Support NeoGAF

[jackissocool]

Then fucking get out and vote. Rally people. Get people to go. It's not hard to make yourself heard and get the votes to oust this dude if he's only got one demographic to lean on.

This is democracy.

All you oppressed people, this is the time! Hillary will deliver you!

 

[King Tubby]

👌👌👌👌👌

For real, liberals. Stop being liberals - arm yourselves and become radicals.


Fucking crazy to see this coming from a mainstream outlet. Are we finally doing away with the myth that historical progress came by asking really nicely?

So we're going to descend into civil war because of an orange haired fool participating lawfully in the democratic process? How weak is our democracy that it should crumble so easily?

No, the myth we need to do away with is that might makes right, that violence has a place in the politics of free people, that shedding the blood of those who disagree with you will lead to a better society. Believe it or not, that's how fascists like Hitler really gain power. They use violence to suppress and intimidate their political opponents, and then they let "democracy" take its course. I have no interest in legitimizing strong-arm tactics. I have no interest in strengthening the enemies of a free society. Those tactics benefit the most ruthless, capricious, and selfish among us.

 

[wolfhowwl]

Large scale civil unrest will be crushed by armed force, please don't do anything stupid.

 

[Calamari41]

Fuck. That.

If Trump wins, it means white people voted him in. Dead ass, that's his only demo right now. It will be done with boots on minorities' necks.

And that boot will stay on. it did with Reagan, it'll be worse now.


And I hope folks understand what the language of the unheard is.

I'll bite. Specifically what will the "language of the unheard" be toward, apparently, all white people if Trump is elected? What are you planning to do?

 

[GutsOfThor]

Whoa. Calm the fuck down Huff.

 

[jackissocool]

So we're going to descend into civil war because of an orange haired fool participating lawfully in the democratic process? How weak is our democracy that it should crumble so easily?

No, the myth we need to do away with is that might makes right, that violence has a place in the politics of free people, that shedding the blood of those who disagree with you will lead to a better society. Believe it or not, that's how fascists like Hitler really gain power. They use violence to suppress and intimidate their political opponents, and then they let "democracy" take its course. I have no interest in legitimizing strong-arm tactics. I have no interest in strengthening the enemies of a free society. Those tactics benefit the most ruthless, capricious, and selfish among us.

Unless you look at history and see that violent resistance has been a major part of every major progressive gain in American history.

 

[Mecha]

It's funny, really, since as has been pointed out, other than his rhetoric, Trump's actual proposed policies really aren't that right ring compared to some of his peers.

Not to mention implementation of, well, pretty much all of them is impossible.

There will never be a border wall. There will never be mass deportation of Muslims. There aren't going to be murder squads patrolling the streets for Juden.

Donald Trump isn't a fascist, he's just a right wing loon praying on a populist agenda. His policies aren't implementable, his idiocy will be brought into check because that's what our system of government functions on, checks and balances.

People screaming about him being a fascist have bought into his propaganda just as hard as the deluded loons who support him.

I don't think that he's a clear fascist like the people behind Golden Dawn in Greece, because of that people shouldn't very quickly react with violence. Despite this, a fascist party rising to power won't usually discuss how far they will go.

I'm saying when you have a clearly fascist party rising to power like some in Europe:

Trying to find common ground with them won't solve anything.

 

[water_wendi]

Anyone surprised by this hasnt been paying attention.

 

[King Tubby]

Unless you look at history and see that violent resistance has been a major part of every major progressive gain in American history.

Except people aren't talking about a progressive movement against institutional or societal injustice here, they're talking about a political candidate they don't like. They want to manipulate the results of the democratic process through violence. This is not the same thing.

We might as well legitimize assassination attempts against Trump because Arthur Bremer was able to effectively stop George Wallace's campaign by shooting him and paralyzing him. Hey, that's what we would've done with Hitler too, right? This is absurd.

 

[Mr. X]

Telling already oppressed and politically ignored groups to be calm and vote and "use your words" when his supporters are beating or punching minorities shows how far removed you are from the effects of this.

Another thread for "stop inconveniencing the rest of us"

NEVER FORGET

 

[Griss]

What a disgusting article. An absolute attack on democracy. According to this guy, if someone argues outside the window of conventional political debate, the answer isn't to shut them down with superior arguments, but to get violent. And according to this guy, a few isolated incidents of violence from one side (and there have been incidents on both sides) mandate a violent backlash? Insanity.

