Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

[speising]

And i pointed out that not caring about the law is a problem that can lead to atrocities. Which should be avoided.

[gmalivuk]

And i pointed out that not caring about the law is a problem that can lead to atrocities.

Bullshit.

Not caring about people is a problem that can lead to atrocities. Sometimes that means breaking the law, other times that means blindly following it, usually that means a bit of both.

[MartianInvader]

Could... could we maybe get back to discussing whether violence against Nazis/White supremacists is morally justified? I still really, really don't think it is unless it's against someone who is actively being physically violent.

[speising]

And i pointed out that not caring about the law is a problem that can lead to atrocities.

Bullshit.

Not caring about people is a problem that can lead to atrocities. Sometimes that means breaking the law, other times that means blindly following it, usually that means a bit of both.

Caring about people is certainly an additional consideration.

[Weeks]

And i pointed out that not caring about the law is a problem that can lead to atrocities. Which should be avoided.

*can* being the operative word here, right? Like, public indecency *can* lead to someone looking at my junk, which would be atrocious.

[SDK]

Could... could we maybe get back to discussing whether violence against Nazis/White supremacists is morally justified? I still really, really don't think it is unless it's against someone who is actively being physically violent.

I'm solidly in the "don't punch Nazi's unless they're being violent first" camp, but I actually do think preemptive (or preventative?) violence against Nazis can be morally justified. Just not for individuals. I personally think that being a Nazi or espousing inherently violent viewpoints should be illegal (as it effectively is in most Western countries) and that the government does have the moral justification to use violence against them when necessary.

Stating exactly that previously has gotten me labeled a Nazi sympathizer around here, but I know there are several of us on these boards that are now mostly silent but agree on that stance.

Is that what you meant, Martian, or did you intend to make that statement more broad to include all violence? Do you believe that we as a society have no role to play in preventing those beliefs, by force if necessary?

[gmalivuk]

And i pointed out that not caring about the law is a problem that can lead to atrocities.

Bullshit.

Not caring about people is a problem that can lead to atrocities. Sometimes that means breaking the law, other times that means blindly following it, usually that means a bit of both.

Caring about people is certainly an additional consideration.

It's the most important consideration. If the law doesn't actually help people, then fuck the law and fuck the people enforcing it.

[Pfhorrest]

I feel like I'm just repeating myself here, since I'm not MartianInvader, but... yeah, proportional response. Counter speech with speech, rallies with rallies, threats with threats, violence with violence. Or rather, no more than the same for each; always less if possible and still effective, de-escalate if you can, but first and foremost never escalate. And always defer to existing social institutes to handle it if available, so you're not starting a new fight with them too; but if they're not available, feel free to do it yourself.

Forcibly banning certain opinions, no matter how reprehensible, will only force those people underground where they can fester, when they need to be sterilized by the light. They need to see that their opinions are not acceptable to most people, definitely, and publicly saying why they are wrong whenever they speak up (arguing, with speech) both shows them that and shows other people why they are wrong and why not to join with them. It won't change their opinions, but that's not the point of that kind of response. It's showing and shaping the broader public opinion.

Changing the reprehensible opinions themselves can only be done (if even then) by brute demonstration. People who are afraid of The Other won't stop being afraid of them until they live and work and play alongside them and see that they are not a threat. Fighting the people with these opinions, violently, whether you're that Other yourself or on behalf of some such Other, only entrenches their fear that gave rise to their beliefs. You can't fight hate with hate; it just isn't effective.

[gmalivuk]

That's why violence has never stopped Nazis and never will.

[Pfhorrest]

Making war against Nazi who are making war against people is explicitly allowed by proportional response.

[gmalivuk]

But until they start killing millions of people it's inappropriate to use violence?

Your logic also explains why Germany has been taken over again and again by Nazis ever since it forcibly banned being a Nazi.

[Pfhorrest]

As soon as one person uses violence, it's okay to use violence, against that person. You don't have to wait until it's millions, just until someone throws the first punch.

Of course you can start threatening violence the moment they start it too, and make sure they know that that first punch will not go ignored.

It's a false dichotomy to say we either do nothing until the next genocide or we start punching people walking around chanting. There's a whole lot of middle ground between those.

[gmalivuk]

And "violent preventative self-defense or defense of others is not acceptable" is too close to the "do nothing" side of that middle ground for many people's liking. Your logic prohibits shooting a person holding a gun on you or someone else, because so far that person has only threatened violence and not actually done any.

[Pfhorrest]

Either I've misspoken or you've misunderstood me if you think I think shooting someone holding a gun on someone is not acceptable.

