U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[Happy Ent]

I remain shocked that people here advocate the use of violence against political opponents. 

Not only because violence is wrong. But also because I don’t understand the rules behind this apparently principled application of violence.

If punching Nazi is acceptable, then it must me acceptable to punch Communists and Islamists, right? (If not, where is the line drawn? Are there certain totalitarian ideologies that are better than other? If yes, how do I decide? I’m really, honestly curious. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, felice said:

You think Nazis won't organise themselves or attack their enemies/scapegoats as long as the left remains sufficiently pacifist?

A re-run of the Spanish Civil War would be preferable to a re-run of the fall of the Weimar Republic, though obviously it would be far better to have neither if we can possibly avoid it.

Their ability to organise depends on their numbers. Street-fighting with these bastards will only be a recruiting tool for them.

The best way to avoid Spain and Weimar is to de-escalate. Don't give the far-right a recruiting tool, and don't give Trump the excuse to crack down on opposition. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Their ability to organise depends on their numbers. Street-fighting with these bastards will only be a recruiting tool for them.

The best way to avoid Spain and Weimar is to de-escalate. Don't give the far-right a recruiting tool, and don't give Trump the excuse to crack down on opposition. 

I've been mocked and shouted down for suggesting giving these people "bloody shirts" to wave is a terrible idea.

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

I remain shocked that people here advocate the use of violence against political opponents. 

Not only because violence is wrong. But also because I don’t understand the rules behind this apparently principled application of violence.

If punching Nazi is acceptable, then it must me acceptable to punch Communists and Islamists, right? (If not, where is the line drawn? Are there certain totalitarian ideologies that are better than other? If yes, how do I decide? I’m really, honestly curious. 

I think there are scenarios where political violence is justified (I think the ANC were justified in using violence against the apartheid regime, because they had no peaceful avenue). I also acknowledge that the Weimar example is problematic - for all that the KPD's refusal to assist the SPD opened the door for Hitler, the SPD's loyalty to the Republic and the Rule of Law got it absolutely nowhere.

I don't think the US is at that stage yet though, and people *really* need to tone down the apocalyptic rhetoric.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I got into a heated exchange with a friend of a friend on Facebook yesterday evening who refused to believe Spencer's rhetoric really qualifies as Neo-Nazi.  She scoffed at the Slate articiles I presented talking about Spencer.  She said they were fit only for burning which brought an exchange about book burning.  She ended by saying she didn't think Nazi book burning was all that bad.

On Facebook yesterday.

[Horza]

If there was a god I'd pray for the end of Weimar analogies.

The basic thing everyone who wrings their hands over Weimar street violence ignores is that the reason it was counterproductive for the left fighting groups was that the judiciary had already picked a side, and it wasn't with them. The Weimar judiciary gave consistently lighter sentences to far right groups and consistently harsher ones to left groups for a reason, and it was the same reason a certain Austrian putschist served nine comfortable months of celebrity confinement for treason and wasn't deported at the end of his confinement.

To the extent that people like Richard Spencer getting punched in the face is any kind of problem it's that the people who wring their hands at political violence seem not to notice all the manifest varieties of political violence commonly directed at people not like Richard Spencer.

[Werthead]

I had the pleasure of having dinner with my 96-year-old grandfather recently and he pointed out that the last time he dealt with Nazis involved a heavy-calibre anti-aircraft cannon (he was RAF ground crew during the Battle of Britain), so a punch in the face was relatively harmless in comparison.

For older generations, there does seem to be outright disbelief that not just fascism but outright Nazism are suddenly on the rise again. They want to know, quite rationally, why the hell people haven't learned from the mistakes of the past, and why are people falling for the same shit all over again?

If there is one thing I could change in the world it would be making the study of history and the rise of fascism and propaganda 100% mandatory in schools, so we can guard against it ever happening again.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I had the pleasure of having dinner with my 96-year-old grandfather recently and he pointed out that the last time he dealt with Nazis involved a heavy-calibre anti-aircraft cannon (he was RAF ground crew during the Battle of Britain), so a punch in the face was relatively harmless in comparison.

For older generations, there does seem to be outright disbelief that not just fascism but outright Nazism are suddenly on the rise again. They want to know, quite rationally, why the hell people haven't learned from the mistakes of the past, and why are people falling for the same shit all over again?

If there is one thing I could change in the world it would be making the study of history and the rise of fascism and propaganda 100% mandatory in schools, so we can guard against it ever happening again.

We may be too late.  :

[Happy Ent]

Really, people? Principled political violence? Have you learned nothing?

And, again: how do you then meet the islamist or the communist, of which there are many, many more, and which present ideologies that I rank below fascism in my own moral ranking. To me, this is the moral divide between, say, the Pegida movement (peaceful opposition to a totalitarian ideology) and some of the UK hooligans in the BNP (who condone violence). Those of you who pretend to have some kind of principled stance on this need to be able to explain this to me. Otherwise you are just hooligans.

And if you’re not just hooligans, you remain, in my mind, enemies of the open society. If you have a principled violent stance against totalitarianism, I can at least see where you’re coming from. (I still disagree and find you dangerous.)

