zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
> I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities"

Take this as my personal possibly wrong opinion, but this kind hyperbolic phrasing is only going to hurt your cause.

The same as people defending "punch a nazi" slogans.

They will give your tribe influence, but also steadily decrease your chance at long term victory.

Honestly I cannot understand how many people (I don't care about sides) can believe in progress via violence, promoting violence, or extreme polarization.

I cannot change your minds, but sure I hope it were easier to have a moderate to moderate conversation.

>>afiori+Nk1
If you are faced with an opponent that wants you dead, anything is justified, up to and including violence. Violence indeed isn't always the best way to prevent the rise of fascism, but it should always be on the table as that is easily morally justifiable.

"moderate to moderate" conversation is enlightened centrism. If you are up against an enemy that will use political violence the only recourse you'll have eventually is to do so as well. The sad truth is that political violence is in some cases much more effective than we are led to believe - read up on the rise of Mussolini for examples amongst many.

I for one will not entertain the idea of passivity in the face of evil just in order to maintain some absurd ideal of non-violence. Non-violence is a myth, as violence is inherent to the operation of the current system. All politics is violence, the question is only abstraction, fascists understand this and are not afraid to use it when it is most effective, neither should anyone truly opposed to them.

I will say that as it is right now I don't think that antifascist except in some very limited edge cases, simply because we are not at a level where it would do more good than harm. But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm.