My problem with your response in dealing with fascism has nothing to do with Hitler, or Mussolini, and many did fight back. WWII. Many people in the countries affected. like Poland, fought back and took on great loses of life. You want to justify the actions of Antifa, so be it.. You have not been specific in defining incidents which you…
My problem with your response in dealing with fascism has nothing to do with Hitler, or Mussolini, and many did fight back. WWII. Many people in the countries affected. like Poland, fought back and took on great loses of life. You want to justify the actions of Antifa, so be it.. You have not been specific in defining incidents which you would define as fascistic, and justify the violence you are advocating. .
Violence against women; invasion of women's bodies via banning of abortion; book banning; police killings of black people in cold blood with virtual impunity; millions of deaths caused by invasions and sanctions; the torture of thousands in American prisons; the crime of killing via homelessness and lack of medical, mental health and drug treatment care; wage theft causing impoverishment and suicides; etc, etc, etc. My hand is getting tired. Is that enough for you?
Nope, not in the slightest. Strict nonviolence is the luxury of the comfortable. Black people would laugh in your face, for example, if you told them they should never be violent in the face of state violence. This country wouldn't even be here without violence. Slavery wouldn't have ended without violence. The Axis powers would have prevailed without violence. This fetish for nonviolence is extremely ahistorical and again, is only adopted by people who do not feel a strong alliance with all who are severely oppressed (do they expect those people just to take whatever is thrown their way without defending themselves?), who can afford it because they are white and not extremely poor and are therefore less in danger, or who are in denial about the extreme dangers we all face, like the imminent threat of annihilation from nuclear war and environmental destruction, at the hands of the fascists. Kumbaya alone ain't going to do it.
Look don't take on that self righteous air and preach to me. No one is suggesting not to fight back and sometimes one has to engage in violence, but this discussion started off talking about Antifa and the needless violence implemented by them, of which I do not approve. No more then I approve of needless violence implemented by the police, nor do I approve of spousal, or child abuse, but change is possible without it. Martin Luther King is a good example of that. You'll never convince me, so why bother. Violence begets more violence as they say. The end.
I never said I approved of needless violence. That would make me a sociopath. You haven't been listening very well. But we're closer together than you think: we both agree there are times violence is necessary, but you just have a higher threshold than I do. Cheers.
My problem with your response in dealing with fascism has nothing to do with Hitler, or Mussolini, and many did fight back. WWII. Many people in the countries affected. like Poland, fought back and took on great loses of life. You want to justify the actions of Antifa, so be it.. You have not been specific in defining incidents which you would define as fascistic, and justify the violence you are advocating. .
Violence against women; invasion of women's bodies via banning of abortion; book banning; police killings of black people in cold blood with virtual impunity; millions of deaths caused by invasions and sanctions; the torture of thousands in American prisons; the crime of killing via homelessness and lack of medical, mental health and drug treatment care; wage theft causing impoverishment and suicides; etc, etc, etc. My hand is getting tired. Is that enough for you?
So your heart reaches out to these people, and mine does too, but violence isn't the answer. It contradicts what you claim to care about.
Nope, not in the slightest. Strict nonviolence is the luxury of the comfortable. Black people would laugh in your face, for example, if you told them they should never be violent in the face of state violence. This country wouldn't even be here without violence. Slavery wouldn't have ended without violence. The Axis powers would have prevailed without violence. This fetish for nonviolence is extremely ahistorical and again, is only adopted by people who do not feel a strong alliance with all who are severely oppressed (do they expect those people just to take whatever is thrown their way without defending themselves?), who can afford it because they are white and not extremely poor and are therefore less in danger, or who are in denial about the extreme dangers we all face, like the imminent threat of annihilation from nuclear war and environmental destruction, at the hands of the fascists. Kumbaya alone ain't going to do it.
Look don't take on that self righteous air and preach to me. No one is suggesting not to fight back and sometimes one has to engage in violence, but this discussion started off talking about Antifa and the needless violence implemented by them, of which I do not approve. No more then I approve of needless violence implemented by the police, nor do I approve of spousal, or child abuse, but change is possible without it. Martin Luther King is a good example of that. You'll never convince me, so why bother. Violence begets more violence as they say. The end.
I never said I approved of needless violence. That would make me a sociopath. You haven't been listening very well. But we're closer together than you think: we both agree there are times violence is necessary, but you just have a higher threshold than I do. Cheers.