tell people to do anything without thought, planning and training.
The same as Gandhi. The salt protests were not an accidental plan that happened to come good, it was a particular planned idea at a particular time in a particular place.
People accepted blows from those two places of non-violent resistance because they understood the outcomes and planned in detail the battles that were worth fighting.
In neither were they non-violently standing up to heavily armed Nazis.
There were occasions where there were non-violent resistance to Nazis in 1920s-30s Germany, such as the White Rose movement, but that was easily swept away.
The best example of non-violent resistance to Nazi Germany is in Denmark - but there are various reasons why that worked, not least because they got a level of support from local Nazis and because the German high command had other priorities than the Jews of Denmark.
That's not to downplay either of these things - they were brave, noble and right things to do.
But they're absolutely not a model we can expect will work in all times and places. And almost nobody in their right mind would even suggest such a thing.
quote:Sigh. Once he had started on a path of non-violence picking particular targets to bring down the regime of Jim Crow, MLK is hardly going to say that there are some situations where violence is acceptable. Because fairly obviously the message he's trying to put across is that he needs everyone to stick to the plan.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Oh, I've no doubt that Luther King and Gandhi were tacticians, that they planned and did those things deliberately and with particular intentions and messages they wanted to send.
But certainly for MLK, I don't think nonviolence was just a tactic: I think he meant it and I think he meant it, to the best he was able, in every situation. I've not seen anything quoted from him that suggests otherwise ( this seems a good account of how he came to this position and why he held it, including this quote: "Living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life").
quote:He didn't face Nazis because he didn't need to face Nazis. His life was constantly in danger, so he picked his battles.
And while he may never have faced Nazis per se, he certainly faced people who were willing to resort to violence against him and his movement, including those who had political and military power to back them up. Just because they weren't Nazis, doesn't mean they weren't a real and dangerous threat to him and his movement and the people they were struggling for; I don't think it means that had he faced the Nazis in Charlottesville on Saturday he would've dropped his commitment to nonviolence because they're different.
quote:Sure. The question is how to oppose. Not appease. For sure, one thing we learned in the UK in the 30s is that appeasement emboldens the fascist.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To everyone saying there are two sides: you're right. There are two. There are the fascists on one, and their are those who oppose fascism on the other. Pick one. If you're not opposing fascism because of some of the other people also opposing fascism, you've already chosen.
quote:From what I've read, it is simply impossible for me to imagine that if MLK had faced the Nazis in Charlottesville, he would've said, "This threat's different, guys - violence is all we've got". Maybe I'm wrong and he would've: I just don't see it, not given the account I've linked to above. Unless he was lying in what he said, nonviolence wasn't for him just the best strategy to bring down the Jim Crow laws and all the segregation of black people (though I'm sure that was part of it): it came from his understanding of the message of Christ and the example of Christ, most notably the Sermon on the Mount. There's just nothing there to suggest his thought process was limited to the strategic sense: indeed, given the pressure he was on from others in the civil rights movement to change course and choose violence, mightn't there have been strategic sense in doing so?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Sigh. Once he had started on a path of non-violence picking particular targets to bring down the regime of Jim Crow, MLK is hardly going to say that there are some situations where violence is acceptable. Because fairly obviously the message he's trying to put across is that he needs everyone to stick to the plan.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Oh, I've no doubt that Luther King and Gandhi were tacticians, that they planned and did those things deliberately and with particular intentions and messages they wanted to send.
But certainly for MLK, I don't think nonviolence was just a tactic: I think he meant it and I think he meant it, to the best he was able, in every situation. I've not seen anything quoted from him that suggests otherwise ( this seems a good account of how he came to this position and why he held it, including this quote: "Living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a method to which I gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life").
That's absolutely not a reason to say that the only moral response to Nazis is to use MLK's example of non-violence in all situations. Because that's daft.
quote:I know he didn't need to fight Nazis (though I'm not sure there's a huge amount of difference in reality between some of those he did fight and real, actual Nazis). But did he pick his battles? Or did he see this fight as equally urgent and important for the people he lead and spoke for - and, I would argue, for the whole of the population of the USA, whites included - as we see the struggle against the Nazis of Charlottesville and elsewhere today?
He didn't face Nazis because he didn't need to face Nazis. His life was constantly in danger, so he picked his battles.
We don't have the luxury of being able to pick battles. This is a comparison between chalk and cheese.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
His life was constantly in danger, so he picked his battles.
We don't have the luxury of being able to pick battles.
quote:(...)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Gandhi was told in no uncertain terms that whilst he could sacrifice his own body, he was in no position to tell people to sacrifice other people on the altar of his own ideals.
quote:Let's get this straight. Gandhi was not in a position to tell people to sacrifice others on the altar of his ideals, but you are in a position to tell people they have no choice but to enter the fray, bloodily, on your terms and on the basis of your ideals, because you're not interested in any other takes on the situation, which are bollocks?
And if that offends your reading of the Sermon on the Mount, then I'm afraid I'm not too interested in hearing more about it, because it is bollocks.
quote:MLK was protesting the whole system of Jim Crow and could pick targets he thought would bring it down.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:How does this mean we don't have the luxury of picking our battles? How does it mean we have less of a choice than MLK in deciding how to wage them?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In this instance we're not talking about changing the legal and social system in general but about the rise of the neo-Nazis in particular.
quote:My ideals are those of non-violence. But I don't really give a shit about my ideals or your reading of the Sermon on the Mount when Nazis are out to kill people.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Let's get this straight. Gandhi was not in a position to tell people to sacrifice others on the altar of his ideals, but you are in a position to tell people they have no choice but to enter the fray, bloodily, on your terms and on the basis of your ideals, because you're not interested in any other takes on the situation, which are bollocks?
quote:It really isn't. We can talk about tactics we could use to avoid getting to the point whereby neo-Nazis with machine-guns threaten the lives of people. We can talk about how the tactics at the weekend failed and how maybe they could be improved with better planning and thought.
Discussing this sensibly is hard.
quote:I think there is a difference between fighting something that is primarily a legal battle for rights vs fighting a growing cancer of fascism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does this mean we don't have the luxury of picking our battles? How does it mean we have less of a choice than MLK in deciding how to wage them?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is why I despair when people talk about non-violence - it becomes a statement of fundamental belief even though it is pretty bloody clear that MLK was casting around for a tactic to use in the America South when he read about Gandhi and Gandhi was looking for a tactic to use when he read Tolstoy.
Whether they came to believe exclusively in their own rhetoric of non-violence as a solution to all problems in all places I don't know - but I highly doubt it. Gandhi was told in no uncertain terms that whilst he could sacrifice his own body, he was in no position to tell people to sacrifice other people on the altar of his own ideals.
quote:Why? Because it's unrealistic? I think that's the point: Jesus is suggesting in the Sermon, especially in the "Love your enemies" section and everything linked to it, is that the rules of the game that we play by on earth are wrong, aren't God's rules, which are the ones we should be playing by. And to continue to play by those rules because they're more "realistic", even if we believe ourselves to be in the right, is just going to perpetuate the violence, suffering and enmity - it will not bring about the righteousness that God desires, that we long for, that the oppressed suffer from the lack of.
And if that offends your reading of the Sermon on the Mount, then I'm afraid I'm not too interested in hearing more about it, because it is bollocks.
quote:It really is when you dismiss anybody's views that don't align with yours as bollocks, and say things like
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:It really isn't.
Discussing this sensibly is hard.
quote:and
I don't really give a shit about ... your reading of the Sermon on the Mount
quote:Again, that sounds fine for Hell, but I really don't see how it advances discussion.
You people can do whatever the fuck you like
quote:I'm getting really tired of that word being thrown around. Milquetoast is running a close second, with weaksauce a distant third (as nobody's actually used it yet here).
self-righteousness
quote:There very definitely is a difference.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is a difference between fighting something that is primarily a legal battle for rights vs fighting a growing cancer of fascism.
If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it.
quote:I sort of agree with you. If fascists were attacking my neighbourhood with arms, I would shoot back.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed by a Ship of Fools thread in my life, than I have been by this one.
To everyone saying there are two sides: you're right. There are two. There are the fascists on one, and their are those who oppose fascism on the other. Pick one. If you're not opposing fascism because of some of the other people also opposing fascism, you've already chosen.
To everyone else saying that you don't agree with violence: you're also right. I don't agree with violence either, which is why fascism, a violent, hateful ideology that has killed millions of people and will kill millions more if we let it, is utterly beyond the pale. Your Milquetoast objections to Nazis will literally kill people.
quote:Perhaps because, ultimately, there isn't one? Not when you look at the threats of violence and actual violence that were employed against King and the civil rights movement in defence of segregation; not when people actually lost their lives in the struggle.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think there is a difference between fighting something that is primarily a legal battle for rights vs fighting a growing cancer of fascism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does this mean we don't have the luxury of picking our battles? How does it mean we have less of a choice than MLK in deciding how to wage them?
If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it.
quote:Watch the videos. They were attacking people with arms, the one thing they weren't doing is shooting people with their machine-guns, however that might be more luck than judgement given that they were armed to the teeth.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sort of agree with you. If fascists were attacking my neighbourhood with arms, I would shoot back.
However, this is an extreme position, well, in the UK it is, maybe not in US. And then there are all kinds of tactical positions one can take, since the Nazis are not attacking with arms (yet).
quote:This is why I think there must be a range of tactics for a range of circumstances. We hope to never get to the point where the only way to stop Nazis is with restrained violence - but to me the events of last weekend were over that point.
But Germany is an awful warning. The left basically fucked around, calling each other names, and saying that Hitler would be gone soon. No, they were gone soon.
quote:Yes. Where some of us here differ with you is that we think that range of tactics is a lot broader than you appear willing to entertain.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is why I think there must be a range of tactics for a range of circumstances.
quote:Firstly, what's the difference between me telling you that I think you've got the Sermon on the Mount wrong and you telling me my understanding is "bollocks" (especially when you give no reasoning for that)?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well sorry, I'm tired of being told that the things I know about are wrong, that I don't understand about non-violence and I don't understand about the Sermon on the Mount.
quote:But again, nobody think that: I don't and I don't think anyone advocating for nonviolence does. We just don't think that violence, ultimately, is going to bring about the end of what you rightly describe as the growing cancer of fascism.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ultimately I meant what I said: if you think the Sermon on the Mount tells you that you have to stand back whilst Nazis kill people, then it is no use to me. If it makes sense to you, fine. Get out of the way and allow people like me to do what we think is right before the Nazis kill more people.
quote:Really? What despite me saying that 99% of things we're likely to face are best tackled with non-violence and despite me saying that there might have been ways to not get to the point where armed Nazis are threatening to kill people?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. Where some of us here differ with you is that we think that range of tactics is a lot broader than you appear willing to entertain.
quote:No, I don't think they're going away. And I absolutely believe that there are ways to disrupt their plans with non-violence.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Do you think that even if they're beaten off at one protest they'll go away and think, "well that's us told, isn't it?". Do you think if every Nazi in America ws beaten up, the ideas would die a death? Yes, the focus on Nazis seeking violence is necessary and the nonviolence I'm speaking about makes it much harder to deal with that. But to deal with this threat ultimately, you can't just focus on that: you have to deal with the ideas and the reasons people latch on to them. Yoiu have to cut off the out-and-out Nazis from those who mistakenly and foolishly and inexcusably see in them some hope for a solution to their grievances. And you have to give those you fight against no cause for complaint against you, however rubbish that complaint may be; they will take the slightest chance to portray themselves as the victims - you just cannot allow that to happen.
quote:Yes, because you think that for the other 1%, differing views to yours are bollocks.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Really? What despite me saying that 99% of things we're likely to face are best tackled with non-violence
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. Where some of us here differ with you is that we think that range of tactics is a lot broader than you appear willing to entertain.
quote:Right, because it is an ideological belief in non-violence no matter what happens.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because you think that for the other 1%, differing views to yours are bollocks.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Yes, because you think that for the other 1%, differing views to yours are bollocks.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Really? What despite me saying that 99% of things we're likely to face are best tackled with non-violence
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. Where some of us here differ with you is that we think that range of tactics is a lot broader than you appear willing to entertain.