But you people need to either explain why fascism (or is it only nazism? how do you people decide this?) is morally superior, or more dangerous than, other totalitarian ideologies, or explain why violence works particularly well against them.

[The Marquis de Leech]

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

For older generations, there does seem to be outright disbelief that not just fascism but outright Nazism are suddenly on the rise again. They want to know, quite rationally, why the hell people haven't learned from the mistakes of the past, and why are people falling for the same shit all over again?

For the same reason that laissez-faire economics could not be politically viable in the West until the generation who lived through the Great Depression had retired from public life. The Second World War is now fading from living memory.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

The continuing handwringing over its abstract significance for free speech etc. strikes me as the very definition of, as sologdin might put it, a bourgeois obsession with questions of propriety. You people live in a country where the President is suggesting that people should be tortured, not for information, but just to punish them. Where he is censoring government agencies. Where he is slashing healthcare. Where people's lives are at stake.

Funnily enough, I would say understanding the 1st Amendment is more important than ever. The punch itself is irrelevant, granted, but some of the issues that it raised are very far from trivial for those living under a Trump administration.

39 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

f punching Nazi is acceptable, then it must me acceptable to punch Communists and Islamists, right? (If not, where is the line drawn? Are there certain totalitarian ideologies that are better than other?

Neither Communism nor Islamism are totalitarian in nature. In fact, arguably, neither is Nazism in itself. Do you even know what the word means?
Nazism is seen as the very worst because it generally promotes genocide or, at the very least, some form of ethnic cleansing. Neither Communism nor Islamism does that. Not even close.
The line is easily drawn for anyone who wishes to do so by using some internationally accepted concepts of human rights. It's only difficult if you're trying to pretend there's no difference between legal/social/political structures you dislike and the organized mass murder of human beings.

[butterbumps!]

50 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Their ability to organise depends on their numbers. Street-fighting with these bastards will only be a recruiting tool for them.

The best way to avoid Spain and Weimar is to de-escalate. Don't give the far-right a recruiting tool, and don't give Trump the excuse to crack down on opposition. 

I'm kind of on the same page, and my thought in not responding with violence was about not giving people on the sidelines any reason to dismiss our side as "just as bad", or an excuse to continue looking away.   I think you and others know more than me on this, but I thought the value of keeping the high ground had a lot to do with mobilizing (or at least getting the political support of) the bystanders, who tend to make up the majority.   

ANd I'm anxious about retaliatory Trump crackdowns and restrictions like you mention.  

[Happy Ent]

35 minutes ago, Horza said:

To the extent that people like Richard Spencer getting punched in the face is any kind of problem it's that the people who wring their hands at political violence seem not to notice all the manifest varieties of political violence commonly directed at people not like Richard Spencer.

Maybe that is a useful hook to make some progress.

My problem is not with Spencer getting punched. As you observe, people are subject to violence all the time. This is terrible but unremarkable.

My problem is that otherwise reasonable and soft-spoken individuals cheer this. That that fail to maintain the principled stance against political violence that is a cornerstone of democracy. That they use, and I shit you not, this for virtue signalling. I realise to my horror that behind  the thin veneer of civilisation lurk authoritarian monsters who not only condone this, but who generate tribal, social cohesion in their ingroup. This is moral corruption of the highest order.

Spencer or people who punch him? I can’t really get my knickers in a twist over that. Those people are so far away from me that it might as well be a fiction. But to see the animal appear in people I consider friends? That shocks me.

[sToNED_CAT]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The way I see it is that for the most part, the left has been the one getting actually punched. From a protester in a Trump rally to another person who supported Trump and got punched because he was black, from the swastikas and crosses and angry rants at muslims in stores and on airplanes - the leftists are the ones that are getting hit, and have largely been taking it, and taking it, and taking it. And this time, someone said no.

 

Ehm, those people assaulted on Trump rallies were mostly leftist provocateurs sent there to disrupt them. If there was really a wave of anti leftist violence going on, people would be punched on democrat rallies by fascist attackers. That's what was happening in Weimar republic, for example it is not happening at all in US.

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

In associated news, the Doomsday Clock now sits at two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. Worst since the 1950s.

I bet, you didn't even know something like Doomsday Clock even existed before some liberal news site explained it to you few days ago... It is also funny, that it is ticking now when US has president willing to cooperate with 2nd strongest nuclear superpower, not when there was possibility for futile war over Ukraine and Syria.

9 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Obama actually deported 2.5 million. Many of Bush's  actions on immigration were returns, where undocumented workers are moved, but not processed, meaning no criminal felony record is created. It's not clear who deported more. Yet you label Bush's regime the lawful status quo. What are you basing this on? Or any Republican administration the lawful status quo? Also, the Executive has massive leeway on immigration. This doesn't make Obama an Emperor. And you seem perfectly fine with Trump employing the same executive discretion over immigration and not going to Congress. Why isn't he an Emperor?

