AntiFa ate my baby: Today in Tweets

@ChimericMind
I went back and read both of your comments and I think you may need to practice your reading comprehension,
I could not find any post by Dalilama threatening another user,
nor any post by them condemning nonviolence or suggesting any obligation to commit violent acts and the violence they support is clearly directed at the swastika flying neo nazis.

The positions they hold seem to be that violence against nazis is always justified as self defense because they clearly indicate there intent to kill marginalized people now or later,
antifa meeting nazis in the streets acts as deterrent and mitigates noncombatant and civilian casualties,
that opposing violence against nazis supports them and enables violence against marginalized people,
that the status quo in the united states is and always has been in some form white supremacist and that the main stream democratic party is the party status quo (with the republicans being exponentially worse) and acts in self interest rather then humanitarian obligation.

Dalilama is of course free to clarify my interpretation.

Its worth noting that every successful civil rights movement had violent elements that worked along the nonviolent elements (black panthers, stonewall, even the suffragettes got into fights with police),
and that antifa kept the British out of the axis powers by fighting nazis in the street its also commonly speculated (even by Hitler himself) that if the nazis rallies were met with sufficient force in Germany during the early stages of their rise to power said raise to power (and the holocaust) might have been prevented.

To me Dalilama just seems frustrated/angry with people who equate all violence as being the same and condemn any use of force for the sake of optics.

@Chimeric
I’m so sorry about your brother

@Tree Person

its also commonly speculated (even by Hitler himself) that if the nazis rallies were met with sufficient force in Germany during the early stages of their rise to power said raise to power (and the holocaust) might have been prevented.

When I was at university a million years ago, I remember reading that the German troops who enacted Hitler’s first “land grab”* – the retaking of the Rhineland – had standing orders to turn back if they met any resistance from the (I think) French occupying troops. They didn’t**, but imagine how history might have played out if the first sally forth had failed.

This is the fact I remember most frequently when told we’re over-reacting to the extreme right. Over-reaction is the appropriate response; they take everything else as encouragement.

* Inverted commas because the Rhineland was German territory. It was occupied under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

** I assume the lack of resistance was largely due to the political distaste at occupation 15 years afterwards feeling more like humiliating the loser than a necessary defence. Not because of superior forces or anything. But I could be wrong.

ETA I’m now thinking I mean the Ruhr- unless that’s the same. Memory!!!

@Chimericmind
Condolences about your brother.
That said, you do not get to fucking browbeat me with the spectre of transphobic violence. Seriously, do not do that shit.

’. You didn’t respond to why my syllogism was an incorrect summary of your views, you just dismissed it,

Because is was a)patently ludicrous, and b) another example of the same fragility This Handle was displaying. Now, if you want to go back and read my earlier posts for comprehension and try again, I’m happy to entertain arguments that address what I actually said.

possibly because you don’t want to spend any time examining the contradictions in your own philosophy when you could be going ON THE OFFENSE.

If you think this is going on the offence, I shudder to think how you’d react to my actually getting pissed off.

At least, I hope to god that your views really are just incoherent rage, because if they ARE coherent rage, then I genuinely expect you to start setting firebombs or,

Firebombs are a specialized tool, not suitable for most applications.

hopefully just remaining a keyboard crusader that alienates everyone eventually for being insufficiently pure.

Lol. I don’t think I actually know anyone outside the Mammoth who’d consider anything I’ve said here remotely controversial. Lol at the idea that ‘don’t condemn violence against nazis’ is an unattainable and excessive purity test. Lolsob, rather, because that kind of attitude is why we’re having these nazi troubles to begin with.

And so you know, this is not me arguing that violence doesn’t have a fully justifiable place, especially as a warding of greater violence or protection from imminent harm. This is not me arguing that the system, including parts of the Democratic and Green Parties, aren’t irrevocably stained with racism. This is not me arguing that the actions of the Antifa aren’t fully justified, nor that those they oppose haven’t already done everything Antifa gets accused of thousands of times over, and would do it in the future. I’m on board with all these views, and have to argue them regularly with people whose white privilege allows them to pretend that “Nazis and KKK only existed in the Before Times, they’re not really real anymore”.

Coulda fooled me.

This is me being genuinely scared that you’ve gone to a dark, dark place that I can’t accurately describe without violating the comments policy.

I wish you would, cos I’m curious what the hell you’re seeing and where it’s coming from. My first guess is knee-jerk red-baiting; did you chance to grow up before the Berlin Wall fell?

It’s not the group that you’re part of– it’s that you seem intent on pulling that group from justifiable defense into Valerie Solanas territory. You’re making trolls like Halaway actually sound like they might have half a point, and fuck you very much for that.

Dunno what you’ve been reading, but it bears no discernable resemblance to what I wrote.

