Riots Break Out In Berkley Over Gay Libertarian Immigrant Speaker

[Jabberwocky]

only if your head was buried in the sand.

Election of Obama provokes rise in U.S. hate crimes
When Obama Was Elected: An Outpouring of Hate in 2008
Obama election spurs race threats, crime
Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters
White Supremacist Rage Boils Over After Obama Victory; Racist Site Crashes After Election

didn't they?

alasdair

Mostly fake hate crimes just like the ones following Trump's victory.

If you think the KKK doesn't exist any longer you've never driven through fucking Harrison, AR. They have billboards up that say stuff such as "Diversity is just another word for white genocide," and you see at least five similar ones on your way down their main street. My friend's father is the only black man that lives in that town (one ballsy motherfucker) and he still gets death threats in his mailbox every year.

The people in that town will glare at you and get their shotgun out if you're just some hippie looking white dude. I know this from personal experience. Don't you dare say the KKK is dead.

Diversity is code for white genocide, that is why it's only pushed on white majority countries. The kkk is irrelevant compared to what it was, it's not like you see them chasing down black men and lynching them anymore.

 

[alasdairm]

Mostly fake hate crimes just like the ones following Trump's victory.

this is what it's come to. trump does it. you do it. droppers has started doing it. anything you don't like, just say it's fake and move on.

we've entered a post-truth age where integrity is no longer valued and that's a tragedy.

we used to be able to have a conversation - we differed but we respected each other's positions. now you (one) just claim everything you disagree with is fake. optional bonus points for calling your opponent a sjw or snowflake to their face at every opportunity (and a fag behind their backs for good measure).



alasdair

 

[Jabberwocky]

this is what it's come to. trump does it. you do it. droppers has started doing it. anything you don't like, just say it's fake and move on.

we've entered a post-truth age where integrity is no longer valued and that's a tragedy.

we used to be able to have a conversation - we differed but we respected each other's positions. now you (one) just claim everything you disagree with is fake. optional bonus points for calling your opponent a sjw or snowflake to their face at every opportunity (and a fag behind their backs for good measure).



alasdair

All of the proven fake hate crimes following this election is good reason to doubt past and future "hate crimes"

 

[spacejunk]

Ain't antifa's own cause to find any excuse to assault someone?

No.

Don't believe the hype. With the sudden increase in awareness of "antifa" comes a lot of misinformation, misunderstandings and of course (it's politics!) manipulation.

One such example of a misunderstanding is when i say "physical confrontation", i'm assuming that people read that as "a punch in face" or something similarly violent.

It's not strictly how i intended it to be read - although violence is unavoidable in some situations (if you're committed to oppose fascism, that is).

An example of this?
I attended something of an anti-fascist action yesterday. Everyone in attendence seemed pleased with the results - and if a single punch was thrown on either side, i certainly didn't see it (nor did anyone else who has reported on it - and there were a lot of media present.

Additionally, no property was damaged. No fires, no arrests - nothing.

Antifa is not analogous to fascism, as people seem to be claiming lately. Opposing fascism is not an excuse to assault people.

Neo-nazis and fascists - however - are inherently, and by definition, violent.
This is why people who actively oppose them have to be hard-line.

You're justifying violence by saying 'they did it first' which isnt a good justification. If you think some is a cunt for being a violent thug, what difference is when you act in the same way?

i'm stating that sometimes anti-fascist actions are necessary.
I think you're misunderstanding my position on this, but i will explain my thoughts on this subject again, in response to your post.

The focus on Nazis is prety weak imo. True neonazis are fringe groups with little actual power, populated by uneducated idiots who mainly gloat online. Groups like Combat 18 don't really pose a huge threat that only violence can solve. I do always rip down their stickers and have defaced posters and tags though, but that's peaceful.

I'm not sure if you've been following the far-right fringe and the activity of neo-nazi groups in the last ~2 years in Australia, but there has been an emergence of a vaguely "home-grown" has been a rise in racist violence and racially-divisive political campaigns in the last several years.
If you sincerely believe that nazi groups don't pose a threat, i must respectfully disagree.

And likewise - if you're telling me that you don't consider the recent crop of extreme-right wing, Hitler praising boneheads as "real nazis" - again, i'm going to have to disagree with that.

