Rafie Ollah Shouhed, 79, suffered multiple broken ribs, elbow injuries and a traumatic brain injury during the Sept. 9 incident, according to the federal tort claim filed by his attorneys.
According to his claim, when Shouhed attempted to show agents proof of his employees’ work authorization, agents “cursed at him” and “violently body-slammed him onto the pavement.” Three agents then allegedly pinned him down, with one placing a knee on his neck, the claim stated.
“You don’t f— with ICE. We are here,” agents responded, according to the claim.
I mean I shouldn’t need to cite it. Its literally history, and if you don’t know these things, maybe you shouldn’t be in this conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism
And that’s just one among hundreds or even thousands of other examples. Its practically all of history that agrees with what I’m suggesting: Effective resistance which begin early and use all tools at their disposal are more effective than ones which begin late and or arbitrarily hamstring the approaches they are willing to engage with. The very act of what you are doing now, this conversation we’re having, a version of this played out among the Weimar political parties.
The civil resistance took too long to take the threat of Nazism seriously and allowed themselves their opponents to dictate the terms of engagement until it was too late to be effective. Nazism in Germany could have been stopped, but too many liberals either didn’t take the threat seriously, or had the mistaken believe that the institutions of the republic would save them.
And
That doesn’t support your argument. If anything it undermines it. By not resisting earlier, and more fully and more directly, Jews and Communists became victims of the Nazis. If you wait too long to resist, the door closes. If you allow your opponents to become entrenched, you make civilian resistance untenable.
Come now, that’s a double standard. My examples are also litterally history.
You link a generic wikipedia article. That’s fine, but could you be a bit more specific? How does it support your position?
I think it does support my argument. Here you make an argument to resist early, which I agree with. Not to resist violently.
The fire of the Reichstag was blamed on a communist and the Nazi’s used it to their advantage. They used an emergency law to effectively get rid of the democracy.
The murder of Ernst vom Rath was used to vilify jews and stage the Kristallnacht.
These were acts of violence that the Nazi’s used to their advantage. Violence can backfire like that. Whether it was really their opponents doesn’t matter, what matters is that they can blame them. And if it really is their opponents, great. Then it’s easy to blame them.
And to clarify, I do think that a point can be reached that violence does become justified and the only option left. I just don’t think the US has reached that point quite yet.
Show me evidence where non-violent resistance has been effective at stopping regimes which have stopped believing in/ following their own rule of law.
And more broadly, my point is that if you wait until:
That use of violence will be utterly ineffective. Violence as a form of practical resistance needs to be on the table, from the beginning. This hand-wringing around the use of violence is an ineffectual liberal response.
You’re just here to argue, or because you like the sound of your own (ignorant) words.
Yeah, why be charitable. I’m obviously just a pretentious asshole because I seemingly disagree with everyone here.
How can you disagree with everyone here, if you’re not listening to them? You are drowning in your own “wisdom”…
Charity is fine for purely performative exercises, but it’s now to the point where these arguments and discussions have real bearing on people’s ability to live and survive. The basis of charity is that both parties must fundamentally agrees that the other side is human, and that is not the situation when discussing fascism or white nationalism.
The choice to not fight now is the choice to sacrifice people without the privilege of a racial, gender, or immigration status which is preferable to a white nationalist ethnostate. Maybe you have that privilege or maybe I have that privilege: but the difference between us is that I’m willing to sacrifice my privilege to fight for those who aren’t afforded the same courtesy a despicable fascist might afford me, simply based on their assumptions around my skin or gender identity.
You wanting to police the use of violence until it’s too late for that violence is something fascists are fully aware of, and which they have historically been able to manipulate to their advantage. If every time a fascist stuck their head up above the sand, it got cut off, there would be no basis for this conversation.
May I ask you what kind of violence you are already partaking in and condoning? Is it resistence to ICE, which I can sympathize with, or also stuff like the killing of Kirk? Because I think the latter is a really bad idea.
No, you may not. You should stick to the discussion at hand instead of trying to derail it into something it isn’t and deal with the obvious and substantial issues with the argument you’ve taken.