This is democracy. A person is allowed put forward whatever shitty views they want, and the country is free to reject them soundly, which is exactly what's going to happen in the US, at which point Trump is relegated to a unfortunate sideshow in history and business continues as usual.

Trump would likely be one of the worst presidents in the last hundred years on any or all metrics, but there isn't any solid evidence to say he could possibly or even wants to create a fascist regime. Many people have no concept of history beyond what they absorb from osmosis, mainly retaining what is convenient to them.

The truth is Trump isn't all too different from his modern day right-wing candidate peers, just with a sense of populist bravado that's mainly superficial (in a salesmen sort of way) even when they are reflected in his few proposed policies (e.g., they all want to crack down on illegal immigration, but he's going to build a WALL) - in fact there's a lot to say from a liberal perspective Trump is measurably better than the 2nd place nominee Ted Cruz on many issues. The insults that separate Trump from other republicans are mainly character-based, because all of the stupid shit he says, but where we can even argue whether he's most racist, misogynistic, or homophobic among his peers.

So, why not call all the republican candidates fascists (assuming people don't already do this)? Sounds like it would be pretty useful in any future presidential race. Why not commit continual political violence against the whole republican party? Whenever there is an anti-abortion bill, an anti-immigration bill, anti-healthcare bill, an anti-transsexual bill, anti-voter bill etc, all of which is happening with or without Trump, right now and in the future. If violence is the answer (as history apparently shows us) why only commit it against lone Trump supporters? Or is the case that only Trump supporters have been successfully dehumanized?

Jesus Christ, thank you. The hyperbole surrounding Trump is reaching farcical levels.

Except people aren't talking about a progressive movement against institutional or societal injustice here, they're talking about a political candidate they don't like. They want to manipulate the results of the democratic process through violence. This is not the same thing.

We might as well legitimize assassination attempts against Trump because Arthur Bremer was able to effectively stop George Wallace's campaign by shooting him and paralyzing him. Hey, that's what we would've done with Hitler too, right? This is absurd.

Thank you too. This is politics, not an insurgency. And it's politics where the people advocating violence are the ones with the fucking power and majority! That's insane!

 

[Josh7289]

Really a disgusting blog post. Violence is the last-resort form of resistance, to be used only when there is a direct and immediate threat to one's life. We have plenty of other tools at our disposal to democratically ensure that Trump is not president.

Advocating violence at this stage makes you just as bad as fascists like Trump. Yes, just as bad.

 

[univariate]

Yes because what better way to espouse the positives of democracy than to go and physically assault people exorcising their right to engage in the democratic process.

Disgusting.



And this is why things will never get better.

You have to be able to understand people with bad viewpoints if you want them to empathize and change them.

Jesus.

Then I propose that you attend the next Trump rally in your area.

See what happens when you calmly and logically explain to them why they should empathize with the people they already hate.

Then, when Trump begins to marginalize groups of people, you can empathize with his supporters and views.

I'm done giving Trump and his supporters the benefit of the doubt and I will not empathize with them.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I'm not going to go out of my way to condemn the violence but when I see shit like this it makes me do it. Counterproductive article.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Really a disgusting blog post. Violence is the last-resort form of resistance, to be used only when there is a direct and immediate threat to one's life. We have plenty of other tools at our disposal to democratically ensure that Trump is not president.

Advocating violence at this stage makes you just as bad as fascists like Trump. Yes, just as bad.

Is the spread of white supremacy a direct and immediate threat to people's lives? If not, at what point does it become that?

 

[Guileless]

Unless you look at history and see that violent resistance has been a major part of every major progressive gain in American history.

Did FDR run over a Republican's foot with his wheelchair on his way to sign the Social Security bill? That doesn't count IMHO.

 

[ultratruman]

The US is tobogganing towards Gomorrah.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Violence is sometimes absolutely nessisary. But anyone thinking that this is one of those times is a fool.

Violence because you disagree with someone's shitty ideology is wrong. Until the point where they g t physical and you need to defend yourself I wouldn't condone violence.

Is the spread of white supremacy a direct and immediate threat to people's lives? If not, at what point does it become that?

By that logic I can justify some pretty disgusting atrocities against innocent people in the name of stopping white supremacy.

And it wouldn't work.

As an aside I think it's amazing that people now wanna try justifying this type of violence when "their team" carries it out.

 

[sphagnum]

Even if Trump wins that doesn't excuse political violence.