Stejjie is doing a far better job than I ever could here, and expending more energy than I have time for right now. Respond to Stejjie.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
Stejjie's supposed to be preparing Sunday's serivce, but somehow got the bit between his teeth about this... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:I do see what you mean: there is part of me that sympathises and, as I said before, I'm not writing this to criticise anyone who stood against the Nazis at Charlottesville.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:No, I don't think they're going away. And I absolutely believe that there are ways to disrupt their plans with non-violence.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Do you think that even if they're beaten off at one protest they'll go away and think, "well that's us told, isn't it?". Do you think if every Nazi in America ws beaten up, the ideas would die a death? Yes, the focus on Nazis seeking violence is necessary and the nonviolence I'm speaking about makes it much harder to deal with that. But to deal with this threat ultimately, you can't just focus on that: you have to deal with the ideas and the reasons people latch on to them. Yoiu have to cut off the out-and-out Nazis from those who mistakenly and foolishly and inexcusably see in them some hope for a solution to their grievances. And you have to give those you fight against no cause for complaint against you, however rubbish that complaint may be; they will take the slightest chance to portray themselves as the victims - you just cannot allow that to happen.
But I'm not prepared to say that in the final instance it is wrong to protect people with violence if there is no other way.
Non-violence is not an absolute good for me. If it doesn't protect innocent people, it is no good for anything.
quote:For the record, in this context I previously expressed my sympathies with the position of Dietrich Boenhoffer, who was executed for his alleged support for the (evidently non-non-violent) plot to assassinate Hitler.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Right, because it is an ideological belief in non-violence no matter what happens
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because you think that for the other 1%, differing views to yours are bollocks.
quote:Dispassionate is fine for oneself, but can come across as uncaring when others are hurt. And this is compounded when you focus on the apparent repugnance of an emotional turn of phrase when in the context of neo-Nazis. It isn't proportional to admonish those most affected for their modes of expression in the context of what is happening at the moment.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But I do think it's worth carefully (and where at all possible dispassionately) debating when, how, and in what context various courses of action should be undertaken, especially so when it comes to violent courses of action.
quote:I have a major problem with the false dichotomy being presented. Neither antifa or the nazis stand with me. Yet folks say I have to go stand with one of them. Why should I be the one who has to move? Antifa and the nazis are the ones who need to move.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Aye, if Christians won't step up to absorb the violence, war it is.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And with this, you're appeasing the violence from the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
You prefer a fake peace to real justice, just like MLK said of the whites who wouldn't stand with him.
quote:Yes, I see that.
Dispassionate is fine for oneself, but can come across as uncaring when others are hurt.
quote:I picked up on that because I think that the opponents of neo-Nazism being beyond reproach is actually an important consideration in how to conduct that opposition, as others have argued.
And this is compounded when you focus on the apparent repugnance of an emotional turn of phrase when in the context of neo-Nazis.
quote:That's true, but I'm not convinced that the harshness of the vocabulary in response is in all cases a useful guide to the effects actually suffered by the user.
It isn't proportional to admonish those most affected for their modes of expression in the context of what is happening at the moment.
quote:Nobody is asking you to stand with antifa. Nobody is asking you to endorse their tactics, and nobody is asking you to adopt radical anarcho-socialist politics.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I have a major problem with the false dichotomy being presented. Neither antifa or the nazis stand with me. Yet folks say I have to go stand with one of them. Why should I be the one who has to move? Antifa and the nazis are the ones who need to move.
quote:Let me do my own bit of victim blaming then. Is it important to find ways of expressing that differently that aren't at risk of being shouted down as self-righteous?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If taking that line is simply shouted down as being self-righteous, I think an important part of the discussion is lost.
quote:Susan Bro apparently agrees with you and is refusing to meet with Trump after he morally equated her dead daughter with the person who killed her. (Much like some of our own shipmates.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fuck me.
Antifa were not the counterprotest.
The protest were Nazis and other white supremacists.
Using Antifa as a symbol, representative or surrogate of the counter-protest is ridiculous and insulting.
quote:Helpful tip to press secretaries trying to finesse delicate meetings: don't try to call someone during the funeral of their child!
"I'm not talking to the President now," Susan Bro said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I'm sorry. After what he said about my child, and it's not that I saw somebody else's tweets about him. I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters like Ms. (Heather) Heyer with the KKK and the white supremacists."
quote:Up to a point Curiosity Killed. I probably once would have agreed with you. But I now think there comes a point where tout comprendre (to understand all) is not tout pardonner (to forgive all). However alienated, disenfranchised and angry a person may feel, that may be an explanation, but it isn't an excuse. Some things, and some viewpoints, are factually and morally wrong, whatever and irrespective of the reason why a person might hold them, and that's it. We are both entitled and sometimes even obliged to say so. And even if ridiculing them may have the effect of 'othering' them, as you put it, that may be a price that has to be paid for discouraging others from joining them down that path.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I am going to agree with Eutychus here: having worked with young people who went/go on EDL marches and spent a lot of time discussing different world views. Their perceptions are skewed, they are angry and they feel disenfranchised. If we other them we're adding to that disenfranchisement and are driving them further into the acceptance of their far right family.
quote:See now this is the kind of non-violence I'm talking about. I can't really imagine anyone refusing to speak to the POTUS, yet this woman has stuck two fingers up at him on live TV.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Helpful tip to press secretaries trying to finesse delicate meetings: don't try to call someone during the funeral of their child!
quote:The other bit of this which is bullshit is that Antifa were at the counter-protest, the Nazis (Alt-right, etc.) were the protest.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So I'm asking you to stop casting these two groups as equivalent, because they just aren't, and by claiming that they are, you have the effect of providing excuses for Nazis.
quote:There is one crumb of comfort, though. The 'alt-right' label was invented to make right-wing extremism sound edgy and provocative instead of just jerkish. The fact that the alt- prefix is already being used as a pejorative shows that it failed ...
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's been a lot of moral comparison between the "alt-right" and "alt-left". Can I just point out that in the UK you're unlikely to be called "alt-right" unless you actually kill an MP or drive a van into a group of people outside a mosque. But you get called "alt-left" if you believe in universal healthcare and free education.
quote:Why shouldn't a human shield be a means of stopping Nazis from attacking other people? Why wouldn't people getting in the way of Nazis impede their progress? Why does it need someone to take up arms, or to assault them?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The simple fact is that nobody has actually suggested anything which is going to stop neo-Nazis from attacking people if the police refuse to get in the way.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. I'm willing to keep putting the effort in.
quote:Agreed. I don't think a preference for non-violent opposition to neo-Nazi movements implies a moral equivalence between neo-Nazi movements and anti-fascist movements.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There. Is. No. Moral. Equivalence.
quote:Yes. Yes, it is.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, is it clear the police are refusing to get in the way?
quote:Briefly mentioned in Purg not long ago, here and here.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'm not in the "Christian scene" and take it McLaren is a well-known person.
quote:You might appreciate this story, then:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have some advantages in this particular discussion as I look and sound white British but have an *interesting* heritage, which I have been known to disclose part way through the conversation. The best response yet was: "But, but, but ... it's different for you."
I challenge these views all the time, can't count the number of times I've challenged racism and homophobia.
quote:Which gives people another course of action (in retrospect) - asking the questions of why an evidently vulnerable location (both as a synagogue, and on the route of the march) was not covered by a police guard, and how to ensure such vulnerable locations are given police protection in future, because sooner or later they're not going to be lucky enough to avoid damage and harm to members. Of course, there will always be gaps in police cover - if the Nazi march goes off route to locations that were expected to be a safe distance from the marchers, or if small groups of Nazis go somewhere else - but, somewhere like a synagogue, black church or community centre etc is on the planned route of a march then the police should be there. In the UK, it would be normal for the police to walk beside the marchers, between marchers and locations/people they might attack.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes. Yes, it is.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, is it clear the police are refusing to get in the way?
quote:That's an excellent expression of core Christian values. An illuminating eye-witness account. The last two paragraphs spell out proper theological and practical responses. I hope they get taken up.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My respect for Brian McLaren just went back up a notch.
Here is his account of his participation in the day; I'd like to think I'd have acted along the same lines.
quote:I've been to neo-Nazi marches and other protests that erupt into violence in the UK. I think it is very unlikely the British police would do anything other than get in the way between groups to prevent them attacking each other.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which gives people another course of action (in retrospect) - asking the questions of why an evidently vulnerable location (both as a synagogue, and on the route of the march) was not covered by a police guard, and how to ensure such vulnerable locations are given police protection in future, because sooner or later they're not going to be lucky enough to avoid damage and harm to members. Of course, there will always be gaps in police cover - if the Nazi march goes off route to locations that were expected to be a safe distance from the marchers, or if small groups of Nazis go somewhere else - but, somewhere like a synagogue, black church or community centre etc is on the planned route of a march then the police should be there. In the UK, it would be normal for the police to walk beside the marchers, between marchers and locations/people they might attack.
quote:This is quite naive. If the Nazis could be put off by weight of numbers it might have some effect. But the evidence is that they don't give a shit about human life as I said before.
But, this also provides another option for counter protesters. If the Nazis are coming to your town, identify the vulnerable people who might be affected. Press for police protection. And, offer yourselves as human shields. A hundred people linked arm in arm infront of the synagogue would be a very visible sign that the community is not going to allow the Nazis to persecute jews. More people out back to make sure everyone goes home in a large group, or with a small fleet of minibuses, would be a practical assistance.
quote:And historically at least there have been cases where actual confrontation appears to have worked.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is quite naive. If the Nazis could be put off by weight of numbers it might have some effect. But the evidence is that they don't give a shit about human life as I said before.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I just hope they clean up after themselves!
quote:Plus this
Within the Jewish community, there is cautious approval that, while its tactics are no longer valid, the 43 Group’s memory is being resurrected.
quote:
(Mr Beckman) added: “We wanted revenge - the Holocaust was in our minds. We decided we had to out-fascist the fascists.”
quote:Which is a perfectly acceptable thing for the police to do. If the Nazis manage to keep inside the law, with all the appropriate permissions to march etc, then the police have no role beyond maintaining the peace. Though, if things get violent then the resources of more or less marshalling a march are going to be inadequate, and deploying police in riot gear prior to violence breaking out would be seen as provocative. It's a difficult line for the police to walk.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been to neo-Nazi marches and other protests that erupt into violence in the UK. I think it is very unlikely the British police would do anything other than get in the way between groups to prevent them attacking each other.
quote:Though, of course, in the UK possession of firearms would be an offence in itself.
