Does instigating violence make that person a bad guy?
It can. It doesn't always. That's why the doctrine of fighting words is still around and why I noted the hypotheticals that would alter my sympathy on the point, even if I couldn't condone it.
Your mind is made up regarding the other side.
You seem pretty adamant yourself, WoZ.
Anyway, made up about the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacists, yes. I have a problem with the judgment of anyone standing with them, but I can't put them in the same camp automatically. Like I said a couple of times, I've been there in terms of the monument issue (not standing with Nazis). I don't know with a certainty that anyone from the former stayed with the other element. I hope they went another way with it.
But for the counter protesters, 'well maybe their hate is justified'.
I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. Now tell me, would you find the grandson of a man who died in a gas chamber attacking a Nazi shouting out his creed, the creed that led to that death, morally equivalent to the Nazi striking someone who opposed his creed?
You're playing both sides of the same argument.
No, I'm not, which would come out in actually addressing the hypothetical I used to illustrate the why of it.
Do you think the antifa has a higher moral ground?
I think it's an impossible question to answer given the absence of a Mein Kampf and the disjointed splinters we see with them. I don't have an absolute bead on them yet. But I know what the people they were fighting stand for.
And really taking the moral high ground from Nazi's isn't saying much. It's a pretty low mound.
I'll gladly call both sides out and not make any excuses for their hate and violence.
I'd say gladly call out violence by either side, but don't stop there. Articulate that while unprovoked violence from anyone is wrong, there is no moral equivalence between the majority of peaceful opposition to Nazis and even the most peace loving Nazi imaginable.
Instead of going from 'keep the monuments' to 'all monuments should come down', have you considered a middle ground?
Should we have left some of the Nazi emblems in place in Germany? Either it's objectionable or it isn't. The middle ground on that has always served the oppressor and that sentiment is part of what helped make possible a continued harm against blacks in this nation for a hundred years following their emancipation. It may be noble in aspiration but it rarely ends nobly in application.
As in, perhaps the people who live there can decide?
I said as much earlier to dr...part of me says that if a people are dumb enough to want that to represent them then it tells the rest of us where to avoid spending our vacation money, and where not to send our kids to college, that sort of thing. But then I think, "How hard is it for a white guy to accept that?" If I was a man whose family held a living memory of the damage that give a little ground to the memory of the Confederacy and its after effect caused it might not be so easy. And maybe it shouldn't be so easy for us either.
How does a confederate monument that you'll never lay eyes on pick your pocket if the people who live there want to keep it?
Is that the litmus? I don't think you believe it should be.
Otherwise, it depends on who gets to decide the question. If you want a vote among the black community to decide the point I'd say okay. The people who stand to be offended by it and who were historically harmed by it should get to decide it, community by community.
What about the ‘free speech’ rally and counter-protests on Boston Common? The 'antifa' won't even allow legal, organized public speeches to take place. The small group that organized had to be given police escort away from the area as to not be attacked.
I'm going to keep giving you that same answer, no matter how many ways you ask it. I am and have always been a supporter of free speech. Antifa should exercise their right to protest peacefully, to object without attacking the right. And if they don't the police should take the necessary steps.
I'd support the police and the rule of law, both personally and as an officer of the court who actually took an oath on the point.
No, you've misunderstood. I am saying standing with them to defend their right.
Then I'd say I will never stand with a Nazi. I will support their or anyone's right to speak, but I don't have to stand beside them to do that. It's a false dilemma.
'First they came for...and there was no one left to speak for me.' I feel this is bigger and more important than simplistically 'defending Nazi's'.
You can speak out and against without standing next to Nazis. Again, it's a false dilemma. You can defend the right to speak any number of ways that don't involve standing in a crowd with Nazis.
But standing with the antifa, there's plenty of wriggle room and rationalization for that brand of hate.
Rather, it's irrational to consider the act without considering the motivation. It's important and distinguishes the quality of acts. That's why the law must consider it and we should too.
lain:
