Papa state said it first- those are dangerous thoughts, better not thought.
Read something valuable, like Jules Verne, who would never educate you too make Nitro Glycerin.
Or read a good comp-science book, instead of learning how to craft a virus.
S/he who can engineer a building, can tear it down- deal with it. And by virtue of reading, anyone can do that- and this is only going to get worser.
Any teenager tomorrow will be able to crisper up a plastic eating bacteria, turning any journalists notebook to black goo under there fingertips. If only those teenagers had some perspective, something to loose, some dream to be held hostage- you could actually prevent this.
But doctoring at the symptoms- its so much easier. The other thing- that is almost work.
To teach everyone how to craft a china masterpiece of art- that is a nightmare, to declare playing soccer illegal, that is doable.
I wish there was a refund on wasted time on propaganda.
I read the Jolly Roger's Cookbook (and many other BBS text files) as a teenager and used it to make thermite with my chemistry teacher in the 10th grade. And reading Phrack and old virus magazines like 40HEX did more to engender intellectual curiosity than any of my teachers and provided a solid foundation of low-level programming skills. I'm not sure how you'd weigh the net impact on the world of this kind of information being available, but my hunch is that it's overwhelmingly positive. I'm automatically suspicious of this deeply cynical view of human nature where everyone is so easily tempted to evil deeds if presented with forbidden knowledge and the merest opportunity.
I'm with you. TAC was one of the first books I encountered that described out-of-the-box thinking, tool-building, and the hacker ethos of using a thing beyond its intended purpose (not to mention a healthy distrust of authority).
I managed somehow to get through my teenage years without ever throwing a molotov cocktail at a LEO.
It's a numbers game. Let's say 99.9% are good people who would only use the knowledge for wholesome purposes. That still leaves 0.1% to do bad stuff. So if all kids knew how to make viruses, 0.1% of all of those kids would be a lot of virus writers.
I'm not saying we should lock the knowledge up. More that your anecdote doesn't really change things.
> those are dangerous thoughts, better not thought...
I disagree completely. America's government has been unable to evolve with a changing country. Partisanship is at its worst ever at a time when the quality of life for most people is declining. Now more than ever, people need to be learning how to resist an oppressive government, because like it or not, our government seems to be becoming an authoritative corporate oligarchy.
I wonder if this book gave people a skewed view of what anarchism is, or if it stemmed from the colloquial usage of 'anarchy', i.e mindless violence and chaotic lawlessness.
Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bookchin have nicer books on anarchism in my opinion.
His foreword to the book makes clear that he doesn't mean anarchist in the left-wing sense. If anything he sounds more like aspects of contemporary militia culture, a kind of patriotic American restorationism. An excerpt:
If the real people of America, the silent majority, are going to survive, they must educate themselves. That is the purpose of this book. [...] If the people of the United States do not protect themselves against the fascists, capitalists, and communists, they will not be around much longer. [...] I do not particularly like any form of government but, if the majority of the people seem to think that they are incapable of governing themselves and want a government, then I think the principles the United States was born with are about the best there are. So now revolution comes to mean revitalization, bringing America back to where she was two hundred years ago. [...] I hope that, by the time the two hundredth anniversary of The First American Revolution rolls around, we will be able to look back at the sixties and early seventies as a dark era in the great history of a free nation.
I'm not sure it's given people a skewed view per se; it's just a product of its time: late 60s, early 70s. This kind of pseudo-academic grassroots stuff was en vogue.
I would argue that it likely devolves into statism, if "devolve" is the correct term.
Not even most anarchists want "mindless violence and chaotic lawlessness," rather they simply want to opt out of certain laws and legal responsibilities.
I don't think that's true; social anarchists generally regard hierarchy and unjust authority as inherently something to oppose. It is the abolishment of law and legal responsibilities, not just opting out. It's rejecting the entire concept of them.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned roguesci.org - the site from the days when the internet was relatively Wild West. That place was like Anarchist Cookbook x 100 - extensive detailed discussions, explanations, tutorials. People running the site got into some serious trouble, it was shut down in 2009, rumor has it by DOD. Some static mirrors still exist like https://parazite.nn.fi/roguesci although authenticity is unclear.
Kepler's Books in Menlo Park CA used to have a sign that they'd order any book you wanted, except one, "The Anarchists' Cookbook". On the other hand, I've seen copies of the book in the '60s nostalgia section of a bookstore near Ghirardelli Square.
If you want that kind of info today, right-wing "prepper" and gun nut sites will have it. Amazon sells The U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook, TM 31-210. It's not like this info is hard to get any more.
I don't really understand the usage of the term "prepper" in relation to Anarchist Cookbook. I think of prepper as someone with an underground bunker with a large cache of vacuum-sealed stew and pickled eggs. If anything related to weapons, it's just the inventory and tools necessary to make reloads.
Similar with "gun nut" sites - these usually have content covering the latest innovation in trigger mechanisms, what the right carbon content of the steel is, etc.
Caricaturing people in the wrong way cannot serve any useful purpose.
Preppers do a lot more than just store pickled eggs. The kind of person who tends to be a prepper also tends to distrust the federal government, be paranoid of centralized power, and is often prepping for civil war, or at very least civil unrest. It wouldn't surprise me if most people in militias are also preppers of some sort.
To be honest, after reading a bit about it, prepping looks like a very nice hobby.
The biggest downside is that moving becomes impossible after a while and whoever has to handle your estate after you die will curse you into the seventh circle.
Even if they are doing all of those things, it does not mean that their actual activities are anything other than I stated (which, by the way included activities beyond pickling eggs, you cherry-picker).
You seem to be claiming that if someone is a prepper, then they are also planning to blow up buildings, poison populations, etc. Seems a bit of a stretch.
If some militia members are also computer programmers, can I go off and make a bunch of assumptions about computer programmers based solely on this?
No, I said there's a tendency for the two to occur in the same kinds of people. There's a big difference there.
And yeah, I cherry-picked the pickled eggs line. You've gotta admit it was a good one. Neither of the main points of our posts were altered by me saying that, it was just for flavoring.
Why would anyone publish this article, in the current state of things...? Those two words in conjunction completely circumvent any filtering Google does to discourage stumbling on that sort of thing, and it replaces the required familiarity with terminology needed to seek out such information, and minimizes the extensive active pursuit otherwise needed to come upon a collection of such nature; 6 months after his death.... Rediculous!!!
You can get much higher quality information now. There are tons of mistakes and inaccuracies in TAC. These days there are HD YouTube videos with detailed instructions on how to do that kind of stuff.
You mean "TM 31-210"? That just means it's a US Army technical manual. The Army has one for almost every piece of equipment they use.[1] There are also Field Manuals, which are how-to guides for the things the Army does. Most of them are available to the public.
The information in the Anarchist's Cookbook is readily available, and has been for decades, yet we don't actually see terrorists using it. Western terror attacks are usually carried out with knives, guns or vehicles these days. Improvised napalm and homemade nitro glycerin aren't the chosen tools of extremists. I'd contend this is a strong argument in favour of intellectual freedom.
very true. i was so excited as a young teen anarchist to land a copy. and soon decided that unless I planned on committing suicide, there wasn't a lot I could do with it.
I invited over some friends and told them to take whatever books they wanted, I was moving. someone took it.
Probably first and foremost is that the goal is to terrorize, not necessarily to kill. You don't need to invest a large amount of resources to make that happen in an age where the political-media complex will launch a full-scale freak-out over stuff that is one of wholly unverified, outright falsehood, or utterly trivial.
The second is that, if you have the personal knowledge to build weapons without killing yourself in the process, then there are much more lucrative things you can do with your life, on either side of the law.
It takes a mix of both knowledge and the willingness to use it to (quite literally) murder your neighbors, which is a pretty uncommon combination.
Third, is that, for the most part, the organizations that would engage in these sort of attacks are fairly easy for law enforcement to infiltrate and influence.
The massive surveillance state isn't necessary. You just need a decent number of undercover cops that join groups that might be inclined to engage in terrorism, and either attempt to steer them away from violence from within, or wait until the group sets up a big attack and then have the rest of the law enforcement apparatus waiting.
This is why, by the way, we haven't really seen a lot of highly organized attacks in the US. Individual attackers, or on occasion members of the same family (brothers, spouses, etc.) can on occasion launch a successful attack, but when lines of communication stretch outside of a family unit, then you can bet that law enforcement is in the loop.
Either because of undercover infiltration, or because people are in general decent. Think about it: if one of your friends were to come to you and ask you to help them blow up the headquarters of a group of people you don't like, you would probably let the authorities know.
As many problems as we have with both law enforcement and our criminal justice system, they do a very good job on this front.