But that's the problem here: the Nazis came tooled up with sub-machine guns and other weapons. I'd hope that wouldn't happen in the UK.
quote:Ultimately, it's only weight of numbers that can have an effect on Nazism. The weight of public opinion that this evil is evil, and the demonstration of that through a range of protest actions - everything from social media comments through political campaigns to direct action.
If the Nazis could be put off by weight of numbers it might have some effect. But the evidence is that they don't give a shit about human life as I said before.
quote:That such a thing happens more frequently does not mean that it is not an episode of madness. It means that madness is increasing alarmingly, and that bad people are choosing to take pride in their hatreds.
Originally posted by simontoad:
... People attack Jewish symbols all the time. It used to be that most people who did this sort of thing were experiencing an episode of madness, but I don't think that's been the case for maybe 30 years. ....
quote:But to be honest, it would be more a case of your neighbours defending you, wouldn't it?!
Originally posted by Martin60:
I live in the heart of the most plural city in Britain and if fascists came down my street it would mean that the state had failed. I would do ANYTHING to defend my neighbours and me and mine.
quote:That rather depends on what sort of action you're going to take. A human barrier of citizens peacefully, non-violently blocking access to a neighbourhood is as effective with 20 year olds as 80 year olds. It doesn't take youth or physical strength to stand arm in arm with dozens of neighbours.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:But to be honest, it would be more a case of your neighbours defending you, wouldn't it?!
Originally posted by Martin60:
I live in the heart of the most plural city in Britain and if fascists came down my street it would mean that the state had failed. I would do ANYTHING to defend my neighbours and me and mine.
If an army of tooled-up fascists came over on a day trip to cause serious havoc in the heart of my city, they'd get their behinds kicked in by the Asian lads. That's what I imagine.
A bunch of ageing Christians wouldn't be of much use on the front line, but they could help by supplying food, water, first aid, encouragement, etc.
quote:A fight would only benefit the Nazis if they had numbers and strength on their side. I can't really imagine that in the British context, although maybe some would try.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A human barrier of citizens peacefully, non-violently blocking access to a neighbourhood is as effective with 20 year olds as 80 year olds. It doesn't take youth or physical strength to stand arm in arm with dozens of neighbours.
I admit that if you intend to pick a fight, then fit and young men would be an advantage. But, then again open warfare on the streets benefits no one except the nazis.
quote:I've been mulling this over and I don't think this is quite as straight-forward as you describe.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Press for police protection. And, offer yourselves as human shields. A hundred people linked arm in arm infront of the synagogue would be a very visible sign that the community is not going to allow the Nazis to persecute jews.
quote:This ageing Christian's got a few more picket- and barricade-days left in him, I assure you!
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A bunch of ageing Christians wouldn't be of much use on the front line, but they could help by supplying food, water, first aid, encouragement, etc.
quote:Well, that simplifies things. The more people they hate, the more enemies they'll have. Where will they be able to march and not get on most folks' nerves?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Trust me, British neo-Nazis have absolutely no trouble deciding that various other white communities are sub-human too.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:This ageing Christian's got a few more picket- and barricade-days left in him, I assure you!
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A bunch of ageing Christians wouldn't be of much use on the front line, but they could help by supplying food, water, first aid, encouragement, etc.
quote:But, what would "work"? As you've reportedly pointed out, some bizarre (IMO) laws allowed the Nazi mob to carry lethal weapons. If they wanted to storm a synagogue or something then a crowd throwing stones or tear gas would have been no less effective at stopping that than the same crowd standing arm in arm.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that any number of bodies would protect a building is ridiculous.
Watch the VICE vid and then see if you think your non-violence would work. I did, and despite decades of belief in non-violence, decided that it wouldn't.
quote:Would you stand in front of a synogogue if you had a 100% chance of being killed?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would "work"? As you've reportedly pointed out, some bizarre (IMO) laws allowed the Nazi mob to carry lethal weapons. If they wanted to storm a synagogue or something then a crowd throwing stones or tear gas would have been no less effective at stopping that than the same crowd standing arm in arm.
quote:To answer this question I think requires answering a couple of others first:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would "work"?
quote:Though, there's not 100% chance of anything is there? The Nazis may intend to attack the synagogue, but may change their mind seeing the people there protecting it. They may be armed, but decide to try and just force themselves through by pushing the protesters aside, without using their guns. Or, they may decide to start shooting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Would you stand in front of a synogogue if you had a 100% chance of being killed?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would "work"? As you've reportedly pointed out, some bizarre (IMO) laws allowed the Nazi mob to carry lethal weapons. If they wanted to storm a synagogue or something then a crowd throwing stones or tear gas would have been no less effective at stopping that than the same crowd standing arm in arm.
quote:There are also long-term objectives. The long term objectives can succeed even if there are some immediate failures.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:To answer this question I think requires answering a couple of others first:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would "work"?
- what is the immediate objective of the group you are opposing?
- what is your immediate objective in response?
quote:Right, exactly. If possible you conduct various forms of non-violence to avoid getting to that situation in the first place.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I should say I'm not having a dig at Alan and Eutychus btw; just that I think what they're discussing is what needs to happen before you're in that position.
quote:Of course, we all want to avoid escalation such that no-one is at danger of being attacked - by Nazis or anti-Nazi protesters. The difference in our approach seems to be that we don't agree on the point at which non-violence ceases to be effective.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If possible you conduct various forms of non-violence to avoid getting to that situation in the first place.
But if you are in it, I'm saying that there is almost zero value in sacrificing your life at the feet of a neo-Nazi. It doesn't protect anyone or anything.
quote:We can ensure that no one is in danger of being attacked by anti-Nazi protesters by ensuring there are no Nazis on the streets.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, we all want to avoid escalation such that no-one is at danger of being attacked - by Nazis or anti-Nazi protesters. The difference in our approach seems to be that we don't agree on the point at which non-violence ceases to be effective.
quote:Indeed, but we don't achieve that by reaching for guns and shooting them. No matter what the circumstances. I don't think we would do that by arresting them either, or pulling down statues - though both would probably help.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:We can ensure that no one is in danger of being attacked by anti-Nazi protesters by ensuring there are no Nazis on the streets.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, we all want to avoid escalation such that no-one is at danger of being attacked - by Nazis or anti-Nazi protesters. The difference in our approach seems to be that we don't agree on the point at which non-violence ceases to be effective.
quote:Yes, protest against Nazis. That is something we agree on. It's the nature of the protests that is under question. And, if the anti-Nazi protesters resort to the same violent tactics as the Nazis then they become part of the problem. Especially in the context of the earlier discussion about armed Nazis - if the anti-Nazi protesters arm themselves and there's a shoot out then innocent people will be hurt.
Anti-Nazi protesters are there for one thing only. To protest against Nazis. They are assuredly not the problem.
quote:Who is the "we" here?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We can ensure that no one is in danger of being attacked by anti-Nazi protesters by ensuring there are no Nazis on the streets.
quote:as one nationalist protester in Charlottesville put it to Vice.
"At some point we will have enough power that we can clear them from the streets for ever"
quote:Wait, so is your objective protest, protection, or removing all Nazis from the streets?
Anti-Nazi protesters are there for one thing only. To protest against Nazis.
quote:Personally I'm in favour of forceful resistance in selected situations and don't subscribe to pacifism as a practical theory. But I don't think we can quote MLK as one of our supporters on that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We simply go back to the point that MLK was making.
quote:But part of the point that the SPLC were making in the quote RuthW provided in the OP, was that physically confronting the Nazis, attending the hate rallys, doesn't do any good; it actaully serves their purposes, especially if they're looking for a fight. Trump's response to Charlottville and the support he gets for the rubbish he's spouted about it surely proves that to be true: if there is violent confrontation, the hate groups & Nazis will milk it for all its worth and will use it to try and draw support. They'll be complaining about antifa trying to take away their constitutional rights and all the rest of it. And as the SPLC point out, they have gained court victories in the US protecting their right to rally.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Alan - I notice you completely ignored my second paragraph.
Or perhaps you think the mere presence of Jewish or Asian or gay people on the street is a mighty provocation to the Nazis, and we shouldn't allow that, lest violence breaks out.
We simply go back to the point that MLK was making. You are more interested in false peace than real justice. You make the streets safer for Nazis, and less safe for everyone else, just to avoid unseemly violence. When, essentially, violence is there already, just not directed at you.
No. Just no.
quote:I agree in this particularly case violence would have been counterproductive. However;
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Trump's response to Charlottville and the support he gets for the rubbish he's spouted about it surely proves that to be true: if there is violent confrontation, the hate groups & Nazis will milk it for all its worth and will use it to try and draw support.
quote:True.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
- the fact is that there were groups like antifa and Redneck Revolt in attendance, and we have no idea to what extent that checked (or otherwise) the propensity of the right-wing protestors to violence.
quote:If you really struggle to see the difference between
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I really struggle to see the difference withquote:as one nationalist protester in Charlottesville put it to Vice.
"At some point we will have enough power that we can clear them from the streets for ever"
quote:and
At some point our work will be done and everyone can go home and live their lives in peace.
quote:Then, frankly, your moral compass isn't just misaligned, it's been stamped on and shattered.
At some point we will be free to exterminate whole racial groups without opposition.
quote:One of the things that bothers me in this thread is my perception that some posters are invoking what I'd consider to be just war arguments in their capacity as private individuals - hence my questions about who "we" means in some instances.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So, although I accept the last resort arguments contained in just war hypotheses, my moral compass feels it is a pull away from the direction I want to head.
quote:Agreed. A responsible government can implement a military response when the security of the state is threatened. That is one of the "last resort" safeguards.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think one of the conditions for a just war hypothesis being acceptable is that it is implemented by a representative government. That has a bearing on where the moral compass points, doesn't it?
And even that can be controversial when it's invoked against things other than other states (cf "war on drugs", "war on terror", etc.).
quote:You're only saying that because I pulled you up on "I struggle to see a difference."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there's a difference
quote:It still feels to me that the issue is twofold.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I would make it abundantly clear that if he and his Nazi friends were to march down the street and intimidate my community, I would be out there, opposing him.
quote:But that would apply equally to all sorts of counter protests, peaceful or not, which I'm not sure I buy. Perhaps people just feel that its necessary to stand up and be counted when a bunch of protestors come to their town to chant 'Jews will not replace us' ?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There must be something amiss with either 1 or 2 if the consequences provoke folks into confrontational responses. They do not trust the system.
quote:No, I'm saying that because you put it differently the second time.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You're only saying that because I pulled you up on "I struggle to see a difference."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there's a difference
quote:I really don't agree that identifying almost identical rhetoric on both sides can properly be dismissed or condemned as false equivalence. In what way are the words used not equivalent?
Otherwise, you'd still be stuck on your false equivalence
quote:I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with that stance.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I would make it abundantly clear that if he and his Nazi friends were to march down the street and intimidate my community, I would be out there, opposing him.
quote:ISTM that non-violence is always a tactic - albeit one that I'd argue is far more effective in the vast majority of cases than violence for reasons we can all give with hackneyed Gandhi quotes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of these decisions are tactical, I think. If a bunch of right-wing thugs are bearing down on a synagogue or a mosque or a gay bar, the local community and sympathizers may well decide to defend it, using proportionate measures. They can't wait for the government or the local council to approve or disapprove.