Likewise, if a Nazi comes up to your door and verbally assails you and won't leave, threatening him with a gun until he leaves is acceptable.

Punching someone marching and chanting in public is not.

Just straight up shooting the guy at your door with no warning is not.

Just straight up shooting people marching and wearing but not firing guns is not.

Wearing your own gun where they can see it in return is.

I'm not in the right headspace right now to try to properly articulate a precisely worded rule to encapsulate that principle but I hope you get the gist of my position better now.

[morriswalters]

And "violent preventative self-defense or defense of others is not acceptable" is too close to the "do nothing" side of that middle ground for many people's liking. Your logic prohibits shooting a person holding a gun on you or someone else, because so far that person has only threatened violence and not actually done any.

That's an interesting argument coming from you.

[gmalivuk]

Counter speech with speech, rallies with rallies, threats with threats, violence with violence. Or rather, no more than the same for each; always less if possible and still effective, de-escalate if you can, but first and foremost never escalate.

Responding to threats of violence with actual violence is escalating.

And "violent preventative self-defense or defense of others is not acceptable" is too close to the "do nothing" side of that middle ground for many people's liking. Your logic prohibits shooting a person holding a gun on you or someone else, because so far that person has only threatened violence and not actually done any.

That's an interesting argument coming from you.

What's an interesting argument? Do you think I'm somehow being hypocritical when I say violent self-defense is justified, and yet simultaneously don't think police are justified in murdering unarmed "scary" black children?

This thread is a massive waste.

Also, can whoever's coercively forcing morriswalters to keep participating in this waste of a thread please stop?

[Pfhorrest]

I thought of a succinct way to (hopefully) get across my position better:

If they would have shot someone had you not shot them, then it's not escalation to shoot them.

That may be a tricky empirical question to answer (would they have?), but it's the question to be asking.

[morriswalters]

Also, can whoever's coercively forcing morriswalters to keep participating in this waste of a thread please stop?

Tch, Tch. That was the old thread. This is the shiny new, we've cleaned out the riff raff thread, about about ethical use of violence upon people we don't like.

Do you think I'm somehow being hypocritical when I say violent self-defense is justified, and yet simultaneously don't think police are justified in murdering unarmed "scary" black children?

Only you would know that. I don't read minds and I have no idea why you chose that example. But it is an odd choice, and as such, interesting. But if you are looking for that argument from me, keep looking. I'm not interested.

In any case you don't need to justify violent self defense to me. I'm not the custodian of your morals. I've just never found it useful personally. I even understand why you might have to act. I understand civil disobedience. But if you act alone, then carry the responsibility alone. Why would I need to support you if you refuse my input? And the idea of "smack a Nazi" is ridiculous.

Now I'll go away.

[gmalivuk]

↶
I don't read minds and I have no idea why you chose that example.

Because it was the only thing I could think of that would make it an interesting argument "coming from me". I don't understand what you think was odd about it, considering that throughout this entire thread people have made the argument that Nazis constitute a threat and countering them constitutes (self-)defense from that threat and countering them violently constitutes violent self-defense.

[Zamfir]

A (really useless and frustrating) politician in Israel was asked what his position on marijuana legalization is. He answered "Well it's illegal", which is the most stupid and dumb response I can think of. Laws can be changed, and they can be changed according to developments in our understanding of moral behavior, but it's not usually very quickly. Homosexuality was still illegal in the US until 2003 - does that mean it was immoral? The separation between what's legal and what's moral is absolutely worthwhile. To say that only the legal is moral is to walk towards fascism.

In both these examples, the laws itself is the core topic of discussion. But is that also the case here, in this discussion about anti-nazi violence?

I have seen some suggestions upthread that US law should have hate-speech bans, with references to Germany. But that covers only a small part of the topic - Germany has nazi marches, nazi violence, self-described antifa groups, and debates about antifa violence, all somewhat similar to their US counterparts. The main effect of the anti-nazis laws is that there are no open swastikas in the nazi marches. The goals of antifa groups will not reached by hate speech laws alone, or even get much closer. But I haven't seen proposals here to change the law further than that. Say, making it legal to assault marching nazis.

In your examples, people think that the current law is wrong. When it comes to neo-nazis, people consider the law ineffective, which is not quite the same. There are good reasons why the law is not much stronger than it is. Those reasons do not go away by looking at morality instead of legality.

[morriswalters]

↶
I don't read minds and I have no idea why you chose that example.

