8 ms·

In the past few weeks the idea of 'legitimatizing violence' has been circulating heavily. On my Facebook feed most of it has centered on the idea that it is "ok

In the past few weeks the idea of 'legitimatizing violence' has been circulating heavily. On my Facebook feed most of it has centered on the idea that it is "okay" to punch neo-nazis now. The people saying this are people I'd never expect to. Twitter is similar. I wish I had stats on whether the legitimatization meme is really rising. To me, it looks like the fake news meme. Suddenly it's everywhere.

whyileft 10y ago
Not sure if you are old enough to remember that far leftist ideological organizations were often violent up until the last quarter of the 20th century. This period of peacefulness is a recent phenomenon. One of the big pacifiers of democracy is that people accept the result because the majority voted for it. When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. Especially when you realize that in large urban areas we are looking at 25% to 70% type splits in some cases.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  >When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. 46% and 48% of voters, not of the population. Neither voting block are a majority of the population. I would argue this particular part of our current political climate is largely pushed by a minority, and is as much about them believing their own propaganda as it is about the fact that they lost the election. Keep in mind there was quite a bit of violence coming from the left long before the election was over (attacking people at Trump rallies, fire bombing a GOP headquarters). They genuinely believe the sky is falling, so to speak. It's unfortunate, because it makes it difficult for the rest of us to have a discussion about where we've actually gone wrong.
  - whyileft 10y ago
    The state of California which has one of the largest economies in the world was 62% to 32% against Donald Trump. Is it really that surprising there is a fair amount of visible decent?
    - arethuza 10y ago
      Indeed if California was a country its GDP would put it somewhere below France (#6) and above India (#7). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...
- hueving 10y ago
  >at least 48% of the population is strongly against Where did you get that number from? Hillary Clinton got 65.8 Million votes. That represents 20.6% of the United states population. >That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. See above. They were the majority of voters but they defintely don't represent the majority of the US.
  - whyileft 10y ago
    The largest voting blocks that have low turnout would make that gap larger, not smaller. Also, in urban areas where most of these protests are happening the gaps were enormous. In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote. Is it not surprising those people feel a bit underrepresented right now and might turn to alternative means of flexing their massive majority in the areas they specifically live?
    - hueving 10y ago
      >The largest voting blocks that have low turnout would make that gap larger, not smaller. Also, in urban areas where most of these protests are happening the gaps were enormous. There is no proof of that. "If this person who decided not to vote were a person who decided to vote then they would vote in a similar manner to the other people who decided to vote" is stupid reasoning because that person decided not to vote. >In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote. I am shocked, shocked! A city filled with people who's lives revolve around a big federal government voted for the most establishment candidate in history. >their massive majority in the areas they specifically live In D.C., Hillary got 282k votes. The population is 659k. That's not even half of the population. Cool it with the 'massive majority' crap. The US operates on an election system reflecting the house and senate. This should be basic knowledge for most American citizens. Throwing fits because it didn't go your way is pretty childish since it's exactly how the electoral college works.
      - whyileft 10y ago
        Im just helping one to understand why there are protests and unrest. DC had a very small inaugural turnout and very large protest the day after. I was trying to give some perspective. I believe it was about 90% in Chicago. San Fransisco was over 90%. New York City had a large margin. We are talking approximately 45 of the 50 largest cities in the country did not vote for Donald Trump. I took high school civics. I know how the rules work. Im just telling you that civil unrest usually happens when people feel like the rules are unjust and they have little or no power to change it through the democratic process. So Im simply trying to shed some light on it to people who may not understand why people might feel that way.
donatj 10y ago
The remarkably sad part is the violence does nothing but legitimize the attacked parties hate. Hate begets hate.
- BEEdwards 10y ago
  Violence totally legitimized the fascists and Nazis... OH wait, no it's the opposite, the only way to defeat them is on their own terms. You keep on appeasing them hoping it will work this time though.
  - donatj 10y ago
    It legitimizes their position in their minds. You punch someone, you are certainly not encouraging them to not hate you. You are not making your point that you are something not deserving of hate. If anything you are proving it and cauterizing their hatred for you in the process. It achieves nothing positive save very brief catharsis.
- lightbyte 10y ago
  Violence has historically been the only way for racial change to occur.
  - Dirlewanger 10y ago
    Because Martin Luther King Jr. was such a large proponent of violence...
    - donatj 10y ago
      And Gandhi
    - vkou 10y ago
      Martin Luther King would not have gotten anywhere if it weren't for people like Malcolm X (Who scared the hell out of white America.) When you've got Black Panthers on the streets with assault weapons, negotiating with (Instead of ignoring) a pacifist Baptist minister suddenly starts to sound like a way better idea. Ghandi won because the empire was, quite literally, too broke to hold on to its colonies. An Indian nationalist movement would not have gotten anywhere before the World Wars bankrupted England. Mind you, today, Martin Luther King's boycotts and marches are called economic terrorism.
legodt 10y ago
What's wrong with punching Nazis? Their ideology is one of genocide, trying to engage them peacefully only allows them platform and normalizes that. Richard Spencer called for an ethnic cleansing of black people, are we supposed to peacefully engage that? We knocked the Nazis out in WW2, let's not give them ground again Addendum- in a political climate where there are white nationalists energized by certain staff decisions in the white house, the threat of neo-nazis being more brazen is real. Honestly, it's a red flag to me when somebody doesn't think it is okay to fight a nazi. A neo Nazi shot an IWW member last week, a rally almost happened in the Midwest, the time to crush fascism is now before it grows stronger under our currently xenophobic administration
germinalphrase 10y ago
Culturally, Americans have chosen "Nazis" and zombies as default groups on which we can assert violence without questioning our moral values or their expression. While Richard Spencer is even saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi (before getting punched) - a great deal of the American population don't draw the lines as finely as he might. He's certainly said some things that put him in that world of thought. I share your discomfort with this in so far as we shouldn't normalize violence in daily life.
- legodt 10y ago
  Are you seriously sympathizing with a man who called for an American ethnic cleansing?
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    No. I'm recognizing that dangerous thoughts are not illegal in the United States of America and perpetuating violence is dangerous and ineffective. My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause, increase the likelihood of violence being perpetrated on my allies, and undermine the credibility and standing of my moral and political beliefs. We should resist the normalization of violence in our political discourse. Edit: grammar
    - legodt 10y ago
      So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough
      - germinalphrase 10y ago
        It is not illegal to talk of, and organize around, hateful and morally reprehensible beliefs. If they act on these beliefs or create credible plans to act then that would be the line. We also have civil authorities - like the police - that we bestow with the power of violence to protect these lines. Additionally, we have civil rights and hate crime laws that bestow additional punishments for groups like this acting on their beliefs. I think we will be better served reinforcing our shared beliefs in these civil authorities rather than acting as vigilantes and undermine our moral stance and possibly reinforce/embolden the support for our enemies.
tptacek 10y ago
Whatever else this comment might be, it is certainly wildly off topic for the thread. Please don't catalyze sprawling off-topic subthreads on stories.
- golemotron 10y ago
  It isn't. The article is about the efficacy of violence for political change. My comment is about its timing.
killcapitalists 10y ago
History has clearly demonstrated that Nazis cannot be defeated through discourse within civil society. Here's a quote from Frank Frison, a Holocaust survivor: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called "a mob". Regrettably too many "fair-minded" people didn't either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over. People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests."
MrZongle2 10y ago
"On my Facebook feed most of it has centered on the idea that it is "okay" to punch neo-nazis now." This is especially disturbing because the epithets "nazi" and "fascist" have increasingly become synonymous with "somebody I really don't agree with", rather than a description of somebody who admires the tenets of National Socialism. That isn't progressive; it's Jacobin.

