Antifa and Black Lives Matter vs. KKK and Neo Nazis:A battle of false equivalence

[Teruhn]

I'd say there was plenty of reasons to do so, and far more reasons to SHOOT one.

Violence begets violence. You, or me, or anyone else beating up or shooting a Nazi will only perpetuate their nonsensical pseudo-reality of white victimhood. You will make a martyr that only exacerbates the problem.

But when you make it abundantly clear that their ideology will get them fired, ridiculed, and shunned they are much more likely to change their ideology. It won't change the staunchest Nazis - and those people will inevitably end up imprisoned when their belligerent ideology leads them to the wrong side of the law - but the privileged brats that think being "alt-right" is fun(/ny) will realize that..."Oh, words have consequences."

I'm by no means condoning the ideology, but some "alt-right" grew up in insulary environments that prevented them from interacting with people of color, or differing ideologies where everyone is considered equal. I grew up in the south, I've met these people. They talk about racist views as casually as you or I would buying groceries. It's a disservice to them to not at least attempt to enlighten them. And if that doesn't work, and if law enforcement won't step in to prevent them from enacting their violent rhetoric - only then is it justified to punch a Nazi.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

As far as Antifa goes, right idea, wrong execution. The system is definitely failing now with the far right wielding an unprecedented amount of power and enabling violence from hate groups, but I don't see any way to really fix this without upending the table in some way (through protests, riots, etc.). However, the kind of unorganized violence Antifa is engaging in only serves to undermine their own cause. Without any semblance of a logical political platform they're nothing more than anarchists getting caught into the Nazis' cycle of violence. Now it may get to the point where violence is a necessity to rein things in, sadly I could easily see this mess devolving into full blown civil war with the way the far right keeps digging their heels in and they may need to be removed from power by force in order to regain any semblance of peace in this country. So I don't think violence in itself is something to be demonized, after all the Founding Fathers, the North, and the Allied soldiers all engaged in violence themselves and they are among the most venerated factions in American history. But it's going to be hard for Antifa to succeed in defeating Nazi ideology if they can't rally people behind a cause and show that violence is a necessary evil to protect this country's ideals. This is similar to why the Occupy Wall Street movement failed and why left wing protests in general aren't really making any headway, because all they're doing is screaming at the powers that be and throwing a temper tantrum without any specific course of action to legimitately affect change, so it can be easily tuned out.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Nazi ideology is violence in itself. Antifascist violence is self-defense. If you don't understand that, get out of the ****ing way so you don't get hurt.

For those who want a more "intellectual" look at things, we call upon Karl Popper -- a man who, by all means, wanted to be even-handed and who advocated for being a tolerant person. He broached an argument in The Open Society and Its Enemies, volume one, that stated that, if we choose to tolerate everything, eventually we will be forced to tolerate intolerant ideals, to a point that includes those ideas that demand the destruction of others or even tolerance itself; as such, as he put it, "[w]e should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." The "so much for the tolerant left" people are idiots. The destruction of Nazism or white nationalism or whatever you want to call it this week -- of intolerance, simply speaking -- is the path of greatest tolerance, despite appearances.

edit: Also, I forgot to post this the first time, but for reference, I don't like the violence-first order either. Plenty of people genuinely do not know what they are following along with or the consequences of their beliefs and some of them can be talked to. Of course, people who organize marches? Not so much. People who have jumped around between several philosophies that share similar threads, for years? Also probably not so much.

Rep +1

Unpopular opinion:
Outside of self-defense, there is literally no reason to punch a Nazi/Klansman. Violence begets martyrdom which further propagates the disease that is bigotry and racism. The correct response to bigotry is social annexation. Get them (peacefully) fired from their job. Get them (peacefully) cut-off from the community. Make it clear that they are welcome back at any time they wish to espouse their vitriol, but make it doubly clear that racism and bigotry is not to be tolerated in America, or any civilized society for that matter. Make it clear that gatherings of bigoted individuals will not be condoned. Make them huddle in darkness, afraid of their ideals being made public. While this will backfire in some cases, in the majority of cases the "weekend warriors" that only spout bigotry when it suits them will hopefully change their ways.