If a right-wing march is planned 3 months ahead, the police will be notified and so on; even so, it is likely that counter-protests will go on. The fascists often want to intimidate and bully local people, especially of immigrant origin. This is not really a police matter, but a political issue, and the left will oppose the thugs, again, by proportionate means.
quote:I suppose normally, all of this is covered by the state monopoly on violence. I don't need to shoot a burglar, since there is a reasonable hope that the police will turn up. (I realize that this is different in the US).
The craziest part of a whole lot of the crazy shit that has been written here by people who clearly haven't thought very much about non-violence is that they're simultaneously claiming that their non-violence is an absolute whilst at the same time wishing for a police force that can protect life and property*.
Which gets to the logical tangle whereby one believes in non-violence to the extent of hoping that the police have sufficient powers to take guns away from people and have sufficient weapons to protect people and property from the Nazis - but if for whatever reason those police structures fail, then individuals only have one moral position to take; namely that they're to lay down their lives in front of Nazis. Even if there is no actual purpose in doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The craziest part of a whole lot of the crazy shit that has been written here by people
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Since you don't quote anybody, it's hard to know who you're referring to.
they're simultaneously claiming that their non-violence is an absolute whilst at the same time wishing for a police force that can protect life and property (...) presumably using the kind of violence, if necessary, that they're claiming isn't appropriate to stop Nazis.
quote:WHich is why all the way back on p3 I said
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The craziest part of a whole lot of the crazy shit that has been written here by people who clearly haven't thought very much about non-violence is that they're simultaneously claiming that their non-violence is an absolute whilst at the same time wishing for a police force that can protect life and property*.
...
*presumably using the kind of violence, if necessary, that they're claiming isn't appropriate to stop Nazis. So somehow it isn't appropriate for the Christian but is appropriate for the Christian to hope to live in a state where there is a police force that does the violence for them.
quote:The police and courts act violently on my behalf, by arresting and incarcerating criminals (in the current discussion, Nazis who commit violence against others). So, though I may not act violently, if the police intervene then that is violence by proxy.
Though I admit that, like you, I wouldn't hold that absolute non-violence position. I would, for example, be perfectly happy for the police to intervene and arrest the Nazi who is battering me to get to someone else. Which is a form of violence by proxy.
quote:And that is definitely not crazy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that the moral legitimacy of the use of force is not an absolute but highly dependent on the legitimacy of those using it. Democracies entrust the use of force to police and the armed forces because the use of that force is highly regulated and comes with several levels of accountability.
Of course there are notorious failures in that respect, but I nevertheless believe that's far better than "our gang is entitled to use force because reasons and if you object that's false equivalence".
quote:Last time I looked, belief in non-violence is not necessitated upon a belief in the state monopoly of violence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose normally, all of this is covered by the state monopoly on violence. I don't need to shoot a burglar, since there is a reasonable hope that the police will turn up. (I realize that this is different in the US).
quote:It seems to me quite a tricky balance to say on the one hand that Black Lives Matter whilst at the same time saying that Police Need to Stop Nazis. It's not an impossible argument to circle, but it gets difficult when you're complaining about police tactics that they're using on minorities at the same time as saying that they should be using them on Nazis.
Well, the same with far right marches and the like. We trust that the police protect synagogues and mosques from thugs.
However, the police are not politically involved, well, hopefully.
quote:If the US President is in cahoots with the white nationalists and is saying that those who protest the neo-Nazis are somehow against the police then we're already in shit street because he's actually saying that those who protest the neo-Nazis are acting against the state.
I think for many on the left, it is incumbent to protect vulnerable people such as immigrants, and also to vigorously oppose the far right. This is quite separate from policing aspects.
If the police are in cahoots with the far right, then we are in a different ball-game, basically shit street. If senior politicians are, ditto. This has happened mainly in N. Ireland in a UK situation.
quote:It is sort of implicit. Living within a state with governmental police allows one* to avoid direct participation. It makes nonviolent resistance a hell of a lot easier.
Originally posted by Martin60:
An open question mr cheesy, where does anyone above claim absolute pacifism AND invoke the state monopoly of violence?
quote:How is it "far better" and how is it "not crazy"?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:And that is definitely not crazy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that the moral legitimacy of the use of force is not an absolute but highly dependent on the legitimacy of those using it. Democracies entrust the use of force to police and the armed forces because the use of that force is highly regulated and comes with several levels of accountability.
Of course there are notorious failures in that respect, but I nevertheless believe that's far better than "our gang is entitled to use force because reasons and if you object that's false equivalence".
quote:Yes. Proportionality, not constantly trying to claim that non-violence is an absolute.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Agree with most of that, mr cheesy. Self-defence become a big issue, I feel. Nazis try to kill me, I fight back.
It becomes different with street marches and so on, since they're not lethal (usually). Proportionality seems to cover it.
quote:This is what scares me about this whole conversation. It is the level of naivety talking that will just allow Nazis to walk all over us because somehow they keep asserting that non-violence is better.
As for Trump and so on, a total nightmare and moral collapse of government. I don't know how this pans out.
quote:As I said previously, non-violence doesn't work on Nazis.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that takes me back to Germany. I don't think it's Godwin, if we're actually talking about Nazis!
The left fucked around and had hissy fits with each other, and called each other names, ('social fascists'), but didn't fight back. Most of them ended up in camps. At least, go down fighting, see the Warsaw ghetto.
quote:AFAIU the CO panels in the UK were set up so that CO status was only given to applicants who had a principled objection to war in the abstract rather than this particular war or this particular action.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it seems reasonable to say that I would kill him, but still object to state violence, and hence war. Presumably, this was not allowed.
quote:The word equivalent when applied to words in such different context is about as helpful as saying that the letters used in Mein Kampf and Letter from Birmingham City Jail are the equivalent letters, just in different orders.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In what way are the words used not equivalent?
quote:I don't think the argument is based around the law, it is based on some uber-spiritual stuff which says that the Christian gets contaminated if they get too involved in violence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are entitled to use force, but it has to be proportionate. Hence, I can resist a burglar with violence. Or resist a thug on the street with violence.
I don't have to wait for the police to arrive to decide this.
I don't see the problem, unless one is opposed to all violence, and mr cheesy's criticisms of that seem well-founded to me.
quote:If a Nazi with a sub-machine gun is running towards you and intending to kill you and/or anyone else, then the use of a piece of 2x4 to stop him is almost always going to be proportionate.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The law allows all of us proportionate self-defence against an attacker. The key word is proportionate.
quote:I see most of this stuff as about pragmatics. I don't have a principled commitment to violence!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:The word equivalent when applied to words in such different context is about as helpful as saying that the letters used in Mein Kampf and Letter from Birmingham City Jail are the equivalent letters, just in different orders.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In what way are the words used not equivalent?
Technically correct as a statement but quite misleading.
Having said that, given the mood in much of the Republican party at present, it seems to me that non-violent resistance may be a superior tactic. Not on principled grounds, but simply on pragmatic grounds that it is much more likely to bring the mainstream Republicans on board.
quote:Nobody here disagrees with him that I can see: it doesn't apply.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are entitled to use force, but it has to be proportionate. Hence, I can resist a burglar with violence. Or resist a thug on the street with violence.
I don't have to wait for the police to arrive to decide this.
I don't see the problem, unless one is opposed to all violence, and mr cheesy's criticisms of that seem well-founded to me.
quote:How does it not apply?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nobody here disagrees with him that I can see: it doesn't apply.
quote:They said that about Gandhi too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sounds like masochism to me.
quote:I don't know how to respond to you, Martin.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm sorry?
quote:So are you generalizing from Gandhi, towards some ethical stance against all violence? It's a tricky position, I would think.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:They said that about Gandhi too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sounds like masochism to me.
quote:Whilst it is true that Gandhi was assassinated, he also was protected from a large amount of inter-community violence in the period because the British imprisoned him for years.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So are you generalizing from Gandhi, towards some ethical stance against all violence? It's a tricky position, I would think.
quote:I was trying to post that I thought there was a real doubt, yes when lots of people crossposted.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:How does it not apply?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nobody here disagrees with him that I can see: it doesn't apply.
Really, wtf are you talking about? Did you not see the pictures, the videos, read the eyewitness accounts?
Is there any real doubt that the Charlottesville Nazis came with weapons and the intention to kill people?
quote:
stfu
quote:I tried to engage with Martin twice and both times he gave two word replies.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:The fact that it's not a discussion does not entitle you to tell him to stfu. That doesn't help at all.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I tried to engage with Martin twice and both times he gave two word replies.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry, that's not a discussion.
quote:For the third time on this thread, I give you Dietrich Boenhoffer.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder how German Christians reacted in the war? I suppose a lot kept quiet, some collaborated, some resisted. I wonder if there were debates about it, perhaps they would not be allowed.
quote:On this: I don't think you can have seen the videos where the Nazis talk about killing people, the weapons they were wearing, the eyewitness reports from people who were in fear of their lives.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was trying to post that I thought there was a real doubt, yes when lots of people crossposted.
quote:I'm going to sit over here in the corner until you've watched the VICE video - because there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they came with the intention of killing people.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I honestly don't think the organisers of the protest in C'ville had the intent to kill people. I think they intended to provoke and intimidate. Of course, if anybody responded with violence they certainly wouldn't mind killing them in retaliation, but I really don't think that was the aim.
quote:I think I've been very clear that the first priority is the protection of the innocent: which means those not carrying weapons, those not causing any kind of threat, those going about their business.
I've been arguing for a while now about considering objectives, including those of the other side, if one wishes to win, but that question has been ignored. You've also ignored my invitation to you to clarify your own objectives; I'm still not clear what they are. Are they to protect in defence, pre-emptive violence to protect, or getting rid of Nazis off the streets by all means, or what?
quote:Not really. As I said before I'm not against all violence in theory or in practice.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So are you generalizing from Gandhi, towards some ethical stance against all violence? It's a tricky position, I would think.
quote:That thin line between talking about doing something and actually doing it is what keeps society as a whole, let alone demos like that one, from being a lot more bloody than they were. I think that if there had been a general intent to kill there would have been many more fatalities than there were.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:On this: I don't think you can have seen the videos where the Nazis talk about killing people, the weapons they were wearing, the eyewitness reports from people who were in fear of their lives.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was trying to post that I thought there was a real doubt, yes when lots of people crossposted.
If you had seen all of those things, then I simply cannot understand how you can post this.
quote:I'm not sure how relevant this is - given that there is some doubt about whether he was really involved in the plot. He obviously wouldn't have been the first person to have been falsely accused by Hitler and the Nazi powers that be.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
For the third time on this thread, I give you Dietrich Boenhoffer.
quote:Why do you think that?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I honestly don't think the organisers of the protest in C'ville had the intent to kill people.
quote:Oh my goodness.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That thin line between talking about doing something and actually doing it is what keeps society as a whole, let alone demos like that one, from being a lot more bloody than they were. I think that if there had been a general intent to kill there would have been many more fatalities than there were.
