I personally support people’s rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense. I don’t advocate first strikes or being the initiator of violence. But rather measured response to threats of physical violence.
From TransAdvocate: http://transadvocate.com/on-the-ethics-and-utility-of-violence_n_20587.htm
Aug. 23, 2017
After the property damage at the University of Berkeley by protesters opposed to Milo Yiannopolous speaking there, many within the movement have condemned the violence. They argue that the violence plays into a narrative constructed by white-nationalists, and damages the moral legitimacy of the progressive movement that opposes everything he is calling for.
Others, such as Katherine Cross, have strongly argued that violence against fascist movements (“punching Nazis”) and leaders is not only justified but necessary and a moral imperative in order to preserve democracy. She opines that “Nazism is democracy’s anti-matter. There is nothing about the ideology or its practice that is anything but corrosive to democratic institutions. Fascism is a cancer that turns democracy against itself unto death.”
This essay does not propose to achieve a definitive answer to how, when, and where violence is justified. It attempts t o analyze the effectiveness of violence and the threat thereof as a tool used by factions to influence systemic change. This includes how it can positively and negatively create change, as well as change societal attitudes. While this may seem like a “listicle”, it does tie together by the end.
1. “Punching Nazis” is depicted as virtuous in popular culture, and we accept it
In comics and cinema, gratuitous punching of oppressors by the “good guys” is depicted as right and justified. Indiana Jones, Superman, and Captain America all used violence in the defense of liberty, with the understanding that Nazis were the bad guys. Who didn’t want to cheer when Hermione Granger punched out Draco Malfoy, the vicious spawn of Death Eaters (basically magic Nazis)?
One could argue that these are all fictional characters. They are, but that is beside the point. These movies are a mirror of our own societal attitudes, beliefs, and values. They reflect what we believe is good, moral, and ethical. We are supposed to empathize, identify with, and agree with the motivations and actions of the protagonists. Hermione Granger is supposed to represent the moral center or conscience of three main protagonists. Were we to find her motivations and actions contrary to our own values, we would not want to cheer her when she punched out Draco Malfoy.
2. Violence in the face of an existential threat is nearly universally seen as justified
Preemptive violence against a clear and present danger, where there is a clear intent of existential harm is generally accepted by our society. Whether it involves Jews participating in insurgency during WWII, or home-defense “castle laws”, or even pre-emptively blowing up the second Death Star, we culturally believe that using violence, at some level, is acceptable to avoid levels of violence and oppression that are far worse.
Milo Yiannopolous and the ideas he espouses are seen by many within the transgender community as an existential threat. He advocates harassing, bullying, and mistreating transgender people until they self-deport back into the closet, and encourages that they should be forced into the harmful and ineffective practice of reparative therapy. In short, he is advocating a form of crowd-sourced cultural genocide.
Thus, attempts to remove a platform for his advocacy of this can be argued to be a form of collective self-defense.
Continue reading at: http://transadvocate.com/on-the-ethics-and-utility-of-violence_n_20587.htm