One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?
You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question treats of violent opposition to Nazism, an inherently violent ideology, which you seem to be overlooking.
Allow me to illustrate how this looks from where I'm sitting:
Abel: Nazism is good! I support putting [people I dislike] into camps and killing them.
Baker: I find Abel's views repugnant and threatening to me, and if he expresses them in my presence I will punch him.
Charlie: Baker is terribly violent!
That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that.
In case the ancestors get edited:
>>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence
>> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
> One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?
It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not?
The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective.
Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.
I realize you think your original comment speaks for itself, but I'm telling you that I'm finding it vague and confusing.
> "We must love one another or die."
This is good enough for me, but going further... The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Ahimsa are persuasive for many.
EDIT: just had a shower, and remembered this paper that supports the idea that violence is an inter-generational disease:
https://pascual.scripts.mit.edu/research/03/paper3.pdf
Pascual Restrepo, May 2014
Abstract
> I study the role of the monopoly of force in shaping cultural traits associated with violence and their persistence. I do so in the context of the settlement of the Canadian Prairies from 1890 to 1920. I find that places with a weaker monopoly of force by the Canadian state during the settlement – as measured by their distance to the early Mounties’ fort – were and are still more violent despite the later consolidation of the Canadian state. My interpretation is that counties with a weak monopoly of force during the settlement developed a persistent culture of violence. Consistent with my view, I find that hockey players born in these places behave more violently even when observed in a common environment: the same team in the National Hockey League. Besides the persistence of culture via inter-generational transmission and socialization, I find that culture favors complementary institutions and political views, creating an additional channel of persistence. Finally, I show that the monopoly of force during the settlement crowds out pre-existing cultures of violence brought by immigrants. Despite the persistence of culture and its dependence on past circumstances, the right institutional conditions can change it