Change.org Petition Wants ANTIFA Declared a ‘Terrorist Organization’

[Guriosity]

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;51820317]Genuinely curious how fucked up things need to get before everyone who says 'violence is unacceptable' acquiesce to the fact that violence is necessary to prevent the rise of fascism? Like, do we need another Hitler, or can we nip it in the bud??[/QUOTE]

Its not a question of you can nip it in the bud, but would you want to do what it takes to do so?

I've been trying for last couple years develop various solutions, counters and various ideas as to why it arises. None of them are fully developed and due to a streak of bad luck and series of misfortunes doesn't look like I'll be able to finish either.

If I feel like it and able to, I'll make a list of ideas if you like.

Start reading on counter insurgency and counter guerrilla works and manuals. That might be a start.

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Devodiere;51820377]

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Hitler.

I'm serious on that. Keep violence as something that is always unacceptable, because you don't know fucked up until you make violence the norm and see what fascists are capable of doing. You're only shooting yourself in the foot by trying to beat them into submission.[/QUOTE]

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? FDR to fight Hitler

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Lincoln to free the slaves

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Washington to fight the British

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Mandela against the SA government

Violence can be both good and evil, depending on what it's used for. I don't think that attacking alt right people who have no influence on the government is a good use for violence because they have no power to actually do anything and they will attack back with no mercy. It's impossible to compare hitler to this situation because it's all nongovernmental organizations that are fighting each other with neither willing to compromise, no one side actually has the power to do anything.

[Devodiere]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51820413]You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? FDR to fight Hitler

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Lincoln to free the slaves

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Washington to fight the British

You know who else used violence to do what he thought was necessary? Mandela against the SA government

Violence can be both good and evil, depending on what it's used for. I don't think that attacking alt right people who have no influence on the government is a good use for violence because they have no power to actually do anything and they will attack back with no mercy. It's impossible to compare hitler to this situation because it's all nongovernmental organizations that are fighting each other with neither willing to compromise, no one side actually has the power to do anything.[/QUOTE]

Half of those aren't really valid but w/e. The point is that throwing away the privilege of non-violent discourse because violence is easier or because it is thought to be "necessary" brings far more trouble than it solves.

Even if these weren't just idiots punching each other, if they were major political powers, these things aren't solved by fisticuffs, they're solved by public support and violence wreaks all kind of havoc with that. It brings all the people in support of non-violent discussion against you, it gives a thuggish impression to the general public, it makes both sides more militant deepening conflict, and it legitimises violence against yourself.

And if we can't agree on that, then at least throwing the first stone is always unacceptable. Lincoln and FDR responded to violence against them as Washington and Mandela responded to extreme treatment, but one who attacks first is always evil and no amount of "preventing the next Hitler" can justify it.

[Nahash]

[QUOTE=Devodiere;51820452]Half of those aren't really valid but w/e. The point is that throwing away the privilege of non-violent discourse because violence is easier or because it is thought to be "necessary" brings far more trouble than it solves.

Even if these weren't just idiots punching each other, if they were major political powers, these things aren't solved by fisticuffs, they're solved by public support and violence wreaks all kind of havoc with that. It brings all the people in support of non-violent discussion against you, it gives a thuggish impression to the general public, it makes both sides more militant deepening conflict, and it legitimises violence against yourself.

And if we can't agree on that, then at least throwing the first stone is always unacceptable. Lincoln and FDR responded to violence against them as Washington and Mandela responded to extreme treatment, but one who attacks first is always evil and no amount of "preventing the next Hitler" can justify it.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on your views on violence in this situation but invoking godwin's law just makes you look hyperbolic. There's no way that anything in this situation can be applied to Hitler.

[Devodiere]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51820460]I agree with you on your views on violence in this situation but invoking godwin's law just makes you look hyperbolic. There's no way that anything in this situation can be applied to Hitler.[/QUOTE]

In my defence this is a thread about fascism and anti-fascism and I was responding to a post talking about the next Hitler, so I think the hyperbole was a jab at that rather than straight Godwin.