What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Well you'd think that, but you'd be wrong. Jacob has established that 1930s Germany is a model to follow when it comes to political culture.

[Syt]

I do believe you can decry violence from both sides and still firmly speak out against the nazis white supremacists dickwads scared losers racist scum "preservers of traditions" participating in far right wing rallies.

[garbon]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

[Tamas]

Protesting Nazis and yelling at them is fine and commendable. It is akin to societal pressure to signal the majority's disagreement and what is acceptable in the given society and what's not.

However, violence is simply wrong. If you need civilians beating up other civilians to keep your society "stable" then your society is already fucked.


Also, it is important to note that people who turn to violence are those who feel they have nothing left to lose. These are sometimes decent desperate people in failed states and dictatorships like Venezuela.
However, in a case like the US, there is simply no need for vigilante violence and if you endorse it you will contribute to the erosion of democracy.
Stand up against the radicals, yes. March and protest and show that they cannot bully you into obedience, and that decent people are the majority.
But if you endorse violence on people one disagrees with, then you are hardly better than they are.

[Tamas]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

I don't remember the last US elections that were decided by riots and army coups.

[The Brain]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

I don't remember the last US elections that were decided by riots and army coups.

Really? Trump can still think of nothing else.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

I don't remember the last US elections that were decided by riots and army coups.

I bet Grumbler does!

[Syt]

Looks like someone hacked Pence's website: http://www.officialmikepence.com/

[garbon]

Looks like someone hacked Pence's website: http://www.officialmikepence.com/

Parody site.

[garbon]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

I don't remember the last US elections that were decided by riots and army coups.

I don't recall us discussing violence against Nazis in the context of using said violence to steal an election nor anyone mentioning army coups.

[Syt]

Looks like someone hacked Pence's website: http://www.officialmikepence.com/

Parody site.

Aw.

[Tamas]

I don't agree with the false equivalency, but I think there is a fair point that the condoning of vigilantism in the service of stopping Nazis is a pretty dangerous road to go down.  Once you open the door to approving of non-Governmental actors being allowed to exercise violence, however noble the intentions, I think it will only serve to push people towards the extremes.  That's all terrorists, Nazis and other extremists want, the eroding of government and the rule of law so that they can be the "saviors" of a crumbling society.

Let's remember that sometimes the majority is wrong and the fringe unpopular minority is on the right side of history.  For example, half a century ago, it was the gays that were outed, with all the similar ostracism by "non-state actors".  If the tools you want to employ against the Nazis today would've worked just as well against gays in a homophobic society, they are probably too dangerous to deploy in a liberal society.

One issue I have with this is that it seems to lack awareness of (or rather deem unimportant) the role of violence in American history. After all, violence has been (and to a lesser extent still used) by white supremacists to successfully maintain their preferred structure in America. So I'm not sure to what extent we are in grave danger in making violence an acceptable option. It has been allowed as a defacto one since America's birth.

I don't remember the last US elections that were decided by riots and army coups.

I don't recall us discussing violence against Nazis in the context of using said violence to steal an election nor anyone mentioning army coups.

You just described violence as the cornerstone of American politics.

[garbon]

You just described violence as the cornerstone of American politics.

Perhaps you should read again what I said and then if you still take issue with it, come back with a more reasonable/relevant response.

[Tamas]

You just described violence as the cornerstone of American politics.

Perhaps you should read again what I said and then if you still take issue with it, come back with a more reasonable/relevant response.

I am not convinced that

a) the present political system in America is the preferred one of white supremacists
b) they maintain said system via violence
c) the solution to the above is for civilians to duke it out on the streets

[garbon]

I'm not advocating for violence but rather suggesting that its been a common tool throughout American history on the side of the right, so it isn't like violence at a protest can encourage that side to suddenly view that option as on the table. They never took it off.