If you say that groups tend to initiate violent behaviour, it isn't clear to me how adding another group to the mix is supposed to prevent this behaviour. To me, this line of thought doesn't really add up...
I think counterprotesters to white supremacy serve a different function than you do.
Do you suppose that insulting people is generally an effective tactic to get them to change their minds? I have a pretty solid track record of calling out racism in person and online, in general I try and fault the logic of the claims and arguments instead of resorting to making remarks about the character of those who are advancing them. Admittedly, neither tactic is overwhelmingly effective; however, in my experience the former is considerably more effective than the latter.
No. However, I'm not the one of us who thinks white supremacists are particularly open to having their minds changed. You're assuming that is achievable and not a huge waste of time if it is.
And yes I do think in public absolutely they should be insulted. White supremacists should be ashamed of themselves and their atrocious behavior; if they aren't on the cliff with it, so to speak, all those within earshot should know that behavior is unacceptable and can/might be called out. It's not just for their benefit, although it could be beneficial.
To wit, when a white supremacist screams the word 'kike' at an elderly Jew, I feel like exercising my right to free speech (unless the elderly person has a few choice words) and letting everyone involved know I support the person who was just verbally attacked, at the very least.
It would help kill this movement if the woodwork idiots stayed there. Instead, in the US at least, they feel "emboldened" by Trump and their online personas.
I am a big proponent of calling out racism in everyday settings. I don't think people should let racism go unchallenged in day to day life, both because I think this type of challenge is more likely to be effective, and because I don't think it is plausible to view such interactions as stifling anybodies rights.
Me too.
Gathering a large crowd to counter protest a rally in order to 'shut it down' is stifling free speech in my opinion, and I don't think it is effective when it comes to changing minds.
Acknowledged. We're not coming from the same place or moving towards the same goal.
I completely agree with this, but there is a time and a place. I tend to think counter protests exacerbate awful behaviour, if I genuinely thought they contributed to positive outcomes I would be less opposed to them.
Okay. We disagree.
Police aren't perfect, sometimes they fail to do their jobs effectively. Frankly, when large numbers of people turn up to counter protest a rally, police resources are being stretched more thinly than they would otherwise be. The reality is this is going to inhibit the effectiveness of the police response to violence from anyone in attendance. I don't think the fact that sometimes police fail to do their jobs makes antifascist vigilantism acceptable.
Okay. We disagree.
In general, people don't support vigilantism for other law enforcement failures. We don't generally think it is okay to lynch rapists and murderers who get off on a legal technicality due to police failure (at least, I certainly don't). It isn't clear to me that white nationalists should be treated as a special case.
Acknowledged.
I've stated what is personally acceptable to me in terms of physical violence, and it's not particularly unreasonable as a norm. (Self defense and defense of the more vulnerable against imminent physical violence.)
I don't advocate killing or maiming white supremacists. On the other hand, I'm not losing sleep over fisticuffs unless someone is seriously hurt or it's part of a larger intimidation campaign, regardless of who initiates what.
Regarding doxxing, I think that reporting names to the police as opposed to tweeting them is responsible, which is all that I am aware of occurring in the case I mentioned. (It's actually a topic I'm interested in discussing if this thread simmers down.)
Otherwise, doxxing does occur, and law enforcement is very ill equipped to deal with it. I think it's wrong as a general practice and the exceptions are very limited.
I said that the violence on both sides is not equivalent, I acknowledge the right has been more violent than the left. Other than that, I am not sure that I made a specific claim about the degree of violence. If all you mean is that I neglected to mention that people were injured, then fair enough. I am not sure what bearing that has on my condemnation of all violence.
I simply think that the point about casualties is always understated by everyone and try to point it out consistently.
It's a little patronising to assume that, just because I disagree with you and you can't actually fault the logic of my post, I must surely lack experience. I am not as young as you might assume just because I am a University student.
I don't have any idea how old you are. I'm aware that uni students aren't necessarily in a certain age bracket, regardless of which degree they are working to get (you didn't specify). Also, age and experience are not particularly correlated.
Regardless, I think your assumptions about law enforcement are naïve for any country. I realize there was probably a more diplomatic way to state it.
If white nationalists hope to get a mainstream platform then they will have no choice but to engage in debate and open discussion about their views. Personally, I am confident that their views are so obviously foolish that this would function as an effective prophylactic and prevent them seizing power democratically.
I disagree completely. In America, this is alarmingly obvious with our current administration.
Europe is experiencing a shift to the right as well, although obviously each country is different.
I can't say that I think they have anywhere near the numbers for a non-democratic takeover (or that they ever will).
Oops. See above. Much longer discussion.
I think people can and should call out racism when they see it in the workplace, at school, when they are socialising with friends, etc. I think that calling it out in these types of scenarios is much more effective than going to a rally where people are fired up and surrounded by like-minded idiots.
I don't know what you mean by effective. I think I've addressed our relevant differences though.
If you want to completely stamp out white nationalism then you would likely have to reform the education system, including free or very cheap access to University education. Personally, I am a fan of the idea of adding an extra year or two to high school, and teaching all students politics, logic, ethics, and basic scientific literacy skills.
I'm not sure education makes the difference as to whether or not someone has racist attitudes as much as actual exposure to members of other races as children or otherwise as peers, if that even.
I've met very educated racists.
On a lighter note, studying those topics in two years would be very intense.
Maybe that is unrealistic, but surely there are plenty of ways for antifascists to engage people in the streets and disseminate literature which helps to educate people on politics and dispel racist nonsense.
I tend to think of racism as a very entrenched belief because I grew up in a geographically segregated area full of backward racists. I still know some of them and it's bizarre.
People don't have a right to be vigilantes, and I don't feel that the onus falls on those who oppose militant antifascism to get creative and tell Antifa what they should be doing instead of their more extreme activities. It's pretty obvious to me that engaging people respectfully is the only way to effectively change anybodies' views.
I'm not sure why you save education and debate for white supremacists.
I'm not saying everyone else needs it as much, but if for example the people who you know that are violent and identify with the antifascism movement don't actually know what fascism is, then there is an opportunity to educate there.