The rest will be left penniless and silenced, while maintaining everyone's rights to free speech. In fact, this is the literal modus operandi of antifa - out fascists so that communities can shun them. "Violent" antifa is a mythos propagated so an orange humanoid can keep from walking back a statement he has way more pride in than he should.

The problem with saying "violence begets violence" is that the statement is true only some of the time. Violence has, historically, been used quite effectively for social change, from Stonewall to Ferguson.

In situations where violence is likely to cause more harm than good, do not use violence. In situations where violence would be effective, use violence. High handed blanket statements like the one you've parroted only serve to remove tools that the vulnerable have at their disposal. The real point here is that real, breathing people are more important than ideas, more important than your personal notions of right and wrong. Pacifism is a beautiful idea, a romantic idea, but advocating for it in this way elevates it above the real time well being of every day people.

When you maintain that social isolation and getting others fired from their jobs is a just and upright way of pressuring Nazi's to conform but throwing a punch is barbarism, that's another clear sign that you're just jacking off to your own moral ideology rather than caring about the well being of actual people. Do you hear yourself? "Let us put them and their children at risk of starvation from loss of income, but a black eye to the right side of the face is too far!" It's damned silliness.

Antifa's actions at Berkley, for example, prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from outing transgender students and illegal immigrants. When your moral compass is completely inflexible such as you and Scammel have indicated, you'd prefer to see that happen than see "left wing thugs" prevent it.

It's as if I created an alt account that became sentient. Couldn't have put any of that better myself.

It's almost like you both like to use big words to say stupid things.

Spooky.

 

[windwakemeup]

Rep +1



The problem with saying "violence begets violence" is that the statement is true only some of the time. Violence has, historically, been used quite effectively for social change, from Stonewall to Ferguson.

In situations where violence is likely to cause more harm than good, do not use violence. In situations where violence would be effective, use violence. High handed blanket statements like the one you've parroted only serve to remove tools that the vulnerable have at their disposal. The real point here is that real, breathing people are more important than ideas, more important than your personal notions of right and wrong. Pacifism is a beautiful idea, a romantic idea, but advocating for it in this way elevates it above the real time well being of every day people.

When you maintain that social isolation and getting other fired for from their jobs is a just an upright way of pressuring Nazi's to conform but throwing a punch is barbarism, that's another clear sign that you're just jacking off to your own moral ideology than you care about the well being of actual people. Do you hear yourself? "Let us put them and their children at risk of starvation from loss of income, but a black eye to the right side of the face is too far!" It's damned silliness.

Antifa's actions at Berkley, for example, prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from outing transgender students and illegal immigrants. When your moral compass is completely inflexible such as you and Scammel have indicated, you'd prefer to see that happen than see "left wing thugs" prevent it.



It's almost like you both like to use big words to say stupid things.

Spooky.

Thank you for saying the things I wanted to but couldn't figure out quite how to say. (I'm not the best at words.)

 

[Teruhn]

Rep +1



The problem with saying "violence begets violence" is that the statement is true only some of the time. Violence has, historically, been used quite effectively for social change, from Stonewall to Ferguson.

In situations where violence is likely to cause more harm than good, do not use violence. In situations where violence would be effective, use violence. High handed blanket statements like the one you've parroted only serve to remove tools that the vulnerable have at their disposal. The real point here is that real, breathing people are more important than ideas, more important than your personal notions of right and wrong. Pacifism is a beautiful idea, a romantic idea, but advocating for it in this way elevates it above the real time well being of every day people.

When you maintain that social isolation and getting others fired from their jobs is a just and upright way of pressuring Nazi's to conform but throwing a punch is barbarism, that's another clear sign that you're just jacking off to your own moral ideology rather than caring about the well being of actual people. Do you hear yourself? "Let us put them and their children at risk of starvation from loss of income, but a black eye to the right side of the face is too far!" It's damned silliness.

Antifa's actions at Berkley, for example, prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from outing transgender students and illegal immigrants. When your moral compass is completely inflexible such as you and Scammel have indicated, you'd prefer to see that happen than see "left wing thugs" prevent it.



It's almost like you both like to use big words to say stupid things.

Spooky.

There was a reason Dr. King advocated peaceful resistance. Unnecessary violence only demeans your cause in the eyes of others. Antifa is demonized by non-antifa because of their use of violence - whether justified or not. I am not saying violence is never the answer, but why would you so readily resort to the tactics of the people you despise? Drown out their rhetoric. Don't let them spread their hatred. Let them know their views are unwelcome. None of this by definition requires violence.

