[n4r9]

It's just pointing out that all political power in this world is ultimately held through the direct or indirect threat of violence. It's not a moral judgement but a fact of the world.

If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.

[filmfact]

You could also abide by the law while voting for a party that supported whatever minority viewpoint you held.

Of course if you voiced unpopular opinions publicly you might get shot by someone who cites Violet Gibson or Thomas Mair as an inspiration.

Or you know - we could not put up plaques to attempted murderers.

[n4r9]

Yes everyone could go around abiding the law all the time, and we could skip the Gordon riots, the suffragettes, the battle of Cable Street etc... . I'm glad that's not the world we live in and that people have the courage to follow through with their convictions against state oppression, with violence if need be.

[filmfact]

Cool - so Thomas Mair plaque kickstarter supporter then?

Because as I pointed out - you only cited examples whose politics you agree with.

Take the mental leap.

[filmfact]

I’m going to leave you with a quote from wikipedias page on Fascism: “Fascism rejects the assertion that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation”

Congratulations.

[n4r9]

I never mentioned what politics I agree with, nor can you infer in good faith that I'd celebrate the murder of Jo Cox. You're greatly over-generalising my argument in order to try and prove an absurd consequence.

Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.

[filmfact]

But you regard violence as legitimate and positive political tactic in some circumstances. So did Thomas Mair. I think that belief is problematic, and should not be encouraged. By making the connection between apparently acceptable-for-plaques political violence and the national-day-of-morning kind, I hope to draw attention to the fact that it’s fundamentally problematic.

Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?

The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.

[n4r9]

Again, you're greatly over-generalising what I'm saying. If violence can sometimes be justified, doesn't follow that everyone who uses violence is justified. It certainly doesn't follow that I support fascism.

There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.