whyileft 10y ago

Not sure if you are old enough to remember that far leftist ideological organizations were often violent up until the last quarter of the 20th century. This period of peacefulness is a recent phenomenon. One of the big pacifiers of democracy is that people accept the result because the majority voted for it. When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. Especially when you realize that in large urban areas we are looking at 25% to 70% type splits in some cases.

AlexB138 10y ago
>When you have a situation when 46% of the population is pushing an agenda that at least 48% of the population is strongly against. That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. 46% and 48% of voters, not of the population. Neither voting block are a majority of the population. I would argue this particular part of our current political climate is largely pushed by a minority, and is as much about them believing their own propaganda as it is about the fact that they lost the election. Keep in mind there was quite a bit of violence coming from the left long before the election was over (attacking people at Trump rallies, fire bombing a GOP headquarters). They genuinely believe the sky is falling, so to speak. It's unfortunate, because it makes it difficult for the rest of us to have a discussion about where we've actually gone wrong.
- whyileft 10y ago
  The state of California which has one of the largest economies in the world was 62% to 32% against Donald Trump. Is it really that surprising there is a fair amount of visible decent?
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Indeed if California was a country its GDP would put it somewhere below France (#6) and above India (#7). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states...
hueving 10y ago
>at least 48% of the population is strongly against Where did you get that number from? Hillary Clinton got 65.8 Million votes. That represents 20.6% of the United states population. >That group often starts to look for alternative ways to flex its majority power. See above. They were the majority of voters but they defintely don't represent the majority of the US.
- whyileft 10y ago
  The largest voting blocks that have low turnout would make that gap larger, not smaller. Also, in urban areas where most of these protests are happening the gaps were enormous. In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote. Is it not surprising those people feel a bit underrepresented right now and might turn to alternative means of flexing their massive majority in the areas they specifically live?
  - hueving 10y ago
    >The largest voting blocks that have low turnout would make that gap larger, not smaller. Also, in urban areas where most of these protests are happening the gaps were enormous. There is no proof of that. "If this person who decided not to vote were a person who decided to vote then they would vote in a similar manner to the other people who decided to vote" is stupid reasoning because that person decided not to vote. >In Washington, DC Donald Trump won 4% of the vote. I am shocked, shocked! A city filled with people who's lives revolve around a big federal government voted for the most establishment candidate in history. >their massive majority in the areas they specifically live In D.C., Hillary got 282k votes. The population is 659k. That's not even half of the population. Cool it with the 'massive majority' crap. The US operates on an election system reflecting the house and senate. This should be basic knowledge for most American citizens. Throwing fits because it didn't go your way is pretty childish since it's exactly how the electoral college works.
    - whyileft 10y ago
      Im just helping one to understand why there are protests and unrest. DC had a very small inaugural turnout and very large protest the day after. I was trying to give some perspective. I believe it was about 90% in Chicago. San Fransisco was over 90%. New York City had a large margin. We are talking approximately 45 of the 50 largest cities in the country did not vote for Donald Trump. I took high school civics. I know how the rules work. Im just telling you that civil unrest usually happens when people feel like the rules are unjust and they have little or no power to change it through the democratic process. So Im simply trying to shed some light on it to people who may not understand why people might feel that way.