Violence should always be a last resort, but I agree that it should be used when it will protect someone where otherwise speech would not. The problem is you are far too quick to deem violence necessary.

 

[bobjr]

I don't know, Dr. King had his resistance treated as a violent uprising at the time. Antifa could literally do anything and they'd be demonized in that way. Charlottesville was unfortunate as the reports of Nazi's and White Supremacists weren't just allowed, they were tolerated by police until an innocent person was killed. It only got worse as we had a U.S. president refuse to condemn their behavior. I would love it if these people would just want to learn, and we have an education system that shows us why these historical figures were bad, even if they were important, but I just don't see a purely peaceful solution with the current administration.

 

[Teruhn]

I don't know, Dr. King had his resistance treated as a violent uprising at the time. Antifa could literally do anything and they'd be demonized in that way. Charlottesville was unfortunate as the reports of Nazi's and White Supremacists weren't just allowed, they were tolerated by police until an innocent person was killed. It only got worse as we had a U.S. president refuse to condemn their behavior. I would love it if these people would just want to learn, and we have an education system that shows us why these historical figures were bad, even if they were important, but I just don't see a purely peaceful solution with the current administration.

Sorry, I feel I'm failing spectacularly at getting my point across. Let me rephrase my argument in the form of a question: How does punching a Nazi solve - or push us towards a solution for - what is a fundamentally social/ideological issue? How does it answer the underlying issue of white resentment in America?

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no entirely peaceful solution under this current administration, but the idea that punching a Nazi will somehow solve our problems is both laughable and dangerous. It is a scapegoat that is attempting to let us bypass the gritty work of cultural reform. It will not permanently fix the issue. It will not save lives - in fact, resorting to violence is more likely to cause casualties.

So I guess my real question is this - Why resort to unnecessary violence when it won't fix anything?

 

[satopi]

Sorry, I feel I'm failing spectacularly at getting my point across. Let me rephrase my argument in the form of a question: How does punching a Nazi solve - or push us towards a solution for - what is a fundamentally social/ideological issue? How does it answer the underlying issue of white resentment in America?

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no entirely peaceful solution under this current administration, but the idea that punching a Nazi will somehow solve our problems is both laughable and dangerous. It is a scapegoat that is attempting to let us bypass the gritty work of cultural reform. It will not permanently fix the issue. It will not save lives - in fact, resorting to violence is more likely to cause casualties.

So I guess my real question is this - Why resort to unnecessary violence when it won't fix anything?

I think the term, "knocking some sense into ya" applies here.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I don't think anyone seriously means to presume punching a Nazi is a cure, it's a deterrent. If you're Joe Nazi and you know there's a good possibility that you're going to get you're *** beat if you wave the swastika flag down main street, you're likely going to be less motivated to go out and profess those sentiments. Take Richard Spencer, for example. He talked a big game until he was slugged, then decided tweeting from the safety of his apartment was the best route. Just because it's not a cure doesn't mean it's worthless.

Violent and non violent tactics need to be used together, strategically, on a case by case basis. Bobjr touched on a point I was going to make in that even when the left isn't being violent, they're perceived as being such. Both my mother and grandmother voted for Trump. We had a conversation about Charlottesville, and they defended Trump's remarks that there was violence on both sides despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Teruhn]

I think the term, "knocking some sense into ya" applies here.

And that solves what, precisely?

Cool, you "knock some sense" into one person (presuming that even works) and you feel better...and what, all Nazis just go cower in a corner?

 

[bobjr]

If someone who identifies as Nazi and is worried people will find that out then the job is done from my percpective. An ideology founded on hate should be afraid to practice it. If peaceful solutions work that's great, but maybe I'm just a little to cynical to just hope for the besf and not do anything about it.

 

[Scammel]

He talked a big game until he was slugged, then decided tweeting from the safety of his apartment was the best route. Just because it's not a cure doesn't mean it's worthless.

So he's free to inculcate the exact same ideas, except now with a greater degree of self-righteousness and vindication, away from the public eye and without effective visible public challenge?

 

[satopi]

And that solves what, precisely?