Yes, that was why I pointed out, that Obama admin "cooked" stats. Bush was pro illegal globalist (he supported amnesty) but he never excluded majority of illegals from the deportation threat. There's also difference between Obama's and Trump's EO - Trump's ones follow the spirit of law. They are issued to ensure increased and swift deportation of illegals. Obama on the other hand used them to subvert the existing immigration law. He gave illegals work permits, while it is clearly stated, that they can't be employed legally. And his announcement, that they are essentially safe from deportation encouraged many others to come in. He actually worked against every instance when local govt tried to help feds to identify and deport people. Only a blind cannot see the difference.

[Tempra]

53 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

I remain shocked that people here advocate the use of violence against political opponents. 

Not only because violence is wrong. But also because I don’t understand the rules behind this apparently principled application of violence.

If punching Nazi is acceptable, then it must me acceptable to punch Communists and Islamists, right? (If not, where is the line drawn? Are there certain totalitarian ideologies that are better than other? If yes, how do I decide? I’m really, honestly curious. 

QFT.  Holy shit this thread is depressing as fuck.  

[Happy Ent]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Neither Communism nor Islamism are totalitarian in nature. In fact, arguably, neither is Nazism in itself. Do you even know what the word means?

Nazism is seen as the very worst because it generally promotes genocide or, at the very least, some form of ethnic cleansing. Neither Communism nor Islamism does that. Not even close.
 

As for totalitarianism: yes I am well aware of all connotations of that word. It’s on the short list of topics that I obsess about. But debates about semantics are not interesting to me, so if you operate under a model where communist or islamist regimes are not totalitarian than we can make no progress there. 

But your answer helps me at least understand because the focus seems to be on ethnic cleansing. (Like, say the communist Khmer Rouge or the antisemitism of Hamas. Fair enough. So we don’t need totalitarianism.) So a normal fascist should not be punched, it is the particular obsession with ethnic cleansing by the nazis that is central? Should I punch the next Hutu I meet?

(Real, honest questions. I’m not being facetious. The morality of you people is so far outside anything I can conceptualise or empathise with that I need to ask very basic questions. Because I really don’t get it.)

[mormont]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough, I would say understanding the 1st Amendment is more important than ever.

Again, it's not a First Amendment issue.

If the boot was on the other foot, and Spencer or some other neo-Nazi had punched a protestor being interviewed, nobody here would be angsting about what it all means. We'd regard it as a simple assault of the sort that happens every day. Which it was.

A guy got punched. Outside of a small chatterati on the internet, nobody thinks anything of it. It did not 'raise issues'. All it raised was a bruise. Again, this is all bourgeois crap.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

In associated news, the Doomsday Clock now sits at two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. Worst since the 1950s.

Before the inauguration it was at 3 minutes.  The advancement of a half minute is pretty scary.

[Horza]

3 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Really, people? Principled political violence? Have you learned nothing?

And, again: how do you then meet the islamist or the communist, of which there are many, many more, and which present ideologies that I rank below fascism in my own moral ranking. To me, this is the moral divide between, say, the Pegida movement (peaceful opposition to a totalitarian ideology) and some of the UK hooligans in the BNP (who condone violence). Those of you who pretend to have some kind of principled stance on this need to be able to explain this to me. Otherwise you are just hooligans.

And if you’re not just hooligans, you remain, in my mind, enemies of the open society. If you have a principled violent stance against totalitarianism, I can at least see where you’re coming from. (I still disagree and find you dangerous.)

But you people need to either explain why fascism (or is it only nazism? how do you people decide this?) is morally superior, or more dangerous than, other totalitarian ideologies, or explain why violence works particularly well against them.

I mean I appreciate the honesty in combining the reheated cold war totalitarianism paradigm with an honest preference for fascism over dreaded islamofascism, but how do you not get that your open society paradigm and its brave defenders PEDGIDA rest on self-same political violence to defend their arcadian groves?

5 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

 

My problem is not with Spencer getting punched. As you observe, people are subject to violence all the time. This is terrible but unremarkable.

My problem is that otherwise reasonable and soft-spoken individuals cheer this. That that fail to maintain the principled stance against political violence that is a cornerstone of democracy. That they use, and I shit you not, this for virtue signalling. I realise to my horror that behind  the thin veneer of civilisation lurk authoritarian monsters who not only condone this, but who generate tribal, social cohesion in their ingroup. This is moral corruption of the highest order.

Spencer or people who punch him? I can’t really get my knicker in a twist over that. Those people are so far away from me that it might as well be a fiction. But to see the animal appear in people I consider friends? That shocks me.

Honestly, I tend to think this line of yours is some kind of Captain Renault act, but it might actually be that you don't get that political violence is inherent to democracies, tyrannies, gerontocracies and church fetes. But then you go on to talk about how distant and unimportant Spencer getting punched is, when surely if political violence is injustice then injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So I don't get it - are you a proponent of universal liberalism or just looking after your own little patch?

[Happy Ent]

1 minute ago, Horza said:

So I don't get it - are you a proponent of universal liberalism or just looking after your own little patch?

I am a proponent of liberal democracy. I find nothing universal in that idea.

I am not shocked that somebody punches Spencer. I am shocked that normal, decent people cheer it.