@Darkevilme
@Mister Spak:
"and the right isn't a monolith, you can't lump the entire right into one group then say 'this one right winger hit a left winger, therefore any right winger should be beaten and their stuff smashed'"
There's a division of labor. The public faces never say kill anybody. There is a continuum of people below them who are different levels of extremism. The leaders know this. Bush never told anyone to beat up muslims but he knew this was part of his base.
In the book spanking the donkey the author went undercover in a local Bush campaign. The volunteers were very aware that KKK country was solidly for Bush and had no moral problems organizing these voters, yet Bush himself never endorsed the KKK.
Pro tyrannist organizations call PP baby murderers but when one of their members goes on a shooting spree they retroactively disown him, blame the deaths on PP, then go back to calling PP baby murderers. It's not until the Warsaw ghetto stage that the top leadership calls for beating and killing, and then people are already being legally beaten and killed.
Consistently beating up Hitlers goons in 1933 would have saved a lot of lives, but in 1933 who knew what Hitler would lead to? Then, he was just a loon on the fringe and nobody on the right who mattered was talking about gas chambers. Mass beatings of brownshirt goons would have been a crime and a breakdown of civil society.
Is Milo the next Hitler, or will he lead to nothing even if left alone?
If so should we beat him up anyway to warn off the less loony fascists?
Should we beat up someone else because that other person will be Hitler if not stopped?
If so who is that person?
This is the practical problem facing civilized people.