Again, do you really think the protest was organised with the intent of widespread killing? How would that have advanced the organisers' cause?
quote:Because I think what they were trying to do at that protest was to legitimize their movement, making the most of a president who could be relied upon not to denounce them. If there had been more fatalities inflicted by their side that would have been a lot harder to do.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Why do you think that?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I honestly don't think the organisers of the protest in C'ville had the intent to kill people.
quote:This. I'm a pacifist, but if a Nazi comes at me intending to kill me and mine - forget that shit.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I may be a pacifist (or is thst naive, physically useless coward? Never really worked that one out) I really get why if you beling to a group which someone had a good crack at wiping out, I'd want to carry a stick too.
quote:Firearms up the ante in terms of the threat of violence certainly, but my analysis for the C'Ville objectives is still as posted to mdijon. The quote about Heather Heyer is, obviously, after the fact. Of course their sympathisers are not going to bemoan any fatalities that occur, but that's not the same as setting out to inflict as many as possible.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
"violence at recent alt-right demonstrations has been used to recruit, and when “antifa” shows up to fight them it can play into their game plan."
Violence is the objective, it is the idea, it is the gameplan.
quote:You don't seem to really understand the point of fascism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Firearms up the ante in terms of the threat of violence certainly, but my analysis for the C'Ville objectives is still as posted to mdijon. The quote about Heather Heyer is, obviously, after the fact. Of course their sympathisers are not going to bemoan any fatalities that occur, but that's not the same as setting out to inflict as many as possible.
quote:The Nazis wanted violence.
Also, note how in that last quote antifa's response plays right into their hands. It gives them a good excuse to inflict violence. Take that away and it would be far harder not to condemn them. Which kind of calls into question the argument that violence is the only effective answer.
quote:As would most of us, probably. But working out what we would do if we see a Nazi (or anyone else for that matter) coming at us is a long way from working out the best way of a group going to face off with a bunch of Nazi protestors, isn't it?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm a pacifist, but if a Nazi comes at me intending to kill me and mine - forget that shit.
quote:We'll never know, will we? But if they had done, in Charlottesville, I think it would have done them a lot more damage in terms of legitimacy, and highlighted other important problems such as the right to bear arms and poor policing.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Nazis wanted violence.
The Antifas gave them a reason to use violence
If the antifas had not been there, they'd have used violence on someone else
quote:No, for reasons I've given several times now but that you simply don't seem to credit.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As would most of us, probably. But working out what we would do if we see a Nazi (or anyone else for that matter) coming at us is a long way from working out the best way of a group going to face off with a bunch of Nazi protestors, isn't it?
quote:See above.
Besides, if your primary objective, as stated above, is to protect people, it doesn't actually involve you protesting against the Nazis at all, does it?
quote:Yeah, because we've absolutely no evidence of what neo-Nazis do, we've got absolutely no history to look at, no way to tell what a bunch of Nazis congregating with sub machine-guns and other weapons are likely to do.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
We'll never know, will we? But if they had done, in Charlottesville, I think it would have done them a lot more damage in terms of legitimacy, and highlighted other important problems such as the right to bear arms and poor policing.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, for reasons I've given several times now but that you simply don't seem to credit.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It's you that seems to be relating how you'd act personally to how one should counter-protest.quote:So if I restate your objective, it is to prevent the violence being directed at more vulnerable targets, with violent response if necessary, by counter-protesting? The counter-protesting is a means to that end?
Facing off the neo-Nazis means that they engage in fairly low level violence and don't progress to more organised violence against (for example) a passing gay or black person.
quote:Which historical event(s) do you see as serving as a precedent for Charlottesville?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh wait.
quote:Fair enough. The problem as I see it is countering that in such a way that it subverts their objectives instead of helping to fulfil them.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Eutychus, there are no fine people ho are also fascists, who might tefrain from violence if there are only peaceful, Gandhi-like protestersvin fromt of them. The violence and its threat are part of the identity.
quote:I've said at least twice that the primary objective has to be to stop the Nazis murdering innocent people. If the police don't or can't then everyone else has a responsibility to.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if I restate your objective, it is to prevent the violence being directed at more vulnerable targets, with violent response if necessary, by counter-protesting? The counter-protesting is a means to that end?
quote:Whether you like it or not, it's a factor that weighs significantly on events like this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Eutychus, are you British? Nobody needs to highlight the problems with the right to bear arms in this country. But at this point in our political history, it's beyond pointless and probably antiproductive.
quote:And how exactly is anything you've said going to "subvert their objectives" given that their objective is race war?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough. The problem as I see it is countering that in such a way that it subverts their objectives instead of helping to fulfil them.
quote:Yes but I'm trying to establish whether you think counter-protesting is a means to that end. Call me dense if you like, but that certainly hasn't been clear to me from your posts up till now.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've said at least twice that the primary objective has to be to stop the Nazis murdering innocent people. If the police don't or can't then everyone else has a responsibility to.
quote:I don't know how to be clearer: if one engages with the Nazis in fairly low level skirmishes, this distracts them so they can't hurt anyone else.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes but I'm trying to establish whether you think counter-protesting is a means to that end. Call me dense if you like, but that certainly hasn't been clear to me from your posts up till now.
quote:I have no idea. Clearly I am naive and stupid.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And how exactly is anything you've said going to "subvert their objectives" given that their objective is race war?
quote:I see. So you expect me to have objectives that make sense beyond immediately preventing them from killing other people, but you've got absolutely no idea how you're planning to subvert their objectives.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have no idea. Clearly I am naive and stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I honestly don't think the organisers of the protest in C'ville had the intent to kill people.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why do you think that?
quote:Sounds logical. But basically this boils down to conjecture based on assumptions of how neo-Nazis might reason, including an element of rationality. This might be problematic.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because I think what they were trying to do at that protest was to legitimize their movement, making the most of a president who could be relied upon not to denounce them. If there had been more fatalities inflicted by their side that would have been a lot harder to do.
quote:Sorry, I would say it's blindingly obvious that if faced with a Nazi with a sub-machine gun then responding with a piece of 2x4 or by non-violently standing your ground isn't going to make much difference in effect. A 2x4 doesn't stop bullets. And, it could be argued that the Nazi with the gun is more likely to fire at someone threatening him with a lump of timber than someone posing no threat at all.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If a Nazi with a sub-machine gun is running towards you and intending to kill you and/or anyone else, then the use of a piece of 2x4 to stop him is almost always going to be proportionate.
quote:It was because I had no idea, or at least no clear idea of how my moral compass translated into action (either as an individual or as a representative of the things and people I represent) that I joined this discussion.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So you expect me to have objectives that make sense beyond immediately preventing them from killing other people, but you've got absolutely no idea how you're planning to subvert their objectives.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have no idea. Clearly I am naive and stupid.
Here's a clue: you can't subvert their objectives. They're friggin Nazis.
quote:And as I said way earlier in this thread, I believe that the only things preventing a gun massacre at Charlottesville was the presence of an armed militia and low level skirmishes from counter-protestors.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sorry, I would say it's blindingly obvious that if faced with a Nazi with a sub-machine gun then responding with a piece of 2x4 or by non-violently standing your ground isn't going to make much difference in effect. A 2x4 doesn't stop bullets. And, it could be argued that the Nazi with the gun is more likely to fire at someone threatening him with a lump of timber than someone posing no threat at all.
quote:I'm sorry, there is nothing to discuss if you think that Nazis and fascists are not somehow entirely about violence. That's simply a fact.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't stand the heat, not of the ideas in play, but of the way they are being referred to. I take enough heat elsewhere without needing to put myself in the way of more here.
And I've come to the conclusion that I personally am not going to learn anything to my benefit by carrying on here.
quote:You've changed the subject.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Whether you like it or not, it's a factor that weighs significantly on events like this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Eutychus, are you British? Nobody needs to highlight the problems with the right to bear arms in this country. But at this point in our political history, it's beyond pointless and probably antiproductive.
quote:That would be the various militia who were kitted out like over equipped soldiers. The right wing militia, who were there with the express purpose of defending the right of the Nazis to speak. Were there other militia there I didn't see reported? And, if you do mean those militia, who were the other heavily armed Nazis who were there?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
as I said way earlier in this thread, I believe that the only things preventing a gun massacre at Charlottesville was the presence of an armed militia
quote:That'll be the militia who stated that they were against racism but believed in the first amendment. That'll be the militia who counter-protestors report prevented a riot.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That would be the various militia who were kitted out like over equipped soldiers. The right wing militia, who were there with the express purpose of defending the right of the Nazis to speak. Were there other militia there I didn't see reported? And, if you do mean those militia, who were the other heavily armed Nazis who were there?
quote:Watch the VICE video.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, when you keep going on about Nazis with machine guns, who were you talking about? Because unless I've missed it (possible) the only people reported to be at the protests who were armed were the militia.
quote:Yes, I've seen that Guardian report. It still doesn't ring true though. These are the same sort of people who have openly defied the US government, in occupying Federal property for example. They are white, right wing nutters. Maybe not full-blown Nazis, but certainly on that side of the political spectrum.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Guardian - on the militia
Yingling said he abhorred violence and racism and vehemently disagreed with white supremacy but argued it was vital to defend the right to peaceful free speech.
quote:Presumably, this video which is top of the list from Google, since I can't see any link to that in any of your posts (I know you've referenced it before, but a search for any post you linked to it turned up blank). Where in those 22 mins do I find the heavily armed Nazis, excluding the militia?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Watch the VICE video.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, when you keep going on about Nazis with machine guns, who were you talking about? Because unless I've missed it (possible) the only people reported to be at the protests who were armed were the militia.
quote:Some years ago in a discussion group at my church about pacifism, I asked if people were really pacifists if they were willing to call the cops, who in the US are armed. No one had an answer then, and I'm not sure I do now.
From mrcheesy:
The craziest part of a whole lot of the crazy shit that has been written here by people who clearly haven't thought very much about non-violence is that they're simultaneously claiming that their non-violence is an absolute whilst at the same time wishing for a police force that can protect life and property*.
quote:Beware of all private militias. Whatever opinions their proponents espouse. As RuthW puts it
Action
Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics. Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an "endless struggle". This emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party's Brown shirts and Fascist Italy's Blackshirts). (Italics mine)
The basis of fascism's support of violent action in politics is connected to social Darwinism. Fascist movements have commonly held social Darwinist views of nations, races, and societies. They say that nations and races must purge themselves of socially and biologically weak or degenerate people, while simultaneously promoting the creation of strong people, in order to survive in a world defined by perpetual national and racial conflict.
quote:
So I am extremely dubious about antifa and the Redneck Revolt and any other radical lefty groups arming themselves to confront right-wing extremists. I think this is a regressive step. As bad as our government is, as unfair and wrong as the police can be, I think it is a big mistake to support anti-government groups on the left.
quote:But there is a difference between saying that Nazism is about killing - which is an indisputable fact - and that therefore Nazis are going to start killing people at any specific event.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry, there is nothing to discuss if you think that Nazis and fascists are not somehow entirely about violence. That's simply a fact.
quote:Maybe not calling the police, but once the police arrive they will probably engage in violent acts - especially in circumstances where someone else is threatened. At the very least, arrest people and forcibly imprison them. The courts will then take that further, and imprison convicted criminals. But, maybe you don't consider enforced imprisonment to be violent.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Deconstruct.