donatj 10y ago

The remarkably sad part is the violence does nothing but legitimize the attacked parties hate. Hate begets hate.

BEEdwards 10y ago
Violence totally legitimized the fascists and Nazis... OH wait, no it's the opposite, the only way to defeat them is on their own terms. You keep on appeasing them hoping it will work this time though.
- donatj 10y ago
  It legitimizes their position in their minds. You punch someone, you are certainly not encouraging them to not hate you. You are not making your point that you are something not deserving of hate. If anything you are proving it and cauterizing their hatred for you in the process. It achieves nothing positive save very brief catharsis.
lightbyte 10y ago
Violence has historically been the only way for racial change to occur.
- Dirlewanger 10y ago
  Because Martin Luther King Jr. was such a large proponent of violence...
  - donatj 10y ago
    And Gandhi
  - vkou 10y ago
    Martin Luther King would not have gotten anywhere if it weren't for people like Malcolm X (Who scared the hell out of white America.) When you've got Black Panthers on the streets with assault weapons, negotiating with (Instead of ignoring) a pacifist Baptist minister suddenly starts to sound like a way better idea. Ghandi won because the empire was, quite literally, too broke to hold on to its colonies. An Indian nationalist movement would not have gotten anywhere before the World Wars bankrupted England. Mind you, today, Martin Luther King's boycotts and marches are called economic terrorism.

legodt 10y ago

What's wrong with punching Nazis? Their ideology is one of genocide, trying to engage them peacefully only allows them platform and normalizes that. Richard Spencer called for an ethnic cleansing of black people, are we supposed to peacefully engage that? We knocked the Nazis out in WW2, let's not give them ground again Addendum- in a political climate where there are white nationalists energized by certain staff decisions in the white house, the threat of neo-nazis being more brazen is real. Honestly, it's a red flag to me when somebody doesn't think it is okay to fight a nazi. A neo Nazi shot an IWW member last week, a rally almost happened in the Midwest, the time to crush fascism is now before it grows stronger under our currently xenophobic administration

germinalphrase 10y ago

Culturally, Americans have chosen "Nazis" and zombies as default groups on which we can assert violence without questioning our moral values or their expression. While Richard Spencer is even saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi (before getting punched) - a great deal of the American population don't draw the lines as finely as he might. He's certainly said some things that put him in that world of thought. I share your discomfort with this in so far as we shouldn't normalize violence in daily life.

legodt 10y ago
Are you seriously sympathizing with a man who called for an American ethnic cleansing?
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  No. I'm recognizing that dangerous thoughts are not illegal in the United States of America and perpetuating violence is dangerous and ineffective. My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause, increase the likelihood of violence being perpetrated on my allies, and undermine the credibility and standing of my moral and political beliefs. We should resist the normalization of violence in our political discourse. Edit: grammar
  - legodt 10y ago
    So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough
    - germinalphrase 10y ago
      It is not illegal to talk of, and organize around, hateful and morally reprehensible beliefs. If they act on these beliefs or create credible plans to act then that would be the line. We also have civil authorities - like the police - that we bestow with the power of violence to protect these lines. Additionally, we have civil rights and hate crime laws that bestow additional punishments for groups like this acting on their beliefs. I think we will be better served reinforcing our shared beliefs in these civil authorities rather than acting as vigilantes and undermine our moral stance and possibly reinforce/embolden the support for our enemies.

tptacek 10y ago

Whatever else this comment might be, it is certainly wildly off topic for the thread. Please don't catalyze sprawling off-topic subthreads on stories.

golemotron 10y ago
It isn't. The article is about the efficacy of violence for political change. My comment is about its timing.

killcapitalists 10y ago

History has clearly demonstrated that Nazis cannot be defeated through discourse within civil society. Here's a quote from Frank Frison, a Holocaust survivor: "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called "a mob". Regrettably too many "fair-minded" people didn't either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over. People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests."

MrZongle2 10y ago

"On my Facebook feed most of it has centered on the idea that it is "okay" to punch neo-nazis now." This is especially disturbing because the epithets "nazi" and "fascist" have increasingly become synonymous with "somebody I really don't agree with", rather than a description of somebody who admires the tenets of National Socialism. That isn't progressive; it's Jacobin.