Are you aware of the handful of nazi and fascist groups that have popped up in australia in the last year?
One of those groups - within the city we both live in - is facing terrorism charges for plotting to blow upseveral targets in melbourne (namely "left wing" targets, if i recall correctly).

These people are not "alt-right" keyboard brownshirts - they have a presence on the streets, have had (a couple of) well-attended demonstration, have stalked several of their opponents - some of whom have been bashed, they've turned up to their own rallies with firearms (in australia) as well as tasers and materials to make explosives - as well

If you care to read some of these people's online postings, or watch their videos, you'll see that they're not only dangerous people - several have done jail tiime for domestic violence but also completely serious about seeking vengeance (murder, bashings, bonb plotsÿ are all thrown around to dish out to "the left")

Now, for some reason we on "the left" are held to a higher standard than the right - but why is this?
What is wrong with suggesting people should do what they can to oppose and resist threats of violence or death from the far right?

I note with interest that my acceptance of physical resistance has been widely criticised in this thread - but the people saying protesters should be killed have not (exceptc, i think, by myself).
Why is this? Why do we tolerate, or accept as normal, people on the right talking about killing people?

I have stated this before, and i will do it again, but fascists are emboldened by successful activities - and in the case of fascist/nazi groups, the threat they pose to their opponents (from political opponents to various ethnic and religious groups, gay and lesbian people etc) escalates.

when that happens, and these groups escalate in ambition, new members tag along for the ride. These people typically do not join such groups on their own volition - they see a call to arms from a group of people using strong words and aggressive tactics, and they join the "fun".

The aim of a lot of anti-fascists (i can't - and won't - speak for everyone of the anti-fash persuasion, because "antifa" is not a group.
"Antifa" does not have rules or leaders - if anything, it is a political leaning that says we need to all take part in the struggle against oppressive and inherently violent political forces by pushing back.

A question:
If you don't agree with nazi ideology - and a group of organised neo-nazis arrives in your community with the express aim of (violently) targeting their various "opponents" (as above - ethnic groups, people of non-heteronormative sexualities or genders, people who oppose fascism/racism politically), how would you suggest we oppose these groups?

How would anyone oppose extremists of this sort in a non-violent fashion?

Really - i'm keen to hear from swilow or anyone else who posts sincerely in this section.

If you have a group of people that are proven to be violent and a risk to certain sections of the community intent on terrorising people through the various means that nazis typically do (including terrorism as the Phillip Gellea case demonstates) - and they're active on the streets - how do you deal with them?

If there is a non-violent solution, i'd genuinely like to hear it.

If you knew me, swilow, you'd know that i am not a violent person.
I would like to meet you - but i get the impression you have some idea of me and my lust for blood that is totally inaccurate.

I've had friends that have been targetted by nazis, and there was a charming group called the ANM who were active in my hometown when i was growing up.
Their graffiti was everywhere, and it was unpleasant. They torched businesses owned by migrants in my local neighbourhood, and most of them were never charged for their part in what was essentially a campaign of harassment and threat to local immigrant communities.

They needed to be stopped, and until large amounts of people started showing up any time they pulled a 'stunt' in public to further their notoriety, they essentially went unchallenged and their threats of violence (towards innocent people, i might add) only escalated.

It dawned on me then that it seemed like my responsibility as an able-bodied young man, that i felt an obligation to reassure and try to protect vulnerable members of my community from these people.

I don't appreciate being written of as "justifying violence by saying 'they did it first'" - that is not what i've been saying at all.

I am talking about protecting our communities from campaigns of terror (for want of a better, less baggage-laden term) and violence - which is what neo-nazi groups (the "serious" ones i'm referring to) as we understand them, use as a tactic.

It surely doesn't require a great deal of imagination to guess what the next escalation - past assaults, threatening racist propaganda and arson/bombing attacks - tends to be.
If we wait until nazi groups are murdering their opponents before we confront them, in many way we are acting too late.
When these sort of people are confronted early on (not necessarily violently) - the less committed will think twice about what they are participating in (which is inherently violent, lets not kid ourselves) - and everyone involved will realise that there may be a threat to themselves (be it physically or by other means - doxing being a powerful tool in contemporary anti-fascist campaigns.
Several of the contemporary Australian neo nazi groups have lost their jobs when their employers became aware of the sort of criminal mischief and threatening behavior that their workers were engaging in.