It isn't violent to call the police.
quote:Yes, they are a branch of government - which in most countries is an expression of the community (government of the people, by the people, for the people). Which puts the police into a different category than other members of society who haven't been entrusted with authority
And they are part of tbe comunity in most countries, not a mercenary army.
quote:Why are you asking? It . doesn't . apply. The it being your alleged attack being valid on absolute pacifism. So what? It doesn't apply here. Nobody is proposing it. And no, I see no intent by armed Nazis to kill anyone. Does anyone ELSE?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:How does it not apply?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nobody here disagrees with him that I can see: it doesn't apply.
Really, wtf are you talking about? Did you not see the pictures, the videos, read the eyewitness accounts?
Is there any real doubt that the Charlottesville Nazis came with weapons and the intention to kill people?
quote:I'm almost embarrassed to report that at the anti-fascism-racism-lots-of-other-bad-stuff demonstration I attended yesterday, the police used their vehicles to block the roads into the protest area; they also blocked driveways and alleys, not to box us in, but to prevent some nutjob from driving in. The handful of fascists that showed up for their demo were immediately encircled by police using their bicycles as barricades; once they started getting shirty, they were taken away. A couple were arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, I know that sounds insane. It probably helps when the mayor is among the protesters. So yes, show up.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... So no. I have low expectations of the police using their powers to protect local (predominantly poor) communities from violent fascists. What I expect them to do is take the path of least resistance - if our counter-demonstration is several orders of magnitude greater than the fash, they will move them on quickly, because they don't want any trouble.
That is another part of the reason why I turn up when I'm needed.
quote:The Nazis said that they intended to kill people, witnesses said that they feared for their lives.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why are you asking? It . doesn't . apply. The it being your alleged attack being valid on absolute pacifism. So what? It doesn't apply here. Nobody is proposing it. And no, I see no intent by armed Nazis to kill anyone. Does anyone ELSE?
quote:Anti-Nazi protestors, the police and the militia. The police didn't do much, the militia had limited effect so eyewitnesses say that it was the anti-fascist anarchists that saved their lives.
If so, what stopped them?
quote:I am neither a Stalinist or a Trot. I don't believe in using violence for political ends.
And, despite your utter Stalinist failure of form, I acknowledge the substance of your and especially Doc Tor's argument, believe it or not, including the Stalinism or should it be Trotskyism? We are the pusillanimous treacherous bourgeoisie who would rather theoretically uselessly die from our armchairs than smash fascism before it commits social Darwinism against the weak.
quote:Wrong.
You're still both wrong because there is NOTHING of Christ and His peacemaking in what you say. Or do, Doc.
Not a word.
Not a blessable word.
quote:If the police always did that there wouldn't be a problem.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm almost embarrassed to report that at the anti-fascism-racism-lots-of-other-bad-stuff demonstration I attended yesterday, the police used their vehicles to block the roads into the protest area; they also blocked driveways and alleys, not to box us in, but to prevent some nutjob from driving in. The handful of fascists that showed up for their demo were immediately encircled by police using their bicycles as barricades; once they started getting shirty, they were taken away. A couple were arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, I know that sounds insane. It probably helps when the mayor is among the protesters. So yes, show up.
quote:Of course this is to be applauded, but at the same time this isn't the whole story.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the comment about the effectiveness of talking to a Nazi over tea:
"How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes" (NPR). This has both a radio interview and an article about it.
I've heard a few interviews with this guy. He's really interesting. And part of what he does is to get Klan members to sit down for a talk with a black man--himself.
I highly recommend this.
quote:These examples are of change in response to the threat of consequences of their actions. Not in response to winning hearts and minds, but rather in response to scaring hearts and minds.
Originally posted by RuthW:
....but I think that's important in a way the writer misses: this guy can change.
quote:I think it is also extremely regressive and worrying. I don't support anarchist groups per say. I've seen the things they've done in the past and I think it is usually idiotic.
Originally posted by RuthW:
One of the important points that Steven Pinker makes in "The Better Angels of Our Nature" is we have in general less violence in our societies than our forebears did because we have given the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I would point out that in the United States that monopoly is under severe threat in a way it is not in other Western industrialized countries because of our gun laws. So I am extremely dubious about antifa and the Redneck Revolt and any other radical lefty groups arming themselves to confront right-wing extremists. I think this is a regressive step. As bad as our government is, as unfair and wrong as the police can be, I think it is a big mistake to support anti-government groups on the left.
quote:Well yeah but also no. The anarchists I know are certainly a group who think it is clever to fight with police and to break windows at McDonalds. But then the ones at this particular protest were loudly protesting for the rights of Black Lives Matter and for trans rights and for freedoms that the Nazis wanted to take away.
I also think it's highly problematic to look at these groups of mostly young men and talk about the baked in violence of Nazism as if it were completely different and separate from the baked in violence of young men in general. Nazism is inherently, fundamentally violent -- that's its point. And the fun of violence is part of Nazism's attraction to some young men. But the fun of violence is also part of antifa's attraction to some young men.
quote:I'm sure some people went along to the neo-Nazi march for a laugh and drew back disgusted when it turned to violence. I don't know how many people that was, I don't much care about those people who exist who are attracted to the "Nazi look" pf the helmets and regalia.
Christopher Cantwell acted all big and bad in the Vice video, and then he videoed himself blubbering like a child about the police having a warrant out for his arrest. I saw video of one young man who got scared when shit started going down and ripped off the white polo shirt identifying him as a white supremacist -- he went for the fun. ( GQ article with video here. ) The writer makes the point that a black man can't strip off his color the way this guy can strip off his shirt -- but I think that's important in a way the writer misses: this guy can change.
quote:I think Nazis are fairly upfront about the facts of what they're about and that they're interested in a race war. I don't think anyone really thinks that this is a hidden part of their philosophy.
So I have a big problem with the whole "they're Nazis, fuck 'em" thing -- some of them are, yes. But some of them don't even really know what Nazism is about.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Some years ago in a discussion group at my church about pacifism, I asked if people were really pacifists if they were willing to call the cops, who in the US are armed. No one had an answer then, and I'm not sure I do now.
One of the important points that Steven Pinker makes in "The Better Angels of Our Nature" is we have in general less violence in our societies than our forebears did because we have given the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
quote:The idea that a state is an entity that exercises a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographic area is fairly standard in political science. The way modern states do this is through their military and police/security forces, who can be thought of as "violence specialists". So yes, the police exist to use (or threaten to use) state-sanctioned violence. Citizens usually tolerate this because it's far less disruptive than the unsanctioned violence that takes place in the absence of the state.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Deconstruct.
It isn't violent to call the police. Also called peace officers. And they are part of tbe comunity in most countries, not a mercenary army. Let's not generalize from one country.
quote:
Statement from Acting General Superintendent Cicely Muldoon on the Patriot Prayer First Amendment Event Application
Subscribe RSS Icon | What is RSS
Date: August 17, 2017
Contact: Director of Communications and External Affairs, (415) 561-4730
We have heard and take very seriously the concerns expressed by the public and elected officials regarding the proposed August 26 Patriot Prayer First Amendment event at Crissy Field. Our highest priority is to ensure public safety, while honoring our obligation to uphold one of our nation’s most cherished Constitutional rights, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
We are guided by the Constitution, the law, longstanding court precedent, and National Park Service policy, which tells us we must be deliberative and not preemptive in our decisions related to First Amendment gatherings. Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the U.S. Park Police are closely coordinating with other federal, state and local agencies to ensure a robust plan is in place before we issue a final permit.
We want to thank everyone for expressing their heartfelt opinions and valid concerns. Anyone interested in expressing their opinion may do so by writing us at goga_1st_amendment@nps.gov. We are reviewing all comments, but we are not able to respond to everyone due to the large volume we are receiving.
We will make a final determination on the permit within the next seven business days based on the thorough public safety review. We will make a public announcement of our decision at that time.
quote:On the left-right axis, maybe, but they're as far away from the Nazis on the authoritarian-libertarian axis as they are from you on the left-right one. Possibly further. And there are other political axes that I haven't even mentioned (collectivist-individualist? modernist-traditionalist?)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I've seen that Guardian report. It still doesn't ring true though. These are the same sort of people who have openly defied the US government, in occupying Federal property for example. They are white, right wing nutters. Maybe not full-blown Nazis, but certainly on that side of the political spectrum.
quote:Yes, you're right that there are multiple axes. And, that the militia who occupied federal property had a different agenda to the the Nazis (and, potentially a different agenda and political viewpoint to the militia that turned up at C'ville).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On the left-right axis, maybe, but they're as far away from the Nazis on the authoritarian-libertarian axis as they are from you on the left-right one. Possibly further. And there are other political axes that I haven't even mentioned (collectivist-individualist? modernist-traditionalist?)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I've seen that Guardian report. It still doesn't ring true though. These are the same sort of people who have openly defied the US government, in occupying Federal property for example. They are white, right wing nutters. Maybe not full-blown Nazis, but certainly on that side of the political spectrum.
Your comment implies that only the left-right axis matters. That's not the case.
quote:I'd say that (some members of) the militia want power for themselves.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the militia in C'ville identified themselves as defenders of free speech. Which also seems (from a distance) to align more with the political far right who enjoy the right to free speech but fear it being denied them. The militia don't seem to be doing much to stand up for the poor and marginalised who can't get their voice heard (and, what's the value in having the right to free speech if no one hears what you're saying?).
As Doc Tor said, the militia seem more intent on supporting those who already hold power than those with no power.
quote:Then it's my duty to introduce you to the Redneck Revolt. 'Putting the red back in redneck'.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think I've ever heard of a militia, per se, that's centered around helping the poor and marginalized have a voice--*except* maybe if those conditions are believed to have been caused by gov't--particularly state and federal.
quote:German Church split into two - there was a more political side who basically thought Hitler was great (think how some churches had multiple orgasms on Bush's Persian Gulf Distraction starting up - eg Franklin Graham) and the other side was the Confessing Church (Niemoller etc).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:For the third time on this thread, I give you Dietrich Boenhoffer.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder how German Christians reacted in the war? I suppose a lot kept quiet, some collaborated, some resisted. I wonder if there were debates about it, perhaps they would not be allowed.
quote:it is quite obviously a lie and they're all actually Nazis.
At many points during the day, groups of white supremacists approached Justice Park, but at each instance, Redneck Revolt members formed a unified skirmish line against them, and the white supremacists backed down. Most of the groups were not easily identified, but at separate points, contingents from Identity Europa and the Proud Boys were recognized. The groups that threatened the park yelled racial and homophobic slurs, and many yelled things specifically at the Redneck Revolt fire teams which indicated that they were familiar with our principles. Some of the groups that approached numbered as many as 40 people, but the security of Justice Park was never breached.
The worst moment of an entire weekend of white supremacist violence came when someone rammed their Dodge Charger into a large crowd of anti-racist protesters. A 32 year old woman was killed, and at least 19 others have been reported injured. The crash and screams were heard by the groups staged at Justice Park, and two Redneck Revolt members ran down the street and assisted in direct medical support.
quote:I read quetzalcoatl's questions as applying at the level of the average member in the pew - i.e wondering whether such questions played out much within congregations, as opposed to among a number of leaders/theologians.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:For the third time on this thread, I give you Dietrich Boenhoffer.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder how German Christians reacted in the war? I suppose a lot kept quiet, some collaborated, some resisted. I wonder if there were debates about it, perhaps they would not be allowed.
quote:Jeremiah is on Trump's advisory panel - I've never seen the appeal anyway, he's just a more radio friendly version of the same dispensationalist message common on the more conservative end of evangelicalism.
