You're from Scandinavia, right? And I'm guessing white.
So it's not like you have any skin in the game regarding how to defend your existence from Nazis.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Supporters, protesters clash at Berkeley Trump rally
- Thread starter Vyer
- Start date
- Status
You're from Scandinavia, right? And I'm guessing white.
So it's not like you have any skin in the game regarding how to defend your existence from Nazis.
Shadynasty
Member
It's been ruled against before when violence has been incited. So if someone's hate speech incites violence or a riot it could be prosecuted.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
What people keep forgetting about MLK is that the civil rights movement was seen as anything but non-violent.
The white media accused MLK of provoking violence while white liberals accused him of turning away their support by causing "trouble" in white segregated neighborhoods they lived in. Now doesn't this sound familiar? Its exactly what a lot of people in this thread are doing.
White people like MLK now because there's a collective ignorance about him. They most certainly didn't like him back in the day when people didn't remember him for "I HAVE A DREAM" and not much else.
DerekOfTheDykes
Member
Rational and polite discourse is important when you talk to people with opposing, rational political views. You can't let it stoop to violence.
That said, white nationalist fascists don't fall into that fucking category. There's no reasoned discourse to be had.
I've been able to have conversations with diet racists, and see them change over time (older family members, mostly). But I've had close friends fall down the alt-right rabbithole and become the most venomous, spiteful, hateful people I've ever met. I had a friend I've known since high school vividly describe, in explicit terms, the things I must want big black men to do to my partner because of my "white guilt" (read: I don't buy his newfound "race realism" bullshit).
That's why it doesn't surprise me to see these fuckers dress up like antifa and sneak in weapons so they can start fights and blame it on them. It doesn't surprise me to see them use their bullshit "free speech" excuse on sleepy bystanders who aren't paying attention. Because if you can lash out at your closest friends and family for not thinking black people are subhuman, what won't you do? You've traded away your own humanity in the process of thinking yourself "superior".
So you'll excuse me for not being too sorry if Richard Spencer gets his ass clocked again the next time he's in public. Pain (emotional or physical) seems to be the only language they understand.
That said, white nationalist fascists don't fall into that fucking category. There's no reasoned discourse to be had.
I've been able to have conversations with diet racists, and see them change over time (older family members, mostly). But I've had close friends fall down the alt-right rabbithole and become the most venomous, spiteful, hateful people I've ever met. I had a friend I've known since high school vividly describe, in explicit terms, the things I must want big black men to do to my partner because of my "white guilt" (read: I don't buy his newfound "race realism" bullshit).
That's why it doesn't surprise me to see these fuckers dress up like antifa and sneak in weapons so they can start fights and blame it on them. It doesn't surprise me to see them use their bullshit "free speech" excuse on sleepy bystanders who aren't paying attention. Because if you can lash out at your closest friends and family for not thinking black people are subhuman, what won't you do? You've traded away your own humanity in the process of thinking yourself "superior".
So you'll excuse me for not being too sorry if Richard Spencer gets his ass clocked again the next time he's in public. Pain (emotional or physical) seems to be the only language they understand.
There lies the problem in my opinion. For me it's a clear case of beign to tolerant. If the rallies enticing hatred (of any kind) cannot be banned by the govenment. What else is left then regular people taking matters in their own hands. It's some short term sollution, but it can lead to dangerous situations. Let's say that nazi ideology gains some traction (for whatever reason) and this kind of clashes become regular affairs. It can escalate quickly into something more serious. Both camps can develop extermist groups that sole purpouse is to hunt (use violence) againts their opponents. Enough of these groups can potentially lead to civil war. Extreme situation I know, but the danger is there.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Violence has to be imminent, though. "Go kill that black person right there" is illegal, "Let's create a white ethnostate" is not, especially since these people could easily argue in court they do not advocate removing people of color by violent means.
The law is not going to help, America has some of the most liberal speech laws in human history.
People not understanding that this it required the implicit threat of violence to integrate schools. We enforce state power with violence, hence why the GOP is doing everything in their power to keep it from being taken over by people who aren't in line w/ white supremacy.
The whole goal of political action is to get control of the cannons and turn them elsewhere. Dean's VOX interview where he states that many liberals don't understand that politics is a substitute for war was spot on.
Yes but note that this does not apply to political advocacy, as that would usually be understood. Yes, you can't get up in front of a crowd and say "You see that Jew right there? Go get him." But "We should vote so as to make it the policy of the United States government to round up and execute Jews" is totally fine.
Trump is perhaps in trouble because he pointed out particular people and set his crowds on them, and note that even there it's not open-and-shut. The speech has to be meant to incite imminent violence and be likely to do so.
Shadynasty
Member
A summary of the case I'm referring to.
Now I realize that this case is focused on a single individual and the chance of someone making blatant inflammatory statement like this are unlikely today, but he was found guilty and was not armed himself nor did he literally say to go and kill "insert ethnic group". If you could make a case back then you can make a case today. Maybe not with this Berkeley incident though.
theCalamity
Member
Got a link for that? I would like to see it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Uh, isn't vigilantism and extragovernmental violence the thing being admonished by those doing the admonishing, and not the philosophical concept of violence as a means of achievement, itself?
