Obviously if someone is attacked, they should defend themselves, and there should defend them too. That’s not what I’m saying :) violence doesn’t kill the idea, it just forces people underground where you can no longer anticipate their movements
-
-
W odpowiedzi do @sarahlongthorne
Yeah, i didn't think you were saying complete pascifism is the way to go, soz. It's more, when is the line of fascist violence no longer acceptable? Jo Cox was murdered by a fascist & fascism is on the rise with little mainstream challenge of it.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do @KamSage
At what point is counter violence acceptable? Because we did get to a World War when it was allowed to continue, under the watchful eye of the international community who let it happen. I don't know when is best to employ violence but Antifa at least directs it at better targets.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do @KamSage
Eh, tricky to say in so few chars when these things are so situational. My point is simply that we shouldn’t use physical violence against people without a corresponding threat or it just works against us in the long run.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @sarahlongthorne @KamSage
The problem with waiting for a corresponding threat is that it usually takes the form of abuse, an attack or the death of a marginalised or less privileged member of society. The ones that Nazis and are already proudly&actively calling for violence against.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do @author_general @KamSage
I use to think similarly until a friend pointed out that it’s a very privileged position to preach nonviolence when you aren’t the ones facing the immediate risk of it. If we don’t take fascist and hate groups at their word we are acting complicit in the eventual attacks.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do @author_general @KamSage
We have endless evidence that if such groups go unopposed or we wait for an inciting incident then marginalised folks will suffer as a result. Rhetoric becomes action. We recognise this in toxic masculinity, religious extremism and should recognise it in political hate groups too
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do @author_general @KamSage
In a more ideal world condemning preemptive violence could be valid, but in our corrupt world to deny marginalised folks the right to preemptively defend themselves against those preaching for violence against them is little more than moral high grounding/ivory tower preaching.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do @author_general @KamSage
Im not saying leave folk exposed. As far as I know, that’s why police etc are present at rallies and marches. If they’re shouting but we’re attacking, is that really a valid response?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
This discussion is getting too complicated for Twitter, and I'm not sure either of us is going to be able to convince the other. Thanks for expressing your views and letting me express mine. Maybe one day we can discuss this in person!
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione
That would be lovely :) I apologise once again if I've made you at all uncomfortable. We are fundamentally on the same side and want the same things; we just have different ideas on how to get there. Glad to have a healthy calm discussion :)
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
MCV 30 Under 30 2021