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
You see the pro-Trump lot broadcasting on Premier sadly.. I was very disappointed to see David Jeremiah and similar staying quiet over Trump's neoNazi credentials..
quote:The nazis aren't calling for States rights, they're calling for their ideology to be implemented by the federal government.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The militia occupying federal land did, among other things, express the opinion that land management decisions should be made at local level without Federal interference (and, thus that Federal land should be turned over to local communities to manage), which isn't a million miles from those claiming States rights against Federal authority (and, many of those appear to be largely concerned with Southern States, with racist overtones).
quote:My understanding of the whole free speech thing is that nobody should prevent you from saying what you want to say. There's nothing about free speech that requires anyone else to listen, much less to agree.
Added to which the militia in C'ville identified themselves as defenders of free speech. Which also seems (from a distance) to align more with the political far right who enjoy the right to free speech but fear it being denied them. The militia don't seem to be doing much to stand up for the poor and marginalised who can't get their voice heard (and, what's the value in having the right to free speech if no one hears what you're saying?).
quote:They were actively preventing the nazis from attacking counter-protesters. Who does that count as supporting?
As Doc Tor said, the militia seem more intent on supporting those who already hold power than those with no power.
quote:From what I can see from various news reports, the most prominent militia, those who got their pictures all over the media in their over-the-top excessive gear were a different organisation. Redneck Revolt don't seem to have been present anywhere near the park with the statue.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Then it's my duty to introduce you to the Redneck Revolt. 'Putting the red back in redneck'.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think I've ever heard of a militia, per se, that's centered around helping the poor and marginalized have a voice--*except* maybe if those conditions are believed to have been caused by gov't--particularly state and federal.
They were in Charlottesville. We can probably have a long and ultimately inconclusive discussion as to whether their presence helped reduce the number of fatalities and injuries. But they were definitely there.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The nazis aren't calling for States rights, they're calling for their ideology to be implemented by the federal government.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The militia occupying federal land did, among other things, express the opinion that land management decisions should be made at local level without Federal interference (and, thus that Federal land should be turned over to local communities to manage), which isn't a million miles from those claiming States rights against Federal authority (and, many of those appear to be largely concerned with Southern States, with racist overtones).
quote:They were standing around looking tough. Not very active at anything. And, given that there were a lot of examples of nazis attacking counter-protesters with chemical weapons, projectiles and even a car they don't seem to have been very effective at preventing the nazis from attacking people.
quote:They were actively preventing the nazis from attacking counter-protesters. Who does that count as supporting?
As Doc Tor said, the militia seem more intent on supporting those who already hold power than those with no power.
quote:Or perhaps - as many people are saying who were there - injuries and deaths would have been many times worse if there had been no militia and had been no anarchists present.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They were standing around looking tough. Not very active at anything. And, given that there were a lot of examples of nazis attacking counter-protesters with chemical weapons, projectiles and even a car they don't seem to have been very effective at preventing the nazis from attacking people.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Is that just a numerical total of the number of hate groups, as opposed to the number of people involved in hate groups generally? Also, is that figure affected by the numbers of gangs in places like LA ?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Don't know how they're getting here. But recent news said *California* has the most hate groups of any state! And we even have the KKK here! In SF!!!
quote:Loomis then goes on to extensively quote another web source on the history of Civil War era secessionism in California.
It’s a little hard to fathom today, but for many decades, Los Angeles was an unbelievably conservative city. Of course it was the home of Nixon and Reagan. In 1910, unionists bombed the Los Angeles Times because it was so anti-union. But the city’s right-wing history goes back much further, back to the beginning of American occupation. At that time, it was an incredibly violent city, even by western standards, with murder rates far higher than even the rest of California. John Mack Faragher’s new book details this in great detail, . . .
One of the issues Faragher goes into is that Los Angeles was a hotbed of secessionism and many in the white population there wanted to join the Confederacy. That’s because many southerners had moved there and many of them volunteered to fight for treason in defense of slavery.
quote:Yes, I was just pointing out the difference between 'CA is the state with the most hate groups' vs 'CA is the state with the most members of hate groups'
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Before I posted that, I did a quick search to verify. Just used "state with most hate groups", and confirmed that it's Calif.
quote:Well, a large number of them are drawn around ethnic lines. Though perhaps the factors Croesus points out are also one of the things that works itself out in terms of gangs in LA.
I've wondered about gangs, too. Though I'm not sure that they're all necessarily about hating everyday people.
quote:{Clutches head}
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretending you are concerned for the "good person" potentially within means you more accept the violence they do than have concern for the people they do it to.
quote:It's how you're saying it. You're going OTT and potentially crashing into allies whose creativity might be useful. Why piss people off?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Never said anyone is irredeemable. Never said one shouldn't try to redeem anyone.
What I am saying is that the posibility of redemption or change does not outweigh the necessity of confrontation. Methods are arguable, but visible it must be. If staying home and praying worked, we'd not be having this discussion.
Here is a time for trying to reach people, when they are marching isn't going to be one of them.
quote:If you insist.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:{Clutches head}
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretending you are concerned for the "good person" potentially within means you more accept the violence they do than have concern for the people they do it to.
Is there any way we can stop casting everything in terms of uncompromising binaries?
quote:Wow, that was quick! What happened to eschewing uncompromising binaries?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If some saintly counter-protester who risked their life to stand up for what was right at Charlotteville can also find it in his/her heart to pray for / reach out to one of the Nazi idiots in the hopes of getting them to change their evil ways, I'm not going to tell that person they're supporting violence.
quote:Indeed. As I mentioned on the parallel Hell thread one such conversion was actually caught on tape at Charlottesville. One white supremacist stripped off that white polo they all seem to be wearing these days and suddenly he wasn't a white supremacist anymore.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And this is not impossible. KKKers and Nazis have been converted before now.
quote:Firstly, is that really the metaphor you want to use in this context? [violent imagery at link]
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's how you're saying it. You're going OTT and potentially crashing into allies whose creativity might be useful. Why piss people off?
quote:Agreed.
Secondly, I'd argue that one of the contributing factors to the re-emergence of white supremacy in the U.S. is the way people always treat it with kid gloves. Soft-pedaling racism like you recommend is one of the reasons why Mr. Barely White Supremacist sees white power rallies as just a kind of harmless (for him) weekend fun.
quote:That's because political extremism in Britain has no visible religious component to speak of. It's difficult for our political extremists to rally around Christianity in any but the vaguest cultural sense because the indigenous community has become so secularised.
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is a 'Patriot Prayer Rally'? What are they praying for, and - perhaps more pertinently - to whom are they intending to pray?
I can't imagine any of our political extremists doing anything comparable, not the EDL (English Defence League), not the BNP (British National Party), not UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), not the SWP (Socialist Workers Party), nor Respect (now I think defunct). Leaving aside the whiff of blasphemy about such a phrase, the concept of a Patriot Prayer Rally sounds from here just weird
quote:.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Some -ver7- creative people are going to meet the neo-Nazis in San Francisco. I particularly admire the flower child who says she's going to offer them flowers for their hair.
quote:The way I am saying it. I shall not pretend not to be angry. I shall not pretend that I think all nazi types are merely damaged people waiting to be healed. What creative allies do you speak about?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's how you're saying it. You're going OTT and potentially crashing into allies whose creativity might be useful. Why piss people off?
quote:Are there still hate groups? Then either prayer is less than completely efficacious or people are praying for hate. You can argue that it might do some good, but it is patently obvious that it does not do enough.
As for praying (never mind staying home, some people have to, I prefer to get out when I can)--how in the world do you know that does no good? It's logically impossible to prove one way or the other.
quote:CK also mentions working with EDL youth.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the comment about the effectiveness of talking to a Nazi over tea:
"How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes" (NPR). This has both a radio interview and an article about it.
I've heard a few interviews with this guy. He's really interesting. And part of what he does is to get Klan members to sit down for a talk with a black man--himself.
I highly recommend this.
quote:Do people really think America is at threat from Marxism?
A "No Marxism in America" protest - planned for Sunday - is still due to go ahead in the ultraliberal bastion of Berkeley.
quote:Where was that?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Soft-pedaling racism like you recommend...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I don't hear Jesus disagreeing.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A German historian's advice. She recommends non-confrontation.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Croesos, what the hell do you mean I'm soft-pedaling racism?
quote:I was specifically referring to your comment about "uncompromising binaries", which implies a willingness to compromise with racism. Also the way a lot of racists seems to count on cheap redemption of the sort you advocate, being accepted as decent people once they take off the Klan robes, even if it's just to run them through the wash. The aforementioned Mr. Barely White Supremacist comes to mind as someone counting on easy social redemption. Father Crossburner is another example, penning an ostensibly sorrowful essay that omits any details that might make him unsympathetic (such as the actual details of his crimes, the fact that he's never bothered to apologize to any of his victims, or paid the court-ordered restitution, or that his confession coincides not only with the demonstrations in Charlottesville but also with the Washington Post asking questions about his past). I accept that racists can actually change, but being so "compromising" with racists gives the impression that it's just some kind of harmless youthful indiscretion, or a bit of easy weekend fun that you can just slip into and out of like a white polo shirt, completely free of any long-term consequences.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Where was that?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Soft-pedaling racism like you recommend...
quote:I can't read your mind, just your posts, so I don't know what your intentions were. If it was deliberate it was horribly insensitive. If it was accidental it was horribly tone deaf.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And yes, I apologise for stuffing up my imagery. Did you think it was deliberate, or are you just getting in my face then?
quote:They will if they're told to. Worked in Weimar.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Right-wing SF rally cancelled due to security fears.
Thoughquote:Do people really think America is at threat from Marxism?
