Test your theory. Walk up to a white supremacist and tell them you disagree with them at a rally. Then do the same to one of those black clad kids at an anti-fa rally. Get back to me on who you think the better people are when you’re done.
Test your theory. Be black for a couple of years. Tell me how life goes with those white supremacists, especially the ones who you don’t know are white supremacists.
That’s still incredible easy. Advocating for white supremacist ideals is morally far, far worse than punching me personally in the face. It’s not even close.
That you think the reverse makes me question your capability to judge right from wrong.
Your proposed “test” makes the very dubious assumption that what people do at a protest is a reliable guide to how good a person they are overall.
Personally, I’m not willing to take it for granted that punching somebody at a rally because they disagree with you necessarily makes you a worse person than lynching a black person for being black. Even if the lyncher abstains from picking fights with counterprotesters at a rally.
Honestly, adaher, have you just completely forgotten what “white supremacist” stands for?
Hasn’t several years of posting convinced you that Adaher is (almost) always wrong about everything and incapable of making rational conclusions on his own? :dubious:
As you pointed out, the law agrees with me. Violence is illegal. Advocating for objectionable things is not. While the law and morality are not the same, they do coincide to a large extent. Law is a reflection of our moral values. And one of our most basic moral values is that violence outside the law is always wrong, and that all views and opinions are protected.
Being told I lack judgment because I consider illegal violence to be morally worse than having certain views is pretty interesting, and says a lot about how nuts and polarized we’ve become.
I guess we’ve come a long way from “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Now it’s, “I don’t agree with what you say, and if I have to choose I favor the guy who punches you out for saying it.”
When you walk up to a white supremacist and tell them you disagree with them, what you are saying is “I believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of race”.
When you walk up to “one of those black clad kids at an anti-fa rally” and tell them you disagree with them, what you are saying is “I believe that you are a subhuman creature who deserves to be persecuted and/or killed along with your entire family.”
Do you think those statements are equally likely to result in a violent reaction? Do you genuinely believe that this test is a measure of how intrinsically violent or non-violent the two sides are, given the rather significant other variable in the process?
It agrees with me too – I favor outlawing such violence, and not outlawing hateful speech.
In this case, they do not. And for good reason – there are larger principles at play than the morality of single incidents and events.
Such violence is wrong, but advocating for white supremacism is more wrong. Do you really not believe this is the case? Were the “peaceful” Nazis, slave-dealers, Jim Crow pushers, etc. – administrators, clerks, and such, who dutifully signed and relayed the orders to ship Jews to the camps, or break up slave families, or mandate black inferiority in society, morally less evil than, say, John Brown, Nate Turner, or another opponent of such injustice who used extra-legal violence?
I still believe in “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” What I’ve said doesn’t conflict with this principle at all. I oppose using violence to shut people up for expressing white supremacist views. I just oppose advocating for white supremacism far, far more strongly, as should you, even if we both agree that it must absolutely remain legal to do so. The fact that it’s legal is part of why we must oppose it more strongly – such expression is the only defense against such hatred. There’s no law, and there shouldn’t be, so we have to push back even more strongly against it than against things like punching nazis (for which the law is the best defense against).
Sorry, but for me, no violence in pursuit of political ends is a higher principle. I agree that the views of anti-fa are not as odious as white supremacism. But if white supremacists can demonstrate peacefully, then my issues with them are strictly about ideas. I feel the same way about ISIS. As far as I’m concerned, if ISIS can march down the National Mall without hurting anyone, then the worst thing that I can say is that I think their views suck. And I would consider “patriots” who attacked them to be far worse than they are. And I bet you would feel the same way if it was wannabe Captain America types attacking ISIS supporters.
So if a large torch-wielding group of men marched past your house calling for your death, your reaction would be “Man, those guys’ views suck”?
This doesn’t answer my questions. Who was morally worse, Nat Turner/John Brown/overzealous hypothetical Allied soldier who beat up a Nazi death camp guard, or “peaceful” Nazi clerk, slave-dealer’s accountant and lawyer, pro-Jim Crow legislator, etc.?
You’re still wrong. Advocating ISIS ideals is still morally far, far worse than punching someone for advocating ISIS ideals. Same for nazi and white supremacist ideals.