Do people think this is ok? Where do we draw the line on acceptable tactics for concerned citizens (i'm not talking about police or government) to stand up to terroristic behaviours?

These guys need to be confronted but it shouod only get violent if they start it. I personally always defend myself with violence against violence.

I agree completely. As stated above

I hate what I did but I'd do it again against that sort of threat

Being violent degrades much of what we are trying to achieve. It gives the general community the impression that we on the left are all bruisers who cover their faces when acting up. It gives rightful fodder to the opposition

Frankly, i don't think the 'opposition' are worth considering.
I read the shit our friends in the far right post here (and elsewhere) and i'm not out to win them over.

Standing up to fascism isn't a PR campaign.
At least not where i stand.

But i should point out that see a massive distinction between my political adversaries on the right, and the sort of fascists and nazis i am talking about.
This is a crucial point that everyone on the anti-antifa bandwagon seem to completely overlook.

Antifa have attacked black metal fans simply because some, very few of them are far right. Its fascist behavioys in that sense. Thuggery.

You've mentioned this several times before - is this where your perception of anti-fascists being thugs comes from?

I know nothing about this - as i don't care for black metal and am not interested in playing politics with music.

The problem with lumping any group/act/individual into "antifa" is that you're tarring a lot of (IMO) good people with the same brush.

Don't be like them, their vioence is what we oppose.

Again - who is "we"?
Of course i oppose violence - i hate violence. But as you yourself have stated, in some situations it is unfortunately inevitable.

Just because i strongly support anti-fascist action, does not mean i
a) seek out violence
b) glorify violence
c) advocate violence
or
d) promote violence.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking nazis are some kind of innocent victims in this.
I don't doubt that some anti-fascists are unecessarily violent people. No political faction is 100% squeaky clean.

But that doesn't undermine the importance and value of anti-fascist solidarity.

I think it is incredibly misguided to ignore, tolerate or dismiss nazi and fascists groups organising and becoming active.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

Mostly fake hate crimes just like the ones following Trump's victory.

Diversity is code for white genocide, that is why it's only pushed on white majority countries. The kkk is irrelevant compared to what it was, it's not like you see them chasing down black men and lynching them anymore.

Why do you come here to debate with all of us if you're so set in your ways?

 

[Bagseed]

I am pretty sure that Ryan doesn't know what the word genocide means...

 

[consumer]

The KKK is basically non existant and has been for decades.

Standing up to racist gangs of bullies? Those people were doing nothing. It's laughable that you think a gay jew speaking to a few hundred people is a threat. Shows how fragile and weak the left is right now. Like I said, ISIS views people like you as allies. Congrats.

I would say Trump is doing a fantastic job of helping Isis's recruiting.

 

[consumer]

this is what it's come to. trump does it. you do it. droppers has started doing it. anything you don't like, just say it's fake and move on.

we've entered a post-truth age where integrity is no longer valued and that's a tragedy.

we used to be able to have a conversation - we differed but we respected each other's positions. now you (one) just claim everything you disagree with is fake. optional bonus points for calling your opponent a sjw or snowflake to their face at every opportunity (and a fag behind their backs for good measure).



alasdair

This is the problem with the right. Anything that goes against their beliefs and reported is suddenly fake. Just dismissed out of hand then alternative facts offered instead. Its quite surreal. You forgot cuck Ali...they love that. And triggered...libtards...

 

[spacejunk]

I would say Trump is doing a fantastic job of helping Isis's recruiting.

i think you're absolutely right.
all racism directed at muslim communities in western countries contributes to radicalisation of young muslims, and increases the risk of 'home grown' terrorism (such as american-born muslims, or american converts to islam engaging in acts of terrorism, especially when it is institutionalised and pushed hard by the president.

i imagine that this effect is likely to be greatly magnified by blatant government discrimination and denigration of islam and islamic people by the government.
institutionalising islamophobia is a great way to make this problem even worse.

so yeah, i think it's fair to say that trump is giving ISIS and similar islamists a massive leg-up by trying to ram this travel ban into law. i've given up trying to understand trump's (puppet masters') agenda here.

war, war and more war by the looks of it.

so much for trump not being a warmonger, eh?

