Police Responded to Protests Against Police Violence With Even More Wantonly Brutal Violence

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Sides" is the problem though. You (legitimately) condemn police violence but ignore all the protester violence, implying that neutrality or silence is complicity in that violence. Some people do the exact opposite, condemning the protester violence and implying silence as complicity. You're all right and wrong at the same time. Until you're capable of recognising that, you're just going to keep on beating each other up for being violent.

I'm perfectly capable of condemning violence regardless of who is doing it. I wouldn't do it on the streets of America though because it would probably get me killed.

What protester violence? Violence against inanimate objects like buildings or throwing some bottles and rocks at heavily armored cops and military? Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize just to make some fencesitter who can't see the clear moral boundaries being decimated as the State goes to war against its own citizens feel comfortable. It's equivalent to being offended when a Nazi gets punched. The two things are not on the same level at all.

 

[Mindmaster]

American police is showing itself to be as criminal and violent as the American Army. There seems to be something about both institutions that erases people's individual thought and turns them into unempathetic psychopaths.

As soon as your agenda becomes more important than the safety and well-being of those around you, your agenda is worthless... And, I completely agree with your comment here.

There is no inherent to group-think and it's always lead to humanities stupidest moments.

 

[Kenny]

I.

What happened to George Floyd was senseless. The policemen that did nothing there was wrong. I support the prosecuting of these acts

I support the peaceful demonstrations.
I support what Martin Luther King Jr did and what he said:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Therefore I equally am against the senseless destruction of property. The attack on a newsman by a mob as well as the arrest of the newsman by the police. The hit and run of an innocent policeman as well as the police plowing through the crowd instead of backing up. The rampant looting of businesses of innocent people.

IMV, the answer still is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus that can change hearts.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

IMV, the answer still is the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus that can change hearts.

Maybe. But there needs to be more. We need effective leadership, who relies on experts as part of decision making, humble and critical thinking.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What protester violence? Violence against inanimate objects like buildings or throwing some bottles and rocks at heavily armored cops and military? Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize just to make some fencesitter who can't see the clear moral boundaries being decimated as the State goes to war against its own citizens feel comfortable. It's equivalent to being offended when a Nazi gets punched. The two things are not on the same level at all.

Not an American, but my two cents, being from a country where protesting is a thing, regarding the miscreants causing damage. The problem with causing destruction is that often the bystanders are caught in the crossfire. A regular man just trying to make a living can get beaten and his life's work or property could be damage. Even if the government buildings get attacked, that is an act of violence and retaliation through force is justified as it would be self defense. So people who cause destruction shouldn't start crying when the police fire ammunition at them. They would have brought it on themselves.

There is never ever a reason to initiate violence to prove a point, unless it is a point involving combat, as it doesn't prove the point at all. It only hardens the heart of your enemies and everybody else and makes them think worst of you.

A Nazi should only get punched in the face if he is attacking you. If he isn't, and you want to change his mind, reason with him, as a punch in the face just begets more violence.

Bottom line, if you need to use violence to make your point, then your point is probably not a good one in the first place.

 

[Kenny]

Maybe. But there needs to be more. We need effective leadership, who relies on experts as part of decision making, humble and critical thinking.

The two are not contrary to each other. We do need good leadership.

I just know that you can't legislate a changed heart.. it is a spiritual need.

 

[HonestJoe]

What protester violence? Violence against inanimate objects like buildings or throwing some bottles and rocks at heavily armored cops and military?

Smashing up and burning buildings isn't as bad as attacking people but it should still be condemned, as should assaulting people, even when those people are in uniform. I was actually thinking about things like the arson attacks on occupied buildings and vehicles or all of the assaults on innocent people for trying to defend their homes and businesses though.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Smashing up and burning buildings isn't as bad as attacking people but it should still be condemned, as should assaulting people, even when those people are in uniform. I was actually thinking about things like the arson attacks on occupied buildings and vehicles or all of the assaults on innocent people for trying to defend their homes and businesses though.

Just so you know, it's been documented that it's mostly white saboteurs posing as protesters inciting riots throughout the country. Almost every protest has seen this happen. They've been confronted by black and brown people over it at almost every turn.

 

[gnomon]

Not an American, but my two cents, being from a country where protesting is a thing, regarding the miscreants causing damage. The problem with causing destruction is that often the bystanders are caught in the crossfire. A regular man just trying to make a living can get beaten and his life's work or property could be damage. Even if the government buildings get attacked, that is an act of violence and retaliation through force is justified as it would be self defense. So people who cause destruction shouldn't start crying when the police fire ammunition at them. They would have brought it on themselves.