People willing to martyr themselves in loan wolf attacks are often mentally I'll or simply not that bright, also however low tech they are, sadly they work.
If you mean the kind of people who punch Richard Spencer in the face, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything in this discussion. And if you want people to engage with you seriously, post under a real account.
A little overblown here. It doesn't take the anarchist cookbook to start a riot, just a little state sponsored oppression and people with little to lose (which is, I believe, part of the gp's point)
This, and so much this. Generally, places lacking reason to riot are riot-free.
More broadly speaking, I'm not sure how this is any different than folks having firearms in their homes for self-defense. It is just one version is more socially acceptable than the other.
Posting under throwaways starts you off looking like you're arguing in bad faith, so it's understandable.
I'll be honest, you sound like a bit of an extremist. I've never heard anyone call for "white genocide", in fact the only time I've seen the term used is by neo-nazis; it's kind of a shibboleth.
It's hard for me to justify responding rather than just reporting/downvoting and moving on, and that's probably what others are doing, too. So, stick away from hyperbole, use your main account, and maybe in the worst case, accept that your attempts at spin are losing in the marketplace of ideas. There's probably a reason that a lot of people dislike what you have to say, and it isn't necessarily ignorance or identity politics or a preference for white genocide or any of the other alt-right nonsense.
I don't agree with a lot of the right/alt-right/whatever people who are out there, but I think the anonymous poster hits on a point I've been mulling for a while.
We are completely legitimizing the behaviour of shutting down discussion because we are doing it too.
There are universities who boycott discussions from people who don't agree with them, there was a petition with some large number of signatures to try and stop Trump visiting the UK, in Germany people who openly support a political party lost their jobs. I don't think we're even capable of changing an opinion we hold anymore, we can't even discuss it.
Nazi's? Racists? People who think they have a right to abuse children? I disagree with these groups, but they have a right to exist even though we find them abhorrent. You can only punish criminals.
It's a dangerous road to start persecuting only on thought/worldview and yet we're doing it already.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."
> There are universities who boycott discussions from people who don't agree with them
Universities have a duty towards the people that come to them to learn, not towards the people that come to them to profess their opinion. Since space and time are valuable, it's quite legitimate for universities to prioritize content they think valuable to their students.
You mean, like exposing biology students to creationism ? No, I don't believe so. When an idea has been widely discredited, there's no reason a place dedicated to knowledge should be required to host it.
I can agree with the fact that an individual should not be persecuted for harbouring views. Ideas such as nazism, however, have no place in our society outside of the historian circles, and no one should be required to assist anyone in disseminating them.
You could look at it from the other direction. Once you agree that outright fascism is not to be given a platform, fascism lite (and I think there's some evidence that 'alt-right' is a sort of rebranding of modern white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo Nazi types) should maybe also not be given a platform.
Death by a thousand cuts. Today, calls to institutionalize trans people, undo the civil rights act, or put gays through electroshock therapy. Tomorrow, expulsion of the Jews?
I'm OK in a world where nazis who are out talking about nazi things (like expelling/murdering non-white races) get punched while they're doing it.
But, whether brave nazi punchers are out in force, these groups aren't being shut down just because they're not being invited to university campuses to give talks.
The nazis have all the platform they need--they can publish their materials, go out and talk in public spaces, whatever--their speech isn't generally being suppressed. Just not welcomed in a lot of places, because most people don't actually want to hear the nazi point of view.
It's a double edged sword. While I'd like the inner karma from smacking some sense into a skinhead, doing so completely prevents us from having a stand against them when they do it to whoever they decide is their version of our 'nazi'.
I my point was that we shouldn't do anything above disagree with people who hold ANY views. As soon as they become criminals, or as soon as they are clearly preparing for some kind of horrible crime then THAT's the point where it's okay to step in.
Forgetting the Nazis; is it okay to drop someone from a board for aligning with a politican you disagree with? Or to remove someone from a project for having a sexual kink outside the mainstream? I think it's not ok, and it's very shortsighted to think that accepting suppression like this while you agree with the current target isnt helping to progress a dangerous trend which any one of us cound find ourselves on the wrong side of someday.
We're putting people in prison for having certain books these days, and it's not OK.
Forgetting the Nazis; is it okay to drop someone from a board for aligning with a politican you disagree with?
Yes, if politics is not within the scope of the board's charter/mission/reason for existing
Or to remove someone from a project for having a sexual kink outside the mainstream?