Now, you can try to explain carefully how you’re NOT going where I’ve said you are,

If you’d knock off the ominous innuendo and say what you mean, we can discuss whatever it is.

and can settle this thing down, great. If you double down and go even further down that path, I’ll be holding you partly responsible for helping get my trans foster brother killed.

Gonna really need an explanation of that one. You’re starting to actually piss me off with this shit.

@Treeperson
Yes, that’s a good summary of my position.

@Dali

You’re doing a much better job at defending your position (and mine) than I ever could so I’ll just leave you to it, but while you’re here, I hear you made a Discord for WHTM, so I wanted to know if I could get a link 🙂

As far as I can tell, it seems like the confusion stems from Dali essentially saying:

“Nazis are white supremacists and bad and inherently dangerous, and violence against them is an important tool for self-defense and the defense of others.”

And also saying that:

“America was founded on white supremacy, and Democrats are also white supremacists.”

And people equating white supremacy to Nazism and fascism. Racism and white supremacy is an integral part of Nazism, but it’s hardly the only ideology and political position that is infested with it. I don’t see any sign that Dali claimed that violence against all racism is the only solution.

@Sinkable John
Try the link in Dali’s name and let us know if it doesn’t work.

@John

The link in my nym should work again .

Here’s one in case it doesn’t.

I should’ve paid attention :p

Thank yous.

Now to figure out how to use the link but my own app instead of the browser one – I only just recently started using Discord so I haven’t found all my bearings yet.

Edit : nevermind that, gots it.

First the silly thing, then the serious thing.

🚨🚨🚨 LOGIC NERD ALERT 🚨🚨🚨

1. Violence against fascists and white supremacists is justified.
2. It is not merely justified, but there is a moral imperative to strike first, so as to save lives.
3. Democrats are white supremacists too.

Ergo: Firebomb the democrats.

Not a syllogism. No major or minor terms/predicates. This is just an implication chain. 2 can and should be removed, making:

1. There is a moral imperative to strike first against white supremacists.
2. Democrats are white supremacists.
C. Strike first against the democrats.

Now there’s a syllogism!

Okay! That was silly and I apologize. More seriously: syllogisms are perfect-world thought experiments that don’t survive when exposed to the real world of morality. The logical binary ‘on-or-off’ nature they have ensures that they always fail to capture real world nuance. For more detail, any critique of Kant’s Categorical Imperative will do nicely.

More specific to this, I’m giving a serious squint at premise 2’s “Democrats”. That’s a category, not an individual, so it should properly be instantiated with a bit’o second-order logic magic, either an All or a Some. And how that’s instantiated makes all the difference in the world. (Frankly, the same should be done with the middle term, “white supremacists”, since that’s a category too)

Once you add those “Some” or “All” statements, then you might be able to have a serious discussion about it, but I think it’s sorta muddying the waters. Tends to turn arguments into semantics instead of the actual topic.

As for the actual topic – I don’t support violence, but I don’t support Nazis or White Supremacists even more than that. There’s a certain amount of yielding that has to happen between ethical urges in a well-formed morality, and the way it yields is specific to the situation. I don’t think seeing perfect consistency or universal rules is useful. The most important part is to look at what injustices are being confronted, whether any new injustices are being created, and where the balance of harms and benefits settle. Seeking consistency is nice, but I don’t think it’s a luxury we have. Seek justice instead, while being wary of your inconsistencies to be sure that you aren’t doing extra harms.

Scildfreja – One of my dad’s favorite quotes was “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I think it’s Emerson.

@Chimeric

I should add that I’m very sorry to hear what happened to your brother. 🙁

At first, I couldn’t tell whether you were speaking in the past or future tense. Sorry about that.

Oh gosh, yes. I’m sorry about your brother :C I misread that at first. That’s awful. I’m so sorry.

@Chimeric,

My deepest sympathy on the loss of your brother. Healing thoughts being sent your way.

I’ll be honest, initially I did vacillate a bit. I found myself thinking what was going on in the US was just a temporary nightmare and in 4 or 8 years time it would just be seen as a particularly bad presidency but then things would return to ‘normal’ (not that that’s any better for a lot of folks). And I reminded myself that fascist.and Nazi gets banded around a lot in political discourse.

But I kept coming back to this:

And it does seem all the same boxes are being ticked. But with one major difference. As has been pointed out upthread, the original Nazi threat did sneak up on the world a bit. It was easy to convince oneself that it was just fiery rhetoric, and the anti semitism was just economic anxiety. It’s not like the Wansee Conference was televised.

But this time there are no excuses for not seeing what’s going on. They’re quite candid, indeed ‘proud’ of their intentions. Trump didn’t pardon a racist cop covertly or reluctantly. He did it in the full glare of publicity using a national disaster to boost the ratings (we need a new definition of cynical, the old one’s redundant).