If he wins it's because more people voted for him. People should have gotten off their asses and voted instead of starting riots because a guy they didn't like got more votes.

That's democracy. There is no justification for political violence.

Fascism: just let it happen because people voted for it!

 

[Josh7289]

Is the spread of white supremacy a direct and immediate threat to people's lives? If not, at what point does it become that?

It's not. It becomes a threat if they're knocking on doors and pulling people out of their homes and murdering them or beating them then and there. It becomes a threat if they're elected into office and make policy that states whites are superior and non-whites have fewer rights.

When they're yelling at Trump rallies and on the Internet? That's not a threat. That's just noise from idiots. Counter it with something smarter. That's why you have free speech.

 

[Mecha]

Is the spread of white supremacy a direct and immediate threat to people's lives? If not, at what point does it become that?

We have to wait until many people start getting killed before we use any violent resistance. As long as white nationalists aren't large and dangerous enough to start killing large numbers of people instead of "isolated incidents" we have to resist using non-violent means!

 

[Toparaman]

Telling already oppressed and politically ignored groups to be calm and vote and "use your words" when his supporters are beating or punching minorities shows how far removed you are from the effects of this.

Another thread for "stop inconveniencing the rest of us"

Oh please. This isn't like the riots in response to police brutality. We're talking about violence towards people simply for supporting a presidential candidate. If that's your cup of tea, then I guess the whole free speech thing isn't for you.

 

[Xe4]

Fuck that. All that will do to lead to more violence. Violence nearly always begets more violemce, and what would this acheive? Rioting against a blowhard who's probably going to loose anyways?

 

[King Tubby]

Fascism: just let it happen because people voted for it!

We have to wait until many people start getting killed before we use any violent resistance. As long as white nationalists aren't large and dangerous enough to start killing large numbers of people instead of "isolated incidents" we have to resist using non-violent means!

I suppose it's only natural that people with the hammer and sickle in their avatars are perfectly fine with using violence against political opponents.

Is the spread of white supremacy a direct and immediate threat to people's lives? If not, at what point does it become that?

Oh, this is about halting the spread of white supremacy? Then it's even less logical than it first appears.

I'm not so insecure in the power of the political process or the legitimate, peaceful opposition against Trump. We can and ultimately will defeat him at the ballot box.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

What a load of shit.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Oh, this is about halting the spread of white supremacy? Then it's even less logical than it first appears.

Halting the spread of white supremacy isn't logical?!?!

 

[The Albatross]

This is an embarrassing article and anybody agreeing with it is embarrassing.

Trump is going to lose handily, his political career will be over and he'll milk the celebrity for the rest of his media career. And he's not going to lose because of violence. He's going to lose because a majority of Americans will vote for Hillary Clinton and an enormous majority of the electoral college will be for Clinton.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Fascism: just let it happen because people voted for it!

Then put that 2x4 down and go vote...

This is an embarrassing article and anybody agreeing with it is embarrassing.

Trump is going to lose handily, his political career will be over and he'll milk the celebrity for the rest of his media career. And he's not going to lose because of violence. He's going to lose because a majority of Americans will vote for Hillary Clinton and an enormous majority of the electoral college will be for Clinton.

Thank you. People need to calm the fuck down and vote. All rage and no sense I swear.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I'll bite. Specifically what will the "language of the unheard" be toward, apparently, all white people if Trump is elected? What are you planning to do?

Google it.


I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, even if Trump is out of the picture, the many many people who voted for him, that saw his rhetoric and okay'd it? Are still around.

That's a problem. A long term problem. One that can be escalated again and again until we do something about it. And it'll take way more than voting, violent or non-violent.

 

[boiled goose]

Disagree. If you use violence too, you don't have the moral highground. It's one side vs other.

Pre emptive self defense is not self defense.

 

[Calamari41]

Google it.

Nah I know that you're talking about riots. I'm wondering about specifics.

 

[kirblar]

Google it.


I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, even if Trump is out of the picture, the many many people who voted for him, that saw his rhetoric and okay'd it? Are still around.

That's a problem. A long term problem. One that can be escalated again and again until we do something about it. And it'll take way more than voting, violent or non-violent.

What you do is take institutional control and wrest power out of their hands.

This is happening in the US quickly due to rapidly changing demographics, and it's the reason why you see so many white people flipping out in a reactionary response as the world changes around them.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Google it.


