This is about the counter-protestors to fuckin Nazis, which Mr. Seed and some trolls here continue to attack. All the counter-protestors have done is the stuff anyone else at any political rally in the US: shout a lot and wave placards.
How is that something anyone with the capacity for reason or analogy would ever object to? Much less when they insist that the nazis have such a sacred and holy right to provoke and start fights?
Who is saying that Nazi's have a right to start fights? I believe people are saying they have a right to protest; if they get violent, then it is a matter for the police to deal with, not a matter for a different group of vigilante thugs.
In my view, the point of a counter-protest is more or less to stifle the ability of those who attend to initial protest to voice their opinions; at least one prominent defender of antifascism on this board has indicated that this
is part of the goal of antifascist counter-protests, so I don't think I am too far off the mark here. I would be just as opposed to Nazis/fascists/racists/etc. turning up to 'counter-protest' leftists who were expressing their support for multiculturalism or protesting their governments harsh immigration policy (or whatever else).
Anyone who is familiar with my posts in CE&P over the years would know that I absolutely deplore racism, have reasonably far-left views, and would not be caught dead associating with anybody who would have a snowballs chance in hell of being mistaken for a Neo-Nazi. However, I am also an ardent supporter of free speech. If people are inciting violence, that is a crime, and it is up to the police (not vigilantes) to deal with the matter; the same goes if people are committing violent acts. People have a right to assemble with those who share their views and express those views, that is a fundamental part of free speech and democracy. I believe that infringing this right, no matter who is exercising it, is a disservice to democracy; I also believe that it is highly
irrational insofar as I do not believe that it is an effective means for accomplishing the counter-protesters stated goals.
I believe that counter-protests only polarise the views of more or less everybody in attendance at both rallies further, I believe that counter-protests dramatically increase the odds that a given protest will result in widespread violence, I believe that large groups of 'antifascists' turning up to far-right rallies and acting in a violent manner (I am not here suggesting that antifascists are the
only violent ones in these scenarios, by the way) actually diminishes the credibility of various far-left platforms in the eyes of the wider public. In other words, I think they accomplish nothing positive, but do contribute to negative outcomes.
All of these issues are compounded by the fact that it is not really clear that the people who are frequently being labeled Nazi's or fascists actually
are Nazi's or fascists (though, in all cases I am pretty certain they are people with whom I strongly disagree morally and politically). In some cases, they undoubtedly are; in others, the matter is much more vague. I have personally witnessed, both in person and online, people being labelled Nazi/fascist for expressing racist views (which I deplore, but being racist is not a sufficient condition of being either a Nazi or a fascist), people being so labelled for expressing misgivings about immigration (particularly from the Middle East or largely Islamic countries), and even people being so labelled because they support the right of those who oppose immigration to have an uninterrupted, non-violent rally about it. To me, this is ridiculous.
I am not saying that all antifascists are so confused as to what an actual fascist is, but many I have met are, and I have no confidence that a loosely organised vigilante group which includes these confused people is an effective way to combat 'fascism' in any way. Moreover, I worry that people who are neither guilty of a crime, nor of even being Nazi's, are having their rights to exercise free speech infringed, and, in some cases, are the victims of unjustifiable violence in the name of antifascism. I also worry that these people, as a result of these activities, are more likely to embrace actual Naziism down the line. This is a very complex and sensitive issue, I personally cannot see why anyone should think a disorganised group of extremist vigilantes provide a means to solving it - it seems to me they are only adding fuel to the fire.
I like to think that I have a good reputation in this forum, both as someone who has taken considerable time over the years to try and demonstrate why racist views are so vacuous and misguided, and as someone who generally expresses well-reasoned, defensible views. Well, in most cases I object to these counter-protests, and I spent the majority of this post trying to elucidate why I think that is a perfectly rational view. If you want to maintain that I am irrational for holding it, I would appreciate if you could point out what about I have said you think is mistaken.
What I don't understand is, we all agree that Nazism and fascism are fucking moronic. It seems obvious to me that these ideas are ones which can be defeated by rational argument and debate; moreover, when you compare the attendance of the 'counter-protests' to the actual far-right protests, it is clear that these people are vastly outnumbered. I don't personally believe that in 2017 there is a real risk of Nazism or fascism becoming the dominant political view; I believe that if there
was such a risk, then the best way to combat this would be education and debate - not 'counter-protests', no-platforming, doxxing and using violence.
Just so it is crystal clear: I condemn Nazism and fascism. However, I do not support any non-violent adherents of this ideology (by which I mean those who have not committed any acts of violence; I am not interested in any suggestions that an abstraction such as an ideology can be violent in the relevant sense of the word) having their rights stripped away by virtue of nothing more than their adherence to this, undoubtedly toxic, ideology.
Charlottesville was the turning point. You either condemn the violence and the casualties, which were committed by Neonazis and white supremacists, or you tacitly support it.
There really isn't middle ground.
The problem, as I see it, is that those who condemn the violence on
both sides of the political divide are being labelled Neo-Nazi supporters. I agree that the violence being committed by both sides is not equivalent, a fucking Nazi killed a poor woman at Charlottesville. Nonetheless, I don't see how the condemnation of right-wing political violence entails an obligation to support left-wing political violence - I realise that you have not explicitly said this. But, it does increasingly seem like 'antifascists' and their supporters have a rather 'us vs them' mentality whereby anyone who does not support militant antifascist activities is thereby a closet Nazi/fascist/racist/member of the alt-right, and is
ipso facto a legitimate target of slander, abuse, and if one is in attendance at the wrong rally, even violence. There is a middle ground, but it seems to me that too many are so polarised by this issue that they are incapable of seeing it.