There is never ever a reason to initiate violence to prove a point, unless it is a point involving combat, as it doesn't prove the point at all. It only hardens the heart of your enemies and everybody else and makes them think worst of you.

A Nazi should only get punched in the face if he is attacking you. If he isn't, and you want to change his mind, reason with him, as a punch in the face just begets more violence.

Bottom line, if you need to use violence to make your point, then your point is probably not a good one in the first place.

Thank you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not an American, but my two cents, being from a country where protesting is a thing, regarding the miscreants causing damage. The problem with causing destruction is that often the bystanders are caught in the crossfire. A regular man just trying to make a living can get beaten and his life's work or property could be damage. Even if the government buildings get attacked, that is an act of violence and retaliation through force is justified as it would be self defense. So people who cause destruction shouldn't start crying when the police fire ammunition at them. They would have brought it on themselves.

There is never ever a reason to initiate violence to prove a point, unless it is a point involving combat, as it doesn't prove the point at all. It only hardens the heart of your enemies and everybody else and makes them think worst of you.

A Nazi should only get punched in the face if he is attacking you. If he isn't, and you want to change his mind, reason with him, as a punch in the face just begets more violence.

Bottom line, if you need to use violence to make your point, then your point is probably not a good one in the first place.

We didn't initiate the violence. This has been simmering for decades and centuries as poor people and minority communities across the nation have been the victim of unwarranted police violence in the name of a system of institutional oppression. We have protested peacefully for years. They just ignore it. But then they want to get angry when some buildings burn down, windows are smashed and stores are looted. Anyone could guess that this would happen when people's voices aren't heard and suppressed for so long. People will only take so much before the frustration builds and they act out. This is simple human psychology. I find it telling that some are more concerned over property damage and looting over the value of human lives and their destruction. You can rebuild a building and restock a store but you cannot replace a human being.

Also, 40 million Americans lost their jobs in just a couple of months. The economy collapsed. We were made to sit at home for a couple of months. So that is adding to the anger.

America is also a highly consumerist society where we're brainwashed from birth to want consumer goods. But the poor are denied access to that through capitalist economic injustice. The middle class is being decimated and more and more people are falling into poverty each year. So some people view the looting as a form of economic justice. We know that the class you're born in is the class you're likely to remain for the rest of your life. Most rich people in America (like Trump) were born rich and inherited their wealth. If you're born with nothing, you're most likely to die with nothing. The disparity is even worse according to ethnicity.

As for punching Nazis, I'm not going to cry about a person getting hit or beaten for supporting an evil ideology that seeks the genocide or enslavement of racial groups and disabled people. So if you flash a Heil Hitler salute and get a fist in the face for it, that's on you. We sure didn't have a problem using violence against Nazis and Fascists during WWII, and then forcing Germans through an extensive de-Nazification program after the war. But now people want to feel bad for a neo-Nazi getting punched out in the street? Give me a break. White supremacists have murdered hundreds around the world in just a few years in mass shootings and bombings, and are constantly trying to instigate a race war. **** 'em.

No one wants to be dehumanized or treated as "other" due to attributes they have no control over. Punching out Nazis can be seen as a declaration of your humanity and that you refuse to be seen as lesser. The Nazis can change their ideology at any time (and many or most ultimately do end up leaving the movement). So if Nazis don't want to be punched, then don't be a Nazi. They should know how much they're hated by now. You also can't reason people out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place. I've spoken to and debated with many neo-Nazis. They're not rational people.

Now, mind you, I don't assault people or partake in looting or whatever. I helped stop that sort of stuff at a protest. But you and others should consider why people do it in some cases.

"Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?

It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity.

And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." - MLK

 

[Samael_Khan]

We didn't initiate the violence. This has been simmering for decades and centuries as poor people and minority communities across the nation have been the victim of unwarranted police violence in the name of a system of institutional oppression. We have protested peacefully for years. They just ignore it. But then they want to get angry when some buildings burn down, windows are smashed and stores are looted. Anyone could guess that this would happen when people's voices aren't heard and suppressed for so long. People will only take so much before the frustration builds and they act out. This is simple human psychology. I find it telling that some are more concerned over property damage and looting over the value of human lives and their destruction. You can rebuild a building and restock a store but you cannot replace a human being.

