DiscoGary wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:The basic justification of violence for the Antifa groups is that democratic institutions have historically proven themselves incapable of preventing the rise of fascists. So, people have to take direct action against fascists groups, which includes violence.
In the US it is easy to think that there is absolutely no way fascists would ever come to power. Every time some white supremacist group holds a rally, the counter protesters out number them by 1000 to 1. So, it is easy to call out the Antifa as overreacting and being more interested in just venting their frustrations with society in general by engaging in street fights with neo-Nazi and bashing in bank windows.
But the line between white supremacists, fascists and neo-Nazis and mainstream right wing Republicans is growing very blurry. Rep. Steven King tweets about not being able to restore our civilization with somebody else's babies in a clear reference to the European white supremacist view that immigration will destroy European society. Donald Trump . . . period.
So what if the white supremacists are really on a rising trajectory similar to the Nazis in the 1930s? If all it took to keep them in check was a bunch of guys in their 20s wearing black and roughing up people at rallies, would that not be preferable to an all out civil war or losing our government to fascists? How many Germans wished that they had disrupted Hitler's rallies and beat on some of his brown shirts instead of assuming that Germans would never let Hitler come to power?
I personally think we are very far away from anything like that. But the Antifa do make a fair point that should not be dismissed out of hand. Right wing groups arm themselves against what they think is a corrupt government. There are many more militia groups who are running around with automatic weapons and actually training in the woods for taking up arms against the government. The Antifa in a way seem pretty tame by comparison.
If only we violently deprive a FEW people of their rights, we can secure the rights of everyone else. That sounds good, but your own logic reveals the slippery slope you are on.
You claim that it's only a few Nazis who need to be silenced for the greater good, but then immediately tie the Nazis to mainstream Republicans, which widens the scope to 60 million who need to be silenced. So if you can justify silencing Nazis with violence, you can justify silencing mainstream Republicans with violence. We have to break a few eggs right?
Your inability to contain your desire to use violence to silence people you disagree with proves that you are in no position to be making decisions about who should be beaten into silence and who should be allowed to speak their mind.
You seem incapable of seeing that there is no functioning nationwide Nazi movement and that your own desire to use violence on the tiny group of Nazis will only server to make them sympathetic victims, which to your mind will make it look like there MUST be a growing Nazi movement because so many people refuse to join you in your calls for violently depriving others of their rights.
You are fighting a monster which doesn't exist and in the process you can not see that you have become the Nazi monster you accuse others of being.
I side with DiscoGary on this one. It isn't moral, legal or even practical to use violence to silence views you don't like, up to and including Nazi views. The best way to prevent fascism is to maintain a peaceful society with the open flow of ideas. The American Civil Liberties Union understands this and that's why they defend white supremacist groups rights to free speech. They certainly don't do this because members of that organization agree we white supremacy. They do it out of principle.
