To punch, or not to punch?

Like most of you, my social media feed the past week is largely composed of alt-right, white supremacist related commentary.  I'm finding myself in agreement with the majority of what I'm reading, but disagreeing with the violence behind the approach. 

Why am I spending energy critiquing the opposition, instead of condemning hate groups? Because I don't think one should need to assert that they do in fact believe that the earth is round, or that __ and ___ have the same rights as ___, and ___. These hate groups attract so much attention because of how unusual and extreme their views are.  I think it's important to remember, these are not a significant number of the people we are surrounded by.  

Before I get into this, I want to channel an instructor I had in the military, who reminded us: "First rule of communication: establish credibility."

I'm speaking from my experience dealing with my best friend when he became a skinhead, as well as my time in college and the military, where I lived with and worked with these types of people. I don't think this is THE way to reach people, but it's what I've tried that worked, and what I tried that didn't work.  This is my perspective. Yours is different. Mine is privileged in some ways. I know for many people that last sentence is more important than any of the preceding ones. 

Of course everyone's free to post whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and I try to not judge (I often fail). I don't presume to know everyone's motives, but the most frequent ones I think are:

1. Let people know I don't condone that kind of thinking.
     a) Add to the volume of dissenting opinion and threats against radicals to discourage them from ____.
     b) Identify my contacts who are racist fucks and purge them.

2. Try to persuade others to my point of view.

3. Vent and commiserate with my friends.

If you're going for #3, more power to you, but I don't see many people approaching #1 or #2 in a manner which is likely to be successful.  

#1 a). You most likely can't scare someone out of their deeply held belief. The US has the biggest and baddest military on the planet which has been useless in trying to persuade Jihadists, communists, etc to think differently.  A decades long war on drugs has been unsuccessful in scaring people out of using illicit drugs.  The exceptions which come to mind are: a military victory over Nazis, or an economic/political victory over Socialists, yet both of those ideas still exist.

You threatening to punch someone isn't nearly as intimidating as an Apache helicopter, or a SWAT team, even if it does feel good to pretend you're Indiana Jones.  Trust me, I get it. I dressed up as him for Halloween 3 years in a row.

Also, consider which of your deeply held beliefs you would abandon because someone threatened you with physical harm? I bet there aren't any. And even if you did denounce one, would that alone change your own thoughts?

Fear and hate are causally related.  If you don't believe me, ask Yoda.

#1 b).  You may not want to associate with people who hold those types of views and may want to help ostracize them from society in order to pressure them to conform.  There's plenty of psychologists who would approve of punishing non-conformists to encourage them to adapt their behavior, however, it's much harder to ostracize someone now than it was 25 years ago. Most can quickly find their own community online.

When I was 15, my best friend went full on Neo-Nazi.

He had a copy of Mein Kampf in his locker, blasted awful White Supremacist metal/punk bands in his truck, and had all the necessary awful flags on display in his room.  It was scary.  

I remember asking him how he came to believe all this master race stuff.  
He told me, "My brother explained it to me".  It gave me a new appreciation for my older sister who was always a good moral compass.  He wasn't as fortunate.

I stayed friends with him, because I was afraid that if we weren't hanging out, he'd be spending that time with his brother and his friends.  Also, I still liked the guy for all the same reasons we were friends in the first place.  
The result was he always trusted me enough to tell me what was on his mind and was willing to listen to me disagree with him.  He never budged on anything, but at least I knew what was going on with him.

About a year and a half later he left it all behind.  I'm not sure why, or that I had anything to do with it, but I am fairly certain that driving him into the arms of all the other nutjobs wouldn't have helped.  

Epilogue:
10 years later he became a Marxist.  I guess some people are just drawn to utopianism.  

#2.  This is the tough part. How to persuade someone to your point of view on a belief which is part of their identity.  If you don't care about persuading so much as scoring points, or making someone look bad, then you can skip the next several paragraphs.

I don't know how of any surefire way to persuade an ignorant AND obstinate person, but I do know that you should never call them either of these things.  

No one is going to enter into a discussion with you on the premise that they are the scum of the earth.  Most people think they're good people, especially the shitty ones.  Those who see their own faults without outside assistance, are usually the type to work on those same faults.  If they don't see it, they probably won't appreciate you pointing it out, especially publically. 

So, we can assume we are arguing with someone who has been deluded into believing they have a moral position.  That's not an easy position either, but unless you can empathize with people whom you detest, you're not going to be able to make a convincing argument, because you won't know how to present it for them to accept it.  In my observation, most people are not able to separate the fucked up, dangerous idea from the person who holds it.  It's not easy to do this, and I catch myself failing all the time.  

Going back to my anecdote above, I don't think my friend was open to discussion or debate with just anyone about his ideas.  He listened to me because we already had a strong bond and mutual trust/respect.  People shouting at him that he was ___ would not have done anything except fuel his anger, and lead him back to the wackos who accepted him.

This is my main beef with the idea of counter protesting, in general.  I am not talking about one side or the other. I'm talking about anyone who attends any protest as part of an opposing group.

If the purpose of the counter-protest is a show of force to intimidate the other group or create some sort of conflict, then they are largely successful. I don't think that's a useful tactic for fighting hate, for the reasons I mentioned above, so I don't think they have much merit.

Counter protests help create a situation where violence is likely to occur by one of the clashing groups, and by the police.  Knowing an opposing force is likely to show up changes the expectation of those attending the protest, rally, etc to expect a fight.  People who aren't interested in that are more likely to stay home, and people who are eager for a fight are more likely to show up.  Those aren't the kind of people you want showing up in large numbers, from either side.  When the soldiers of each group meet on the street with masks, helmets and shields, neither side should act surprised that violence results, or that the police who are there are also ready for a fight.

A gathering of people you find abhorrent who hold ideas that frighten you is tough to watch. I suggest not going to watch.
There will be less chance of violence, less media coverage, less justification for the other group to be hostile and defiant against the opposition, and you can instead hold a counter rally somewhere else for people to get together and have a pleasant time while strengthening their community.  

Or, you can try to beat the ideas out of them. Either way, I wish you the best of luck and appreciate your help in making this a better place for all of us.