Also, 40 million Americans lost their jobs in just a couple of months. The economy collapsed. We were made to sit at home for a couple of months. So that is adding to the anger.

America is also a highly consumerist society where we're brainwashed from birth to want consumer goods. But the poor are denied access to that through capitalist economic injustice. The middle class is being decimated and more and more people are falling into poverty each year. So some people view the looting as a form of economic justice. We know that the class you're born in is the class you're likely to remain for the rest of your life. Most rich people in America (like Trump) were born rich and inherited their wealth. If you're born with nothing, you're most likely to die with nothing. The disparity is even worse according to ethnicity.

As for punching Nazis, I'm not going to cry about a person getting hit or beaten for supporting an evil ideology that seeks the genocide or enslavement of racial groups and disabled people. So if you flash a Heil Hitler salute and get a fist in the face for it, that's on you. We sure didn't have a problem using violence against Nazis and Fascists during WWII, and then forcing Germans through an extensive de-Nazification program after the war. But now people want to feel bad for a neo-Nazi getting punched out in the street? Give me a break. White supremacists have murdered hundreds around the world in just a few years in mass shootings and bombings, and are constantly trying to instigate a race war. **** 'em.

No one wants to be dehumanized or treated as "other" due to attributes they have no control over. Punching out Nazis can be seen as a declaration of your humanity and that you refuse to be seen as lesser. The Nazis can change their ideology at any time (and many or most ultimately do end up leaving the movement). So if Nazis don't want to be punched, then don't be a Nazi. They should know how much they're hated by now. You also can't reason people out of something they weren't reasoned into in the first place. I've spoken to and debated with many neo-Nazis. They're not rational people.

Now, mind you, I don't assault people or partake in looting or whatever. I helped stop that sort of stuff at a protest. But you and others should consider why people do it in some cases.

"Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?

It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity.

And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." - MLK

Certainly, I understand the frustration. Here in South Africa we had a similar scenario in which the death of a boy lead to heavy unrest and that unrest forced the Apartheid government to step down. The frustration causes pent up anger and gets unleashed.

I have a problem with your first statement: "We didn't initiate the violence". That is only true if the people who you are attacking are the people who actually did harm to you. If you are destroying the property of people who did nothing to you, such as destroying cars in which people spent hard earned money on, then you are the criminal who initiated violence and you deserve to be punished.

By the way how can you use the economic excuse if there have been people who are poor who have made a name for themselves and have become rich? How can even the racism card be played when there are minorities who are also rich and famous? Here in South Africa, where there was institutionalised racism, the oppressed were not allowed to achieve anything of such a magnitude. Black people and coloured people were literally limited to the jobs they could attain. I don't see that in America.

The problem isn't that people are born at a disadvantage, because that just means that they have to work harder to get to a certain level. One big problem, which is the governments fault, is that people aren't educated, so they do not have the imagination or the hope to make something of themselves. Plus there is the drug, gang and parental problems which are common in poor communities.

I understand it is human psychology, but it is the psychology of the simple minded and the uneducated.

A person can support any ideology they want and that is called freedom of thought. It would be unjust of you to punch him in the face and more effective for you to reason with such a person, in the same way that this awesome guy does:

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia

There was no problem attacking the Nazi's because the Nazi's were attacking people first. It wasn't like the Nazi's were just speaking about National Socialism and doing nothing. Germany invaded Poland which initiated the war as it was an act of aggression. They were building up massive navies and annexing other countries so their ideas weren't just ideas but developed into actions. And then the war got out of hand with even America committing what could be seen as war crimes, such as firebombing Japan first and then dropping nuclear bombs.

I also see you using the logical fallacy of generalisation which is a big problem. I highly doubt that all white nationalists have done an act of violence, but I do agree that the ones who have should be put down. If you resort to generalising then that is lazy thinking on your part and you aren't taking the situation seriously enough.

On the bright side, there have been successful deconversions of Neo Nazi's through peaceful means. You might find the below link interesting:

neo-nazi Archives - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

I do agree with you though that riots are an expression of something. It is a consequence of oppression. Governments likewise shouldn't be surprised when people protest against them. But, I also do not think that the grand majority of protesters destroy other peoples property and I do think that those who do on the most part are taking advantage of the situation. But just because I can understand why they do something doesn't mean that I don't agree with them being punished for their crimes.

