This article has a picture of Antifas with guns:
A jackboot can’t crush the inferior races if the undeserving rabble are not objecting to their dehumanization.
It takes two to tango folks.
But quoting you further, you’re making an ‘informal non-legal comment’ after first stating a criminal law principle. I believe that tends to mix together (at least) two things which would be how society should morally react to right and left wing violence, v the legal culpability of individuals. I can see more reason to distinguish on the first point than the second.
There could be reasons to be more disturbed by violent protests of one ‘side’ than the other. The variables would include scale and frequency of violence as well as underlying ideas. I believe for example BLM is a net negative with gaping flaws outweighing the theoretical positive, however not anywhere near as toxic as the KKK, where there is no positive in my view. But the scales of each aren’t anywhere near the same. If they were at Charlottesville that’s an exception. Unless things change, which might be reasonable (or not) to worry about. But anyway the scale or potential scale would be important. Besides which it’s somewhat cherry picking to begin with to compare BLM to the KKK (as some have insisted on). There’s lots of elements in leftist street protests lately which are less coherent and more toxic than BLM, some seem to really just be people looking to physically fight rightists or just the cops (considering violent protests around the country and on the West Coast in particular, not limiting it to one incident at Charlottesville, often there is violence with no rightist protesters around).
But I would see it as injustice if evidence showed person A cold cocked and knocked out person B at a protest, not while physically defending themselves or others from B’s physical aggression, and A got a heavier/lighter sentence just because A was a member of the political bad/good guys. That might happen, but I don’t see how it can be defended under a rule of law.
Not the first time. Here’s another, in Austin, just recently.
Note the dressing up with symbols under which 100,000,000 people were killed.
The other piece to think about is that the Klan was an organization specifically founded to engage in terroristic violence, and over its hydra-headed existence has committed hundreds (I believe) of murders, and many more terroristic threats. Some of these murders have been of peaceful counterprotestors at their rallies. The Klan and Nazis showed up to shout about Blood and Soil, and about how hot the ovens were gonna be for Jews.
Antifa knew about these guys’ history, and they knew there were gonna be counterprotestors there. They showed up as a defensive force. At least one of the counterprotestors–Cornel West–credits antifa with protecting him and other peaceful counterprotestors from mob violence at the hands of the torchwielding crowd.
Again, not speaking about the relative legal issues, but to compare folks who put on the regalia of terrorists and mass murderers and shout the slogans of those groups, to folks who show up to defend others from the very real threat that terrorists and mass murderers pose to nonviolent demonstrators, is a bit shitty.
Of course both sides should be blamed for the violence - apart from the horrendous car attack that is the fault of the driver of the car. Both sides came mentally and physically prepared to inflict damage on the other, and very quickly proceeded to do just that. The police should be blamed for not separating the two sides and not being prepared for the predictable conflicts. Yes, the skinhead, neo-Nazi position is reprehensible, but it is established that they have a first amendment right to gather and be despicable. [And they are the ones who secured the government permit to assemble, correct?] It is apparent that the radical left (or alt-left, as I heard them called) regularly resorts to public violence and property damage. That many agree with their positions/complaints doesn’t excuse their actions. The same applies to the radical right.
The problem - as is often the case - is not that Trump is wrong, it’s that he is so illiterate, careless and imprecise with language that he cannot effectively communicate. A more articulate person could reasonably communicate what Trump fails so miserably at.
You could just as plausibly argue that since antifa groups are known to be violent that the alt-right showed up with weapons to defend their peaceful protestors. Either seems naive in the extreme. It is more likely that both violent groups showed up with weapons intending to engage in violence.
Do you think they didn’t have a reason?
Yes, look at the violent antifas.
Which side is wearing helmets and carrying shields?
A: "The antifa side has been accused of having clubs and sticks.
We have photographic evidence that the alt-right Nazis and KKK showed up with body armor, shields, and guns.
I’m more inclined to blame the guys with armor and guns at an allegedly “peaceful” rally. I mean, who the hell shows up to a “peaceful” gathering armed for bear?"
B: “This article has a picture of Antifas with guns:”
You: “Do you think they didn’t have a reason?”
Do you see a problem in your response? As in: it’s irrelevant to the conversation into which you’re inserting yourself.
For those bringing up Antifa, keep in mind: Antifa are anti-fascists. As I understand their agenda, they view white nationalists et al as a violent threat to be met with self-defensive violence as they deem necessary. They take action in reaction – they’re left-reactionaries, if you want to put it that way.