Because it was the only thing I could think of that would make it an interesting argument "coming from me". I don't understand what you think was odd about it, considering that throughout this entire thread people have made the argument that Nazis constitute a threat and countering them constitutes (self-)defense from that threat and countering them violently constitutes violent self-defense.

It may just be a matter of expectations on my part.

[gmalivuk]

A (really useless and frustrating) politician in Israel was asked what his position on marijuana legalization is. He answered "Well it's illegal", which is the most stupid and dumb response I can think of. Laws can be changed, and they can be changed according to developments in our understanding of moral behavior, but it's not usually very quickly. Homosexuality was still illegal in the US until 2003 - does that mean it was immoral? The separation between what's legal and what's moral is absolutely worthwhile. To say that only the legal is moral is to walk towards fascism.

In both these examples, the laws itself is the core topic of discussion. But is that also the case here, in this discussion about anti-nazi violence?

I have seen some suggestions upthread that US law should have hate-speech bans, with references to Germany. But that covers only a small part of the topic - Germany has nazi marches, nazi violence, self-described antifa groups, and debates about antifa violence, all somewhat similar to their US counterparts. The main effect of the anti-nazis laws is that there are no open swastikas in the nazi marches. The goals of antifa groups will not reached by hate speech laws alone, or even get much closer. But I haven't seen proposals here to change the law further than that. Say, making it legal to assault marching nazis.

In your examples, people think that the current law is wrong. When it comes to neo-nazis, people consider the law ineffective, which is not quite the same. There are good reasons why the law is not much stronger than it is. Those reasons do not go away by looking at morality instead of legality.

But those reasons also aren't the main topic of discussion. We all know what the law says about punching Nazis, so the people who keep bringing up the law seem to be either missing the point or intentionally trying to derail the conversation.

[Chen]

So I can't read all the pages here (some of the pages are blocked here at work for some reason), was there a premise put forth on the morality of violence towards White Supremecists? Basically I'm seeing a lot of self-defense, even if its preventative and I can buy that reasoning. I am wondering about the intent though. Is it to push people away from being White Supremecists? Is it to just get rid of them? Why are we limiting ourselves to punching in that case? Would the same moral argument be used to justify more severe violence? Killing? Is there some aspect of proportionality that is limiting that?

[doogly]

I feel like Normandy is appropriate and proportional. Maybe Dresden was a bit much?

[cphite]

↶
I don't read minds and I have no idea why you chose that example.

Because it was the only thing I could think of that would make it an interesting argument "coming from me". I don't understand what you think was odd about it, considering that throughout this entire thread people have made the argument that Nazis constitute a threat and countering them constitutes (self-)defense from that threat and countering them violently constitutes violent self-defense.

Completely setting aside the legal aspects of self-defense, what exactly are you defending when you employ violence against a Nazi who isn't actively violent or posing an imminent threat of violence?

You aren't defending yourself in such a scenario, or another person; because if there was no imminent threat then there was nothing to defend against.

You aren't defending the public at large, either. It's not like the Nazis you attack are going to have some sudden epiphany and reject their asinine beliefs; in fact it's more likely that those beliefs will be reinforced. The entire premise of their belief system is that people in their group are superior, and that people outside their group are a threat. What better way to confirm that way of thinking?

Look... I don't shy away from violence. I've been practicing and teaching self-defense for over two decades. I'm a very firm believer in the idea that if someone attacks you, or a loved one, or poses a real and imminent threat of doing so, you take them down hard and without mercy. But the key there is that you actually be defending something; and it has to be something real. It has to serve a purpose. Even with the assumption that Nazis constitute a threat to our society at large - and I completely agree that they do - violence used against them has to serve some tangible purpose to be considered self-defense. And so far, I haven't seen anyone demonstrate a purpose; something positive that violence will actually accomplish.

[sardia]

I feel like Normandy is appropriate and proportional. Maybe Dresden was a bit much?

So we shouldn't firebomb white nationalist towns but we should send in the army? That doesn't seem to solve the insidious problem of sympathetic whites covering (unknowingly or knowingly) for violent whites.

[doogly]

Yeah, I guess Dresden was only tragic because it was rather nice. Firebombing Wyoming is probably less of a grey area.

[morriswalters]

That doesn't seem to solve the insidious problem of sympathetic whites covering (unknowingly or knowingly) for violent whites.

Ain't democracy a bitch!

They are equally culpable

banned

I figure it's only a matter of time.

But those reasons also aren't the main topic of discussion. We all know what the law says about punching Nazis, so the people who keep bringing up the law seem to be either missing the point or intentionally trying to derail the conversation.

