Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-fascists Attack White Nationalists in Chicago Suburb (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The difference of course being that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cks175

    the people that were attacked in this case would be the KKK, or close enough.  We're talking about people who go out and beat and kill people for no reason other than their race.  The KKK wanted to "protect" their community from the oppressed, the ARA wants to protect it from the oppressor.  There is a world of difference between the two in my eyes.

    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:45:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "a world of difference between the two... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Nowhere Man

      ...in my eyes".

      Well, of course, it's all about perspective.  But we're talking about justifying mob violence against people for what may very well be nothing more than 1st Amendment protected speech.  It's a well-traveled path, but one that I won't be joining you on.

      •  Simply being violent does not make one into (0+ / 0-)

        the KKK.  I was merely pointing out that this is a false equivalency, not judging the morality of these specific actions.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll grant you that there's a moral difference (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY

          between attacking someone for their beliefs, and attacking someone for the color of their skin. But it's a very thin difference. And it's a difference between two different shades of evil.

          I won't say that preemptive violence is always wrong. I will say that the bar where preemptive violence becomes appropriate is very, very high. A civilized society requires every citizen to forswear the impulse to act as judge, jury, and jailer.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:53:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This isn't about people's beliefs (0+ / 0-)

            it's about their actions.  Specifically the actions of white sepremacists.  The point of targeting these people wasn't that they think a certain way, it's that they take actions based on that that oppress people.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Sun May 20, 2012 at 12:11:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And had *these* individuals taken such actions? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bill W

              There is no question that evil things are done by white supremacists. It is questionable whether every white supremacist is equally culpable, either morally or legally. And no individual, no mob, has the right to commit acts of violence that are predicated on a presumption of "yes" answers to these questions.

              Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

              by Nowhere Man on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:02:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Given that I have no information (0+ / 0-)

                on the specific individuals I obviously can't speak to what they have done.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:07:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then you can't really say... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nowhere Man

                  ..."this isn't about people's beliefs, it's about their actions".  
                  Hyde Park Johnny posted some text from ARA describing some of the attendees, and if that's the worst of it, the only thing we can be sure of is that some of them belong to or support racist or neo-nazi groups.  

                  The thing about the "ANTIFA" movement is that it's not about people's actions, it really is about their beliefs and their expression of those beliefs.  "No free speech for fascists" is a popular slogan, and if you examine the meaning of that, it's clear they are an anti-free speech movement.  In their mindset, openly expressing racist views is tantamount to an act of violence, and physical violence to stop such speech is a legitimate response.

                  •  And as much as I sympathize (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bill W

                    with the desire to beat the crap out of a racist, the claim of legitimacy begs more than a few questions. Like: Do you take a zero-tolerance policy, or do you declare that there's a threshold level of racism, below which no violent response would be justified? If the latter, where is that line, and how do you judge when someone's crossed it? If you take a zero-tolerance approach, then how do you know that a given statement was racist both in intent and meaning?

                    On the whole, I'd rather see racist speech given First Amendment protections than otherwise. But even I agreed that some specific racist speech equated to violence, I'd want to see justice meted out through the court system, not through vigilantism. The court system may be fallible, but vigilantes are even more so.

                    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                    by Nowhere Man on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:36:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site