 

[drug_mentor]

Now, for some reason we on "the left" are held to a higher standard than the right - but why is this?
What is wrong with suggesting people should do what they can to oppose and resist threats of violence or death from the far right?

To my mind, the left (and particularly antifa) are sometimes held to a higher standard because they have a tendency to moralise political discourse. This is obviously an overgeneralisation, but the left often have a focus on doing what they perceive to be morally correct or just, whereas the right (at least the elements of the right who antifa seem most opposed to, obviously anti abortionists and the like are very guilty of moralising political discourse) places a much greater focus on self-interest. I see this distinction being particularly relevant to debates about immigration and multiculturalism, which seems to be one of the main issues in which strong right-wing views tend to attract labels such as 'fascist' and 'nazi'. Of course, I am not claiming that one cannot make a pro multicultural argument on the basis of self-interest.

I think there is perhaps a perception that if one side wants to appeal to ethics they should confine their behaviour to ethically justifiable actions.

Personally, I don't hold either side to a different moral standard. Ethically indefensible behaviour is ethically indefensible, regardless of who performs it. As someone of a left-leaning political persuasion who thinks these ideals can easily be defended through rational discourse, there is probably some sense in which I find violent actions from leftist organisations more lamentable than the same from the right, but I do not view one as more worthy of condemnation than the other.

A question:
If you don't agree with nazi ideology - and a group of organised neo-nazis arrives in your community with the express aim of (violently) targeting their various "opponents" (as above - ethnic groups, people of non-heteronormative sexualities or genders, people who oppose fascism/racism politically), how would you suggest we oppose these groups?

How would anyone oppose extremists of this sort in a non-violent fashion?

I believe the role of civilian opposition should be to engage in reasoned criticism of pernicious ideologies in various public fora. There are some hardcore believers whose mind will never change, but the recruiting ability of these groups will be severely diminished when the logic of their ideology is constantly shown to be fallacious, and the leaders of said groups are demonstrated to be a bunch of fools who are incapable of adequately responding to their critics.

A major problem that I see with the tactics of antifa, and many on the left more generally, is it seems to me that by resorting to (often hyperbolic) character assassination of political opponents and other moralised attempts to prevent public promotion of (admittedly pernicious) ideologies, they are thereby missing opportunities to rationally demonstrate what is wrong with these ideas. And, to less politically savvy observers, it may not always be clear that one side actually has sound arguments on its side whilst the other doesn't; amidst all the yelling, name-calling and occasional violence, people on both political extremes can easily come across as mindless adherents of some vacuous, tribal disagreement.

I don't deny that many of the groups who either self-identify as fascist or nazi, or are otherwise identified as such by antifa, do have members who engage in violent behaviour. This is clearly unacceptable, but I do not view putative opponents of such violence resorting to similar tactics as rational or productive. Vigilantism is rarely ethically justifiable, in my view. Law enforcement agencies and the courts exist to deter and punish violent actions, and it is their role to deal with violent groups of any political persuasion, not the role of the concerned citizen.

When these sort of people are confronted early on (not necessarily violently) - the less committed will think twice about what they are participating in (which is inherently violent, lets not kid ourselves) - and everyone involved will realise that there may be a threat to themselves (be it physically or by other means - doxing being a powerful tool in contemporary anti-fascist campaigns.
Several of the contemporary Australian neo nazi groups have lost their jobs when their employers became aware of the sort of criminal mischief and threatening behavior that their workers were engaging in.

Do people think this is ok? Where do we draw the line on acceptable tactics for concerned citizens (i'm not talking about police or government) to stand up to terroristic behaviours?

Utilising violence and doxxing in order to make those you disagree with politically to "think twice about what they are participating in" sound like "terroristic behaviours" to me. Anyone who is familiar with my posts in this section should know that I vehemently oppose racism, and other forms of hatred and/or victimisation of human beings. Nonetheless, I do feel that in liberal societies people ought to be allowed to hold opinions which I personally find morally reprehensible. I think a society which endorsed behaviour which is performed with the intent of making peoples lives difficult, or otherwise marginalising them, simply because they hold opinions which have been deemed unacceptable would be a society which had eschewed the liberal values which make me glad to live in a country like Australia.

I also respectfully disagree that harbouring racist opinions is "inherently violent". I think that is a convenient narrative for those who support the more extreme elements of antifa, but personally, I think such sentiment presupposes a broader definition of violence than I think can be rationally defended.

