Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[Highlord Laan]

Yes, but as bad as the situation is in the US currently, I don't think it is yet equivalent to the threat level posed by Adolph Hitler in the early 1940s.

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

No, no. Early 40's. Jews in cattle cars by then.

Fits with the typical stereotype of a classroom-dwelling, swaddled and pampered western citizen. Only allowed to fight back if the daily news upsets him enough before another Starbucks run.

[Flagg]

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

No, no. Early 40's. Jews in cattle cars by then.

Fits with the typical stereotype of a classroom-dwelling, swaddled and pampered western citizen. Only allowed to fight back if the daily news upsets him enough before another Starbucks run.

I'd love to post in more detail, but I'm skirting the line as it is. All I can say is I love being proven right.

[Broomstick]

Yes, but as bad as the situation is in the US currently, I don't think it is yet equivalent to the threat level posed by Adolph Hitler in the early 1940s.

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

No, no. Early 40's. Jews in cattle cars by then.

Right, just fuck anyone they had killed before 1940, or 1942, or whatever, right?

Are you at all familiar with Martin Niemöller? The guys who said "first they came for the communists, but I wasn't a communist but I did not speak out because I was not a communist..." then went through a bunch of other groups until ending with "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." You know that guy? Do you know when HE was sent to a concentration camp?

1937

The camps and the killings started before 1940. The "early 40's" was too late for millions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, but as bad as the situation is in the US currently, I don't think it is yet equivalent to the threat level posed by Adolph Hitler in the early 1940s.

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

Did I say that was my threshold? No. I was simply pointing out a false comparison between two different situations.

Obviously you don't wait for it to get to that point. But there is a long way between "America today" and that.

You know, if I made that kind of assumption about someone else's arguments, and then started accusatorially shrieking at them over it, there's a pretty good chance I'd be roundly attacked for jumping to conclusions, making false accusations, "hysterics", etc. Possibly even end up getting modded for it.

If I did it.

Where is the line? Debateable and depends on the circumstances. But I would say that it would have to generally include the use of large-scale violence by the other side, to the point that peaceful means of opposition are no longer effective.

While we still have elections, and an independent judiciary, and Trump is increasingly isolated, and protesters are not being rounded up or killed by the state but are (mostly) allowed to protest, you will have a hard time convincing me that violence is, in most situations, the only recourse or the lesser evil.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm glad you acknowledge the problem of antifascists overlapping with/attracting anarchists and anarchocommunists who are not necessarily acting purely defensively.

However, I don't think that's a problem that can be hand-waved with "you go to war with the army you have" because it is, in my opinion, central to the entire issue. Relying on allies with ulterior motives, who wish to advance their own extremist agenda, and who will likely drive away if not actively target more moderate supporters and allies is not, to my mind, a very promising strategy purely on pragmatic grounds, without even getting into the considerable moral issues involved, and even if you do not feel Nazis are entitled to equal protection from extrajudicial violence.

You are correct it is an issue. However, it is one that I think will correct itself. For one thing, if other protesters ask them not to initiate violence... it does seem they will respect that wish, at least that seems to be what has occurred recently in Charlottesville. We will see how well it can be generalized. US antifascists are FAR more moderate than the European ones (I suspect because they don't literally have their roots in the old German KPD). You can't stop random douches from throwing things at cops, but these guys do have meetings and coordinating with them for Maximum Effectiveness and Optimum Optics can work.. The other being that their ranks are likely to swell or be...be augmented by groups of more rational minds (read: people who are not anarchists, but who are willing to punch Nazis). That will likely cause some factionalization (because leftists LOVE to splinter), allowing us to have our cake (the punching Nazi cake) and eat it (by separating that from the anarchist antifascists, and allowing distinctions to be made in the press more easily).

Where is the line? Debateable and depends on the circumstances. But I would say that it would have to generally include the use of large-scale violence by the other side, to the point that peaceful means of opposition are no longer effective.