 

[Tambourine]

Is property more important than human lives? It appears to me that some people are more outraged by the shop windows that are being smashed, than the lives of people put on the line by police violence.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Is property more important than human lives? It appears to me that some people are more outraged by the shop windows that are being smashed, than the lives of people put on the line by police violence.

That is a Strawman. These points:

a. Nobody said that property is more important than human lives

b. Destroying property does not contribute to less police violence

c. Destroying property contaminates the message making observers think less of the protesters and makes protesters look like hooligans, thus destroying the integrity of the protest.

d. It creates sympathy for the people they are protesting against.

e. Destroying property is a crime which justifies retaliation and hardens the heart of the enemy, begetting more violence.

f. Destroying property does not change the minds of the enemy.

g. Destroying property targets people who are not your enemy and potentially destroys the lives of innocents who might have come from a similar poor background and are actually trying to better their lot in life. The innocent are the ones who suffer, not the government.

h. The media probably focuses more on the violence than the message.

And I could elaborate more.

Destroying property doesn't contribute the fight at all. People will be lucky if any good comes out of this. It even serves as a distraction from the actual point (which is why I suspect that the violence might be attributed to outside influence). It just isn't a strategically useful way of going about things.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Just so you know, it's been documented that it's mostly white saboteurs posing as protesters inciting riots throughout the country. Almost every protest has seen this happen. They've been confronted by black and brown people over it at almost every turn.

I knew it was saboteurs. I suspect the same thing happens in protests in my country.

 

[Harel13]

What protester violence? Violence against inanimate objects like buildings or throwing some bottles and rocks at heavily armored cops and military?

Oh, is that legal now? Good to know.

 

[Tambourine]

@Israel Khan For the sake of clarity, I am breaking up your points so I can respond to each of them separately (and in case this debate goes on, so I can organize my thoughts to further address your arguments.). Please do not take this as me being snippy or aggressive.

That is a Strawman. These points:

a. Nobody said that property is more important than human lives

Nobody explicitly said it, but public displays of outrage for private property being damaged, but not for human people being damaged, speak louder than words.

And while this forum may be unusually supportive of the protests against police violence, other portions of the Internet (and particularly American right-wing sites) are not.

b. Destroying property does not contribute to less police violence

I never said it does. I just find the focus on property damage (both in part of the media and on part of individuals on the internet) excessive and wrongheaded (but not surprising, given the ethical priorities of capitalist society).

c. Destroying property contaminates the message making observers think less of the protesters and makes protesters look like hooligans, thus destroying the integrity of the protest.

That's a remarkable argument, considering that you just argued that nobody thought property was more important than human lives. If that was true, then damaged property would not make people more inclined to support excessive police violence.

But fact is that among the people who support the kind of excessive police aggression currently going down in US urban spaces, a significant portion are justifying their support for state brutality with their concern over property damage and "looting", which as far as I can tell has become a shorthand for racial violence in the US.

d. It creates sympathy for the people they are protesting against.

See above.

e. Destroying property is a crime which justifies retaliation and hardens the heart of the enemy, begetting more violence.

What relaliation would this crime justify, pray tell? Are you saying that property damage justifies damage against human lives? If so, isn't that the exact opposite you tried to argue in #1 and #2 of your list? Or are you arguments not supposed to be related or contextualized in that way?

f. Destroying property does not change the minds of the enemy.

As far as I can tell, large part of the "property damage" a particular section of pepple are concerned with is symbolic violence against specific symbols of racism or state oppression (such as the toppling of Confederate monuments, or the torching of one Minneapolis police station).

A comparatively minor part that these same people (and the mainstream media, which, as we know, initially covered the protests with the explicit intent to transport a pro-police message) tend to focus on is arguably either self-directed anger by small groups of individuals, or a misdirection fuelled by the social dynamics and the lack of leadership among the protesters. There have been plenty of recorded incidences where crowds have reacted negatively or with outright hostility against calls to destruction, when that destruction was not directed against objects seen as symbolically legitimate (as mentioned above).

g. Destroying property targets people who are not your enemy and potentially destroys the lives of innocents who might have come from a similar poor background and are actually trying to better their lot in life. The innocent are the ones who suffer, not the government.

The police is currently targetting the lives of innocents, but that is not seen as an intrinsic problem with the role of police forces as an armed agent of the government. Why is the police held by a higher standard here? One could at least give a cogent argument that their choice to escalate to mass violence was contributing to the violence of the situation.

h. The media probably focuses more on the violence than the message.

And if it's the excessive violence inflicted by a rampant and out-of-control police force, it is absolutely the media's duty to focus on that.

