“It’s not obvious? You can’t go around hitting people “just ‘cause”, even if they are as noxious as Spencer. The rule of law is not something to be set aside because you disagree with somebody’s words, or even their nonthreatening actions. If you are at risk of assault, by all means defend yourself. But if it’s anything short of that, the one who lashes out is at fault. And that’s as it should be.”
It’s not a matter of going around hitting people “just ‘cause.” These people are a threat, an immediate threat. Spencer and others like him serve a specific function — to recruit others and inspire them to do harm. Hitler wasn’t the one out on the street committing violence in the lead up the Nazis coming to power. He was inspiring/inciting others to do so. That was his role at that point. And he later acknowledged that if people had been fighting them in the streets en masse, the Nazis never would have come to power. Spencer has said the same thing about the new whit power movement. After he got punched, he said if that keeps happening their movement will fail. In situations like this, waiting for each individual to commit violence is an act of suicide. They have to be stopped before they become too powerful and it’s too late. They’re already in the White House and influencing policy that causes real-life harm to millions of people. How far do you want it to go before you’re willing to say they are an immediate threat? Spencer and Bannon are cut from the same cloth, and Bannon is helping to right the policies that are sending people to prison and tearing families apart, while at the same time inspiring hate and prejudice that compels others to commit hate crimes. Does that not seem like a threat to you? I’d bet it does to the people who are having to deal with it.
And I have zero regard for the rule of law in these matters.
“I’m seeing this ‘we’re peaceful, those other guys aren’t us’ excuse pop up rather commonly over the last month. The problem is that one group facilitates another. Antifa isn’t, to my knowledge, out there staging their own demonstrations and causing trouble at them; they show up where other, larger protests are planned, cause their trouble, then scurry back and use the crowd for cover.”
I never said “we’re peaceful” or made any excuse for the use of violence (I don’t think it needs to be excused in this situation). I was simply talking about people targeting the wrong people, ie antifa people considering every Trump supporter to be a neo-Nazi, etc. That is a problem. But, like I mentioned, these are distinct issues. They may be related, but they are distinct. Saying it’s okay to punch self-proclaimed neo-Nazis who are actively recruiting is in no way the same as saying it’s okay to punch everyone you disagree with or anyone you think might be a neo-Nazi.
“Apples and Oranges. In all the movements you mention, a righteous minority was protesting against an entrenched unrighteous majority. That’s not the case in your thesis; in your case, a righteous majority is protesting (violently) against an unentrenched unrighteous minority (Spencer and the skinheads).”
Yes, there are differences, as there are with all comparisons. But, again, what we’re trying to do here is make sure that the unrighteous minority does not become an entrenched unrighteous majority. Wouldn’t it be nice, for once, to stop something from happening rather than looking back on it in hindsight and saying “if only we had…”? This is particularly pertinent considering, as I already mentioned, that they are becoming entrenched. Anti-immigration and anti-LGBT sentiment, along with Islamaphobia and general racism, are becoming normalized and entrenched at this very moment. We need to stop that in its tracks.
“This is way too close to a vigilante point of view for my tastes. And if adopted as acceptable by an elected left-wing government…..then that would be the very definition of left-wing authoritarianism.”
Again, no one is advocating this, so I don’t see how it’s relevant. I don’t want the government to crack down on free speech or any civil liberties for anyone. I just think it’s counterproductive — and even dangerous — to criticize people who are willing to stand up, at the risk of physical harm or arrest, to say “No, we’re not letting you fuckers take over.” Also, and this is the lat time I’ll mention it (I’m getting a little repetitive on this part), in terms of the “vigilante” line, I don’t see it as that. I see it as self-defense, in a theoretical if not legal sense.