It might depend on the project and what it's trying to promote/achieve.
I think it's not ok, and it's very shortsighted to think that accepting suppression like this while you agree with the current target isnt helping to progress a dangerous trend which any one of us cound find ourselves on the wrong side of someday.
Nobody should be obligated to provide a forum at their expense to promote ideas that they disagree with. There are places where this is allowed (the proverbial "town square") and we've also as a society defined some rules about antidiscrimination in public accomodations but that doesn't in any way confer an unlimited obligation to host and disseminate propaganda.
White supremacists already commit a lot of violence at minority groups--this isn't a situation where their being punched in public isn't opening the door to their actions, where before they were just publishing tracts.
"Forgetting the nazis..." No-- this is very specifically about the nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and violent right-wing nationalists that have been dominating our discourse for a little while now.
They're not bringing "just another political view," they're advocating genocide and white supremacy. That stuff doesn't belong in the world of "let's talk about politics" because it has, built into it, expelling/killing people. It's no longer a political discussion when you deny the humanity or right to exist of another group.
(And, before you say it, I'm not denying the right of nazis to exist by approving of their getting punched--they can exist all they want, but open their mouths with nazi garbage? Fuck that, I ain't defending no nazis.)
If they commit violence then they are criminals who should be dealt with by the criminal system wherever they are and regardless of their views.
You're getting too into the example there, I wanted to talk about about the dismissal/shutdown of discource that's happening between any two groups that don't agree with each other, not specifically the actions of some far right groups.
To respond though, I disagree. I find such views utterly disgusting (killing of anyone for belief/view/colour/sexuality/editor choice/etc) also, however it is a political discussion. These groups hold political views on what they want their bit of sand to look like and make up a percentage of their society. They have the same rights as us.
There was a point where hatred of homosexuals or athiests were held with as much venom as we have against these racists groups in our recent history, we only go backwards by doing the same things as those people did.
As for it not belonging in a political discussion because it's outragous? Eh? I mean, come on, expelling/killing people has been part of normal politics (as it has always been) as long as we've had history. Suppressing any view in a society creates division, and while the shoe is on the right foot at the moment this doesn't last forever.
> I'm OK in a world where nazis who are out talking about nazi things (like expelling/murdering non-white races) get punched while they're doing it.
That's just assault, though. There's nothing heroic about meeting mere ideas with violence, however repugnant those ideas are. You can buy the Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf on Amazon, the ideas are cheap and plentiful, and often not worth a second glance.
When they actually try putting their ideas into action, with the force of violence, then punch them.
> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins."
People are free to dismiss and ignore those with other views than theirs, but what happens when we can't even discuss things anymore? Today it seems you're on one side or the other and the response to someone who disagrees is just a wall of abuse and dismissal. We're all going more into our own silos. Am I the only one worried about this?
Everyone should be allowed the same range of stages for their views but we're not really balanced at the moment. Did you watch the dismission by a lot of remain voters/press in the UK during the EU ref? The rhetoric was that those who wanted to leave are all bigoted racist small minded 'little englanders'. This kind of thing just makes both sides more extreme.
I'm not sure what we can do about it. So much hate seems to be around.
I think we're passed the golden age when it comes to free speech. A certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoint has won. It dominates academic, media and public spheres. And those that question or disagree with it are very quickly attacked with a number of smears/names/slurs, etc.
Some of the views that get attacked are genuinely okay. Perhaps the not most likable of ideas, but certainly not the type of hatred that they're portrayed as. The tragedy is that we're not allowing individuals to hold these opinions.
E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it. Unfortunately, it's a consequence of Democracy that forces opposing groups to occupy the same piece of land, instead of allowing like-minded groups to self-aggregate and group together.
I think the line here is simple. It's not that people are being disallowed from having certain views, we're really talking about whether or not we want to spend the time and energy discussing them.
And in the limit whether they should be made a matter of public policy.
Its still the case that if you want to open a whites only compound in Montana, no one is going to stop you or even care.
And I still think that if racists had something meaningful to say, that contributed in any way towards a considered discussion of real issues, that they would have more of a voice.
As leftist as the academy is, if you make an honest point with teeth behind it, there are enough real thinkers they will feel compelled to engage with you.
But you gotta step up to the plate man. You cant just blindly assert that brown people are robbing the pale people of their rightful place on the throne and expect everyone else to give your opinions equal consideration and time in the public forum.
>E.g. Maintaining national culture/race/identity. A people should be allowed to want this without having every single talking-head of the media party assaulting them for wanting it.
To be fair, there are historically valid justifications for that negative reception. People who advocate cultural and racial identity politics in the modern day shouldn't be surprised at the criticism they receive, as they themselves denounce the "certain very left-leaning, anti-male, anti-traditional, anti-rich, anti-white, pro-immigration viewpoints" of the mainstream.
Well sure, have some people taken those viewpoints to bad conclusions? Of course, and rightly we shouldn't allow such actions to take place at all. But, extermination, expulsion and interment are a far cry from what most people advocate when talking about maintaining their racial/cultural identity in the face of rampant immigration from disparate cultures. If anything, most of the time, people simply advocate that immigration should be made slow/mild enough to allow for assimilation. Yet, that exact same viewpoint gets them labeled "white supremacists" and "racists" with no further discussion or nuance.
I didn't say it was heroic. I didn't say I was going to go out and punch nazis.
I also won't stop you if you personally want to go defend nazis when someone wants to punch them.
And I won't agitate for state-sponsored attacks on any speech.
But when the nazi is out saying his nazi garbage, if someone else goes and punches him, that is a battle I am OK watching from a distance. (And, to be quite honest, watching with approval. Because fuck nazis.)
Again, I'm not defending nazis in particular and I wouldn't stop it from happening personally (it's not my fight).
I'm talking bigger picture here, the right to not get assaulted for having/expressing any view is one that we should all stand behind or we will lose it.
Flip it over in your mind, these things are happening to people who express views that you probably accept/defend where you are so how are we different?
Would it be OK for you to get punched in the face for saying it's OK for two men to be in a relationship, or that everyone has a right to worship some god or other. just because the majority of people around you disagree?
Someday, your views could be on the other end of that shotgun I don't personally see it as progress to treat people the same as those people do.
> Flip it over in your mind, these things are happening to people who express views that you probably accept/defend where you are so how are we different?
No, but that's in large part because I don't generally accept or defend views that pivot around the violent removal of entire peoples. I get what you're trying to say in this thread, but it just doesn't make sense. Violence is Bad. Violence in self-defense is Less Bad.
Nazism is an inherently violent ideology, and opening your mouth to speak words is an action - not just belief. Advocating for murder and violence is not "just speech" - it's a speech act[1] which can and maybe should have repercussions.
I'm not defending them at all, and if I came across that way then I've clearly had a failure to communicate. Please believe me when I say that I absolutely do not defend, agree or otherwise support such people because I do not.
Taking a few steps back, the thing I was trying to hit on was that we're approaching a lot of issues/disagreement today as if one side is somehow on the same level as those groups simply because they share a base idea. "Trump is the next hitler". "Remoaners should be hung for treason" etc.
There is a difference to me between nationalists who have a political view I disagree with and groups of extremists who call for genocide. I think it's dangerous that we aren't just censoring the people who make those calls, but those who promote the political ideas which lay behind both groups. It's a slippery slope.
Calling for violence against is incitement and largely illegal although I don't know the specifics. I'm fairly sure if I stood up in the middle of my city and called for a group to be killed then I would be stopped though and I think that;s fair. Calls like that are the point beyond the end of "my fist" going back to the quote.
All I've been trying to say is, we increasingly brush off and dismiss people on one side or another of debate as being the extreme of either of those sides and this is to our detriment. We're either "lefty loony EU slaves" or "racist bigots" and it's a pattern I see growing.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. Nazi groups want hyper-nationalistic government polcies? Then talk about it. They are calling for murder? No, that's not the same thing.
I'm all for free speech, even "radical" free speech to a degree, but that has to apply to the groups opposing the Nazis, racists, etc as well. The marketplace of ideas may simply decide that what they have to sell isn't worth buying.
It has to apply to everyone. Dan Carlin did a few good pieces on this around the time of the charlie hebdo attacks, I could probably dig it out for you if you're interested in it.
His overall view (which I agree with) is that there should be no 'right to not be offended' and that applies to everyone.
'dang banned 'hga, a long-time member, not too long ago for his advocacy of "excluding, if not eliminating" Jews from America. And he was right to do so: because no, your ability to speak does not provide proof against consequences. I'm not offended by 'hga posting that and I doubt 'dang was offended in the way that has the (overwhelmingly right-wing, if we're being honest) Concerned Citizens in a tilt. But it doesn't belong here. Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise.