I’m thousands of miles away. And as a cishet white guy I’m probably way down the list. Heck I’m even tall and have blue eyes. If I whack on a polo shirt I’d be safe for ages. My less inconspicuous friends don’t enjoy that luxury. When Nazis threatened white Europeans we had a world war about it, so I’m not going to blame their victims now if they feel the need to get a bit percussive about things.

Slightly OT:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywwxj7/pepe-the-frogs-creator-gets-alt-right-childrens-book-pulled-vows-to-aggressively-enforce-his-intellectual-property

I really doubt he can save Pepe. He belongs to the fascists now. But good on him for fighting against them.

I’m bringing this up here, because the fascist sympathies of police were repeatedly mentioned earlier in this thread.

I’m in a middling-size city in Canada, and over the past year or so I’ve noticed a steep increase in police presence. They’re not hired from the local community either; they are the area’s provincial police.

Prior to about 2016, I saw police vehicles quite rarely when out and about town, mostly just two or three parked behind the police station if I happened to be passing near there. Since then there is frequent apparently random patrolling of the streets, and the number of police vehicles in the town seems to have (at least) tripled. Also, the ordinary black-and-whites have been joined by several large, aggressive-looking SUV things with “cow catcher” like barred apparatuses on the front, which I can’t imagine are intended for any purpose related to “keeping the peace”.

There is more, unfortunately: it seems police harassment of citizens has increased in proportion, if not more so. In a decade or so of living here until now, and walking to most places to save gas money, I’d been hassled exactly twice, both times for “obstructing traffic” by walking along the side of the road. In the first instance this was because the sidewalk didn’t exist, and in the second, the city had not bothered to put sand or salt down on them and I’d left my ice skates at home. In neither instance was I ticketed or given any other lasting consequence.

About three weeks ago, and roughly a year after the increased numbers and the aggressive-looking SUVs began to show up, one of those SUVs drove past me, turned onto a side street, and stopped blocking my path, where I was walking on the sidewalk approaching the crossing on that side street. I started to walk around it but the cop inside said to stop, and demanded to know where I’d been. I told him (truthfully). He then started badgering me for my name and other information. I asked him “Am I being detained?”, to which his answer was “no”, but when I went to continue walking he stepped into my path again and resumed badgering me for information he had no right to demand. He mentioned something about a(n alleged) string of robberies, and a very vague description of the suspect, saying I matched it — I in fact did not, as the one actual detail given in his description did not match me. I pointed this out, said I wasn’t his guy and that he was wasting his time, and again tried to resume walking. He moved ahead of me again and threatened me with “investigatory detention”. At around this time an unmarked van with two large antennae on its roof stopped next to his parked vehicle (I was a quarter block past it by then) and he turned to talk to the people inside it (more cops, I expect). I resumed walking, and altered the rest of my route home to add significant zigging and zagging and a stretch along a vehicle-impassable footpath.

The cops elected not to follow.

I have been somewhat disturbed by this incident ever since. I had committed no crime, did not match the description of the (alleged) thief they were (allegedly) after, and nonetheless was badgered, private information demanded, and threatened with jail. Civil rights seem to be eroding, not only in the US but (at a slower pace, or we’re just earlier on the curve) in Canada as well.

It should be noted that I am white and don’t visibly fall into any commonly police-oppressed group, save possibly one. Walking a significant distance with a pack full of shopping is, obviously, going to correlate with lower socio-economic status. I wouldn’t quite consider myself poor, per se, just being frugal, but that could be the assumption being made. So it looks like one can not only be pulled over and hassled for DWB, but now also for WWP (walking while poor).

I’ve been out a few times since then, still usually saving money (and carbon footprint) by walking, but avoiding the more major streets as they are the most heavily patrolled. But I should not have to do this, and I should not have to fear that there will be another instance of unprovoked harassment, one that perhaps might escalate further than that one did. Why is this happening, and is it peculiar to my neck of the woods or widespread in Canada? Is it linked with the rise of the alt-right in the US?

In an attempt to answer the latter question I tried to apply Peter Turchin’s structural-demographic hypothesis to Canada. My off the cuff estimate was that, since Upper and Lower Canada and the maritime provinces united to become the Dominion of Canada right at around the same time as the US Civil War occurred, perhaps Canada was 180 degrees out of phase with the US in terms of the longer “secular cycle”, in which case it should be moving into an integrative phase now, not a disintegrative one. When I looked at political violence in Canadian history, however, I found no evidence at all for Canada having a secular cycle. Turchin’s shorter 50-year cycle stood out clearly, and seems to be synchronized with the US cycle, with the Riel Rebellions, FLQ crisis, and other significant (by Canadian standards) political violence outbreaks lining up with US counterparts. The last two such led the US peaks by about five years, and the next should actually be just finishing now (while the US’s is just starting, with Charlottesville). There were a few small-scale attempted terrorist acts in the capital over the past few years, which seems to have been Canada’s counterpart.