While we still have elections, and an independent judiciary, and Trump is increasingly isolated, and protesters are not being rounded up or killed by the state but are (mostly) allowed to protest, you will have a hard time convincing me that violence is, in most situations, the only recourse or the lesser evil.

This right here? It tells me that you don't know what happened in the late 20s and early 30s and how the nazis came to power in the first place. They started small. Just like now. Right now, support for neo-nazi and white supremacist ideologies sits at ~10% last I checked. That is enough of a voting block to swing an election and the GOP knows it, they have actively courted it for decades. It is part of the reason they have been pushing voter ID laws for fuck's sake (the other being voter intimidation). Now we have a president who openly rants about the evil jewish conspiracy during a rally in Phoenix. We have a dude, in Phoenix, driving his truck on the sidewalk trying to run counter-protesters over while throwing Nazi salutes. The police politely escort that guy away and then bombard the crowd with tear gas (the bit about the truck is an eye-witness account from my brother).

Now, this is not Germany in the 30s, the dynamics and tactics are different, but it is starting to look a bit Thirtiesesque.

Now, by the time there is large scale violence it is too late. They already have enough power and control that they will have more by the time you manage to organize an appropriate response if the state does nothing (or worse, helps them... and right now it is looking like the state won't be doing much. And that is a best case scenario given that Trump is trying to get the membership lists of websites used to organize counter-him protests). You cannot wait until they start showing up armed at polling stations in the 2018 election for open voter intimidation.

[Flagg]

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

No, no. Early 40's. Jews in cattle cars by then.

Right, just fuck anyone they had killed before 1940, or 1942, or whatever, right?

Are you at all familiar with Martin Niemöller? The guys who said "first they came for the communists, but I wasn't a communist but I did not speak out because I was not a communist..." then went through a bunch of other groups until ending with "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." You know that guy? Do you know when HE was sent to a concentration camp?

1937

The camps and the killings started before 1940. The "early 40's" was too late for millions.

Umm, what are you arguing here? I'm fully aware of all of this, I was pointing out that someone else's threshold for action was Germany in the 1940's, and by then the "final solution" was in full swing and the chance to fight back was gone. Save the outrage for them.

[Broomstick]

My bad - you're right, you are not the target of my ire.

[Flagg]

My bad - you're right, you are not the target of my ire.

NP.
Just kind of caught me by surprise.

[Broomstick]

I was really tired and upset last night (not at you, work issues), that can impair both my reading comprehension and post targeting. Not an excuse, an explanation. Thank you for being understanding.

[Raw Shark]

I've always found Flagg to be a pretty good target of my ire. If we ever meet in person, we'll probably punch each other in the nuts, fall down, recover, and get a cheeseburger or a beer or something.

[Flagg]

I was really tired and upset last night (not at you, work issues), that can impair both my reading comprehension and post targeting. Not an excuse, an explanation. Thank you for being understanding.

It happens, I've done it too.

[Broomstick]

I've always found Flagg to be a pretty good target of my ire. If we ever meet in person, we'll probably punch each other in the nuts, fall down, recover, and get a cheeseburger or a beer or something.

Yeah, but I regard tempers like guns - "control" is hitting your target and not the wall behind you.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, but I regard tempers like guns - "control" is hitting your target and not the wall behind you.

I regard guns with a little more caution than fists. What makes you think that Flagg would not be my target? We've been congenial sparring partners in front of you for years. Friendly dick-punch is likely.

The wall behind (whomever) is why I only use hollowpoints. They don't penetrate as well. I'd prefer to not accidentally kill the pretty girl or random old gay dude next door. They seem nice.

[The Romulan Republic]

THAT is your threshold? Your threshold to 'it is acceptable to fight Nazis openly' is 1940? Are you fucking MAD?

No, no. Early 40's. Jews in cattle cars by then.

Fits with the typical stereotype of a classroom-dwelling, swaddled and pampered western citizen. Only allowed to fight back if the daily news upsets him enough before another Starbucks run.

You know what? I've had it with this shit.

