I’m at work and can only watch, not listen. What are the protesters saying? If they are making violent threats I (and presumably margin et al), we are against that and your tu quoque is valid (or, as valid as a tu quoque gets). If they aren’t making violent threats I don’t understand your point.
~Max
It’s unclear what they’re doing or saying. There’s a general chant going on that appears to be either “Nazi scum are fascists” (which… OK ? I guess ? 
) or “Nazi scum off our streets” which would make more sense ; and one female (or short male) protestor appears to be screaming it specifically at the old couple for reasons that are unclear absent any context.
WAG could be because the old couple said something shitty (either prior to the video, or that the cellphone mike didn’t catch), could be because they’re trying to cross a picketing line, could be they’re really having a dialogue with another protestor that’s drowned under crowd noises… it’s anyone’s guess really.
What it isn’t, is in any way violent or threatening. “Obnoxious” is the worst I can take away from this, again absent any sort of context or further details on what’s going on.
Oh, at one point the female switches to yelling/chanting “Don’t fucking touch me” at the old man.
I’ve found a couple articles that seem to explain the context. The elderly couple were heading towards a People’s Party of Canada meeting, and were berated blocked by anti-fascist protesters who yelled “Nazi scum, off our streets!” (Steinbuch, 2019). One of the founding members of that party is reported to be a former leader of an American Neo-Nazi group, and two others have or had ties to anti-immigration groups (Russell & Bell, 2019).
Steinbuch, Y. (2019, October 1). Video shows ‘Antifa’ group block elderly couple’s path, yell ‘Nazi scum’. The New York Post. Retrieved November 19, 2019 from Canadian 'Antifa' group block elderly couple, shout 'Nazi scum'
Russell, A. & Bell, S. (2019, September 23). Former neo-Nazi, Pegida Canada official among People’s Party of Canada signatories. Global News. Retrieved November 18, 2019 from Former neo-Nazi, Pegida Canada official among People’s Party of Canada signatories | Globalnews.ca
~Max
I’m glad to read you say that. Sincerely.
And you (or at least, a caricaturaly moderate/centrist) position has been on my mind ever since our abruptly aborted discussion ; and I’ve finally come across an argument, or at least a better formulation of a bellyfeel of mine, which I’d really like your opinion on.
Obviously you can opt not to watch the video, and just as obviously I think some good points are made in there and you should and it’s only 20 minutes long ; but just in case : the author argues against what he calls “value neutral governance”, which is to say valuing the process of governance, or more generally speaking liberal democracy, over the *result(s) *of said governance.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not the kind of asshole who’ll claim that the (my) ends justifies the (any) means. Yet at the same time, I can’t disagree with him that, if the end result of a given process turns out to be unjust or damaging or generally speaking Ungood, then what is the intrinsic worth of the means ? Or, in more Godwin terms, and if we can agree that there’s some point of Hitler_under_emergency_laws where constitutions and traditions and propriety and decorum and even written laws can fuck right off ; where does the tipping point lie ?
The reason I immediately thought of you when watching the vid was that, it seems to me at least, you seem to value The System (yes, I know, the concept is super vague and caricatural, but first bear with me and second you kinda know what I’m talking about, yes ?) or the process of liberal democracy ; and to implicitly have a low opinion of those who go around it or are engaged in actions beyond it (like antifa) regardless of whether or not a) The System winds up building fascism in effect and b) antifa tactics are efficient in preventing that from happening (I’m not saying they are or aren’t - I’m saying it feels you would oppose them either way).
That, or you don’t believe we’re there yet, which again begs the question of when and where the building of fascism becomes/will become enough for you to cast away the idea of the inherent worth of The System. Which should explain why your in essence saying “OK, I don’t like antifa ; but *that’*s still nowhere near the fa” is meaningful to me in the sense that, OK, you’re clearly not a blinkered partisan, so we can talk productively.
