SJ Longthorne

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?