A "No Marxism in America" protest - planned for Sunday - is still due to go ahead in the ultraliberal bastion of Berkeley.
quote:Fuck that. You're begging the question in the purist sense of the word. "Uncompromising binaries" was my term for the attitude that demands either a resistance to evil up-to-and-including hands-around-the-throat violence, OR complete supine surrender to that evil. There are other options. As in the work of the man whose story Golden Key linked to--the one who's apparently managed to transform about 200 racists into ex-racists. "Uncompromising binaries" would lump that saint in with the supporters of the Ku Klux Klan. Which is about as fucked-up as it is possible to be, logically.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Croesos, what the hell do you mean I'm soft-pedaling racism?quote:I was specifically referring to your comment about "uncompromising binaries", which implies a willingness to compromise with racism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Where was that?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Soft-pedaling racism like you recommend...
quote:None of this has anything at all to do with me. If you want to take potshots at these people, go ahead. Don't associate my name with it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Also the way a lot of racists seems to count on cheap redemption of the sort you advocate, being accepted as decent people once they take off the Klan robes, even if it's just to run them through the wash. The aforementioned Mr. Barely White Supremacist comes to mind as someone counting on easy social redemption. Father Crossburner is another example, penning an ostensibly sorrowful essay that omits any details that might make him unsympathetic (such as the actual details of his crimes, the fact that he's never bothered to apologize to any of his victims, or paid the court-ordered restitution, or that his confession coincides not only with the demonstrations in Charlottesville but also with the Washington Post asking questions about his past). I accept that racists can actually change, but being so "compromising" with racists gives the impression that it's just some kind of harmless youthful indiscretion, or a bit of easy weekend fun that you can just slip into and out of like a white polo shirt, completely free of any long-term consequences.
quote:Well, excuse me, Mr. Perfect-in-all-your-ways. Please, go ahead and assume it was on purpose. In fact, please assume it was done MALICIOUSLY. Because obviously a person of American Indian descent, married and mother to Vietnamese, goddaughter of a black family from Missippi, and stepdaughter to a Mexican American--Yeah, obviously I'm a damned racist.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I can't read your mind, just your posts, so I don't know what your intentions were. If it was deliberate it was horribly insensitive. If it was accidental it was horribly tone deaf.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And yes, I apologise for stuffing up my imagery. Did you think it was deliberate, or are you just getting in my face then?
quote:As you directed that binary comment towards me, in fairness and accuracy I will note that I did not frame any of my posts in this manner.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Uncompromising binaries" was my term for the attitude that demands either a resistance to evil up-to-and-including hands-around-the-throat violence, OR complete supine surrender to that evil.
quote:Those strategies no not work in situations like the march which is what we are discussing here.
There are other options. As in the work of the man whose story Golden Key linked to--
quote:I do not think you are a racist.
Because obviously a person of American Indian descent, married and mother to Vietnamese, goddaughter of a black family from Missippi, and stepdaughter to a Mexican American--Yeah, obviously I'm a damned racist.
quote:And, as I posted in the OP, so does the Southern Poverty Law Center. Appeals to authority are not my favorite argumentative moves, but I am astonished at how easily some here have blown right by the advice and instruction of people who have made studying hate groups their very reason for being.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A German historian's advice. She recommends non-confrontation.
quote:Indeed. The proposed "Turd Reich" counter-protest, for instance, in which folks in NorCal planned to strew the field where the neo-Nazi rally was originally planned for this weekend with dog shit before heading to their counter-rally in another location. Another plan I saw circulated was for locals to move their cars into all the available public parking in and around the national park so that all the people planning to carry guns to the rally would have to carry them through a jurisdiction where they are illegal (openly carrying weapons is legal in national parks
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Uncompromising binaries" was my term for the attitude that demands either a resistance to evil up-to-and-including hands-around-the-throat violence, OR complete supine surrender to that evil. There are other options.
).quote:Always? Seriously? Give me a break. And you completely mis-read Lamb Chopped "uncompromising binaries" post. Intentionally? Or accidentally?
Originally posted by Croesus:
I'd argue that one of the contributing factors to the re-emergence of white supremacy in the U.S. is the way people always treat it with kid gloves.
quote:There are lots of visible things people can do that don't involve face-to-face confrontation. Face-to-face confrontation is in fact not only dangerous, it's counter-productive.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I am saying is that the posibility of redemption or change does not outweigh the necessity of confrontation. Methods are arguable, but visible it must be. If staying home and praying worked, we'd not be having this discussion.
Here is a time for trying to reach people, when they are marching isn't going to be one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Croesos, what the hell do you mean I'm soft-pedaling racism?
quote:This is an over-reach. You can't go from someone saying that racists might be redeemable to soft-pedaling racism. Unless you believe that anyone involved in White supremacy must be written off, imprisoned indefinetly, and that any rehabilitation represents "soft-pedalling".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I was specifically referring to your comment about "uncompromising binaries", which implies a willingness to compromise with racism.
quote:Yes. And to notice and reword that, Charlottesville would probably have to be the only thing on LC's mind. She's got a gazillion plates spinning at any one time.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is an over-reach. You can't go from someone saying that racists might be redeemable to soft-pedaling racism. Unless you believe that anyone involved in White supremacy must be written off, imprisoned indefinetly, and that any rehabilitation represents "soft-pedalling".
Making a big deal of the "crash into" is also a bit much. We all choose inappropriate phrases from time to time, this feels like making it into an opportunity for point scoring.
quote:I'm not sure what I think about their advice on this. I don't at the moment agree, but I wish to think on it more before outlining why.
Originally posted by RuthW:
And, as I posted in the OP, so does the Southern Poverty Law Center. Appeals to authority are not my favorite argumentative moves, but I am astonished at how easily some here have blown right by the advice and instruction of people who have made studying hate groups their very reason for being.
quote:Here are some tweets from an LA Times reporter (@JamesQueallyLAT) in the last two hours who is up in Berkeley right now:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I'm not sure what I think about their advice on this. I don't at the moment agree, but I wish to think on it more before outlining why.
Originally posted by RuthW:
And, as I posted in the OP, so does the Southern Poverty Law Center. Appeals to authority are not my favorite argumentative moves, but I am astonished at how easily some here have blown right by the advice and instruction of people who have made studying hate groups their very reason for being.
quote:I'm not impressed by folks who are supposed to be against Nazism who go out and commit assault. I'm also not impressed with three or four people beating on someone already on the ground. What do we stand for? Someone remind me.
Masked protesters, claiming to be Antifa, threatening to break reporters cameras if they film them. Reminder we are on public ground.
...
Joey Gibson showed up and Antifa pounced. Piss bottles thrown shoving shields thrown at them.
...
Gibson and someone else ran toward cops and got handcuffed. I don't know why.
...
...
CHP just broke up another street fight [CHP = California Highway Patrol]
...
...
The moderate counter protesters are livid with the violence. "We need to get Antifa out of here." said man who helped break up fight.
...
There is a complete mob mentality here. People are randomly accusing random people of being Nazis.
...
Organizers now asking to see my press pass as I try and interview someone being falsely accused of being a Nazi.
...
...
Update: Patriot Prayer Founder Joey Gibson was NOT arrested, per CHP. Didn't say why he was handcuffed but they considered it a "rescue"
quote:The greater good RuthW. The greater good. This is just collateral damage in a win for the good for the ... right. As Lenin said, you must lay down, kill your compassion. Christians and other non-violent appeasers are just cowardly weak bourgeois parasites - like the press - who refuse to get their hands dirty in mercilessly extirpating the wrongly violent from our midst. This is our sacred eugenic duty.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Here are some tweets from an LA Times reporter (@JamesQueallyLAT) in the last two hours who is up in Berkeley right now:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I'm not sure what I think about their advice on this. I don't at the moment agree, but I wish to think on it more before outlining why.
Originally posted by RuthW:
And, as I posted in the OP, so does the Southern Poverty Law Center. Appeals to authority are not my favorite argumentative moves, but I am astonished at how easily some here have blown right by the advice and instruction of people who have made studying hate groups their very reason for being.
quote:I'm not impressed by folks who are supposed to be against Nazism who go out and commit assault. I'm also not impressed with three or four people beating on someone already on the ground. What do we stand for? Someone remind me.
Masked protesters, claiming to be Antifa, threatening to break reporters cameras if they film them. Reminder we are on public ground.
...
Joey Gibson showed up and Antifa pounced. Piss bottles thrown shoving shields thrown at them.
...
Gibson and someone else ran toward cops and got handcuffed. I don't know why.
...
...
CHP just broke up another street fight [CHP = California Highway Patrol]
...
...
The moderate counter protesters are livid with the violence. "We need to get Antifa out of here." said man who helped break up fight.
...
There is a complete mob mentality here. People are randomly accusing random people of being Nazis.
...
Organizers now asking to see my press pass as I try and interview someone being falsely accused of being a Nazi.
...
...
Update: Patriot Prayer Founder Joey Gibson was NOT arrested, per CHP. Didn't say why he was handcuffed but they considered it a "rescue"
quote:At some point I grow embarrassed to be seen with the counter-protesters if they are throwing bottles of piss, accusing random people of being Nazis and instigating violence.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
antifa =/= the counter protest.
It is not a valid point against the idea of counter-protest.
could be worse. Holy shit!
quote:It is always the problem of the left to be more chaotic than the right, Yes, these people are an embarrassment and a distraction. They are fodder for the media to pretend balance and for the right to hide the hate.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:At some point I grow embarrassed to be seen with the counter-protesters if they are throwing bottles of piss, accusing random people of being Nazis and instigating violence.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
antifa =/= the counter protest.
It is not a valid point against the idea of counter-protest.
quote:When I see Jesus walk in protest, I will not deny his actions. However, as he has declined personal appearance for quite sometime, we are left with his representatives. Some of which were on the Nazi side of the lines.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What?! You would deny Christ in action!
quote:The reports RuthW links to are not pretending balance, they're just reporting. Not sure the left is more chaotic - antifa seem substantially better organized than the Oval Office at the moment - but even if that's true and they are distracting fodder... they're still there.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is always the problem of the left to be more chaotic than the right, Yes, these people are an embarrassment and a distraction. They are fodder for the media to pretend balance and for the right to hide the hate.
quote:Chaotic is the sense that the left is a broad umbrella covering multiple POV and the right tends to present a more unified front.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:The reports RuthW links to are not pretending balance, they're just reporting. Not sure the left is more chaotic - antifa seem substantially better organized than the Oval Office at the moment - but even if that's true and they are distracting fodder... they're still there.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is always the problem of the left to be more chaotic than the right, Yes, these people are an embarrassment and a distraction. They are fodder for the media to pretend balance and for the right to hide the hate.
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I think one of the problems is that police come heavily armed to pro-Nazi rallies and this winds them up. Violence breeds violence.
No, I don't think this is the case. These rallies when loosely policed have a history of descending into low level rioting/violence.quote:One of most commonplace conceits among American white supremacists is that everyone else secretly agrees with them. (Or at least everyone white, which to them is all that matters.) They believe everyone else (white) has simply been cowed into silence by [political correctness / the Jewish conspiracy / scary Negroes / whatever conspiracy is current this week]. A large, public counter-demonstration, one conducted where they can see it, is one of the key things that can disabuse them of this pernicious notion. It seems like a big factor in the recent case of the Nazi Vanishes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A problem is that the lack of response emboldens. So a response there must be.
I am not quite convinced that a non-collocation protest is necessarily the ticket, but not responding isn't a rational option. Especially not in this Brexit/trump world.
quote:In which country have you met such people? I find it hard to believe that contemporary British Christianity and British neo-Nazism would overlap to any great degree.
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I think what saddens me is the number of people who call themselves Christians and yet espouse a pro-Nazi/KKK ethos. I have met them. It's horrible.
quote:I agree with SvitlanaV2. As far as I'm aware, I've never met a person with any church connection who had any involvement in neo-Nazism.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:In which country have you met such people? I find it hard to believe that contemporary British Christianity and British neo-Nazism would overlap to any great degree....
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I think what saddens me is the number of people who call themselves Christians and yet espouse a pro-Nazi/KKK ethos. I have met them. It's horrible.
quote:I said 'loosely' policed - which it seems to have applied to the Charlottesville protest - and this certainly seems to have applied at the start - especially compared with militia who turned up with AR15s and body armour.
Originally posted by wild haggis:
I haven't seen a "low level" of policing at many demos. Police with riot shields is not "low level." Even some peaceful demos (nothing to do with the far right) have police with batons etc. on duty - I've been there.
