enki42 posted:

Cool, why don't you show me an example of Nazis cowering in fear as a result of this punch, because last time I checked Richard Spencer was still posting / giving interviews / etc.

enki42 posted:

Cool, why don't you show me an example of Nazis cowering in fear as a result of this punch, because last time I checked Richard Spencer was still posting / giving interviews / etc.

Cerebral Bore posted:

World War 2. Now you can explain to me your preferred way of dealing with nazis and why it's effective.

Liquid Communism posted:

https://twitter.com/jonnywaistcoat/status/825521837828403200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

quote:

I didn't take them seriously. Well, I take them seriously now. Needless to say, I'm not giving up (...) I need to take this a lot more seriously and the alt-right needs to take this more seriously. This is not fun and games anymore.

SSNeoman posted:

Sure

enki42 posted:

Two militaries at war isn't even vaguely comparable to people sucker punching non-state actor Nazis. It's not just scale, it's different in kind.

Cerebral Bore posted:

You asked for an example and you got one. Now you're desperately moving the goalposts.

So to repeat myself, describe your preferred method for handling nazis and explain why it's effective.

enki42 posted:

I've been over this in the thread countless times, but again for good measure - there's countless ways to conduct non-violent, direct action in protest. I'm going to an event to shut down access to a U.S. consulate today. On Saturday I'm attending a rally against Isamophobia and calling on the Canadian government to modify laws to allow all the people you're turning back to come here instead. Both are non-violent, but direct action is accepted (in the first case it's the entire point).

For more examples, open the web page of literally any news organization and see how their total and complete focus is highlighting the (almost entirely?) non-violent protests that are erupting across your country over the weekend and today.

To be fair, all of these are examples of protesting the Trump administration and not Richard Spencer or the alt-right specifically. Personally, I think focusing on people with actual power who are currently enacting racist policies is more important than punching the guy who makes racist frog pictures, but that's just me.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Now you're shifting your own goalposts. We're not talking about Trump right now, we're talking about nazis. Explain exactly how your actions would be effective when it comes to resisting nazis.

enki42 posted:

Wait I thought the reason this was so serious and it's so important to punch Nazis is because they're gaining / have power. I do think Bannon is a white supremacist (if you want to use the word nazi, whatever, fine, the point is he is one), and protesting what he's doing is more important than protesting Nazis that currently do not have power.

Why do you think that resisting policies that ban / deport a group of people based on their ethnicity is not about resisting Nazis?

MattD1zzl3 posted:

I said this before, but you'd think real nazis would carry at least a knife in the event of encountering antifa.

He's a nazi cosplaying loser internet troll, not a nazi. Dont give him the noteriety.

Cerebral Bore posted:

You don't get to ask me questions while you're refusing to answer mine in an honest manner. So once again, please explain exactly how your actions are effective.

Toasticle posted:

Real tough question. Possibly maybe make one douchebag whine on twitter (and if you don't think his first tweet wasn't a "Arm yourselves" holy gently caress are you naive) then jerk off over it or support things like The ACLU getting the muslim ban overturned or Southern Poverty Law Center trying to keep poor people who can't afford bail out of jail?

Tough call over which method has an actual effect.

Also love the "You can't ever change their minds" being screamed by a bunch of people who refuse to change their mind.

Toasticle posted:

Also love the "You can't ever change their minds" being screamed by a bunch of people who refuse to change their mind.

Flesh Forge posted:

ps I agree, it would never have occurred to white power genocide advocates to consider arming themselves ... UNTIL NOW darn it

Flesh Forge posted:

Hmm yes I cannot imagine another scenario where highly organized white power dudes who actively work to bring about racial conflict would have touched a gun.

Zanzibar Ham posted:

Nazis already have guns, who's asking "holy gently caress why do you have guns?"

enki42 posted:

Non-nazi people.

Obviously it isn't as black and white as that. My point is, when violence is escalating from both sides, it's normalized, and Nazis showing up armed, brandishing, etc. seems less insane. When violence is met with non-violent direct action, the non-violent side maintains the moral high ground and highlights the extremes of the other side.

enki42 posted:

Look at the front page of any major news organization today. Read your social media feeds. A wave of non-violent protest captured the attention of the media and the public at large, and cracks are starting to show in the administration's armor. I'm not saying mission accomplished or anything, but sustained direct action over the coming months has a real chance to turn the public's opinion so far against Trump that even getting him out of the white house is possible.

Regular people are posting about the women's march, the protests this weekend, and upcoming protests way more than they posted about Richard Spencer getting punched. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating is tanking (which I get is not wholly due to protest, but I think it does have a significant effect)

enki42 posted:

It's not much better if it serves as a convenient excuse for them to arm themselves.

enki42 posted:

When violence is met with non-violent direct action, the non-violent side maintains the moral high ground and highlights the extremes of the other side.

Stokely Carmichael posted:

His (Dr. King) major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.

enki42 posted:

Non-nazi people.

Cerebral Bore posted:

So by your own argument you have, at best, managed to generate headlines, much like the guy who punched the nazi. The rest is speculation.