I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, even if Trump is out of the picture, the many many people who voted for him, that saw his rhetoric and okay'd it? Are still around.

That's a problem. A long term problem. One that can be escalated again and again until we do something about it. And it'll take way more than voting, violent or non-violent.

So we should "do something" about people that support Trump?

What do you suggest be done violently or non violently that solves this problem you claim exists?

Newsflash. There will always be bigots. There will always be those that insulate themselves around those just like them and abhor the "other" and suggest dumb shit. The solution to that is not violence unless you suggesting we kill Trump supporters which I'm assuming no one here is outright saying but the hints at "violence" is disturbing.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Google it.


I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, even if Trump is out of the picture, the many many people who voted for him, that saw his rhetoric and okay'd it? Are still around.

That's a problem. A long term problem. One that can be escalated again and again until we do something about it. And it'll take way more than voting, violent or non-violent.

What does "doing something about it" even entail?

The Civil Rights Movement in the 60s was bloody. Extremely so. And all that did was make it dormant and covert rather than overt. What makes you think violence would permanently solve the problem now when it didn't back then?

 

[sphagnum]

I suppose it's only natural that people with the hammer and sickle in their avatars are perfectly fine with using violence against political opponents.

You mean this in jest, but I don't disagree with it. There are times when violence is necessary to protect freedom.

Then put that 2x4 down and go vote...

Of course I'll vote. I don't think violence is necessary right now to stop Trump's election and I would rather try to use all peaceful methods first. But if Trump becomes president and starts pushing for racist, fascist policies, I do not think it is morally wrong to fight back. I don't think it's immoral to do that now. I do think however that it's bad strategy and may not work even in the event of a Trump presidency because of the strength of the police and military and the inevitable American Freikorps that be born out of the redcaps.

 

[Mr. X]

I suppose it's only natural that people with the hammer and sickle in their avatars are perfectly fine with using violence against political opponents.



Oh, this is about halting the spread of white supremacy? Then it's even less logical than it first appears.

I'm not so insecure in the power of the political process or the legitimate, peaceful opposition against Trump. We can and ultimately will defeat him at the ballot box.

Many "voted" into office across our great country, in the name of Voter Fraud, want to further disenfranchise minority groups. I have little faith.

 

[LosDaddie]

What's going on in this thread?

Are people advocating for violence against conservatives?

 

[Mecha]

I suppose it's only natural that people with the hammer and sickle in their avatars are perfectly fine with using violence against political opponents.

I'm not trying to call for violence against Trump supporters, I'm saying that violence against real fascists and dangerous hate groups isn't a negative. I don't agree with using violence against people that simply disagree with my political views, I'm fine with it being used against those who want to "cleanse" a country, kill the disabled, minorities, etc.

I'm not so insecure in the power of the political process or the legitimate, peaceful opposition against Trump. We can and ultimately will defeat him at the ballot box.

I seriously doubt he will win, and I don't think violence is currently necessary in this case. I simply think that violence against truly fascist groups like Golden Dawn is a valid tactic.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

Violence is sometimes absolutely nessisary. But anyone thinking that this is one of those times is a fool.

Violence because you disagree with someone's shitty ideology is wrong. Until the point where they g t physical and you need to defend yourself I wouldn't condone violence.




By that logic I can justify some pretty disgusting atrocities against innocent people in the name of stopping white supremacy.

And it wouldn't work.

As an aside I think it's amazing that people now wanna try justifying this type of violence when "their team" carries it out.

Preach.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Pales in comparison to some of my comrades' collections, and I'm getting my first gun and training soon.

I feel genuinely sorry for you. I really do.

What's going on in this thread?

Are people advocating for violence against conservatives?

No, they are advocating violence against Trump supporters.

 

[Tertullian]

Self-righteous psychopaths.

 

[Calamari41]

No, they are advocating violence against Trump supporters.

One guy appears to have been promising violence against any white person, since it is through white people that Trump will be elected. I'm still trying to get clarification on that one.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You mean this in jest, but I don't disagree with it. There are times when violence is necessary to protect freedom.



Of course I'll vote. I don't think violence is necessary right now to stop Trump's election and I would rather try to use all peaceful methods first. But if Trump becomes president and starts pushing for racist, fascist policies, I do not think it is morally wrong to fight back. I don't think it's immoral to do that now. I do think however that it's bad strategy and may not work even in the event of a Trump presidency because of the strength of the police and military and the inevitable American Freikorps that be born out of the redcaps.