We just had this happen not even a couple weeks ago here in Jacksonville. The Gary Snow guy was playing up for the cameras that he was a victim and was viciously attacked to the news and police but when you read what actually happened you can tell the protesters there for the rally against Trump and the police were showing great restraint for the obvious troll job the dude was doing wanting to turn it violent.
Here ya go: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/4/12/15259402/howard-dean-obamacare-opioid
Those doing the admonishing are ignoring the intragovernmental violence part of the equation.
Yes, personally I'd agree that other countries seem to have shown that you can have hate speech laws work out in ways almost everyone is happy with, without slippery slopes. I don't think this is a particularly good reason for people to take matters into their own hands -- I think it's more important to uphold norms against political violence. I'm not going to rule it out entirely but in general political violence should only be used (1) when the issue is extremely important, (2) as a last resort, and (3) when there's good reason to think that it's likely to achieve significant good, and it doesn't seem to me that anyone's made a great case for the second and third conditions being satisfied in the case of random neo-Nazi rallies. Mostly the argument seems to be "I really want to see Nazis get hurt -> violence is okay".
JrBaconCheeseburger
Member
This guy is very ignorant.
Nothing he is saying makes any sense.
Owning Cars WTF is he saying.
He really believes he sounds intelligent
"We gonna stand for something because we not about to fall for anything"
Sorry if this has been brought up (I haven't read the entirety of the thread yet) but those of you that think that leaving them alone or trying to talk to them or only protesting their actions peacefully is the answer, you should look to the Sacramento rally the same white supremacists/alt-righters organized, which was basically a trial run for yesterday's rally. They had a "successful, peaceful" rally thanks to SacPD who threatened counter protesters that showed up with arrest unless they disbursed.
Meanwhile these guys were geared up with shields, helmets, non projectile weapons, and even a few bullet proof vests, while they shouted obscenities at any LGBT or POC folks out walking their dogs or taking their kids to the park they took over for the afternoon. Being out in the open and having no consequences outside of making people around them upset and feel threatened is EMPOWERING to them.
If you don't think the Sacramento rally made the Berkeley one that much bigger and violent, I'd say you should try being there first hand next time and see what it looks like when bigotry is unchallenged and even aided by law enforcement.
Support your local Antifa!
Meanwhile these guys were geared up with shields, helmets, non projectile weapons, and even a few bullet proof vests, while they shouted obscenities at any LGBT or POC folks out walking their dogs or taking their kids to the park they took over for the afternoon. Being out in the open and having no consequences outside of making people around them upset and feel threatened is EMPOWERING to them.
If you don't think the Sacramento rally made the Berkeley one that much bigger and violent, I'd say you should try being there first hand next time and see what it looks like when bigotry is unchallenged and even aided by law enforcement.
Support your local Antifa!
Ville Pukema
Member
Nah, plenty of non violent groups to support that have far better results to show. Antifa isn't any better than far right wannabe nazis.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
What are they?
broncobuster
Banned
I mean, there's a reason why Jon Voight was the biggest name Trump got for his inauguration. Most folks with creativity and talent aren't into the whole "hate everybody who doesn't look like me" thing.
Uh huh, so the people willing to defend marginalized groups are just as bad as those that at best think they should be forcibly segregated and at worst want them exterminated, got it. Thanks for enlightening me!
On a serious note, what are you personally doing on a regular basis to try to stop racism, fascism, and any other form of bigotry?
ShironRedshift
Member
These are the folks you're dealing with.
So which mod is assigned to be my jewish master btw?
Like, seriously. How can people read/watch shit like this and think that these are people can be reasoned with? They know exactly what they're doing, and they don't care. And whether the situation is completely peaceful, violent, or anywhere in between, they'll try and find a way to try and act like they're the victims in all this regardless all while spreading their hate. Talking with people like that is a complete waste of a time, and trying to do so just falls as much into their trap of trying to turn people's humanity into some kinda debate and letting that message spread as anything else.
That said, of course no one should feel compelled to actually personally respond to them with violence either. It's perfectly normal to be very uncomfortable with violence, and that's something what I can respect. However, it's quite a different thing to be personally uncomfortable with using violence and chastising others who choose to use that option. When people are trying to strip away the rights of minorities and deny their humanity with force, it's only natural that some will respond with force in kind to protect themselves and do their best to stop that from happening.
Even if you wouldn't personally use force, it's not so much to ask to try to understand why people won't just stand by and let their rights be taken away without a fight. Especially when like it or not, violence has a history of working and getting through to these people like nothing else. Whether it was the workers' rights movement, integration, the Civil Rights movement more broadly, Stonewall, etc, violence has been instrumental in making a difference in protecting and asserting people's rights and humanity when all else has failed. So even if it's not something you would do, don't talk down those that do use it. Especially when those who spread hate will find a way to pretend to be the victims regardless of what's done, so that shouldn't even be a concern.