You keep making these assertions of superiority, but the utter lack of even trying to construct an argument as for why your way is superior betrays that you don't even have a well-defined definition of what you mean by efficiency in this case beyond "this is what I like, therefore it must be more efficient".

quote:

You buncha dumb liberals would probably make a much more convincing case if you didn't pretend that nazis need an excuse to arm themselves or to inflict violence on others.

Alhazred posted:

Who What Now posted:

Why would they say that? You do know that guns are very common here in America, right? Like we even have an amendment about them and everything.

enki42 posted:

This might be my not being an American showing - but it would be strange to openly brandish or even carry a gun to a protest, wouldn't it?

enki42 posted:

This might be my not being an American showing - but it would be strange to openly brandish or even carry a gun to a protest, wouldn't it?

enki42 posted:

What I'm definining effectiveness is reducing the spread of Nazism in a society. I agree with the method of doing that that some people have been calling for violence against Nazis have stated - the best way to combat Nazism is to make their viewpoint completely unacceptable and abhorrent to society. Where we differ is our opinions on how to make those viewpoints abhorrent and unacceptable.

enki42 posted:

noted failure Martin Luther King, Jr.

stone cold posted:

so I guess malcolm x and huey newton don't exist anymore

esto es malo posted:

loving punch them

enki42 posted:

I think it's an argument worth having that the civil rights movement wouldn't have been successful without them, but what I was responding to was implying that MLK didn't accomplish anything.

quote:

And now you're facing a situation where the young Negro's coming up. They don't want to hear that "turn the-other-cheek" stuff, no. In Jacksonville, those were teenagers, they were throwing Molotov cocktails. Negroes have never done that before. But it shows you there's a new deal coming in. There's new thinking coming in. There's new strategy coming in. It'll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. It'll be ballots, or it'll be bullets. It'll be liberty, or it will be death. The only difference about this kind of death -- it'll be reciprocal. You know what is meant by "reciprocal"? That's one of Brother Lomax's words. I stole it from him. I don't usually deal with those big words because I don't usually deal with big people. I deal with small people. I find you can get a whole lot of small people and whip hell out of a whole lot of big people. They haven't got anything to lose, and they've got every thing to gain. And they'll let you know in a minute: "It takes two to tango; when I go, you go."

The black nationalists, those whose philosophy is black nationalism, in bringing about this new interpretation of the entire meaning of civil rights, look upon it as meaning, as Brother Lomax has pointed out, equality of opportunity. Well, we're justified in seeking civil rights, if it means equality of opportunity, because all we're doing there is trying to collect for our investment. Our mothers and fathers invested sweat and blood. Three hundred and ten years we worked in this country without a dime in return -- I mean without a dime in return. You let the white man walk around here talking about how rich this country is, but you never stop to think how it got rich so quick. It got rich because you made it rich.

You take the people who are in this audience right now. They're poor. We're all poor as individuals. Our weekly salary individually amounts to hardly anything. But if you take the salary of everyone in here collectively, it'll fill up a whole lot of baskets. It's a lot of wealth. If you can collect the wages of just these people right here for a year, you'll be rich -- richer than rich. When you look at it like that, think how rich Uncle Sam had to become, not with this handful, but millions of black people. Your and my mother and father, who didn't work an eight-hour shift, but worked from "can't see" in the morning until "can't see" at night, and worked for nothing, making the white man rich, making Uncle Sam rich. This is our investment. This is our contribution, our blood.

Not only did we give of our free labor, we gave of our blood. Every time he had a call to arms, we were the first ones in uniform. We died on every battlefield the white man had. We have made a greater sacrifice than anybody who's standing up in America today. We have made a greater contribution and have collected less. Civil rights, for those of us whose philosophy is black nationalism, means: "Give it to us now. Don't wait for next year. Give it to us yesterday, and that's not fast enough."

I might stop right here to point out one thing. Whenever you're going after something that belongs to you, anyone who's depriving you of the right to have it is a criminal. Understand that. Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It outlawed segregation.

Which means segregation is against the law. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law. A segregationist is a criminal. You can't label him as anything other than that. And when you demonstrate against segregation, the law is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side.

Now, who is it that opposes you in carrying out the law? The police department itself. With police dogs and clubs. Whenever you demonstrate against segregation, whether it is segregated education, segregated housing, or anything else, the law is on your side, and anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer. They are breaking the law; they are not representatives of the law. Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I'm telling you, kill that dog. I say it, if they put me in jail tomorrow, kill that dog. Then you'll put a stop to it. Now, if these white people in here don't want to see that kind of action, get down and tell the mayor to tell the police department to pull the dogs in. That's all you have to do. If you don't do it, someone else will.

If you don't take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think "shame." If you don't take an uncompromising stand, I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don't die alone. Let your dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

enki42 posted:

Why though? I thought the point was to punch them so that their opinions are abhorrent and unacceptable in society.

enki42 posted:

I think it's an argument worth having that the civil rights movement wouldn't have been successful without them, but what I was responding to was implying that MLK didn't accomplish anything.

stone cold posted:

lol if you don't already find nazi opinions abhorrent, swine