I will hasten to add than none of what I wrote in this post is, or at least is meant as, an aspersion or an attack or what have you. I will sincerely disclose that one of the (many) reasons I don’t vote (or don a mask) is, I’m well and fully aware I don’t know shit from shit. And obviously if I’ve got the wrong idea, do feel free to expound and clue me in.
(I will also hasten to add that I’m pretty sloshed right now, so if part or the whole of this is or seems nonsensical to you… do ask about it tomorrow. Or whether or not it seems stupid to me tomorrow. I reserve the absolute right to disavow anything I’ve just written tomorrow. I will explicitly demand points for drunk spelling prowess either way.)
(Oh, but to further clarify : I know the question “so when do you start punching fascists/being OK with people who punch fascists ?” is unfair of me to ask. Because I haven’t come up with a definite, essential answer myself. It’s not a trap, or a gotcha, or some antagonism shame on you something something. I hope that’s clear, at least. Precious little else is. to me anyway)
Ask yourself if you want to gamble with the outcome of promoting might makes right or the outcome of an orderly system that promotes the concept of individual liberty.
I fucking hate Bill Maher (in case there was any doubt about that), but he recently said some things I agree with:
If you resort to punching people you disagree with, you are moving us towards bloodshed, and you should reconsider your actions.
This is the level of honesty one comes to associate with Trump. “Antifa thugs”? “Orangeman bad” CERTAINLY demolishes the facts I cited with…Oh, wait.
Ahem.
The basic dishonesty here is Republicans, ICE officers, and cops have REPEATEDLY been exposed as racists of the first order in private groups and communication, where they were caught being viciously hateful toward anybody who wasn’t white, male, and Trumpie.
Inside hate groups on Facebook, police officers trade racist memes, conspiracy theories and Islamophobia - Reveal
The reason citing lone nutjobs does not work is because the people they allegedly follow—and whom you apparently want to blame-----do not preach hatred. Show me where Bernie Sanders—who I despise—said ANYTHING like, “Mexicans are rapists.” (Irony or hyprocrisy by a man who bragged about sexual assault?) Then there was birtherism, where he demanded Obama reveal his transcripts and birth certificate. Trump himself is notorious about slapping NDAs on everyone.)
Donald Trump preaches hatred, hires white supremacists, defends actual Nazis, expresses envy of murdering dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un, and coyly wishes "some of you Second Amendment people"would find a “solution” if Hillary “stole” the election.
The cops have been exposed as working with fascist hate groups to better harass and falsely accuse antifa members. California police worked with neo-Nazis to pursue 'anti-racist' activists, documents show | The far right | The Guardian
Scalise himself has bragged he was “David Duke without the baggage.”
Who was David Duke, again?
What are fascists famous for, again? Horticulture? What is their ambition, cause, raison d’etre?
The fact is, it is very easy to point at rightwingers and find countless examples of hatred. It is the GOP’s platform, now that they have embraced Trump.
One cannot do the same with liberals.
And I’m adding this last bit because frankly this is from the rightwing playbook. Punching down is not the same as punching back. If you hate me because I’m a woman, you are sexist because you focus on one thing that I cannot change.
If I hate you because you hate me, you can change my attitude by ending your hatred. That is the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Maybe you can summarize the main arguments it makes?
You are correct that I value “the process of liberal democracy.” I do NOT think that it will necessarily produce Good results, but I do think that the process itself is a good.
Moreover I think the process itself handicaps fascism more than it handicaps justice and equity, while a system that allows turning off the safeguards of free expression makes the dominance of fascism easier.
These do not strike me as unfair questions at all.
When fascists successfully destroy the process of liberal democracy itself (actually destroy rather than vainly attempt to, or argue for itse destruction) then obviously using the inoperative process alone is bringing a knife to a gun fight. Resistance that violates non-democratic and fascist laws is appropriate, non-violent when possible but I aint Gandhi or MLK.
