Something I’ve experienced traveling around the state is that there is a palpable fear of even letting your friends know you are a Democrat, or even in line with what Democratic politicians are doing. There’s vandalism that takes place here, and people are scared of that. Having your yard sign stolen or your flag taken down is one thing, but having your car keyed or trash left in your yard, that’s another. I know people who have been harassed after they are outed as a Democrat, and then people give them trouble. People hear those stories. They’re not fake. They’re not made up. I’ve seen and heard some really ugly language.

I’m not a Dem (I’m a Leftists), but this pretty much sums it up. The Right plays dirty. They aren’t bound by any sense of decency. I’d say the only way we can beat them is to respond with our own violence (which I, personally, detest). I don’t see us beating them because they don’t believe in rules of engagement. Sorry to be so demoralizing in this post.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Cooperative self-defense is certainly important and valuable. Similarly, appeasement fails to establish reasonable boundaries and/or enforce them adequately, and imo is harmful and counter-productive.

    That said, while Chamberlain was a little naive in how he presented things, he did buy time for Britain to militarize, which eventually helped win the Battle of Britain. I would argue that we have learned from history, which is why Europe is militarizing today and not trying to appease Putin, despite his best efforts at influencing western policies.

    In the case of domestic politics, in the US at least, we outnumber the crazies by a massive margin, and any outbreak of wide-scale violence would see the gravy seals utterly crushed. This is why they resort to propaganda and terrorism and shy away from outright conflict. Since propaganda and terrorism are their current methods of choice, we would not be defending ourselves if we were to instigate any violence, we would become aggressors instead.

    It’s a bit of a myth that the peaceful libs are weaklings that shy away from conflict, that’s actually a core message of far-right propaganda. We still occupy a position of great strength, and we need to keep that in mind as we play out the hand we’ve been dealt. If we can still win with the methods of Mr Rogers and mental health care, we have a responsibility to try very hard, and resist the fear that the far right tries so hard to instil.

    All that said, I never have settled on my own personal opinion on the principle of always punch a Nazi. I’m very much on the fence on that one, and I think it comes down to how effectively boundaries have been communicated before enforcement begins, which will unfortunately vary case-to-case. But if a person wants to learn how to fight in preparation for the potential for future violence, I suppose I ultimately have nothing against that.

    In the meantime though, we are very actively fighting an Information War. I think we should devote great resources to that, and feeling like we need to prepare for physical war, at the personal level, is still very premature, and will siphon attention and resources away from the actual battle in front of us at this very moment. This actually serves the purposes of the far right, since they are trying to win the Information War to prepare for more dire forms of conflict. It’s too soon to take any resources away from the battles of the ballot box, which are ultimately fought with words and technology instead of fists and weapons.

    Unless you live in Ukraine anyway.

    • Kyre@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is why I love this place. A very well-thought-out detailed response. I agree with you in most parts here but I do have, and I concede this could be irrational on my part, a fear of small-scale localized armed violence. It might not spread into something large but that doesn’t matter if you become the victim of it.

      All that said, I never have settled on my own personal opinion on the principle of always punch a Nazi. I’m very much on the fence on that one, and I think it comes down to how effectively boundaries have been communicated before enforcement begins, which will unfortunately vary case-to-case.

      I think the rhetoric/idea of “always punch a Nazi” was effective at putting societal pressure on keeping people from becoming “nazis” or at least suppressing outward expressions of hate (or at least hate we all agreed upon as being “bad”). You are right in that this is an information war but the problem with information wars is that people tend to defer to confirmation bias and actively seek out the answers that align with their existing ideology.

      Also, the Irony isn’t lost on me that we are having this discussion on a site that leans very liberal so we do have our echo chambers as well.