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

[The Romulan Republic]

You are correct it is an issue. However, it is one that I think will correct itself. For one thing, if other protesters ask them not to initiate violence... it does seem they will respect that wish, at least that seems to be what has occurred recently in Charlottesville.

Source?

If true, its somewhat reassuring I suppose, but I'm not sure that their supposed willingness not to initiate violence if asked means all that much when the prevailing attitude, at least among Left-wingers on the internet, seems to be less "please don't initiate violence" and more "Rar, smash them Nazis!"

We will see how well it can be generalized. US antifascists are FAR more moderate than the European ones (I suspect because they don't literally have their roots in the old German KPD). You can't stop random douches from throwing things at cops, but these guys do have meetings and coordinating with them for Maximum Effectiveness and Optimum Optics can work.. The other being that their ranks are likely to swell or be...be augmented by groups of more rational minds (read: people who are not anarchists, but who are willing to punch Nazis). That will likely cause some factionalization (because leftists LOVE to splinter), allowing us to have our cake (the punching Nazi cake) and eat it (by separating that from the anarchist antifascists, and allowing distinctions to be made in the press more easily).

That's... not the worst possible outcome, perhaps, but I do not think it bodes well for American democracy and the safety of the public for political violence to become increasingly mainstream and normalized.

Nor do I regard the prospect of the Left becoming even further factionalized between different violent groups reassuring, and I'm frankly stunned that you seem to do so.

I mean, in all likelihood, what would happen is that those splinter groups would increasingly expend their energy fighting (both politically and literally) other "liberals" and "progressives" who aren't "pure" or "hard line" enough for them, which will also cause a further splintering of the anti-Trump/anti-white supremacist vote in upcoming elections.

I mean, you're describing pretty much one of the exact scenarios I'm worried about.

Christ, I'm just waiting for the first terrorist murder of a Democrat by a Bernie or Buster, or vice-versa.

This right here? It tells me that you don't know what happened in the late 20s and early 30s and how the nazis came to power in the first place. They started small. Just like now. Right now, support for neo-nazi and white supremacist ideologies sits at ~10% last I checked. That is enough of a voting block to swing an election and the GOP knows it, they have actively courted it for decades.

Source for 10%?

I don't really doubt it, I'm just curious.

It is part of the reason they have been pushing voter ID laws for fuck's sake (the other being voter intimidation).

Mostly, I think its just a mix of bald-faced cheating and, yes, pandering to racists (not all of whom are outright Nazis, of course).

Not that that in any way excuses it, of course.

Now we have a president who openly rants about the evil jewish conspiracy during a rally in Phoenix. We have a dude, in Phoenix, driving his truck on the sidewalk trying to run counter-protesters over while throwing Nazi salutes. The police politely escort that guy away and then bombard the crowd with tear gas (the bit about the truck is an eye-witness account from my brother).

With all due respect to your brother, I'd like another source on that one. Eyewitness accounts can, as I'm sure you know, be highly unreliable, especially in chaotic and stressful situations, and if another terrorist attack via vehicle had been attempted in Phoenix (which had a lot of media attention on it at the time), I'd think it would have received wide-spread coverage.

Not that the existence or non-existence of one specific incident changes the overall picture much, one way or the other.

Now, this is not Germany in the 30s, the dynamics and tactics are different, but it is starting to look a bit Thirtiesesque.

What you seem to be missing (or ignoring, since I've brought it up repeatedly) is that the public response to Charlottsville, and Trump's handling of it, has been overwhelmingly against the Nazis and their allies. While Trump becomes increasingly isolated and politically impotent.

Its very concerning that its reached this point at all, but the momentum is not in the direction of turning America into the Fourth Reich. Its on our side. And I don't want to lose that momentum because of an excessive violent response which divides the Left and costs us mainstream support by appearing (however falsely) to play into Trump's "both sides are guilty" narrative.