So, Canada does not look, at first blush, like it’s about to come apart at the seams. On the other hand, “there’s a first time for everything”. I know several other readers here are Canadian and hope that some of you have some insight, even if just reports “from the trenches” of similar events (or a lack of them) in disparate areas of the country. Is Canada heading for a structural-demographic crack-up, or is something else (perhaps more benign) at work here, such as spillover/trend-following from recent US behaviors such as militarizing the police?

^ Canada has been having increased hostility and attacks on our Muslim population, most notably in Quebec City, where a mosque was attacked by a shooter who killed 6 people and injured approximately a dozen more, and more recently the president of that same mosque had his car torched. Additionally, there has been legislation proposed/passed (mainly in Quebec) that makes it very difficult for women in burqas or niqabs to access government services, or even ride the bus. Not to mention the Proud Boys and the continued murders/disappearances of First Nations people.

The same sickness that’s infecting the states is spreading here too. (Or I suppose it’s always been here, under the surface mostly, and is just starting to flare up here and be more visible.)

@ChimericMind
Valerie Solanas was mentally ill (paranoid schizophrenia), held in a high-security psychiatric hospital, and sectioned again multiple times later, whatever your stance on the use of violence and whether you think it justified or not, she’s not an idealogical example given her illness really did influence her actions.

@Alan Robertshaw
To me the thing is, is Trump a particularly bad President (he’s a bad President, for definite) exactly, depending on how you look at it? His rhetoric is horrendous, he’s certainly said he’ll do awful things, and done some of them, and he provides encouragement for the Neo-Nazis. So far (and he certainly has time), I’d not swap him for Bush, though, because Bush’s actions had even more destructive effect, helped considerably by his relative competence. Would Bush be wanting to go into NK now, maybe, Axis of Evil and all (he might express himself less crudely, but it wasn’t really always better what he was saying), so far Trump is a lot of bluster, and may that continue.

It’s all part of the ongoing history of the US, I think, rather than a single ‘this could be it’ moment. That’d be the nukes, anyway, not small groups of Nazis, horrible though they are.

@Surplus to Requirements – the police seemed to take the far-right’s side in the march & protest on Aug. 20 in Quebec City. The group La Meute, who oppose “illegal immigration” (read: Muslims), had organized a march. Anti-racist groups did a counter-protest, which stopped La Meute from marching for a while. A guy with a Quebec flag got beaten up and things got generally chaotic, but then this happened (from the Montreal Gazette):

Montreal-based activist and counter protester Jaggi Singh was arrested by Quebec police outside the parking garage, reportedly for stepping behind the police line. The counter-protesters grew agitated and moved toward police, who released a dispersive gas and pepper-sprayed many counter protesters. They then forcibly removed the counter protesters.

My guess is that Singh was arrested for being a known leftist activist (he’s with QPIRG Concordia).

Meanwhile, La Meute leader Patrick Beaudry was in the parking garage, telling his group to remain calm and not to respond to provocation. The police brought La Meute members water while they waited for the counter protests to die down.

Nothing wrong with giving people water, but I didn’t hear about police handing out refreshments to antifa or the other anti-fascist groups.

Also, here’s a Charlottesville connection:

At least one of La Meute’s members – Shawn Beauvais-MacDonald – was spotted in VICE coverage of the Charlottesville demonstrations, but Brouillette said that person was there to support Donald Trump, and not white supremacy.

Yeah, sure. The full article is here.

that person was there to support Donald Trump, and not white supremacy.

Well, there’s a distinction without a difference.

People standing against Nazis… are the same as Nazis…

Chese.exe has encountered a fatal error and needs to close. Press ENTER to restart your dairy product.

@Everyone who gave condolences: Argh, dammit, this was not how I intended my statement to be received, but it’s my fault for wording it wrongly. I’m not saying that my foster brother actually WAS killed (although there have been a number of narrow escapes that a lot of other trans folk here have experienced the likes of). I feel terrible for drawing unwarranted sympathy in that area. My point is that my trans brother DOES have a job with his county’s Democratic Party HQ (as one of two jobs, since it naturally doesn’t pay much). I was bringing him up as someone that would be killed if someone acted on Dalilama’s combined implication that violence against the Democratic Party was justified because of its internalized racism. It was my way of saying that people within the same community, where people are supposed to look out for each, would be threatened by casting everything in black and white stark absolutes.

I am willing to accept Scildfreja’s critique of my logic, and I appreciate the clarifications brought in by her and Catalpa. So, let’s do a test and see if we can separate out the misunderstanding: Dali, are you of the opinion that Nazism can be separated from general racism, and thus it is not mandatory to confront all racism with violence? Because if so, I withdraw my objections and I’ll apologize for misunderstanding. If not, then it will at least highlight my problems with what I’ve perceived from your statements.