And I could elaborate more.

Please do. So far, I find some points either incoherent or not entirely clear in the context of your larger argument.

 

[Tambourine]

I also see you using the logical fallacy of generalisation which is a big problem. I highly doubt that all white nationalists have done an act of violence, but I do agree that the ones who have should be put down. If you resort to generalising then that is lazy thinking on your part and you aren't taking the situation seriously enough.

I think it is rather a danger to assume benevolence on part of white supremacists. Conflict and war are an intrinsic part of white supremacist thinking. These people think of modern day life as an ongoing "race war", and any form of friendship or commonality between white people and people of color as "white genocide".

You should read peaceful behavior on their part as a recognition of their own weakness in the face of opposition, not as benevolence or a readiness to engage in honest and open dialogue with people on the opposite side of their worldview.

The exact point where they employ violence is when they feel they are in a position of strength to begin with. There is a reason why Nazis predominantly target minority groups, and only show up in public when they have large group and a sympathetic police force at their back.

On the bright side, there have been successful deconversions of Neo Nazi's through peaceful means. You might find the below link interesting:

neo-nazi Archives - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

I do agree with you though that riots are an expression of something. It is a consequence of oppression. Governments likewise shouldn't be surprised when people protest against them. But, I also do not think that the grand majority of protesters destroy other peoples property and I do think that those who do on the most part are taking advantage of the situation. But just because I can understand why they do something doesn't mean that I don't agree with them being punished for their crimes.

While this take is not wrong, I think it is a bit of a mistake to focus on individual Neonazis exclusively, especially as a counterargument to protective or proactive violence against violent Neonazi groups.

A large part of successful anti-Nazi work (by Antifa groups, no less) has been in focused community work and youth support work, i.e. in prevention programmes that lessen the danger of people becoming Nazis in the first place, rather than in "deprogramming" longtime Neonazis.

And even in the latter case, it is rarely an "either or" question, as in many cases those individuals needed to undergo some kind of uncertainty or crisis of conscience before they would even consider that kind of treatment in the first place, often after serving prison sentences or facing other kind of (sometimes violent) setbacks as Neonazis.

 

[Samael_Khan]

@Israel Khan For the sake of clarity, I am breaking up your points so I can respond to each of them separately (and in case this debate goes on, so I can organize my thoughts to further address your arguments.). Please do not take this as me being snippy or aggressive.

Haha! This came across as aggressive because of the italics! But I do the same so no worries.

@Israel KhanNobody explicitly said it, but public displays of outrage for private property being damaged, but not for human people being damaged, speak louder than words.

Then that argument should be used on a case by case basis depending on who the discussion is with.

@Israel KhanI never said it does. I just find the focus on property damage (both in part of the media and on part of individuals on the internet) excessive and wrongheaded (but not surprising, given the ethical priorities of capitalist society).

I never said you did. Those points were just a summary of what the negative consequences of property damage is. I agree with the rest to an extent but this is one reason why I am against the property damage because it lets others use it as a distraction.

@Israel KhanThat's a remarkable argument, considering that you just argued that nobody thought property was more important than human lives. If that was true, then damaged property would not make people more inclined to support excessive police violence.

But fact is that among the people who support the kind of excessive police aggression currently going down in US urban spaces, a significant portion are justifying their support for state brutality with their concern over property damage and "looting", which as far as I can tell has become a shorthand for racial violence in the US.

I should have clarified as my context was about what people said on this thread. I am not saying that nobody in the world thought that property damage is more important than lives just that nobody who posted on this thread, and certainly not I, have said that property is more important than human lives. I do think there is a connection though since someone whose corner shop gets destroyed certainly has their lives affected.

@Israel KhanWhat relaliation would this crime justify, pray tell? Are you saying that property damage justifies damage against human lives? If so, isn't that the exact opposite you tried to argue in #1 and #2 of your list? Or are you arguments not supposed to be related or contextualized in that way?

Not in the context we are speaking. I assume that when you are speaking about human lives you are talking about unjust police brutality and killing and not self defense, which is the point of the protest. Property damage isn't just property damage, it also damages the the lives of the people who own it depending on what is destroyed. Property damage is a crime, and the people who commit crimes justifies them being arrested or their own property destroyed.

@Israel KhanAs far as I can tell, large part of the "property damage" a particular section of pepple are concerned with is symbolic violence against specific symbols of racism or state oppression (such as the toppling of Confederate monuments, or the torching of one Minneapolis police station).