The conversation was derailed when one person was banned and another was tainted by an accusation of white supremacy. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

The point of reminding you of the law is to remind you that if you choose civil disobedience, in the form of violence, then whatever your moral reasoning, you have acted against what I consider my interests. You've broken our tacit agreement that we don't settle disputes by violence.

Even within those limits nothing important is lost. If fascists act the way you seem to expect than the issue should never arise. It will always be self defense when they meet at protests. I've seen any number of violent protests and riots. I've never seen one that couldn't find a fight. Exactly what do you want to discuss? Preemptive murder? Firebombing their headquarters. Fascist smacking? Firebombing Wyoming?

[orthogon]

I've been following this discussion since before it was forked into this thread. At first I was mystified as to why people were being vilified for expressing ideas that I would have thought were at least mainstream and in many cases entirely uncontroversial. Civilisation, as I understand it, is all about people not taking the law into their own hands, not using violence to settle scores, and about good people maintaining the moral high ground by using argument and persuasion instead of force. Crucial to this is the idea, distilled by Thomas Hobbes, that the state should have the monopoly on the use of force.

Having read more of the thread, it's become clear that this thread is an extension of a broader argument going on, which perhaps explains how it got so heated so quickly. And some other points made have made me think that there are perhaps three crucial ingredients that make it more complicated than it might appear.

The first two points map conveniently on the correspondingly numbered Amendments to the US Constitution. Firstly, free speech seems to be interpreted in far more absolute terms than it is in Europe, which means that people are apparently free to openly advocate genocide and engage in other hate-speech. As has been noted, other countries carve out many exceptions to free speech: in the UK things like "incitement to racial hatred" are criminal offences; Austria and other mainland European countries have laws explicitly forbidding speech acts such as "denying the Holocaust". This latter type of law, for me, takes things too far. I think the best defence against outright lies like this is to allow them to be expressed publicly where they can be countered by the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps because I live here, I feel that the UK law strikes more or less the right balance. (This is not to say that I wouldn't like to see Boris Johnson sent to prison for repeating the £350m figure).

Secondly, the laissez-faire attitude to weapons in the US apparently means that you can show up to a "demonstration" carrying lethal weapons, including guns. Even if you're not strictly allowed to, the fact that access to weapons is so easy means that it must be hard to stop such an armed mob assembling in advance. This is a bad situation from the outset, because even heavily armed police are going to be engaging with what's effectively a small army. The point about the state (and the police as the embodiment of the state in respect of law enforcement) having the monopoly on the use of force is that the police need to outgun the public by orders of magnitude. This enables them to control people without having to inflict serious harm on them, in the same way that a grown up can physically restrain two squabbling children without needing to hurt them, whereas the same adult trying to control two guys fighting in a pub is likely to end in serious injuries on all sides. This lack of a clear margin between law enforcers and demonstrators is going to lead to a situation where issues of self-defence, perhaps pre-emptive self-defence arise.

The third point is the feeling that the state, including police, lawmakers and executive, are not all on the right side here. But, again, this for me is a point of principle: in a democracy, if you don't like the government, you have to vote them out. If necessary, you have to stand for election yourself. You shouldn't have to take the law into your own hands, and it's deeply worrying that any supposedly developed country would be in a situation in which people feel they have to do so. If that's really how it is in the USA today, then y'all have my deepest sympathy.

[gmalivuk]

The point of reminding you of the law is to remind you that if you choose civil disobedience, in the form of violence, then whatever your moral reasoning, you have acted against what I consider my interests.

So what you consider your interests is completely in line with the laws, whatever they may happen to be at a particular time?

Because if not, bringing up the law (even though people have already said repeatedly they know and are not discussing what the law says about punching Nazis) seems to be an irrelevant and unrelated distraction.

But, again, this for me is a point of principle: in a democracy, if you don't like the government, you have to vote them out.

People are being hurt and killed right the fuck now. Telling them their only option to wait patiently for the next round of gerrymandered elections is kind of an asshole thing to do.

[Zamfir]

People are being hurt and killed right the fuck now.

And there are already laws against this, and self defense clauses, all without controversy. The controversial part is punching people who are not doing the hurting and the killing , however despicable they might be in other regards.

[doogly]

Lawful Good is an oxymoron alignment. Eventually you have to figure yourself out.

[morriswalters]

Because if not, bringing up the law (even though people have already said repeatedly they know and are not discussing what the law says about punching Nazis) seems to be an irrelevant and unrelated distraction.