Oh, boy. 😒

@Chimeric

Argh, dammit, this was not how I intended my statement to be received, but it’s my fault for wording it wrongly

A common thread with you here…

Dali, are you of the opinion that Nazism can be separated from general racism, and thus it is not mandatory to confront all racism with violence?

First of all, not just nazis. Klanspeople too
Second, everyone with racist relatives, break their fuckin ribs over the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. Next time you see an old lady hold her purse close in an elevator when a black dude walks in, kick her teeth in. Statistically, anyone who likes country music probably deserves a wailing…

Or, maybe, you’re mad at something nobody said and that nobody would even mean. And consistently expressing your anger in the absolute worst way possible. Chill your shit

I haven’t read this whole threat and… well. Frankly, I’m not fixin’ to.

But good golly, if the time to start fighting isn’t when Nazis are marching in the streets, I don’t know WHEN it is.

We know who they are and we know what they want and I’m glad someone’s not waiting until after they’ve come to be before they take up the fight.

And as an aside…. I wonder what Eisenhower would think of a president of his party offering aid and comfort to the ideological cousins of those he fought to liberate Europe of.

@ChimericMind
I’m not sure that’s the easiest question, ethically, so would be interested in further clarification from Dalillama. Would we be defining Nazi specifically as those who actually identify as such? With the Alt-Reich around, that might be a limiting definition, and in the middle of a protest, it might not be easy to separate them out in any case (though, punching the ones with the Nazi flags sounds fair…). You might even get the odd dim Dem who thinks the whole thing really is about frozen peaches showing up, depending on the protest. Or, if not by admitted-Nazism, which specific aspects of their hateful ideaology would it be judged by? They are horrifically racist, but such racism is not exclusive to the Alt-Right. Calls for genocide would seem a given as an aspect justifying pre-emptive-punching, but these Neo-Nazis, even on their own sites (where they might be expected to be more open about it), don’t all actually do that, they have this fantasy where they’re handed an exclusively white state of their very own. And again, in the middle of a protest, you can’t necc. tell what precisely they believe or want, though it’ll probably be apparent they’re vile racists.

They are choosing to identify with, well Nazism, something rightly regarded as utterly hateful and destructive, but then, that’s part of why some of the Alt-Right seem to do it, because they think it’s edgy. Doesn’t mean they don’t mean it at all, but not sure their commitment to the ideaology is 100%. Does it make them all a threat (some are of course a definite threat, with histories of violence) in and of itself? Are they automatically more culpable than those supporting imperialist wars which kill tens/hundreds of thousand of brown people and destabilises a region? (they were probably all for that, too, initially. Though Trump supporters have backtracked on Iraq a bit) Which would take us back to the Dems, and to our British Labour party.

I’m not sure if we can look at as an ‘Nazism could happen again, and so we have to stop that’, because the fact we know it happened (and so do they) already changes it.

Can I also ask, how much force are you considering reasonable? Any? A punch? One which could still kill?

@Leo “I’m not sure if we can look at as an ‘Nazism could happen again, and so we have to stop that’, because the fact we know it happened (and so do they) already changes it.”

–It only changes if we heed the lesson of history.

@Axe
I think you’re being too optimistic. I really wouldn’t bet Republicans (meaning standard-issue ones, not just the Alt-Right) would think no one could possibly mean that (this is the main problem with the use of force as a tactic, and what I’m actually concerned about here, optics). Many of them are lying about Antifa, some appear sincerely confused. I’m not 100% sure what those advocating pre-emptive violence do mean, in practice, either, so perhaps some uncertainty is understandable.

Even with their horrible DV meme the other day, though that was them being deliberately disingenuous, I assume female Nazis indeed aren’t exempt from punchings? What about elderly Nazi relatives, come to that? (someone must be unlucky enough to have one)

@ChimericMind

Please go back and reread Dali’s posts and specifically point out the parts where they condemn nonviolence, requires people to engage in violence, and imply the fire bombing democratic party offices.

Because quite frankly I simply can not find any post suggesting any of that even implicitly after rereading the thread twice.

They mostly just call out people for condemning violence against nazis,
and points out that the united states basically lacks a left wing party by the standards of the rest of the world.

@Chimericmind
Okay, you really need to shut the fuck up about my alleged poor phrasing, or indeed anyone’s, now and forever. You also need to walk way the fuck back from the shit you’ve been saying in this thread, particularly about me. Your question has been answered repeatedly in my prior posts. Go read them again and don’t fucking talk to me until you have actually understood my clear fucking words.

@Leo

With the Alt-Reich around, that might be a limiting definition, and in the middle of a protest, it might not be easy to separate them out in any case (though, punching the ones with the Nazi flags sounds fair…). You might even get the odd dim Dem who thinks the whole thing really is about frozen peaches showing up, depending on the protest.