We are not there, not by a long shot. Trump is a fascist wannabe and Nazis in America are pathetic schlubs looking for a group who will accept them and desperate for attention. The system, the very one that allows them to spew, also constrains their power and allows for a fight on level ground.
So when is it okay to punch a fascist wannabe, or be okay with someone else doing it? In defence when they have punched you or someone else first, or maybe the threat is very very clear, very direct, and very imminent. Not short of that. Not for saying hateful things.
I will also weigh in on efficacy. Nonviolent protest is more likely to be effective than violence. As you pointed out, the physical attack on Andy Ngo only helped get him a bigger megaphone and sympathy from the center. Mocking him, humiliating him, would have been better.
Unfortunately ignorant racists who love fascist wannabes do.
I can try.
He starts with the argument that building a coalition on the left is harder than on the right. Which I can’t really find fault with : the left is generally speaking a loose group of people who want society to move in a given direction which they think is better but those various directions don’t align with each other necessarily and even when they do it’s hard to form a compromised consensus on the specifics. In contrast the right is simply unified in saying “NO, NEVER” and doesn’t really need to delve into the specific reasons why each individual member or the group is saying NO - the salient part is that they’re saying NO and collectively support the saying NO. Just vote NO FOREVER !
Which, in his mind, translates into mainstream leftists not really daring to argue in favour of positions or goals (which might fracture their political support) unless they’re speaking from an unassailable blue constituent majority ; but instead whenever they are stuck in a challenged position argue for the process itself in abstract terms : democracy, decorum, a generally agreed but hazy “need for reform” or statemenst that “how we do this doesn’t work”… to their own detriment (and, more importantly, to the detriment of their own ends) when the opposition isn’t constrained by such.
He uses the SCOTUS as an illustration : Republican senators matter-of-factly obstructed the confirmation of an Obama-appointed judge regardless of who that was. That was a demonstrably, openly, even *proudly *partisan move that went against all precedents and traditions. In order to highlight this aberration and lowkey shame it, Obama proposed the most bland, inoffensive and middle-of-the-road pick he could come up with.
And that was it. Despite some 290some days of the Senate refusing to call a vote, he never went further that pointing his finger at the dysfunction, under principles that the author of the video dubs “They go low, we go high”. But the Republicans didn’t and don’t care. When Trump was elected, they immediately turned around to confirming his pick and pre-emptively denounced any Democrat who would object to that as “obstructionist”, which is what the Democrats had been accusing the Republicans of being under all 8 years of Obama. They also rushed to confirm Kavanaugh despite serious problems with him and no *real *hurry in filling the seat. It’s all, again, quite clearly partisan. They pride themselves on it. When Democrats go high, they go low. Because low works in furtherance of their ends.
Past all the hand-wringing about propriety and precedent and decorum, the end result of all this is : SCOTUS now has two straight-up right-wing anti-abortion judges on it where it previously had only one. And that won’t change even if Democratic candidates get elected President from now until the end of time.
I personally find that this macro example is also repeated at more granular levels with questions of voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, voting laws in the middle of the night etc… these methods are not strictly red of course, but generally speaking Republican voters seem more OK with rule bending as long as it serves their ends ; and the further right you go, the further the very idea of liberals in power is demonized to the point of being taken as an existential threat, and the further rule breaking is not just condoned but enjoined. Better Putin than Hillary !
So taking that into account, especially from an ends-centric POV, what does “going high” matter ? And, even if we can agree that what Republicans are doing is wrong in both ends *and *means, what does it say about the left that they can’t get their own ends (which I think we agree are generally good even if we won’t ever agree on the specifics) by their means (which, again, are generally-speaking unimpeachable) ?
The end result, right now, is kids dying in overcrowded cages, and *that *can’t be right.
He finally concludes that the notion that the process of liberal democracy is a giant black box that takes multiple disparate and opposed opinions on one end and spits out justice at the other end, which is itself derived from a necessity of extolling the means rather than the ends, is not just wishful thinking ; but it is a kind of opportunistic wishful thinking. Moderate Dems do that, because if they did not do that and instead started talking about positions the left would risk becoming even more fractious than it already is, which would put more Republicans in power, which would further Republican ends.