Now, by the time there is large scale violence it is too late. They already have enough power and control that they will have more by the time you manage to organize an appropriate response if the state does nothing (or worse, helps them... and right now it is looking like the state won't be doing much. And that is a best case scenario given that Trump is trying to get the membership lists of websites used to organize counter-him protests). You cannot wait until they start showing up armed at polling stations in the 2018 election for open voter intimidation.

I understand the danger of waiting too long. Really, I do.

But are you prepared to acknowledge the dangers of acting too soon?

I mean, you're basically saying that even if the non-violent, democratic institutions to oppose people like Trump are still in place, we should jump to "violence is the only option" because if we wait it might be too late later. That's a really, really dangerous way to start thinking, because "We have to act now or it might be too late" is an excellent way to shut down any discussion on weather a radical and dangerous course of action is actually necessary by playing on peoples' fears and simplifying the issue to "us vs. them" (like, say, by falsely comparing those who disagree with you to an infamous Nazi collaborator).

Again, the Nazis are not winning in the wake of Charlottsville. The momentum is with us. Does that mean we let our guard down and assume the worst is over? Of course not. But its hard, for me, to go from that to "violence is the only option if we want to prevent the Fourth Reich."

I brought up the War on Terror before, and while the circumstances are of course rather different, I think that in this respect its an apt analogy. After 911, the world was on America's side, and the country was united. We then pissed that good will away, and compromised many of our civil liberties in the process, with a series of overly-heavy-handed responses driven by fear and anger, exploited by those who were just looking for an excuse to start the wars that they wanted to fight.

And I see the exact same thing happening now, among Left-wing activists in our domestic politics, right down to "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" type of rhetoric to shut down dissent (In your case, comparing me to fucking Quisling among other things, which we both know is a flat-out lie- whatever you or anyone else may think of my positions, my arguments, or my personality, I am quite confident that my posting record makes it clear that I have no sympathies whatsoever for Nazism. And its a particularly disgusting lie given the topic and context of this thread).

I can also see parallels to the escalating political violence and refusal to compromise, and mainstream legitimization of said violence and radicalism, leading up to the American Civil War (which, considering that this whole disaster started over removing Confederate monuments, is rather too apt).

If we're going to talk about the lessons of history, maybe we ought to pay a bit more attention to our own history.

Sure, there can come a point where violence is the only resort. But you better be really damn sure it actually has reached that point before you pull the trigger, metaphorically or literally. Otherwise, you're not acting out of necessity- you're just indulging your own darker emotions.

Man, I just love that I'm the one who's constantly accused of being hyperbolic and alarmist on this board, and I the one who's saying "Hey, maybe their are options in our future besides "widespread political violence by the Left" or "the Fourth Reich"."

Moreover, if the problem is Trump's support of the Neo-Nazis, that is not a problem that can be solved by the likes of Antifa. There are only two ways to solve that problem- through the legitimate, non-violent political process, or through a full-scale civil war.

Leaving aside the obvious objection- that no remotely sane and conscientious person would consider a full-scale civil war the "lesser evil" unless it really was a choice between that and something akin to the Holocaust-

Antifa and its like are not in any way prepared to engage in armed conflict with the US government. To do that, with a prayer of victory, would require the support of elements of the military and the political establishment. The kind of mainstream support you will lose if you are too quick to join forces with violent fringe groups and engage in preemptive or retaliatory (as opposed to defensive) violence. All an increase in violence from Left-wing activists would do, I fear, is cost us support while giving Trump and his allies the perfect excuse to crack down on us by force.

Even if you really believe that violence is necessary, you have an obligation to consider the practical difficulties before advocating a radical course of action where the stakes are nothing less than the survival of American democracy and potentially millions of innocent lives.

Again, even in the months leading up to the Civil War (as just and necessary a war as any America has ever fought), when entire states were actually in a state of armed rebellion against the Federal Government, Abraham Lincoln went to great pains to make it clear to everyone that the South, not the North, started the war. Because if he hadn't, he would have probably lost international support and the border states, and likely the war.

[Zaune]

You know what? I've had it with this shit.

