Spendrill

Well Nixon launched the war on drugs because, genius that he was, he noticed that a lot of people who used it were either from ethnic minorities or were left wing in their politics so by passing anti-drug legislation and enforcing it selectively he could effectively criminalise his political enemies, which included black people because he was one of those 'my skin is my uniform' kind of guys.

I got curious. Here's the actual story:

VAN BUREN COUNTY, Mich. – Michigan State Police say that legalization >of marijuana is making their jobs difficult.

Officers say that they are able to smell marijuana at traffic stops but are not clear on how law enforcement should handle each situation.

Police are struggling to address reports they receive due to the legality of the substance.

“We come across a lot of kids that are under 21 that have possession of it and obviously that’s in violation so we seize it and go through the process that way but when we come across people that are 21 and older and actually have it legally that's where it's kind of hard to deal with it in that aspect," Michigan State Officer Andrew Jeffrey said.

Officer Jeffrey says police receive multiple reports of people smoking marijuana but police cannot do anything if they obtained the substance legally and are not underage.

OK let's return to OPs original example. Mussolini strung up. Good job and all. I don't particularly like talking about deserts because it's a childish misunderstanding of the universe. Nobody deserves anything. They get what they get. Having said that, if you're a Fascist dictator who uses violence and fear on your own population, you're going to store up some resentment and if said resentment finds an opportunity and an outlet you can reasonably expect a bad outcome.

I would go one further than OP and say that if you materially aid and abet said Fascist dictator, as for example his girlfriend, you should reasonably expect to share that bad outcome and happily she did.

There were a great many partisans who took revenge on the fascists at the end of the war and this also should not have come as a surprise to them.

OP is using Mussolini as an object lesson here, to use the modern way of putting it: Fuck around and find out. Which Mussolini did and modern fascists may also expect to also.

The January 6th 'protesters' were pardoned but they also spent a deal of time in jail. They fucked around and they found out.

If the full weight of Trump's Republic protects them they may feel emboldened but eventually the fascist regime always falls because they are economically illiterate, their inner circle fight like rats in a sack, they are incompetent and once the leader dies the whole collapses. And at that point fascists who have been doing fascist stuff should expect not clemency or mercy or any of the things they denied other people. They should expect to be upside down in a petrol station or something equally unpleasant.

It used to be that even the most unthinking and, frankly, racist people that I came across in work and the various places I used to drink would have been appalled to be lumped in with fascists and Nazis who were characterised as social misfits and considered beyond the pail. Everyone who was racist knew it was wrong. And now it has been normalised. If we'd been less tolerant of people presenting the racist arguments year after year and rather than trying to educate or reason with them had offered them violence or the credible threat thereof we'd be in a better position now. They'd have never reached the mainstream because they'd have been seen as losers still by the unthinking.

I'd say that it's not about fascist appearing neighbours it's about preventing the normalisation of fascism, like it's just another mainstream political viewpoint.

I think what can be achieved is the splitting off of the unthinking mass who support curbs on immigration (in practical terms fascism can only do without immigration because it intends to institute some form of indentured or slave labour) from the hardcore fascists by making it clear that fascists are abhorrent.

Loads of normal people stood up to fascism everywhere it has occurred. Some did it it in big ways many did it in little ways and in 1945 it was fairly comprehensively beaten into submission. What OP recognises is that it's easier to oppose before it consolidates and not after. Part of the consolidation process requires that fascism be normalised and consent be manufactured. That is the stage we're in right now and that is why Huffman is making reddit a safe space for the normalisation of fascism.

People support fascism because they are persuaded that their political goals can and will be attainable through violence. Violence is central to the fascist credo. If they are challenged with the credible threat of equal or greater opposing violence they will not be so keen on their chosen route to their political goals because it will involve a level of personal sacrifice that they are not prepared to countenance. If the threat of violence is enough to change their view from fascism to something else then it is a worthwhile alternative to violence without the threat. Although people should be willing to carry out the threat if they do not change their view.

The argument that this view can be reversed so as to support the need for threats of violence and actual violence against anti-fascists overlooks the simple fact that anti-fascists are already being threatened with and exposed to violence. It's an integral part of the fascist package. That's the big lesson of the holocaust: by the time there's something to punish, it's already too late.

You're missing the bit where NATO had to go in and participate in the war to prevent further 'ethnic cleansing' by the Serbs.

War crimes trials only happen after the war is concluded.

As for OP, what they're doing is saying fascists actively being fascists deserve death. It's not like people who are currently supporting fascism can't stop being fascists. The choice is up to them.

Can you name a single person who is threatened by a democratically decided punishment for organizing genocide.

If I understand your question correctly: Radovan Karadžić

Further to that, on reddit that comment would have been acceptable if targeted at Muslim "terrorists", or Soviets, or any number of the acceptable targets as decided by "centrists".

1. A human was involved in the process at some point
2. Your comment was "threatening violence or physical harm"
3. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with threatening Nazis with "violence or physical harm" - they're Nazis, their entire schtick is genocide, how do people think that they're supposed to be dealt with, tea and cakes? Chamberlain tried that, didn't work. What did work was killing a whole bunch of them. For my entire childhood and most of my adult life people were lauded for the effort of killing Nazis or dying in the attempt.

Thank you.

Ah ok, thanks.

Where I'm from a lock in is a pub illegally serving drinkers after time by locking the doors.