And the people who use/advocate Antifa tactics have good reason to do so – as they see the situation. The President has been telegraphing his receptivity to fascism-lite since way before his election. If he had the kind of power he’d like to have as President, we’d all be wearing Ivanka Trump-designed pins designating our various degrees of loyalty to the Trump Org.
Tell me I’m wrong about that – I dare ya. Tell me that our President would tolerate political dissent if he had the power to do something about it. Given what we’ve learned during his time in office.
Now: I disagree with Antifa. I think street fighting with Nazis is a net negative political strategy. Non-violent civil disobedience has a good (though not perfect) track record – let’s use that.
On the other hand, I’m a straight white man: I don’t face the same baseline level of physical risk that other kinds of people do, and did long before November 2016. Of course I won’t see the danger as imminent as other kinds of people do.
So while I disagree with Antifa about tactics/strategy, I also respect their different point of view about what’s necessary. We face a common enemy, and that enemy’s dangerous, and gaining power. And --back to the OP, finally – there’s no real equivalence between racist people who organized a rally with the purpose of starting shit and people who showed up to oppose them.
Which side showed up to support the ideals of white supremacism? Which side was carrying Nazi flags?
You could plausibly argue that because they are Nazis and racists, they knew that their message may be received by most people with disgust, and that some may be moved by their disgust of them spouting their hatred enough to engage in violence. That’s just what they are looking for.
IMHO, I assume they brought their guns in the hope that they would get the excuse to use them. That someone would do something that would give them the “I’m just protecting myself” defense to open up on the crowd of their political opponents.
You don’t think the people “showing up” aren’t there to start shit? Wouldn’t it be better to simply stay at home and let the Nazis parade down an empty street? Or get your own permit and gather at a location some distance away? While there may not be equivalence from any moral standpoint, there sure seems to be shared blame when a reactionary group (reacting to a planned event) shows up at an announced event with the sole purpose of causing trouble. Again, just because you agree with one side doesn’t make them blameless when violence and property damage ensue.
While escalating violence is not the answer, letting Nazis parade down the street without comment is possibly worse. That emboldens them. That tells them that no one is there to stand in the way of them pushing for more and more racist and fascist events.
Fascism needs to be met. It cannot just be given a pass. And if protesting facism means that the fascist snowflakes get violent, then that is not the fault of people who are not fascists.
The equivalency breaks down when you realize that one group was there in response to the other group. It was not a clash of two groups who both happened to be there. One was a demonstration, the other was a *counter-*protest by people who felt threatened.
I noticed you couldn’t be bothered to correctly quote Broomstick.
You seem intent on only showing antifas with guns and ignoring the Nazi/KKK crowd.
No, because the context matters. The Antifa people – and many non-violent anti fascists, too – view the fascists as a physical threat. They don’t see this as a pure “speech” issue.
And, as I said, looking at our current President, I can’t say I blame them. Do you? Do you trust his commitment to freedom of speech when that speech attacks him?
I don’t personally share that imminent sense of threat, but then again, I wouldn’t. That’s privilege. While I condemn violence by Antifa, I don’t blame them for showing up, and I think they just possibly prove to be right, when this whole thing comes out in the wash.
So here is an article with photo from the NYT of self-identified Antifa wielding what looks like semiautomatic carbines, dressed in quasi-military style. That was a real eye-opener for me. (Thanks to Hurricane Ditka).
I still blame the Nazis for instigating, and I decry all “both sides” moral equivalency of each party’s motives. But Antifa raised the stakes dangerously by bringing semiauto weapons. The casualties could have been much worse than a car ramming, and I hold both sides responsible for escalating that risk. When (not if) a future protest becomes an actual shooting war, I will hold both sides (and the police) responsible. I think it’s inevitable at this point.
Put it this way: If the Nazis had been there but the Antifa folks had stayed home, would there be violence? If the Antifa folks had been there but the Nazis had stayed home, would there be violence?
Charlottesville escalated into violence because the alt left showed up in force to try and shut down a legal demonstration.
There were hotheads on both sides. Looking for a fight and they found it.
The alt left showed up wanting to provoke a fight and that’s what they got. They were part of the same groups out marching just before the inauguration because they were upset Trump won.
The lunatic that drove the car into the crowd doesn’t represent all of the people marching that day.
The alt left over reacted by directly confronting and trying to interfere with a lawful demonstration.
The extreme right has marched many times throughout my life. It’s distasteful but the world didn’t come to an end. It’s better to ignore them.
They are a fringe group that doesn’t deserve public attention.