Cool, you "knock some sense" into one person (presuming that even works) and you feel better...and what, all Nazis just go cower in a corner?

It's not like I agree with using violence but some people believe the tactic of using fire with fire will help by giving them a taste of their own medicine in which they hope it might open their eyes just as if they used words to persuade them. Like that one experiment a Southern teacher used on her students where she segregated blue eyes from brown eyes, saying blue eyes can drink from the water fountain and have bigger privileges than kids born with brown eyes then a few minutes later, switch the roles and have the kids experience why what their parents have been telling them is wrong (which the teacher later on did get into a lot of trouble for). Again, I don't believe nor agree with this type of technique.

 

[Teruhn]

If someone who identifies as Nazi and is worried people will find that out then the job is done from my percpective. An ideology founded on hate should be afraid to practice it. If peaceful solutions work that's great, but maybe I'm just a little to cynical to just hope for the besf and not do anything about it.

You're certainly justified in being cynical considering how nonsensically awful this year has been for anyone with common decency. I've been coping with strong bouts of depression and nihilism ever since election night myself.

That being said, while violence is an incredibly short-term solution that can be used to prevent actual lives from being taken, the more we use violence the more their ideology festers and spreads. It actively hurts our cause of ridding the world of fascism. So while we certainly need to use force in cases where it is necessary (Charlottesville is a good example, where law enforcement wouldn't step up and Antifa took charge to protect innocent counter-protesters from violent Nazis), we need to limit it as much as possible in favor of more social approaches.

 

[Mordent99]

This isn't a "a fundamentally social/ideological issue", Teruhn, it's good versus evil.

There was once a time in this country where nobody would propose the benefits of being political incorrect, it was considered an immoral and unthinkable view.

Now we've gone further, and our President seems willing to accept Nazism as a legitimate political viewpoint.

IMOHO, the best way to respond to Nazi groups is the way this guy did:

http://www.snopes.com/attorney-general-of-alabama-told-the-klan/

Note, this was a year after the Klan bombed a church and killed four children. Result? The ringleader of the attack was convicted of murder-one, received the maximum sentence, and died in prison.

 

[U.N. Owen]

Is this really a debate? One has good intentions that end up with terrible means while the other camp has bad intention with equally terrible means.

 

[bobjr]

What terrible means is Antifa doing? When Nazis are marching in the street with guns you can't just wave it away, because letting that go without resistance will give them more power than anything.

 

[Teruhn]

This isn't a "a fundamentally social/ideological issue", Teruhn, it's good versus evil.

Certainly, fascism is evil. There is no debate on that. But how does fascism spread if not via social means? Does that not make it a social issue? It's not like a Nazi shoots someone and another child gets its swastika. You don't stop fascism by killing every fascist. That's like trying to kill a hydra by cutting off its head. When you kill one fascist, another fascist uses that as propaganda to "prove" how we're all out to "get them" and recruit more to their detestable cause. The best way to handle quashing an ideology isn't with violence but with culture. Who do you think an impressionable teen is going to be more inclined to follow - a broke laughingstock or literally everyone else? Fascism only grows when it's kept to the shadows. That's specifically what Antifa attempts to do historically - outing fascists to their communities so they can be made the laughingstocks they rightfully should be.

I think you're skating around my main point:
Violence is perfectly acceptable to prevent someone's life from being at risk to racist terrorism. But it does nothing to solve the issue, which is why we need to talk less about punching Nazis and more about outing and shaming them.

 

[bobjr]

Honestly it needs to go further than that. We need to start with education systems that are clear why these people and ideologies are wrong. Make it a big focus on critical thinking, since you could even do why the Founding Fathers were big historical figures but their morality system will not match yours.

 

[Mordent99]

You don't stop fascism by killing every fascist.

Making one President is even worse.

Know how parents tend to tell children to "just ignore" bullying and trolling? Sorry mom, that's horrible advice. Telling everyone "don't feed the troll" would work, in theory, but is very hard to put into practice in a modern community, like the worldwide web. Trolls know that the more active the forum community are and the more members there are, the easier it will be for the troll to bait someone into responding to their antics because there is always at least one person who can't ignore the troll. Small communities in forums or forums that are very closed off (or has a very active moderation team) usually will have less trolls because everyone knows what to do when they encounter one.