Comment on British Charlie Kirk wannabe beaten up debating people in Manchester
echodot@feddit.uk 3 days agoBut it’s back to the arguement about the paradox of tolerance. If you don’t beat these people they’ll keep doing it. Given that they’re calling for the lies of others to be destroyed inaction is not really an option.
Someone’s going to suffer either way, might as well be the little skid mark that’s causing the problem to begin with.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
The “paradox of tolerance” implies that you need constitutional guarantees against threats to democracy, not that you can go around beating people up for being anti-immigrant loudmouth prick.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don’t go far enough so you’re going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
It also plays into the fascists’ desire for violence. It’s wrong morally, legally and practically.
All of this is true, and this guy is still a shitstain who ought to shut up.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Your naivety is profound. The law is defined by the victors who subsequently imbue in law, the rights and privileges they fought for with violence. But that happens after the fact. The Nazis were not defeated because we went “no you can’t do that, look at this law here”, they were defeated by shooting them with bullets until they gave up. In Germany it’s illegal to be a Nazi, and yet they’re coming back, so clearly the law itself is not enough, it must be enforced by someone.
Labour are clearly not going to do it, so what do you recommend?
Actually this is incorrect. They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it. If they knew they would get attacked every time they stuck their heads up above the parapet, we wouldn’t hear from them any more. They want it all their own way, they want to be able to attack people and set fire to buildings with impunity, they cannot tolerate even the most mild of pushbacks. In this guy’s case I suspect we won’t hear as much from him. Yes he’s got his footage of being attacked, which I’m sure he’ll whine him out online for a while, but I also suspect that he won’t be pulling stunts like that again.
Morality is your own judgement it’s not that absolute that you can point to so this comment is meaningless. It’s definitely illegal, I’m not sure if that makes a difference though since the law isn’t being enforced so what the law says is also meaningless. Practically I think I’ve explained why it’s actually worked, the skid mark has been scared off. I know he’s threatened to come back with a bunch of lads but I doubt he will. They’re still going to be far more of us than there is of them.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
I missed the part where all the Nazis did was debate people. I thought they also did some worse things, which maybe the principles I outlined above would permit. Maybe they did some things which are already illegal under UK law.
The communists tried street violence in nazi Germany and the Nazis absolutely did take it. Why are Farage, Lowe and the rest of them all so rabid about the prospect of civil war?
echodot@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Right so those riots the other day you didn’t see that? These people are not only debating.
I don’t know what your goal is but it isn’t working here, just give it up.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Naivety == morality. Get out of here with that bullshit.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
Weak response.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Weak stance in general.