Because they're not "just words," they have societal and individual impact that the advocates for these reprehensible positions wish you to believe can be ignored (in the hopes of gathering followers with similar brokenness in their heads 'til they have the numbers to murder those who disagree). You--we--need not give them further tools with which to harm our fellows and we are in no way made stronger by adhering to such pseudomorality.
>Spending a single moment entertaining it does nothing positive; there's literally no argument that can make that not reprehensible and not deserving of complete rejection. It does not and cannot exist. And so, no, it's not something to hear out, it's something to excise.
It can't be excised, though, only sent somewhere else, to gather power where you can no longer see it. Push it far enough into a dark corner and it looks tempting. People will say the "mainstream" is afraid of it, that the "system" is suppressing it, and cynics will find it all the more attractive for being forbidden fruit.
The reason such speech should be permitted in the public sphere is not to entertain it, but to give the community the opportunity to reject it.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the government should suppress reprehensible speech.
But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours. The easy (wrong (dumb)) rhetorical answer trotted out around here becomes "oh, delicate snowflakes!" because of the inexplicable unwillingness to wait until one's head is put to the curb and the boot is raised before resisting.
>But I am saying that elements of the public choosing to protest it and no-platform it should not be criticized by the (maybe-)well-meaning peanut gallery on "free speech" grounds 'cause we're exercising ours.
I can't disagree with this, but it still doesn't win the fight. People can't reject a point of view until they're given the opportunity to understand it, and are exposed to the risk of accepting it first.
There was a time where people made this sentiment about atheism and 'excised' people who claimed the earth orbited the sun. Don't you see that?
This is a one way street, and we should not fear ideas. Today it's one you agree with supressing, tomorrow it might not be.
(Edit: I'm not talking about hackernews here, any specific forum/group should be allowed to moderate and that's up to them alone, I'm talking more generally in society)
Oh, "don't I see?". Hmm. Let's see a little more: were atheists declaring that Jews should be thrown out of their homes for the crime of being Jewish? Or even anything remotely similar? No? Well, then, how strange that you would so readily bring up something wholly unlike the situation at hand.
Providing air cover for literal-not-figurative fascists and their cheerleaders has an absolute and irrefutable difference of kind to it. Let's actually pay attention to what's being said instead of doing the chin-stroking, pince-nez-adjusting, context-only-matters-when-it-bolsters-my-argument thing.
No need to get so agressive, can't we talk like adults?
I don't think it's unlike the other because I've not been talking about the justification for wanting to supress/remove them instead the morality of doing so.
However abhorrent we find someone else's views doesn't enable us to silence them. Isn't it relevant to point out that there were people (majorities, in fact) who had the same kind of reaction to things we find acceptible today as we do to these nasty racists? They too felt they were justifified.
When I'm being aggressive, I will be sure to let you know. I will underline it, if you'd like.
I would consider standing by while others threaten to harm people based on their ethnicity to be as immature, as un-adult, a thing as can be done. Giving the playground bullies--and their adult counterparts in the ranks of the literal-not-figurative fascists--room to instill fear and to threaten the oppressed into silence is not what adults do.
But it's interesting that you focus on adult rather than decent or just. Edifying, even.
Gotta admit, it seems like altrighterz would really like to see a rise in violence, and this sounds like a way to justify it to yourselves. After Dick Spencer got hit on camera you guys have been trying to simultaneously make the Antifa people out to be some kind of vanguard of violent liberalism that could turn into terrorism and a group of spoiled college kids that are ineffectual and efite.
It's a talking point. I know that you want us to think that and I can see why you would like us to, but Antifa is just not the threat that you say it is and what you are doing is pretty transparent.
A rise in violence is inevitable. The left/right are fundamentally at odds with one another. Once people realize that certain things are not "just the way it is" and accept it, the more they'll see it as violence upon them. Therefore, the logical step after that is retaliation. That is the point where the left/right can no longer co-exist within the same nation.
It's like everyone is living in this rosey world, where we accept things that we disagree with for 4 years because "it's just the way it is", and "gee-golly we lost". If you think a policy is wrong/bad/immoral, do something about it, otherwise you don't really think it's bad. The illusion will break at some point, and it will make a lot of people very angry/violent.
You can already see it happening now with sanctuary cities, and blatant disregard for basic laws. Certain groups have decided to do something, and we will be seeing a rise in unrest/violence.