We agree that such punching is bad. I’m saying that advocating for such ideals is a lot worse, and you’re saying it’s not, and that’s as bad (and as wrong) as saying that Nat Turner or John Brown was worse than a “peaceful” slave owner’s clerk.
That is a hugely disturbing viewpoint. Unless you like being punched in the face I guess…
Deliberately harming someone should be considered morally worse than expressing an idea, especially when the purpose of that harm is to suppress a particular viewpoint.
Calling for my death? No, that’s a direct threat. Calling for the death of members of a group I happen to belong to? That would certainly be the appropriate reaction. Assuming that the call is in the abstract, that they are not telling in a particular individual to kill the gays, for example. That would be an incitement to violence.
Advocating for white supremacism is deliberately harming people. Lots of people. Just like doing the paperwork for orders to ship Jews to camps is evil. Or administrating paperwork for the sale of slaves. Or passing Jim Crow legislation. These things harm far more people, and in far worse ways, than punching a single person in the face.
Punching people in the face is wrong, except in self-defense. Advocating for white supremacism is much more wrong.
Nobody is disagreeing with that abstract statement. In fact, the main reason that people object to Nazis and white supremacists is their willingness to use violence in pursuit of political ends.
[QUOTE=adaher]
I agree that the views of anti-fa are not as odious as white supremacism. But if white supremacists can demonstrate peacefully, then my issues with them are strictly about ideas. I feel the same way about ISIS. As far as I’m concerned, if ISIS can march down the National Mall without hurting anyone, then the worst thing that I can say is that I think their views suck. And I would consider “patriots” who attacked them to be far worse than they are.
[/quote]
You seem to be very mixed up between the concepts of “worse behavior” and “worse people”.
Nobody is denying that anti-fa who punch people are behaving worse than Nazis/ISIS/white supremacists who (for the moment) conduct themselves peacefully. But that does not necessarily mean that the anti-fa punchers are worse people overall.
I consider advocating for white supremacism to be worse behavior than punching non-violent white supremacists. Even though the latter should remain illegal, and the former should remain legal.
So, you would be one of the ones looking on and advocating non-violence while the nazis removed the inferior races from your neighborhood. If one of those minorities was uppity enough to fight back against the nazis marching them off to camps, you would scold them with your “No violence in pursuit of political ends!”
My problem with the violence involved with antifa and blac block is that I consider it unnecessary at this time and place. We don’t live in a country where violence is needed to combat oppression. We have other democratic methods for that. The problem is is that the democratic methods require getting a majority of people like yourself to agree to vote to stop oppressing people that you don’t really care about.
That said, I can understand why there is frustration on the part of those who are being oppressed and their allies, who are being treated like second class citizens being told to just be patient, eventually the Adahers of the world will come around to care about your plight, until then, just accept the police brutality, the overt racism, the “soft racism”, the casual racism, and all of the other detriments that come from being born of the wrong ethnicity until Adaher decides that you are worthy.
Civil rights in this country has never made any progress until white people started getting involved. No progress can be made unless the majority decides that it cares about minorities.
And this is something that we as white guys should be very concerned about. We will not remain the majority forever, not all that much longer either. Do we want, when we no longer call all the shots, to have gone out in last throes of attempting to keep the status quo, so that we are overthrown and treated in the way that “we” treated “them”?, or do we want to promote equality, so that when we are no longer a majority, “we” have no problem being treated the way “we” treated “them”?
Do bear that in mind if you encounter a bunch of hate-group marchers who express to your wife the idea that they hope she “gets raped by a nigger”.
Because that’s a typical example of the ideas that the far-right marchers were expressing to nonviolent counterprotesters at Charlottesville.
I still maintain that punching somebody in the face, even for using disgusting racist insults, is worse behavior (at least in the sense of being more illegal) than the actual expression of the insults. But I would be very, very hesitant to conclude that the puncher in that case must be a worse person than the insulter.
No, advocating for any position harms no-one.
Those things are actions, not speech. They are fundamentally different. And those things are only worse than punching someone in degree, not kind. Trying to suppress speech is different in kind, and I consider worse.
Punching someone in the face to silence them is worse than either.
It’s good to know that I can get away with threatening people with death as long as I don’t name them personally and don’t ask anyone in particular to carry it out. And as a bonus I can indirectly threaten their entire family with death at the same time. Winning!