What is it okay to discuss? It seems like whatever doesn't suit you isn't relevant. Don't compare the antifac to fascists. Don't talk about the law. What exactly have you left to discuss? Nothing of note.

@orthogon

However it ended up this way, it is what it is. If you open up that can of worms, there is no way of knowing which way the lever might swing towards. It would be just as easy to ban antifac as fascists. Enjoy.

[Weeks]

But that covers only a small part of the topic - Germany has nazi marches, nazi violence, self-described antifa groups, and debates about antifa violence, all somewhat similar to their US counterparts. The main effect of the anti-nazis laws is that there are no open swastikas in the nazi marches.

Can you elaborate? How similar is it? Without a Trump in office, and without easy access to guns, its probably easier to regard those groups as less powerful and relevant than elsewhere. Also forgive my ignorance but I havent really noticed much about European nazis...what Ive gathered from europeans so far was that its not that big a deal (though I guess they *would* say that) although there have been immigration issues and brexit and whatnot, it wasnt exactly related to Nazis afaict. Like I thought Merkel was left leaning, if that means anything? Again excuse my ignorance.

People are being hurt and killed right the fuck now.

And there are already laws against this, and self defense clauses, all without controversy. The controversial part is punching people who are not doing the hurting and the killing , however despicable they might be in other regards.

I thought the generally agreed upon "good" position was disrupting nazi marches and rallies, with or without violence depending on circumstances. Everything else is arguing morality of hypothetical actions in hypothetical space (IF I SEE A NAZI ON THE STREET AND HE HAS A GUN BUT THE GUN ISNT LOADED AND ALSO HE PAYS TAXES, CAN I ORGANIZE A MOB TO LYNCH HIM?!?!?), which I guess makes for great debate fodder but isnt very practical

[CorruptUser]

Lawful Good is an oxymoron alignment. Eventually you have to figure yourself out.

No, lawful evil is the one with contradiction. Lawful good is Sam Vines. Lawful evil is yiur corrupt attorney or merchant, and they will convince themselves that breaking rules is part of the game, so it's all fair.

[gmalivuk]

Because if not, bringing up the law (even though people have already said repeatedly they know and are not discussing what the law says about punching Nazis) seems to be an irrelevant and unrelated distraction.

What is it okay to discuss? It seems like whatever doesn't suit you isn't relevant. Don't compare the antifac to fascists. Don't talk about the law. What exactly have you left to discuss? Nothing of note.

Who is making you keep posting here? If there's nothing you want to discuss that's relevant to the posts you respond to, why do you respond at all?

If you want to talk about the law, don't bring it up as though you're informing anyone of information they didn't already know regarding the legality of punching Nazis.

It's like there's a discussion of the morality of drug use and you and others keep popping in to let everyone know which drugs are legal. And then complaining that you have nothing to add if you can't talk about the law.

[morriswalters]

Who is making you keep posting here? If there's nothing you want to discuss that's relevant to the posts you respond to, why do you respond at all?

I believe I asked you a direct question.

What is it okay to discuss?

[gmalivuk]

The morality of antifa violence.

Now you can answer my direct question: Why do you keep posting if you think there's nothing you can discuss?

[SecondTalon]

What is it okay to discuss? It seems like whatever doesn't suit you isn't relevant. Don't compare the antifac to fascists. Don't talk about the law. What exactly have you left to discuss? Nothing of note

Why are these people Nazis in 2017?
How can I help prevent strangers from becoming Nazis?
How can I discuss it with my family, like my Racist Uncle who thinks he "tells it like it is" but is really just racist?
Oh shit, I think my brother is a Nazi! What do?

Things like that.

Lawful Good is an oxymoron alignment. Eventually you have to figure yourself out.

No, lawful evil is the one with contradiction. Lawful good is Sam Vines. Lawful evil is yiur corrupt attorney or merchant, and they will convince themselves that breaking rules is part of the game, so it's all fair.

1. Applying D&D alignment to fleshed out characters or real people is dumb.
2. Are you really going to drop Vimes as LG (dude is clearly NG or TN. Carrot is LG. Angua is CG or CN) and fricken ignore Vetrinari, the most Lawful Evil character to Lawful Evil anywhere?

[gmalivuk]

And saying lawful evil is a contradiction implies that it's impossible to have or follow evil laws, which is patently ridiculous.

Saying lawful good is a contradiction, on the other hand, implies that any set of rules, adhered to absolutely and without exception, can lead to evil outcomes. Which I suppose you could still disagree with, but it's at least not obviously false on its face.