But I do think that as a general rule of thumb, the things we do to people that are criminal are worse than the things we do to people that are awful but not criminal. The lone exception might be marital issues, where because of the trust and emotional investment people can seriously hurt each other in legal ways, but there is nothing a stranger can do to me that is legal that is worse than even the most minor crime.
I could file suit against you or your property. If you have ever been behind on your property taxes, I can pay them and make a claim against your property.
I can, with very little proof whatsoever, put a lien against your house, which you will need to spend thousands of dollars to try to get cleared up.
That would be the first hour of my day of legally causing you quite a bit more damage than jaywalking across the street in front of your house.
Every act is an action. No kidding. But there are differences between speech and assault with a bat. Would you rather here a taboo word or get your skull cracked? It’s no time hard to understand.
Furthermore, advocating a society where people can be violently beat and doused with noxious fluids for peacefully assembling or speaking is not a society the gentle will want to live in.
If I’m behind on my property taxes(which I am), then that’s not harming me, that’s just the consequence of falling behind.
That, much like putting false items on credit reports, we need reform on. I’d bet that any other examples you could cite would be areas where most people would agree that the laws are less than ideal.
THat’s not criminal to me, that’s just a safety violation. Treading on my grass or egging my house would be a better example of a minor crime against me.
But then I get to, through various legal means, try to take possession of your house, leaving you homeless. I don’t know how well it works, but at the very least, you are going to find yourself harmed by mountains of paperwork and legal bills as you defend against it, even if my claims are frivolous.
At first blush, they sound like an easy reform, and then you talk to plumbers and roofers and landscapers and everybody else that gets stiffed by homeowners, and you realize that we really can’t change the lien laws without putting pretty much all home improvement businesses in serious jeopardy.
Okay, then I could do all that, and it would all be legal, and cuase you much more harm than treading on your lawn.
Point is, there are many things that are legal that are harmful, and there are many illegal things I could do that would cause you no harm.
Remember you said, “there is nothing a stranger can do to me that is legal that is worse than even the most minor crime.”
If a Nazi tries to physically drag me to a gas chamber, I have the right to use force in self-defense.
If a Nazi tells me verbally that I ought to be in a gas chamber, I do not have a legal right to use force in self-defense.
If a nazi uses his free speech to convince others to be nazis, and pass laws that let them drag you to the gas chamber legally, do you have the right to use force for self-defense?
ETA: If your answer is yes, would you extend that right to use force to defend another from being legally dragged to the gas chamber?
None of this actually conflicts with anything I’ve said. I’m glad such violence is illegal, and I’m glad hateful speech is legal. It has nothing to do with my position on the morality of these actions.
But you DO have a right to heap ridiculous amounts of verbal abuse on him/her/it.
Now if said Nazi is inciting nearby people who then attack you, screw it. They just put big targets on themselves far as I’m concerned.
I don’t claim to know definitively what any antifa protesters are motivated by, and I never said I did. It’s not relevant to the point I was making.
That point is merely that someone who identifies as a member of a radical anti-fascist group that declares itself opposed to fascism, racism and bigotry, and who punches a self-identified member of a radical neo-Nazi group that declares itself in favor of fascism, racism and bigotry, is not necessarily an intrinsically worse person than the Nazi he punched. Although I agree that at the moment of his assault he’s engaging in worse behavior than the Nazi is.
(What an odd time we’re living through, when conservatives angrily repudiate the really rather mild position that an actual explicitly self-identified Nazi white supremacist who literally champions fascist racist ideology might conceivably not be a better human being, overall, than a non-Nazi who assaults him.)
Seriously advocating systematic murder of innocent people for no good reason is indisputably terrible. I don’t even know who is saying antifa are intrinsically worse than Nazis or fascist. Is anyone seriously making that claim?
Is anyone making that claim either? We can debate whether or not at each particular event that antifa or Nazis or any group for that matter show up and actually start mob violence where legal fault lies.
If you have a permit to be at place A and I don’t and I swing a club at your head, I’m in the wrong. Regardless of what you are saying.
Aside from the Charlottesville melee, antifa have already had a history of attacking smaller groups who weren’t doing or prepared for anything violent. I don’t feel sorry for a mob of hooligans who showed up to fight getting a fight.
People keep with the dishonest ad hominem “You a Nazi!!11” or a “There goes a Nazi Sympathizer11!!” to deflect attention away from this radical left group that is acting in a very counterproductive way. And it’s part of a larger trend of left wing free speech surpression.
Honestly, nothing could be better for the right then having radicals burn stuff and beat people on the streets. That’s why I’ve been saying it’s counterproductive.
Have you not been reading the thread? adaher stated categorically back in post #138:
I mildly pointed out the questionable nature of that claim, as did some other posters:
Surprising as it may seem to you and me, there was some pushback against that.
Um, however strongly we may disapprove of antifa violence, there is no question that it’s not a “dishonest ad hominem” to call the people the antifa were fighting in Charlottesville Nazis.
Here’s a good article about the distinction between antifa, white supremacists, and other groups:
In Charlottesville. They aren’t all that discriminate though.
Key part:
I understand why they don’t see antifa as as dangerous, but I’d note that anti-fa espouses the use of violence as their primary tactic. They are not protesters, they are rioters. That is unique and needs to be nipped in the bud.
It’s not unique in the slightest. Still worth criticizing – rioting and unprovoked violence are bad and illegal and should be criticized and prosecuted.
And it also doesn’t make them equivalent to white supremacists (who also use violence, and both historically and recently have used far, far more violence than antifa). Not every bad thing is the same.
It is unique. I know of no other activist group that uses violence as their primary tactic. Even the white supremacists don’t do that. Yes, they do have a violent history, but they have also marched peacefully as well. Anti-fa doesn’t even exist to march, they exist to fight. Have to agree with the sentiment of Berkeley’s mayor, referring to them as a gang, even if I’m not so sure about whatever legal consequences that carries. If you’re only purpose is to get together to hurt people, you’re acting like a gang.
I’d also note that the use of nongovernment violence to break up your opponents’ political protests is a Nazi innovation. Just sayin’.
Do you have a cite that violence is their “primary tactic”? Or that their only purpose is to “get together to hurt people”?
That’s what they are for.
However, when they decide that it doesn’t need to be, let me know.