[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think it's pretty clear that we just completely disagree on principle. I just want to point out the specific positions you're taking that I think are wrong and dangerous.

But let me start with the parade of straw men.

Originally Posted by Itse

The vast majority of people injured were the anti-fascists, followed by the police and the fascists as a really distant third. This makes your argument essentially "they did not win because a lot of them got hurt while fighting the police who were trying to disperse them". What ever, the anti-fascists and history and philosophy in general disagrees with that kind of reductionist utilitarianism.

I didn't make anything resembling that argument. I don't care who won. When a demonstration turns violent, it's an automatic loss. And I don't care if they lived or are proud of what they did, either. I'm sure the vast majority of people involved this weekend are proud of what they did as well.

Also, you're seriously arguing that in Europe in 1936 Nazis marching through Jewish quarters were probably not up to anything? That there was absolutely nothing to worry about?

Again, feel free to quote me on where I said that. "Not up to anything"? They were provocatively promoting hatred against Jews by demonstrating, is what seems likely. That is deplorable. In Canada, it would now be illegal. Why do you insist on trying to argue against positions that no one has taken? This happens a lot with you.

The counter-protestors did not go out on a march against the Nazis. They gathered to stop Nazis from coming to a certain place at a certain time. Yes they were prepared for a fight, but that was simply practical because they knew a fight was coming if they tried to stop the Nazis. The counter-protestors were protecting an area, not "turning it into a war zone".

Read this again. You can't possibly have convinced yourself that this makes sense. They knew that if they did what they did, it was likely to turn an event that was a bunch of awful excuses for human beings marching for a destestable cause where no one would be injured, into a violent encounter that would hurt people. That is what I am objecting to. You can try to characterize that as "protecting a space", but that's disingenuous. They sought a confrontation.

The police turned those marches into an all out fight when they tried to violently get the anti-fascists to disperse. Instead of backing down against police violence the anti-fascists fought back. Yes, a lot of them got hurt, but to argue that they were in the wrong because the got hurt for fighting for what the believe in is pretty bonkers.

Fighting police, who are attempting to allow a lawful demonstration to happen, is not noble. Ever. Even if the demonstration is awful. This, I think, is the crux of our difference in philosophy. You seem to think that violence is a defensible tactic where you believe strongly enough in the cause you're fighting for. Well, they believe in their nonsense pretty strongly too, and they have all the guns.

Let's remember the anti-fascists had a right to their protest too. In the face of two opposing groups of protesters, the Metropolitan police unambiguously sided with the Nazi white guys against the local Jews protected by a large gathering of mostly communists and ethnic minorities.

The state is required to be completely neutral as to the content of the speech in question, especially when applying state force. The anti-fascists certainly had a right to protest, so long as that protest does not infringe on the right of the people they don't like to exercise their own speech. This seems to have been less of a protest than an instance of "we don't like what you have to say, so we're going to fight you".

So, they should not oppose Nazis because Nazis are armed and dangerous and they might get hurt? I take it you still think Lord Halifax war right and Churchill was wrong in May 1940? Just think of all the lives that could have been saved.

This is a really dumb analogy. We're not talking about international war. I'm saying that if you want a race war, if you want there to be actual full out fighting in the streets, well, that's certainly on the table right now. We're surely heading that way. But again, the other side has all the guns, so I think I know who's going to take the worst of that. Is that the result you're hoping for here?

Good luck with trying to solve an ideological conflict with Nazis with free speech.

You have two options here; conversation, or killing people whose views you don't like before they can kill you. There is almost no scenario where I will pick the latter, when given that choice. Again, it appears we differ in that view.

Really, all I'm getting from your posts is that it's okay for you, or people who think like you, to do violence to your opponents, because you're right. That is a very dangerous way to look at politics. And as I noted above, apparently exactly the same way Richard Spencer sees things, only from the other side of the battle lines.