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

Well, you're the one who made a statement to the effect that it will take until the systematic and organised ethnic cleansing has already started before you're willing to even consider picking up a gun in defence of democracy and the rights of man.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the fact that you've made a genuine effort to come up with workable alternatives to tit-for-tat violence and are generally trying to be the voice of reason and caution, which is a role we really fucking need someone to play and which you really don't get enough credit for doing. But if US progressives wait until the situation is that bad before resorting to drastic action, chances are some of your fellow board members will already be dead. I can understand why they might be taking that a bit personally.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know what? I've had it with this shit.

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

Well, you're the one who made a statement to the effect that it will take until the systematic and organised ethnic cleansing has already started before you're willing to even consider picking up a gun in defense of democracy and the rights of man.

I didn't say that, as I already pointed out. I merely said that comparing America now to '40s Germany was a false comparison. Which was then distorted by various posters to justify their vendetta or agenda-driven rants against me, in place of making actual arguments.

I set the bar for violence pretty high, because I'm aware of the potential consequences of acting as well as of not acting, and I have enough of a fucking conscience, as well as self-preservation instinct, not to want my country to degenerate into civil war. But my bar is certainly lower than "the Holocaust". Potentially any sort of involvement in large-scale murder against civilians by the State (amongst other things) would qualify. If, for example, Trump went Tiananmen on a group of protesters, I might very well reach my line (I only don't say I definitely would because I cannot possibly predict all hypothetical circumstances).

Let me make something very clear (not directed at you specifically, Zaune, but I daresay the guilty parties know who they are):

I see in this thread a concerted effort by a number of posters to depict me as sympathetic, or at least indifferent, to Nazism and ethnic cleansing. I do not care how much you despise my arguments or me personally: THAT IS AN UTTERLY CONTEMPTABLE, COWARDLY, AND ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF DISHONESTY.

Next person who even hints at such an accusation will get reported. And the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. Even if it gets me in trouble. Because I've been on this forum long enough to tell when a new narrative about a poster is taking off, and there's really no point in my remaining in a place where my reputation is "closet Nazi collaborator".

And if any one of you fuckers dares to suggest that I am overreacting, let me quote John Oliver:

"If you compare someone to the Gestapo and they don't get offended, that's a big red flag!"

Same deal for being compared to their enablers and collaborators.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the fact that you've made a genuine effort to come up with workable alternatives to tit-for-tat violence and are generally trying to be the voice of reason and caution, which is a role we really fucking need someone to play and which you really don't get enough credit for doing. But if US progressives wait until the situation is that bad before resorting to drastic action, chances are some of your fellow board members will already be dead. I can understand why they might be taking that a bit personally.

Good thing I never said that, then.

And you know, it really pisses me off more than I can say that yet another topic that has fuck-all to do with me is being derailed into a debate on my personality and character. Because I'm not enough of a raging narcissist to think that every topic should turn into a discussion about me.

It pisses me off even more that, if experience is any guide, most everyone will blame me for it.

[Khaat]

*snip thing with pick-up truck in Phoenix*

With all due respect to your brother, I'd like another source on that one. Eyewitness accounts can, as I'm sure you know, be highly unreliable, especially in chaotic and stressful situations, and if another terrorist attack via vehicle had been attempted in Phoenix (which had a lot of media attention on it at the time), I'd think it would have received wide-spread coverage.

A local news story:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/no- ... ly-9620659
The NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/tr ... ubz=3&_r=0

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough. I hadn't heard about it via TV news or elsewhere on the internet, but I'll certainly accept the NYTimes as a source on this.

And fuck that guy. Hope he spends the rest of his life in prison.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Source?

If true, its somewhat reassuring I suppose, but I'm not sure that their supposed willingness not to initiate violence if asked means all that much when the prevailing attitude, at least among Left-wingers on the internet, seems to be less "please don't initiate violence" and more "Rar, smash them Nazis!"

Naturlich

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ville.html

That's... not the worst possible outcome, perhaps, but I do not think it bodes well for American democracy and the safety of the public for political violence to become increasingly mainstream and normalized.