Frankly, i don't think the 'opposition' are worth considering.
I read the shit our friends in the far right post here (and elsewhere) and i'm not out to win them over.

Standing up to fascism isn't a PR campaign.
At least not where i stand.

I think this is a problematic attitude. You have said that nazis are not rational, and for the most part I agree with this, but to say their views are 'not worth considering' essentially begs the question against their views; and I don't think this is particularly rational, either. If we don't "win over" the people who hold these misguided ideas, it is difficult to see how we could ever hope for these ideas to disappear. I think standing up to bad political ideas should be a PR campaign; we should be effectively communicating to the public why they are bad ideas, instead of just asserting that they are, and/or trying to intimidate people out of holding or expressing these views.

I should clarify that I am not trying to misrepresent your position as being against the kind of opposition that I am advocating here, but you asked posters how they think these ideologies should be opposed, and my position is that such opposition should be confined to the tactics which I have advocated in this post.

 

[Droppersneck]

I would say Trump is doing a fantastic job of helping Isis's recruiting.

Id say the last fifteen years of blowing up their countries did much more to recruit, than any common sense immigration orders trump has tried to pass.

 

[spacejunk]

I should clarify that I am not trying to misrepresent your position as being against the kind of opposition that I am advocating here, but you asked posters how they think these ideologies should be opposed, and my position is that such opposition should be confined to the tactics which I have advocated in this post.

right - fair enough.
(real nazis - not keyboard nazis or vocal reactionaries0
i asked a lot of questions in that tl;dr post, but one i'm curious to ask again in light of your reply, is - if you consider my position to be unreasonable or unjustifiable, how would you suggest political opponents of neo-nazi groups?

i don't mean in a theoretic sense, but in a practical, personal one. by that i mean - not "what should society do" to keep nazis from gaining political influence, numbers and the boldness and confidence that allows them to believe they can kill with impunity - but "what can politically active members of the community do?".
in other words, i'm not talking about theorising - i'm asking about tactics that could be used by resistance groups and activists.

i'm not talking about suppressing people's freedom of speech, or anything to do with the state or authorities, but politically pragmatic approaches that you would consider justifiable and non-problematic.

if we're excluding all forms of physical confrontation - presumably including non-violent direct action - how would you go about doing so?
i mean, if the situation with a particular group reached the stage where you felt compelled to get involved (bearing in mind that different people are prompted to be active for different reasons) - assuming that you would ever see a justification for personally getting involved in a campaign against a certain extremist political organisation.

 

[Jabberwocky]

People aren't saying 'protesters' should be killed, they're saying mob rioters should be killed if they are randomly attacking people who are doing nothing. That is justifiable homicide here.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

People aren't saying 'protesters' should be killed

ORLY?

 

[Yourbaker]

I don't think killing is really a fitting punishment but I'm in agreement with you regarding rioters. Property damage done willfully is not protest, it is property damage. The cost of repair, policing, court costs and punitive measures will be 3-4 times as much as the damage done. I'm a fan of community service/prison labour.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I am pretty sure that Ryan doesn't know what the word genocide means...

What do you think will eventually happen when white countries with low birth rates are flooded with non whites that have much higher birth rates? And who will these people and their kids all vote for?

 

[Bagseed]

Demographic change is not the same as genocide. Genocide is when a group of people intentionally kills another group of people to wipe them off the planet because they are seen as inferior.

So even if it were true that over time, no white people were left because of migration, which is crazy talk anyway, it still does not meet the definition of genocide.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If the goal is to reduce and replace the population, then that is genocide imo. Pretty much the same as stealth jihad. You see that happening in western europe. Swedes will become an ethnic minority in their own country. Many of them even celebrate it because they loathe themselves so much.

 

[spacejunk]

then that is genocide imo.

utter nonsense. dictionary definitions aren't a matter of opinion.

 

[swilow]

I'm not sure if you've been following the far-right fringe and the activity of neo-nazi groups in the last ~2 years in Australia, but there has been an emergence of a vaguely "home-grown" has been a rise in racist violence and racially-divisive political campaigns in the last several years.
If you sincerely believe that nazi groups don't pose a threat, i must respectfully disagree.

