![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athousanderrorsvia http://ift.tt/2wIKfDo:
jewish-privilege:
brainstatic:
shellbucky:
imaginarycircus:
tresa-cho:
pervocracy:
brainstatic:
Stop saying “this is what they want” when people act violently against nazis. What they want is a debate. They want genocide to be something polite society can agree or disagree with. They want to be elevated to the general public discourse by having their ideas argued with. Violence is the exact opposite of what they want. Richard Spencer didn’t want to get punched in the face, he wanted good people to keep quiet, to respect his rights and let him calmly discuss white nationalism. Violence throws a wrench in all their plans. It shows them their carefully planned tactics to infiltrate mainstream discussion are utterly failing. Punching a nazi will get you in legal trouble but don’t let people tell you it’s what they want.
I’m pretty pacifist but this is the first nazi-punching discourse post that’s made me go “this this THIS.”
they want to normalise their rhetoric. punching them means it is NOT WORKING
And if you don’t feel comfortable punching them you can still disrupt them by screaming over them or playing Depeche Mode on the flaming bag pipes way too close to them.
Okay but just calling anyone that disagrees with you a “Nazi” SURPRISINGLY doesn’t make them a nazi and only destroys whatever argument you already didn’t have.
Here’s the argument.
If someone is walking down the street with a swastika on a flag, throwing up Nazi salutes, and shouting “Heebs will not divide us” and “blood and soil” (literally a Nazi slogan), then they’re a Nazi.
(Your picture was not posted)
jewish-privilege:
brainstatic:
shellbucky:
imaginarycircus:
tresa-cho:
pervocracy:
brainstatic:
Stop saying “this is what they want” when people act violently against nazis. What they want is a debate. They want genocide to be something polite society can agree or disagree with. They want to be elevated to the general public discourse by having their ideas argued with. Violence is the exact opposite of what they want. Richard Spencer didn’t want to get punched in the face, he wanted good people to keep quiet, to respect his rights and let him calmly discuss white nationalism. Violence throws a wrench in all their plans. It shows them their carefully planned tactics to infiltrate mainstream discussion are utterly failing. Punching a nazi will get you in legal trouble but don’t let people tell you it’s what they want.
I’m pretty pacifist but this is the first nazi-punching discourse post that’s made me go “this this THIS.”
they want to normalise their rhetoric. punching them means it is NOT WORKING
And if you don’t feel comfortable punching them you can still disrupt them by screaming over them or playing Depeche Mode on the flaming bag pipes way too close to them.
Okay but just calling anyone that disagrees with you a “Nazi” SURPRISINGLY doesn’t make them a nazi and only destroys whatever argument you already didn’t have.
Here’s the argument.
If someone is walking down the street with a swastika on a flag, throwing up Nazi salutes, and shouting “Heebs will not divide us” and “blood and soil” (literally a Nazi slogan), then they’re a Nazi.
(Your picture was not posted)