Maintstream and normalized? That likely won't happen, honestly. This country is no stranger to political violence and it is never normal. But it can be broadly considered situationally necessary and understandable. In this thread, the history of political violence in the US has been gone over in depth so I wont retread it here (again), but it is a regular occurrence and never mainstream or normalized.

Nor do I regard the prospect of the Left becoming even further factionalized between different violent groups reassuring, and I'm frankly stunned that you seem to do so.

I mean, in all likelihood, what would happen is that those splinter groups would increasingly expend their energy fighting (both politically and literally) other "liberals" and "progressives" who aren't "pure" or "hard line" enough for them, which will also cause a further splintering of the anti-Trump/anti-white supremacist vote in upcoming elections.

I don't think so, honestly. Keep in mind that when I talk about the Left, I am not talking about progressives generally. We don't really have those. Not in large numbers. We have a lot of center left liberals, but not a lot of actual hard-core leftists of various stripes. What I am talking about is our slightly-left-of-center-left forming a temporary alliance with anarchist antifascists (who are themselves posers by European standards). They wont really be seeing eye to eye on anything other than a willingness to punch Nazis in the face and their tactics and tolerance for violence will differ. They wont violently fracture, one of two things will happen.

1) The tactics of the antifascists will shift because they are numerically swamped by people who are less leftist than them and they get out-voted in strategy meetings, leading to a kinder gentler group of antifascists.

2) Coordination will break down and they pick different uniforms and tactics entirely, leading to readily apparent distinctions that can be spun politically.

I am not sure which of these is more likely of the two, but I would suspect both will occur. The two groups are already split, so factionalization wouldn't change anything really. It isn't like the anarchists are not already somewhat radicalized (they are anarchists for fuck's sake) and in the US at least they might bitch on the internet about "centrists" but they don't lump them in with fascists either. That part won't change.

Antifascists have been punching Nazis in the US since the 1980s. If they were going to start punching or shooting democrats, they would have done it before now.

Source for 10%?

I don't really doubt it, I'm just curious.

Sorry, 9%

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07091.html

With all due respect to your brother, I'd like another source on that one. Eyewitness accounts can, as I'm sure you know, be highly unreliable, especially in chaotic and stressful situations, and if another terrorist attack via vehicle had been attempted in Phoenix (which had a lot of media attention on it at the time), I'd think it would have received wide-spread coverage.

Not that the existence or non-existence of one specific incident changes the overall picture much, one way or the other.

Given above.

What you seem to be missing (or ignoring, since I've brought it up repeatedly) is that the public response to Charlottsville, and Trump's handling of it, has been overwhelmingly against the Nazis and their allies. While Trump becomes increasingly isolated and politically impotent.

Its very concerning that its reached this point at all, but the momentum is not in the direction of turning America into the Fourth Reich. Its on our side. And I don't want to lose that momentum because of an excessive violent response which divides the Left and costs us mainstream support by appearing (however falsely) to play into Trump's "both sides are guilty" narrative.

What you are missing is that Trump's narrative has not worked, despite the antifascists. People don't start out politically neutral when it comes to Nazis, and Trump's approval rating is all of 37% (in other words, near the theoretical "floor" of his support. To cut into this, you have to start cutting into the number of people who reflexively approve of someone with an R next to their name). People start off knowing that Nazis are Bad.

Its like... even you don't seem to have an actual problem with a Nazi being punched in the face. Most of your objections stem from political practicality and higher ethical concepts that are not rooted in an emotional response. Not "Nazis do not actually deserve to be punched in the face" but "We should be better than punching Nazis in the face for reasons X,Y,Z".

It is like the death penalty. Even opponents of the death penalty concede that some people deserve to die, they just think about it and conclude that it is a bad idea for other reasons.

That general opposition to Nazis is not going to be enough to stop them from gaining unacceptable levels of political power, but it can be leveraged to punch them in the face without actual popular outcry. They're Nazis. When it comes down to the brass tax, the number of people who actually care what you do to them is pretty small.

