> People who advocate violence over mere words should be shunned in society
And indeed fascists, notorious advocates for violence, get shunned and get punched in the face. What is the problem? Am I supposed to feel bad?
I despise this kind of idealistic view. If you're part of a hate group, be prepared to be hated and face the consequences. If you turn your cheek, you enable bullies while feeling good about yourself. Fuck them.
There would be fewer bullies if they'd risked getting sucker punched, laughed at openly and actively shamed.
If a person, because of their ideology, is capable of hate against others to the point of killing them, they should not get a free pass. This includes fascists, Ku-Klux-Klanners or Islamist radicals than blow themselves up, as well as those that condone that sort of behaviour.
I get it, you want to point out how hard, or even borderline impossible it is to delineate who is a fascist and who isn't, because you think people use the word to loosely.
Maybe they know the word better than you, though? Maybe they're not as oblivious to the dog whistles.
Well, either way, I don't really care where "the line" is here, because Richard Spencer is so clearly over it, it's a ridiculous argument to make. Because actually, often it is quite clear.
This is a hilarious misinterpretation of history. Imagine if the nazis hadn't been beaten back during the Beer Hall Putsch.
If you can level a criticism at violence during the Weimer Republic, it's that is was too unfocused, with monarchists, social democrats and communists (who, indeed, were the original organization structure known as "Antifaschistische Aktion", or colloquially, Antifa) all beating each other up as much as they did nazis.
which point in the history of the weimar republic proves that it's punching the nazis too much that brought hitler to power? (please support your claims with citations, thanks.)
> Many in the Islamic world consider that response just.
It's fair to say most in the Islamic world would consider that response unjust and, more pragmatically, counter-productive. Don't let misconceptions get the best of you.
We went from punching (a form of activism you might not agree with, but one that arguably works to make fascists afraid of public appearances - like milkshakes) a genocidal nazi to outright murder with a extremist religious motive. And you even go on to paint that extremist like an average muslim. Islamophobic gargabe.
This would be like me calling the Oklahoma City bombers "average americans".
It's easy to sit on this kind of high horse when you yourself are not a target of fascist aggression.
I don't want to make assumptions here, maybe you are in fact part of a group that is actively targeted by violent fascists (and I'm not asking you to confirm this), but if you're not, perhaps consider that difference in perspective.
So to extrapolate, slapping a centrist across the cheek is fine, an kicking conservatives in the knees is walking the line too, while looking at a common liberal nastily should be prosecuted? What is this this clownhouse logic
not sure who or what "king" you are talking about, or the politics involved.
But I agree with the sentiment it's an odd video choice. My attention was captured completely by the violence of the video, instead of what you are trying to demo.
Timing wise it occurred not long after the POTUS to be (D.Trump) famously advocated violence towards people saying unwelcome things (“I promise you I will pay for the legal fees”) so it's hard not to agree with the GP about shunning such advocates.