You march with Nazis, you’re in with them, I don’t give a rat’s ass what justification you use. You march in favor of genocide, you give speeches in favour of genocide, you wear the symbols of genocidal fuckers, you need your ass beat. It’s really pretty fucking straightforward, and y’all’s inability to grasp it doesn’t say anything good about you.

@Dali
That helps clarify somewhat, thank you. So, you’d base it on there being identifiable Nazis (are you including the Alt-Right as Nazis, or not, if so why/why not?) present, and would include people marching with them as targets. Advocating genocide, though, have they openly done that? I’m sure some of them would be for it, but even among themselves (where they have less reason to just lie), some are claiming not to be.

If genocide is the crux of the issue, would the same extend to other genocidal groups?

I don’t think it’s just straightforward. I don’t think the use of force as a tactic ever is. It’s not like I’d be safe from Nazis, as a disabled woman, so I don’t feel it says anything bad about me that I’d question the pre-emptive use of force as a tactic – it’s a question of ‘will this work?’ more than anything.

If Democratic party offices are ever bombed, it’s highly unlikely that antifa would be the ones involved. It would probably be Nazis or sovereign citizens (not much difference there) emboldened by the fact that it’s considered all impolite and improper to object to them too strenuously and emboldened by the lack of law enforcement objection to them even when they are armed and/or beating people up.

@Leo
YES, IT FUCKING DOES WORK, YOU BLITHERING NINNYHAMMER!!! FOR FUCK’S SAKE, HAVE YOU READ A SINGLE WORD I’VE WRITTEN!? Follow the links I gave. read what I and others have explained. Because I’m heartily fucking sick of rephrasing this very simple concept to pander to petty liberal sensibilities.

@Leo

I really wouldn’t bet Republicans (meaning standard-issue ones, not just the Alt-Right) would think no one could possibly mean that

Chimeric isn’t a Republican, what’s their excuse? Which is the thing. Dr King was labelled a domestic terrorist. For marching and boycotting. A certain type of person will always think the worst of anyone fighting the status quo. Worrying about optics seems a waste of time. Optics isn’t what’s there to see but what the powerful choose to see

I assume female Nazis indeed aren’t exempt from punchings? What about elderly Nazi relatives, come to that?

When fascists march thru Charlottesville in full riot gear, I don’t think gender or age matters as much as you seem to. Between the nazis and antifa, only one group has killed someone. With a car. Maybe I’m the bad guy here, but, if the point is to neutralize the threat of fascist violence, I’m not appreciably more bothered if the punched person is based stick granny rather based stick man

I assume female Nazis indeed aren’t exempt from punchings? What about elderly Nazi relatives, come to that?

If they’re Nazis actively marching in the streets and egging on the rest of their scum to attack marginalized people, and advocating for a return of Nazi and fascist policies? Yeah, having a walker while doing that isn’t going to get any sympathy from me.

If they’re sitting alone in their house thinking their nasty little Nazi thoughts, then they’re assholes and I still despise them. However, thought crimes aren’t things that can be addressed by barging in on people’s private opinions and beating them out of them, and no one here is suggesting that that is what should be done.

Antifa activities at marches aren’t intended to get Nazis to stop being Nazis by punching the Nazism out of them. It’s intended to get them to stop gathering together and forming enough of a support base to become a threat. It’s intended to get the Nazis to scuttle back under the rocks they came from and stop endangering people overtly.

I assume female Nazis indeed aren’t exempt from punchings? What about elderly Nazi relatives, come to that?

Call me an extremist but I don’t think “how hard of a target they are” matters when it comes to scum like literal nazis. If the point is to remove them from the public stage and keep them away from it, then I’m not sure there’s any relevance to just who among them gets punched.

Now it’s actually a moot point anyway. If that old nazi woman is marching onto a black church to burn it down, you punch, period. Debating whether or not it’s okay is both wildly inappropriate and a waste of time – time you should be using to keep that church from burning.

Let’s not forget that nazis never “peacefully demonstrate”.

“Antifa poisoned our water supply, burned our crops, and delivered a plague unto our houses!”

“They did?”

“No, but are we just gonna wait around until they do?”

“Punching women Nazis” seems tossed out there as a shield against Nazi-punching. Has it not been noticed just how many women there are donning black bloc? Rose City Antifa is one case where many women are on the front lines, but if you look at the recent pictures in Berkeley, you’ll see many women in the ranks. I don’t see images of the strong preying on the weak.

Also keep in mind, the Black Bloc goal is not ‘punch every Nazi anywhere forever no matter what they’re doing’ but to confront those out in public rallying and, thereby, de facto recruiting. We can certainly discuss whether or nor the tactics used are successful toward that end, but let’s not pretend that this is “I’m gonna punch your racist grandma”. It seems like Black Bloc tactics have managed to go on for decades without assaulting senior citizens and the otherwise frail. I have every confidence this will continue to be the case.