I mean, you're basically saying that even if the non-violent, democratic institutions to oppose people like Trump are still in place, we should jump to "violence is the only option" because if we wait it might be too late later. That's a really, really dangerous way to start thinking, because "We have to act now or it might be too late" is an excellent way to shut down any discussion on weather a radical and dangerous course of action is actually necessary by playing on peoples' fears and simplifying the issue to "us vs. them" (like, say, by falsely comparing those who disagree with you to an infamous Nazi collaborator).

Only? No. Viable and acceptable? Yes. I've calculated the risks and concluded that any approach is preferable to Nazis gaining political power. Methods can be political, legal, social, economic, or indeed violent. All are acceptable to me. As a thought exercise, consider this.

If, as a result of political violence, we can guarantee that 100 people will be killed. Doesn't matter who they are. Now, let us also assume that the Nazis in the US should they gain power will be as numerically successful as they were in "Greater Germany" at exterminating the Untermenschen (not proportionally, but in raw numbers, leaving aside actual battlefield casualties. So we are talking 12 million dead). That means that even if the probability of them gaining sufficient power to achieve that is 1 in 120000 (or, ten times less than your lifetime odds of being struck by lightning), those 100 deaths are justified.

I estimate that the odds are greater, and the casualties will likely be far less.

So I view it as a viable option.

And it is not like I am sitting here saying "We must attack the Nazis in their homes". I am saying "We should have people who are willing and ready to use violence to protect and defend counter-demonstrations, and they should be organized." Because the Nazis will and have already initiated violence, and they do so whenever they think they can get away with it, and they are organized. I am willing to escalate beyond that should it become necessary, but I don't think it is necessary at the moment. As it stands right now, the Antifascists are preventing loss of life and serious injury to people who actually matter. If they start (regularly, I accept that an accident here or there will occur) punching non-Nazis in the face, I will be among the first to denounce them, but right now... not happening.

We've got to be careful we don't end up creating our own monster. You and I do not disagree there. But given the political and social context, I am not overly concerned about it. Unlike, say, post 9/11, there is no one sitting around trying to leverage the existence of Nazi Scum into gaining political power. Nor are we dealing with new and unprecedented levels of political violence. It is our background political violence with special sauce, it isn't going to change much in our political system. Which, I think, is your fundamental problem. You are wildly over-estimating the scale.

[Raw Shark]

TRR, please take this as an objective opinion, rather than an ad hominem, from a fellow Sanders voter who agrees with some of your points. You do have a tendency to hyperventilate a little. And you also murder the spelling of the English language, which I would accept without comment if you weren't born here, but otherwise just can't. It chaps my ass.

[loomer]

I'm a bisexual crippled freemason. My line for 'when is violence okay to fend off nazis' is probably a lot easier to cross than it is for someone who isn't going to be first on the list for internment and extermination.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, please take this as an objective opinion, rather than an ad hominem, from a fellow Sanders voter who agrees with some of your points. You do have a tendency to hyperventilate a little. And you also murder the spelling of the English language, which I would accept without comment if you weren't born here, but otherwise just can't. It chaps my ass.

All I can say to this is: what does either of our support for Bernie Sanders have to do with... well, anything else said in this thread?

Edit: Beyond that, I'd prefer not to comment because debating my personal shortcomings is a distraction from the topic of the thread.

[aerius]

I'm a bisexual crippled freemason. My line for 'when is violence okay to fend off nazis' is probably a lot easier to cross than it is for someone who isn't going to be first on the list for internment and extermination.

I'm an Asian married to a white women with mixed race kids, I'm not that far behind you on the Nazi's kill list. Hell, my kids are on the kill list, so yeah, excuse me if I don't shed any tears when Nazi scumbags are the victims of violence.

[Raw Shark]

All I can say to this is: what does either of our support for Bernie Sanders have to do with... well, anything else said in this thread?

Trying to establish some common ground so you wouldn't take the criticism as a personal attack meant to hurt your feelings, like that was possible, you insufferable prick.