Yeah, that is bad. Torching a police station might set off ammunition and cause an explosion? Do they store weapons there? What about if there was an actual officer inside who didn't condone police brutality?

@Israel KhanA comparatively minor part that these same people (and the mainstream media, which, as we know, initially covered the protests with the explicit intent to transport a pro-police message) tend to focus on is arguably either self-directed anger by small groups of individuals, or a misdirection fuelled by the social dynamics and the lack of leadership among the protesters. There have been plenty of recorded incidences where crowds have reacted negatively or with outright hostility against calls to destruction, when that destruction was not directed against objects seen as symbolically legitimate (as mentioned above).

Yeah, and I support the people who protest peacefully and speak out against the destruction.

@Israel KhanThe police is currently targetting the lives of innocents, but that is not seen as an intrinsic problem with the role of police forces as an armed agent of the government. Why is the police held by a higher standard here? One could at least give a cogent argument that their choice to escalate to mass violence was contributing to the violence of the situation.

Not my argument as I do not support police brutality against innocents. And you are generalising as you have to prove that all police target the lives of innocents. "Some police" might be the better term to use. Another blanket statement. Violence begets more violence unless the enemy is completely wiped out. That is a cause and effect. So yes, their violence would beget more violence. But if it is self defense then they have the right. If it isn't self defense then they do not have the right.

@Israel KhanAnd if it's the excessive violence inflicted by a rampant and out-of-control police force, it is absolutely the media's duty to focus on that.

Another blanket statement. The media definitely should focus on the police officers who use excessive violence. They should also condemn the protesters causing damage. Your view is too narrow here. It isn't one or the other. Those who commit unjust acts should be condemned no matter what side they are on.

@Israel KhanPlease do. So far, I find some points either incoherent or not entirely clear in the context of your larger argument.

Yeah. I hope I clarified them my position further by answering your questions, as other points have been brought out. I do think there was a context miscommunication.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think it is rather a danger to assume benevolence on part of white supremacists. Conflict and war are an intrinsic part of white supremacist thinking. These people think of modern day life as an ongoing "race war", and any form of friendship or commonality between white people and people of color as "white genocide".

I also think it is dangerous to assume benevolence on their part, but I think that it would be wrong to attack them if they aren't committing a crime. Attack their ideology rather through discussion. Ideas can only be changed by changing mind.

You should read peaceful behavior on their part as a recognition of their own weakness in the face of opposition, not as benevolence or a readiness to engage in honest and open dialogue with people on the opposite side of their worldview.

One shouldn't assume things about other line of thinking and I am no way saying that it is benevolence on their part. I am not assuming such. But I repeat: ideas only change through discussion.

The exact point where they employ violence is when they feel they are in a position of strength to begin with. There is a reason why Nazis predominantly target minority groups, and only show up in public when they have large group and a sympathetic police force at their back.

Yes, that is a possibility, but violence should only be used against them when they commit acts of violence.

While this take is not wrong, I think it is a bit of a mistake to focus on individual Neonazis exclusively, especially as a counterargument to protective or proactive violence against violent Neonazi groups.

The individual Neo Nazi does show that one cannot make blanket statements about them. They are indoctrinated, and even though those indoctrinated have common expressions of their ideaologies among themselves, cognitive dissonance does most likely affects them as it does to many people indoctrinated.

A large part of successful anti-Nazi work (by Antifa groups, no less) has been in focused community work and youth support work, i.e. in prevention programmes that lessen the danger of people becoming Nazis in the first place, rather than in "deprogramming" longtime Neonazis.

Which is good and a method I like. They are educating people. I have heard a about Antifa themselves committing violent acts. Is there truth to this?

And even in the latter case, it is rarely an "either or" question, as in many cases those individuals needed to undergo some kind of uncertainty or crisis of conscience before they would even consider that kind of treatment in the first place, often after serving prison sentences or facing other kind of (sometimes violent) setbacks as Neonazis.

Yeah, which is how cult members usually start questioning their group and end up leaving.

 

[Tambourine]

I also think it is dangerous to assume benevolence on their part, but I think that it would be wrong to attack them if they aren't committing a crime. Attack their ideology rather through discussion. Ideas can only be changed by changing mind.

One shouldn't assume things about other line of thinking and I am no way saying that it is benevolence on their part. I am not assuming such. But I repeat: ideas only change through discussion.

I strongly disagree.