The marriage analogy is a good one, but that is a discussion that can (and should) be held rationally. Fascism by its nature is a naked threat to...well, everyone except fascists. Can't really wax metaphysical with an ethnic cleansing advocate who spouts Nazi propaganda; the battle lines are drawn and there is basically nothing left to discuss rationally, hence the ordinarily unwarranted jump to...a more visceral show of disagreement.
Accomplishing what, exactly? In specific terms can you say what good this actually
does, apart from giving some people an unearned sense of self-righteousness?
Not trying to be flippant, but in neither this nor the 'punch a Nazi' thread has anyone shown what property destruction or physical assault actually accomplishes toward stopping 'fascism'. For the sake of argument let's grant the disputed point that the targets are even fascists in the first place : do you honestly believe that silencing or socking someone who genuinely wants to exterminate the 'mud people' will dissuade them in any way? They really want to wipe out all of <group X> from the face of the earth, so viscous is their ideology. But then suddenly their rally is disrupted by a gaggle of privileged wankers breaking random people's stuff - are they going to stop and think "Oh, guess we'll have to grudgingly live in harmony with all mankind now. Shoot, and I so wanted a Holocaust this Christmas. "
And that's not even touching on :
1) It hasn't been shown that these are actually close-minded, irredeemable, by Hoyle "fascists".
2) You don't need to be able to discuss higher concepts to get to the issue of basic humanity with anyone- doesn't mean you'll succeed or win them over, but even a mild nudge in the direction of decency with 1 person out of 10 is more than having them all double down because you just clocked them.
3) Abandoning the rule of law makes you (generic you) the threat to Democracy, not the odious talking head giving a speech
4) Who gave you (again, generic) to right to decide when someone's speech has crossed the line into 'no point in talking, time to burn stuff'?
5) You've now show just about any bigoted group in the country that all they need to do to silence pro-choice, or atheist, or anti-Trump gatherings is threaten to **** up a Starbucks if these deeply anti-American radicals are allowed to get together and talk
And now to be intentionally flippant : you know who else thought it was a good idea to use physical violence and intimidation against groups whom they opposed? The SA.
