The inside-the-law approach that works to some limited extent is public community rejection. Things like large groups showing up and standing with their back to the Nazis.
The method that has historically stopped Nazis like this involves getting some level of police cooperation and beating them up
Newsflash: some number of people are absolute shitbags.
If you let them take over and run the show it’s gonna get real bad.
Nazis are absolute shitbags. They will always be around in some number. You need to always suppress them so they don’t fuck up the good shit we have managed to eek out.
Well, yes, you definitely don’t want to let them take over. You want to demonstrate your own strength, and how much you outnumber them.
This is not preventing them from marching in some way, though. That is not doable, it would be illegal. It would also be counterproductive in our current climate of most people underestimating the actual danger.
I’m discussing specifics, details, not vague principles. Should there be Neo Nazis allowed to gather and march through some city with their signs? Yes, they should not be prohibited or physically prevented.
Why? Because it helps give evidence to the fact that racism in the modern day is still an enduring problem, and that extreme racism is still a threat. This counters a standard conservative narrative that remains an effective weapon in their toolbox.
Is this tolerance? No, not necessarily, not if you’re also counterprotesting, contesting their position, demonstrating that they do not have factuality or popularity on their side.
I’m not some young whippersnapper that thinks in simple, straightforward, black and white ways. It’s a messy and complicated world out there, without simple answers to our problems. So, we need to think in complex ways, paying attention to details and specifics instead of thinking some broad application of some sort of simplified principle can fix what a century of progress failed to.