I’d also like to offer this piece. I know Rev. Blackmon was among those rescued by Black Bloc in Charlottesville along with Dr Cornel West.

“The reality — which is underdiscussed but essential to an understanding of our current situation — is that the civil rights work of Dr. King and other leaders was loudly opposed by overt racists and quietly sabotaged by cautious moderates. We believe that current moderates sincerely want to condemn racism and to see an end to its effects. The problem is that this desire is outweighed by the comfort of their current circumstances and a perception of themselves as above some of the messy implications of fighting for liberation.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html

I’ll give you this in a hand-basket: Civil rights leaders are so much more gosh darn eloquent than their fascistic opposition. I mean, really. These motherlovers speak like poets, with a depth of knowledge and soul that should make us all weep at the state of the education of our children, and ourselves. Meanwhile, the other side’s Pepe memes and racist pun chants.

Eloquence isn’t a sign of being right, but it’s sure a sign of deeper thought.

Why did this thread move over to the thought experiment of whether it is okay to punch old lady Nazis with bad hips, and off the real, concrete question of whether is is okay to punch young, able-bodied Nazis who are pepper-spraying peaceful counterprotesters and threatening bodily harm on nonviolent clergy?

The reality is that frail old ladies with walkers are not factually marching with Nazis, so the question of whether it would be okay to punch them in the fantasy land where this happens is a slippery-slope distraction. We’re not in actuality on a slippery slope where our logic might lead us to an absurd result. The result is absurd because the thought experiment is based in absurdity.

@ scildfreja

Eloquence isn’t a sign of being right, but it’s sure a sign of deeper thought.

Isn’t the problem though that visceral and simplistic soundbites work?

You’re quite right that there’s more thought in progressive circles. But is that necessarily effective, especially when there’s a climate of almost anti intellectualism. Like the “people are sick of ‘experts'” motiff that was so successful here in the Brexit campaign.

How many people can quote MLK beyond “I have a dream” or “content of his character”?

“Make America Great Again” is contentless duckspeak, that dissappears into a puff of smoke on the most basic analysis.

But note that even that is more than enough for the target audience. Just stick “MAGA” on a baseball hat and they’ll rally to the cause.

It’s not about thought, it’s about feelings. Symbols are more important than ideas. If Socrates was around today he’d probably be ‘corrupting the youth’ with memes rather than dialogue.

@Axe
I take the point about optics being what the media wants to see, rather than what’s there to see. I think it’s still better to try not to give them anything to see, though, or rather to give them something obvious to see that will come over well. Recent counter-protests have looked better than Berkely did.

@Dali
I’m not a liberal. Far left, ecosocialist (not thrilled by the ‘ISIS for vegans’ stupid Daily Show anti-Antifa comment). It isn’t as though it should be remotely surprising for someone on the left to question the pre-emptive use of force, some would be entirely pacifist, which I am not.

I’ve read what you said, I’m still not sure. It’s early days so not totally clear how the Nazis will react in the longer term, and if Antifa are really seen as a violent commie threat or whatever the narrative becomes, more might join them. It’s not simply about whether it works on the Nazis, though, but the impression Republicans, ‘centrists’, Dems get. Look at the (unfair, false equivalence) reaction you’re getting from the Dems now, this was pretty much to be expected. This isn’t going to stop here even if you stop the Nazis, right, the underlying problem won’t resolve? Because it goes much deeper than that, as we can see in the police response. So, as far as I can see, either the options are violent revolution (in which case I’d be more inclined to plan directly for that than focusing just on the Nazis), which I’m thinking you don’t want, if you don’t see Dems as targets unless they’re marching with Nazis. Or, you work within the existing political system, either attempting to reform the Dems, or to create a third party. Both of those things might be harder if you have another red scare on your hands, rather than positive associations built up about what your ideaology means.

@Sinkable John
I can definitely see the argument that Nazis can’t peacefully protest basically by definition, but as for what they’ve actually done, it’s not always been violent, from all of them, and Dali is including those marching with them as targets. Maybe they would have become more violent if Antifa hadn’t been there, it’s hard to know. It’s about the optics rather than just whether they’re seen as having deserved it – beat up Lauren Southern, a young, pretty, white blonde woman who often seems to act as reporter (which makes her come over as a less direct participant, even though she is), I don’t think you’ll get a good response.

Acting to prevent a black church being burnt and to protect the congregation is a responsive use of force, defence against a direct and immediate threat, it’s not a pre-emptive one. I suppose there might still be a question over amount of force precisely necessary, if you don’t want to kill anyone.

@Policy of Madness
The point at which Dali advocated the pre-emptive use of force against Nazis and those marching with them. I don’t think the question is over whether it’s Ok to use force in direct self-defence, or in defence of others.

