A request to form an “alt-right” student group at the University of Wisconsin at Madison led the chancellor, Rebecca Blank, on Thursday to issue a campuswide letter informing students and faculty members that the student who made the request has a criminal record of arson attacks on black churches.

I think there’s a worry by fixating on such a tiny group of people the press is actually helping them. I wish they’d just leave them in obscurity.

The famous Fire in a crowded theater decision laid out the rationale of the dangerous speech needing to have a clear and imminent threat to safety.

Regardless, vigilante social justice violence is in danger of destroying our society.

Every person who espouses racists rhetoric is now thinking about carrying a gun. When you punch the next one and they shoot back, you’ll probably blame them and say the they had no right to defend themselves.

Nazism is not on the rise. It’s not a real threat to public safety but hyped for political reasons. It’s much more of a threat for everyone to go around punching Nazis. The erosion of civil discourse into violence can not be justified.

I’d willing stand against anyone who threatens such an action. Will you punch me too? Better bring more than a knife to this fight if you want to start threatening violence against me.

Isaac: “Yeah, a real self-destructive impulse. You know, I want
to write a book, so I, so I … Has anybody read that
nazis are going to march in New Jersey, you know? I
read this in the newspaper, we should go down there, get
some guys together, you know, get some bricks and
baseball bats and really explain things to them.”

Man: “There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed
page of the Times. It is devastating.”

Isaac: “Well, well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but
bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the
point.”

Woman: “Oh, but really biting satire is always better than physical
force.”

Isaac: “No, physical force is always better with nazis. Cos
it’s hard to satirize a guy with shiny boots.”

MANHATTAN Woody Allen

Also, let’s not think that free speech is an absolute right. Every right has limits.

So a note to those hoping to exterminate extreme narratives. You’ll probably get more points if you can produce evidence of them committing an act of small violence against you than by punching them.

P.S. If anyone wants to put together an Old Boys game against some Republican senators, I’m in. I would so love to put Paul Ryan in the hospital to see how good his health care plan is.

Just bringing the conversation down to a less rarified level… :-)

To the Book of Mormon example I confess I’m a bit flummoxed since they were in danger of invasion. Certainly in that case I’d think violence is justified. The anti-Nephi-Lehi’s didn’t submit because they feared what would happen were they to take up their weapons given their past acts they had repented of. Since I assume neither you nor I were in our past blood thirsty killers I don’t see how that applies.

The American Revolution is a bit tricky since the question is when is revolution justified. I honestly don’t have trouble with the general succession nor defending oneself. I think a lot of violence against Loyalist civilians was unjustified. I also think the reasons for why some wanted to leave were unjustified (say those who wanted permission to invade Indian lands which King George was prohibiting) I’d say even wars that are justified often involve a lot of unethical behavior by people.

But again given that we’re not in a state where states want to leave the union I’m not sure how this is relevant. (The Civil War was different precisely because slaves were not allowed a say in all this – although there are arguments that Lincoln was less ethical than usually portrayed – also see the excellent Econtalk podcast on the topic)

In any case you’re now quite far removed from punching want to be Nazis being interviewed by the press.

Most couldn’t see the courts allowing Gay Marriage to actually become a thing either, yet here we are.

My point in the above questions was to probe to try to find the line for you where violence becomes an acceptable, ethical, moral choice. From the sounds of it, your line really is the immanent threat of physical violence. The only ethical choice is to submit like the Anti-Nephi-Lehis or to flee and become a refugee. Completely and honestly – that would probably be my choice as well. I’m not a violent person and I think I would rather be harmed or killed than harm or kill another. Where it appears we differ is that I believe that others can act differently than I would choose and still act ethically and morally.

For curiosity’s sake only – I am not trying to get you into some kind of catch-22 or something – since you find the violence that was committed during the Utah War unethical, do you also find that the American Revolution was unethical? What of the relatively recent American interventions in Vietnam or Iraq? The United States has a long history of military interventions in the name of “freedom” and “liberalism”. Do you feel that all of these interventions were unethical?

As to Trump there are of course checks and balances in our system. I can’t see the courts allowing a repetition of FDR’s actions with internment camps. Further there are democratic checks such as the Senate and House not to mention the ability of impeachment. So I confess I don’t see how these relate to violence since there are so many things that could be done first.

I was returning their strawman of my arguments that I was advocating wanton violence by demonstrating that the strawman of theirs is that they are advocating universal pacifism. Neither is a correct portrayal of the views being expressed, so everyone please don’t reduce my argument down to somehow arguing for indiscriminate violence.

Clark,

If I may try to reframe the issue to move past our apparent impasse:

What would be the ethical and moral response to the passage of a law that disenfranchises (in other words, removes the right to vote) all who have been baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, regardless of their current status of practice or belief? I don’t have to remind you that this isn’t even hypothetical, since it has actually happened in the history of this country.

What would be the ethical and moral response to the passage of a law that requires the revocation of citizenship and forced deportation of that same group of people?

These actions would be completely non-violent in the physical sense, but very violent to the rights of that group. In your opinion is there no way to ethically resort to violent resistance?

What if something Trump has actually advocated during the campaign comes up? What if laws pass requiring the registration of every Muslim regardless of citizenship? What if interment camps similar to the Japanese interment camps from WWII are revived, this time aimed at Muslims? These mandatory relocations wouId not be physically violent themselves, but would carry the threat of state-sanctioned violence if one attempts to resist. Is violent resistance still not justified?