I don't follow far-right groups really though I am interested. I wouldn't consider myself active, so I don't have much awareness. Which, in some ways, kind of confirms my point, that these groups are not on the cusp of mainstream domination, or even anywhere close. They are, as you say, fringe groups. I have indeed noticed that they are increasing, but I think it is exagerration to consider them a real, dangerous threat that cannot be reasoned with, that can only be fought by vigilante groups in the community.

Now, for some reason we on "the left" are held to a higher standard than the right - but why is this?
What is wrong with suggesting people should do what they can to oppose and resist threats of violence or death from the far right?

Drug mentor gave a very good response to this. I don't want to echo him, but there is a validity to it.

However, I think that the left- well, me at least- tend to look at far right people and their behaviour and consider that something I am totally against. It is aggressive, irrational, unreasonable and violent. I think it is contradictory to then adopt the same behaviours in response.

I note with interest that my acceptance of physical resistance has been widely criticised in this thread - but the people saying protesters should be killed have not (exceptc, i think, by myself).
Why is this? Why do we tolerate, or accept as normal, people on the right talking about killing people?

It's a given. You've mentioned many times that you don't bother reasonign with these people. In this instance, what's the point in condemning something which is only typical and expected. Look at the torture poll we had here

On the other hand, it seem dissonant to be opposed to such people and yet espouse some shared methods.

A question:
If you don't agree with nazi ideology - and a group of organised neo-nazis arrives in your community with the express aim of (violently) targeting their various "opponents" (as above - ethnic groups, people of non-heteronormative sexualities or genders, people who oppose fascism/racism politically), how would you suggest we oppose these groups?

How would anyone oppose extremists of this sort in a non-violent fashion?

Ultimately, I'm not talking about non-violence. Acting in self-defence is acceptable. But I think that this is not the role of members of the community. Of course, defend yourself, but actually stopping violent people or whatever is really the job of the police.

If you knew me, swilow, you'd know that i am not a violent person.
I would like to meet you - but i get the impression you have some idea of me and my lust for blood that is totally inaccurate.

Spacejunk, I do not think you are a violent person, or bloodlustful or anything of the sort. I think you're an upstanding guy and I pretty much always read and agree with and learn shit from your posts. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not think its the right way of achieving this goal.

If you recall, my initial disagreement with your stance was based on the punch to that alt-right dude who's name slips my mind. That's the sort of violence that I think is cowardly and unacceptable; if someone did that to me, I would start swinging and that's the problem- violence never really stops. Only reason and logic, generated through open discussion, can disempwoer negative ideologies in a lasting way.

I don't appreciate being written of as "justifying violence by saying 'they did it first'" - that is not what i've been saying at all.

I am talking about protecting our communities from campaigns of terror (for want of a better, less baggage-laden term) and violence - which is what neo-nazi groups (the "serious" ones i'm referring to) as we understand them, use as a tactic.

I apologise if I offended you; it was certainly not my intent, I was a bit high and clumsy with words. I am not trying to insult you, but merely saying I disagree with your opinion in this matter.

As to the last bit of the quote, it is not your role to protect the community.

It surely doesn't require a great deal of imagination to guess what the next escalation - past assaults, threatening racist propaganda and arson/bombing attacks - tends to be.
If we wait until nazi groups are murdering their opponents before we confront them, in many way we are acting too late.

Slippery slope logic is not that convincing to me. There's really little logical basis for acting according to what you fear most will happen.

Frankly, i don't think the 'opposition' are worth considering.
I read the shit our friends in the far right post here (and elsewhere) and i'm not out to win them over.

Why not? That seems like an entirely worthwhile thing to try an do.

But, by opposition I meant all members of the community, such as myself who sit on the left, and who do not appreciate the tactics being used which ultimately end up maligning the left in a much broader way.

Of course i oppose violence - i hate violence. But as you yourself have stated, in some situations it is unfortunately inevitable.

Its never inevitable, but sometimes unavoidable.

Just because i strongly support anti-fascist action, does not mean i
a) seek out violence
b) glorify violence
c) advocate violence
or
d) promote violence.

I don't think any of this at all. I'm not sure how you got that impression.

I dunno, I'm not at all convinced that there really is the grave threat from actual Nazi's that you think, and given that, I don't think violence is really needed.