Lord Frieza
Member
Oh, get this shit out of here.
Kinda off-topic because it's more about MLK than the protest:
MLK is sainted today as a peacemongsr. In his own day, he was vilified as a man who invites violence.
It's odd to see how one man can be used by so many people to represent so many things.
I can guarantee you 100% that the people who try to cherry pick what MLK said in the past as a means of letting white supremacy run free would see him as a "thug" and "gang member" back in the 60's if they lived during that time.
Then again these are the type of people who probably aren't minorities so they don't know how bad we have it.
I want names, links, etc so I can support these people.
Being a minority doesn't instantly make your situation bad. Usually it's that compounded with poverty.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Absolutely.
People have always had it out for activists, because that's who they're told to believe is fucking it up for them. People end up seeing their struggles as being the fault of the force for change rather than the status quo delivering as promised.
The annoying thing is that most of the people saying that don't care enough to look into those types of things because it's just added stress. They view these problems like someone who is yelling on a bus - it's an annoyance to their peace of mind. They don't care about justice, they care about being comfortable. They only pop in to say "hey don't". Probably the worst thing to ever happen in their life is they get stuck in traffic (You can tell because of how frequently they are worried about these things causing traffic). They are selfish and boring.
There are far more nonviolent groups that advocate for nonviolent protest and peaceful legislative progressivism - the ACLU for example. A better question would be what modern groups are there that advocate violence as a cornerstone for progress with a good success rate.
Kill Your Masters
Member
And they absolutely fail to understand that good men had to die to defeat nazism so they can live their comfortable little lives today.
Lord Frieza
Member
That's one, and a double-edged sword, since ACLU could very well be used by the far right, too. Anymore?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Link
The Autumn Wind
This is what we're up against. The police - the people that are supposed to protect and serve - are unapologetically on the side of Trump and his supporters. In addition to a large amount of them believing in these views themselves, they also crave the unlimited unchecked power Trump wants to give them. They will let the white supremacists instigate. They will incite their own violence and then lie on their reports to demonize the other side. I'm honestly not sure what can be done to stop it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'd like to commend Gotchaye's earlier post for succinctly summarizing the pragmatic argument against current left-wing political violence.
Is there ANY major modern civil rights group that advocates publicly for violence?
Lord Frieza
Member
Shouldn't be hard to name them if there's not, I guess?
Ninja Scooter
Member
Kinda off-topic because it's more about MLK than the protest:
MLK is sainted today as a peacemongsr. In his own day, he was vilified as a man who invites violence.
It's odd to see how one man can be used by so many people to represent so many things.
Reminds me of the sportswriters and fanswho were mourning Muhammad Ali and extolling what he stood for when he passed away last year, and then in the very next breath criticizing and vilifying Colin Kaepernick.
Truth.
BobbyRobby
Member
Is there proof the Antifa throwing explosives were actually alt-right agent provacateurs?
We're at the beginning of a new phase of American fascism / proudly out-in-public racism... if these groups keep growing and feel invincible, I don't doubt more resistance groups will pop up and gain national prominence if needed. Sacramento had many new anti-racist/fascist organizations grow out of the neo-nazi rally at the CA capital when 7 protesters were stabbed.
It's important to remember that any groups "advocating violence" that aren't white supremacist are usually targeted and stopped by any means necessary by law enforcement. They don't last long when they've gained enough prominence.
You really want me to name every nonviolent civil rights group? Like...really? Pretty sure the NAACP, AARP, AARD, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the AFL-CIO, etc all have nonviolent philosophies.
So no, it's not hard. Are there any modern civil rights groups that publicly advocate violence as a cornerstone for change that have seen good results?
To be clear, I'm not arguing violence is never necessary. You might be correct but things would have to get a lot worse before civil rights advocates start pushing for violence in large numbers.
It's arguably necessary now.
Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't refute the claim that there are many more nonviolent civil rights groups that have a history of success.
If you think that most, if not all, of the advancements in civil rights we've had in this country didn't have a necessary but vilified militant wing, you'd be incorrect.
Dealing with a swell of injustice on a case by case matter, like the ACLU, is a vastly different contribution, than fighting against oppression using protest and disruption.
And that's not going to change despite all the hand wringing over "non-violence".
Man, that's not what's being said at all. And something tells me you don't really believe people en mass should resort to violence right now. I mean, have you ever participated in deliberately violent protest if you supposedly feel so strongly about it's necessity?
And? Again, that doesn't refute the original claim! And protests don't have to be violent in order to be disruptive!
people yapping about "violence gets you nowhere" won't put their own lives on the line for black/brown bodies when it comes to protesting state/white violence. You don't have skin in the game so of course it's easy to say violence isn't the answer.
and if you have the receipts to prove me wrong, I encourage you to.
and if you have the receipts to prove me wrong, I encourage you to.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked