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.
"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.
He asked the king for power and the king always remained the head of state, indeed he was able to remove Mussolini from power when he wished to do so. For other violence worked wonders.
> Non-violence is a myth
Gandhi disagrees, among many others.
> All politics is violence
there is a very important line between violence and non-violence. there is bad and good on both sides of that line.
> 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.
On this we agree :)
> But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm.
To me the best way to decrease this risk by refusing compromises on violence. I do not think this is a problem that can be solved by (openly) adopting the methods of the enemy.
Look, you look like someone with a strong sense of justice, and I hope you will succeed in improving the world. I believe that my methods are more effective, but trying our best is the only thing we can do.
Still I would like to properly express my own stance: I will never condone initiating violence and I will never stop praising the unbounded power of non-violence and civil conversation. If I will ever have to discard this position one day then a good part of me will die with it.
This is my position, intrinsically I cannot prove it right and I do not demand of others to share, but it is how I decided to play this game. I understand the possibility that I might be wrong; we all need to take responsibility for our choices and this is mine.
I suspect that our dreams of a perfect society have more similarities than differences, I hope we can get there, together.