Is violence against fascists acceptable if it achives a noble goal?

@maxdancona,

The difference is that Cable Street was a predominantly Jewish part of London. Fascists marching is deliberately provocative, it’s public order if nothing else.

We have a similar problem in Northern Ireland with Unionists marching through Catholic areas in order to celebrate the Battle Of The Boyne. It’s deliberately provocative. Nobody has a problem with them marching down the Shankill Road.

You seem to think that Fascists should be allowed to do whatever they want. You claim to be against White Supremacism, but you’ve not condemned any violence from the right.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Let me make this very clear.

1. I believe in freedom of expression is a core part of any free democracy. This means that anyone from LGBT activists to fascists to football fans have the right to express themselves.

2. Being "deliberately provocative" is an important part of freedom of expression. The LGBT community fully understands this. If you ban people from being provocative, you have banned any expression that challenges social norms.

3. I condemn any violence (in the context of a free Democracy)... from the left or from the right. If you want me to condemn anything in specific, list it here and I will condemn it for you.

2 Replies

Once you assert that violence is acceptable in some cases then you have the problem of drawing the line.

Is it only fascists that you can target, or are there other people who can be targeted for violence?

How do you define a "fascist" anyway. There are some people who wear swastikas... that is the easy case.

But what about someone who refuses to use the correct pronouns, or who doesn't want to sell cake to gay couples?

What about someone who believes that "all lives matter"?

Is there a group of people you find offensive... but not to the level that you want to physically assault them?

It is easy for me. I don't believe violence is appropriate against anyone accept as part of law enforcement under a rule of law that protects freedom of expression. I don't feel the need to physically assault anyone.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I condemn any violence (in the context of a free Democracy).

But what if, for instance, without that violence, Trump is re-elected and installs himself as a permanent dictator, eliminating presidential term limits?

What if we could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, stopping the holocaust from ever happening?

Wouldn't the ends justify the means?

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

Your response reeks of white privilege.

Cable Street is a residential area, the Fascists weren’t marching on Parliament, they were going to where people lived to cause trouble.

This only happens to minorities, you don’t get Black Panthers marching through gated communities threatening to get Whitey.

It only happens to minorities, it’s only minorities who have to put up with harassment and intimidation. Your even applaud such harassment saying it’s good the Nazis are provocative.

And it’s so easy for you to speak in the abstract about something that will never happen to you. If a group of people held a demonstration outside your house calling you a **** and handing out fliers you’d be the first one crying ‘Poor Max,’ and demanding something be done about it.

Let’s face it, a poster can’t even claim to have suffered some form of abuse without you calling them a liar and claiming to have suffered much worse.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

There is some validity in the "white privilege" argument. Yes, my white privilege makes it personally less costly to exercise my freedom of expression.

However there is another side to this. The civil rights movement benefited greatly from the First Amendment. The LGBT movement benefited greatly from the First Amendment. The Women's suffrage movement benefited greatly from the First Amendment. The abolition movement benefited greatly from the First Amendment.

I accept that the Democratic institution of freedom of expression offers some support to people you and I find offensive. However, it also offers support ... and historically has offered support to the great progressive movements that mark American history.

When you look as a whole.... Freedom of expression has greatly benefited minorities.

1 Reply

@thebobeternal,

thebobeternal wrote:

Quote:
I condemn any violence (in the context of a free Democracy).

But what if, for instance, without that violence, Trump is re-elected and installs himself as a permanent dictator, eliminating presidential term limits?

What if we could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, stopping the holocaust from ever happening?

Wouldn't the ends justify the means?

I will make this point again.

I believe that the violence used in opposition to the government In Nazi Germany was morally acceptable ... probably even morally necessary. This was a repressive dictatorship with no real Democratic institutions left.

When I am living in a Democratic society... I am under a social contract to respect the Democratic Institutions. There are two totally different situations.

If you believe in the government system you are living under, you should support it. If you oppose the government system... then by all means fight it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Do you believe that objective morality exists? Are there any things you would consider universally wrong?

1 Reply

@thebobeternal,

No I do not believe in absolute morality.

I also don't believe this is relevant in a Democracy. Democracy makes no sense if there is absolute morality.

You don't vote on absolute truth.

1 Reply

@thebobeternal,

It has always seemed to me that a level playing field is the best option for any society. Egalitarianism is required rather than the misogyny, misandry plus all the religious and political hate.

My personal view is everyone should just leave everyone else alone.

If one wishes to live in a society then it has to be paid for somehow. There has to be taxation and that should also be even handed - These are of course concepts which require books of explanation not the internet forum.

However that will never be, because the vast majority of the world's population are ignorant and horribly uneducated. They are generationally (for so many millennia) destined to do as they are told via propaganda of either churches or politicos. Which is why I started to live as a reclusive with my Dr wife in our rural idyll, since before I was age 50.

The right wing think you are abhorrent, whilst you think they are abhorrent ... However until you all grow up considerably, then it seems perfectly reasonable that you should all kill each other and claim it is the will of God ... as per usual Drunk

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

No I do not believe in absolute morality.

If that's the case, what would be wrong with anything that Trump has done thus far?

2 Replies

@thebobeternal,

thebobeternal wrote:

Quote:
No I do not believe in absolute morality.

If that's the case, what would be wrong with anything that Trump has done thus far?

Morality is socially and culturally defined... you and I share a culture, so you and I almost certainly share a system of morality.

Whether or not that moral system is "absolute" is a relevant as angels dancing on the head of a pin.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Morality is socially and culturally defined... you and I share a culture, so you and I almost certainly share a system of morality.

Whether or not that moral system is "absolute" is a relevant as angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't answer my question:

Quote:

If that's the case, what would be wrong with anything that Trump has done thus far?

1 Reply

@thebobeternal,

Trump is breaking American social norms. He is dishonest. He is divisive. He is making society less fair and equal. He is using the public space for personal gain. He is cruel towards the poor and refugees. He is putting his own political gain over the public good.

Any one of these things is immoral.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Trump is breaking American social norms. He is dishonest. He is divisive. He is making society less fair and equal. He is using the public space for personal gain. He is cruel towards the poor and refugees. He is putting his own political gain over the public good.

Any one of these things is immoral.

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

If you could kill Trump, and you knew that would prevent the degradation of the country, would you do it?

2 Replies

@thebobeternal,

No! I would absolutely not kill Donald Trump. In fact, I would act to prevent you from killing Donald Trump.

I am an American, a member of a Democratic society. I have a social contract to live as a citizen of a Democracy. I take that social contract seriously. We have an agreed upon way of choosing a government, and I abide by that system of government whether I like the outcome or not. That is what it means to be a citizen of a Democracy.

I don't want to live in a country where political leaders are assassinated. For me to assassinate a leader I would have to completely reject the democratic system of government. I would have to believe that I know an absolute Truth that is more important than the society I live in.

And of course, a system of government that includes assassinations as a way of solving political problems is a democracy. In an assassination one person with a gun, or a small group of people is making a choice for everyone. That isn't what I want.

No. I don't want Donald Trump to be assassinated. I do want him to lose the election in November.

1 Reply

@thebobeternal,

Quote:

Is it justified to use physical force against the white supremacists/Nazis/Trumpers?

Quote:

If you could kill Trump, and you knew that would prevent the degradation of the country, would you do it?

A thread that includes veiled threats to murder the sitting president of the United States and to assault his supporters.

And nobody here seems to have a problem with that.

Maybe the secret service need to have a look here...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

That says nothing and fails to address any of the points I made. More sneaky diversion tactics.

0 Replies

@thebobeternal,

That’s another question entirely, you’re talking about the space time continuum. The Allies put any idea of assassinating Hitler on hold on the latter stages of the war because he was an asset.

His refusal to l3t his generals retreat lead to the capture of thousands of troops in North Africa. They could have been evacuated back to Italy. Similar tactics lead to Stalingrad being overrun. And Hitler’s insistence on not being woken up lead to tanks and soldiers staying in Calais while Normandy was invaded.

Someone wrote a Sci Fi Book about someone who goes back and assassinates Hitler only to find on his return to the present day that the Nazis rule the World.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Now you’re contradicting yourself. You said violence is unacceptable in a democratic society, now you’re saying that you would protect Trump if he installed a permanent dictatorship.

At last you’re showing your true colours.

1 Reply

Is violence against fascists acceptable if it achives a noble goal?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know