I might be mistaken but I thought some of the Nazi men/those with them did look older, I wasn’t thinking an old lady. The odd younger woman, possibly more likely.

I don’t want to get too thought experiment-y, though, but I think it’s important, if pre-emptive use of force is advocated, to think a bit about what that means and how it might pan out. If an Antifa kills a ‘free speech protester’, even if they were actually an actual Nazi, it will look bad. Also, I don’t think Nazis are worth going to prison for, if it can be helped.

@Leo

Dali advocated the pre-emptive use of force against Nazis

There’s no such thing as pre-emptive use of force against Nazis.

If Nazis or white supremacists or white nationalists are present, they’re there to murder innocent people or gather a support base to murder innocent people later. The presence of Nazis is the force they’re using against you. Punching Nazis is always self-defense.

Like, this is fucking obvious. If you see a KKK rally, you disrupt or destroy it because they will lynch innocent people for no reason. If you see a Nazi rally, you disrupt or destroy it because they already have a body count of 11 million and WE DON’T NEED ANY MORE EVIDENCE THAT NAZIS ARE THREATS TO ALL HUMANKIND.

It’s like arguing that when Orcs advance on your city waving weapons and talking about how much they’re gonna like it when they disembowel everyone in it, you’re the person saying “But we have to let them disembowel us!” Or maybe you’re the one saying “I don’t actually live there. The Orcs won’t disembowel me, and I don’t care about the people they will kill.”

You’re being intentionally obtuse, and I don’t care enough to diagnose if you’re being obtuse because you refuse to understand reality or because you’re a nazi sympathizer. Fundamentally, whatever your motivation to stand by while white supremacists murder people (And it’s more than just Heather Heyer – I have a list somewhere as of Aug 15) is irrelevant – you’re still standing by while these butchers kill the people you have a responsibility to help protect.

I don’t think the question is over whether it’s Ok to use force in direct self-defence, or in defence of others.

But that’s not what you’re arguing. You’re making up a story about what if there were kittens marching with the Nazis, would it be okay to punch the kittens. There are no kittens marching with Nazis so trying to find the answer to that question is navel-gazing.

I might be mistaken but I thought some of the Nazi men/those with them did look older, I wasn’t thinking an old lady. The odd younger woman, possibly more likely.

If for some reason you are squeamish about punching a female Nazi on the grounds of her femaleness, be comforted by the fact that male Nazis perform hard gatekeeping and keep most women away. They are highly misogynist and don’t think women should be outside the kitchen, let alone marching in rallies.

I don’t want to get too thought experiment-y, though, but I think it’s important, if pre-emptive use of force is advocated, to think a bit about what that means and how it might pan out.

Where has anyone advocated hunting down Nazis and punching them or

If an Antifa kills a ‘free speech protester’

murdering them? The whole point is to keep Nazis from organizing, not thoughtpolicing the populace.

Also, I don’t think Nazis are worth going to prison for, if it can be helped.

Nazis are not worth a prison sentence, but freedom from Nazis might be. Don’t elide the two. It’s disingenuous.

If Nazis or white supremacists or white nationalists are present, they’re there to murder innocent people or gather a support base to murder innocent people later.

There’s a significant difference between the former and the latter. The former is an immediate threat, the latter is not, and is conditional on them gaining support, which is a bit hard when even Republicans backed away from Trump’s disgraceful ‘both sides’ rhetoric. It’s easy to frame Nazis as unpatriotic.

The KKK are a more immediate risk of the former, yes. That’s what they do. These Neo-Nazis? I’m not sure that is their immediate aim. Among themselves at least some of them claim not to be genocidal (not that I would trust them, obvs., but they’re not directly advocating it). Dali is also including anyone marching with Nazis, and hasn’t yet specified if the Alt-Reich count as Nazis or not.

These are not the actual Nazis who killed 11 million, and they don’t yet have that political power. Some of them seem more like utter racist idiots trying to be edgy than an immediate threat, although some certainly are.

If you have a better term than pre-emptive use of force that still distinguishes it from immediate self-defence, I’d be glad to use it.
There are however more options to disrupt their rallies than showing up with the intent of beating them up.
I don’t doubt for a second some are violent, we do know they are. They’ve yet to kill more than one person at a protest (RIP, Heather Heyer), though, though it could have been more and Antifa may well have helped prevent that, so I’m not sure whether they are all gathering with immediate violent intent, though violence very much remains a possibility from them. I’m again not questioning the use of force in direct, immediate, self-defence or defence of others.

I’m looking at the long-term aims, many more will indeed die unless that can be achieved, and it might be Dems killing them as much as it might be Nazis.

@Leo

Advocating genocide, though, have they openly done that?

Are you fucking serious right now? Do you read this blog?