You say violence isnt necessary right now. But then say it's not morally wrong to fight back now.

Calm down and vote. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

Personally I dont think the angry White vote is enough to get a president elected. The demographics just aren't there.

 

[Guileless]

I suppose it's only natural that people with the hammer and sickle in their avatars are perfectly fine with using violence against political opponents.

I wonder if they have heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Nick Cohen remembers it fondly:

WHEN THE Second World War began, Britain faced a hot war against Nazi Germany and its supporters, and a cold war against the communist Soviet Union and its supporters. On Moscow’s orders, British communists tried to rally as many people as possible from the wider left to the new cause of going along with Hitler. The story of how they did it is one of the murkiest and least remembered of the war years.

The [British] Communist Party drew up ‘the People’s Convention’ and organized a national movement against the wartime coalition government to go along with it. The convention was a typical communist front organization. It drew in naïve recruits with campaigns for higher living standards and better bomb shelters that no reasonable person could oppose. Once they signed up, only the politically astute would notice that the need to fight Nazi Germany was never mentioned.

The communists instructed their fellow travellers that the ‘real enemy’ was Churchill and his Labour colleagues in the wartime coalition Cabinet. It was against them that the public meetings, propaganda, strikes and demonstrations were directed as the communists and their allies pushed their support for Stalin’s alliance with Hitler as far as they dared...

Strikes and propaganda campaigns followed. Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond Williams, the two most respected left-wing intellectuals of my youth, accepted the accommodation with Nazism and produced a pamphlet that defended the Soviet invasion of Finland which the Hitler–Stalin pact had authorized.Hobsbawm and Williams claimed that far from engaging in an imperial land grab, Stalin was protecting Russia from an invasion by British imperialists.

I’ve read it twice to be sure, but nowhere do Hobsbawm and Williams explain how a Britain which was on her knees and couldn’t defend her cities was in a position to march on Moscow. Williams blithely admitted later that he and Hobsbawm were just obeying the party’s orders.

 

[jackissocool]

You say violence isnt necessary right now. But then say it's not morally wrong to fight back now.

Calm down and vote. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

Personally I dont think the angry White vote is enough to get a president elected. The demographics just aren't there.

It's not just about the election. This is the issue. Liberals are blind to politics outside of the voting booth. Fascism and white supremacy are on the rise in the US. Trump is a major part of that. Violent resistance is the only way to stop fascists.

 

[norm9]

That white guilt writer giving permission to the Browns and blacks to commit violence.

 

[sphagnum]

You say violence isnt necessary right now. But then say it's not morally wrong to fight back now.

Something can be moral or immoral but be the right or wrong thing to do tactically (probably should have said that instead of strategy) at a given time. I don't think it's ever wrong, morally, for oppressed or exploited people to overthrow their rulers or else I wouldn't be a communist. But it may not be the wisest thing to do.

Calm down and vote. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

Personally I dont think the angry White vote is enough to get a president elected. The demographics just aren't there.

I agree, which is why I said I don't think it's necessary right now.

 

[Gotchaye]

The argument here is really unpersuasive, and so unpersuasive that it is hard not to think that this is just about people getting caught up in the romance of violent struggle rather than about people taking a careful look at the world and concluding that violence is the way to go here.

Points one and two basically hinge on the question of whether or not violence is actually useful, whether or not its use against Trump is itself dangerous to the republic, etc. There's not much of an argument for this - these points are just "here are some things we should want to make happen, therefore violence". Everyone already agrees that Trump is bad, that Trumpism is bad, and that the conditions that produced Trump are bad. The disagreement is about whether violence is an effective and permissible strategy for opposing these things.

The third point is the only one that actually tries to justify violence as useful, and it is obviously flimsy. Every domestic example given is of a minority acting against a government which is actively oppressing them which they have no other real way to influence, which is just obviously not what we're facing right now in Trump. The other example is World War 2. There's no discussion of why violence worked in these cases. There's no consideration of occasions where violence failed to achieve its goals or even made things worse. There's no attempt to argue that not using violence and simply voting against Trump is not a better idea.

 

[Coffee Dog]

It's not just about the election. This is the issue. Liberals are blind to politics outside of the voting booth. Fascism and white supremacy are on the rise in the US. Trump is a major part of that. Violent resistance is the only way to stop fascists.

It's never stopped facism before. Why would it now?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

It's never stopped them before. Why would it now?

Idk wwii did a good job of that