And he further underlines the fact that this idea of liberal democracy as it exists right now being an unquestioned Good in and of itself regardless of the value of the results it produces is an historical aberration : the Founding Fathers themselves set up an unjust system under which white, land owning, well educated men would always be on top, and argued principles in favour of a system that would work that way and would be very difficult and ponderous to change to work another way. Those self-serving principles were judged and justified BY white, land-owning, well-educated men on not just their philosophical value, but on their expediency.
I agree with the former, but not the latter. It’s a cliché at this point to say “Hitler got democratically elected” (it’s also factually wrong, since he was appointed, but his appointment was an olive branch to his party coming second so six of one…), but even without that the general, ubiquitous trend among Western democracies right now is a strictly rising trend when it comes to far-right assholes.
You can say “but we’re not there yet !” all you like, but it looks like it’s where we’re most definitely going. One small step at a time.
The question itself is not unfair ; but it’s unfair to demand someone provides a definitive answer when you don’t have one yourself 
But see, while I can agree with that, it still strikes me as a fundamental problem.
If you only start fighting Hitler on his violent ground when he is not just empowered but has already accrued enough power and popular support that the majority is either fully on-board with e.g. rounding up the Communists or are unsure or don’t care either way ; you’re setting up for a fight in which you’re the underdog. And furthermore, a fight that will only be resolved after a LOT of blood has been shed. You’re setting conditions by which you’ll have to bring a gun to a tanks and flamethrowers fight IMO.
Yeees, kinda (I mean, they’re already rounding up “illegals” and trying to use immigration along the southern border as their Reichstag fire so, yenno) ; but they’re also quite clearly engaged in eroding the barriers within the system ; and convincing moderates that it’s fine. Straight Nazi ideas and talking points (repackaged and rebranded, but the veneer is pretty thin if you try and scratch it) are being discussed earnestly and on their merits on national TV and mainstream outlets. And the people who support Trump are not all Nazis themselves obviously. They just, y’know. Mostly think Nazis are pathetic albeit useful shlubs. That it’s no big deal to put one in charge of advising the president - it’s just pandering and getting votes. And who cares about a few brown people in a handful of cages, a handful of burnt synagogues ? Eggs for the big picture omelet. It’s not like the Nazis are ever going to turn on *real Germans *or anything…
Successful fascists are past masters of salami tactics. Which is not saying that all fascists are, or that all fascists are successful. But it’s important to keep a close eye on them… because you really, but *really *don’t want one of them to become the successful one.
I’m aware. Just as I’m aware that my insistence on doggedly following my own principles (and means) is implicitly leading to bad, or at least not_mine ends :). But whatareyagonnado ? *Compromise *? That just won’t do. 
To the degree that the GOP plays by rules that are the rules but which have not been the standard rules as applied - yes, fight back also within those rules officially.
But I do not believe that a position of the supporting playing by rules when the results are what you want and ignoring them when the results are what you do not like is a tenable one. Very specific back to this thread, free speech is not just the right for me to hear what I want.
But shortest version is the old Churchillism - worst system in the world, except for all the others.
Seriously we even see it writ small on these boards in ATMB discussions of trolls and near-trolls and other moderation decisions that many of us feel are wrongly decided, allowing for bad outcomes. The system as it stands gives some bad outcomes along with good ones, but the alternatives are worse.
I do not fool myself into thinking that my side will always win in the battles fought in the marketplace of ideas. I do think that the my side has the better ideas and the better thinkers and that we are better equipped to win more often when the fight is fought with ideas and communication than when it is fought with fists and guns. Hence I believe greatly in keeping that a fair fight fought with ideas in which the ability to use the tools of speech are hard to limit too greatly (which is not an absolutist position).
