Punching Nazis

[Timsup2nothin]

Notice how in Vincour's world view everyone who does not just bow down to the inherent rightness of everything he espouses either has a "warped world view" or an "absurdly baffling idea"? Saves him a lot of effort in presentation of his case, but is the sort of dismissal of opposition that traditionally has had to be backed up with fists to be really effective.

 

[metalhead]

They're not a supernatural army that crawls out of the grave. Trump's supporters are made up of your family members, your neighbours, and your peers. Everyone has shifting political allegiances, everyone has a reason for what they believe. You'd do well to stop pretending the SS is on your doorstep and that's why you have to attack someone on the street.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. None of us would. This is not a hypothetical threat, and by the time the threat is clear enough to be in everyone's face, it will be far beyond the time where social acceptance of mild physical violence in response to Nazi hate speech does any good.

I don't advocate for people to go around willy-nilly punching other people on the street. The general idea of punching people for speaking is indeed a distasteful one. However, a few Nazis have been unapologetic in broadcasting what they are and what they believe, and those people being emboldened to speak out in public is exactly where this all begins to go south. The occasional punching of these people when they spread their calls to genocide is not something to be frowned upon.

It's a message which needs to be sent. I do not believe these lines are particularly blurry, nor do I think tacit condoning of a punch here or there means also condoning a beating, a stabbing, or a shooting. You want to come in public, egg on a crowd of people by spewing your Nazi garbage near them - you're gonna get a well-deserved punch in the head. Maybe 2. It can end there, the message is sent, and that's that.

 

[Akka]

Notice how in Vincour's world view everyone who does not just bow down to the inherent rightness of everything he espouses either has a "warped world view" or an "absurdly baffling idea"?

On the other hand, in some other people's view, everyone who doesn't emphatically agrees to punch a Nazi is a nazi sympathizer. I definitely can follow him on the "that's a pretty warped worldview" on this point.

Not that I don't want to punch people regularly, but I'm pretty sure they would be much less appreciative of the idea once they would be the ones getting hit

 

[Lexicus]

It's sad that your world view is so warped that you think that way.

At least if your perspective ends up happening, you can say "I told you so"? Whatever consolation that may be in such a circumstance.

Not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't really see how what I said is even debatable. The DOJ even did a report that, if you read between the lines, demonstrates how many Americans today live in what might be fairly termed a 'police state.' Their local police forces are more likely to rob or kill them than protect them from criminals. And they are trapped in their neighborhoods by the interrelated scourges of poverty and racism. Hell, if you consider the Flint water crisis we don't even really need to ship people to camps in order to poison and forget about them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There have been times when a punch in the mouth made me take stock of what had been coming out of it, which made me appreciative of the person delivering the message.

 

[Traitorfish]

You're just illustrating what I'm saying.
Nazi are human beings. It doesn't make them any more likeable, doesn't absolve them of their disgusting ideas or actions, doesn't improve their station in any way. It's just a fact, and it's pointless and childish to try to argue against.
If they are as bad as they are supposed to be (and they are), there is no need to try to demonize them further through appeals to emotion.
And yes, they are opposed to the idea of humanism. Doesn't mean they suddendly change their species.

This isn't demonisation, it's a blunt state of moral theory. Humanity is an historical project: Nazis are the avowed and militant enemies of that project. The world cannot comfortably or safely contain both humanity and Nazism.

"Human", as a moral category, is not simply a short-hand way of saying "bipedal, largely-hairless ape". It is a claim to community: a shared history and a shared destiny. Nazis are not a part of that, explicitly and aggressively reject that status, and make absolutely no bones about their intention to see that project buried in blood. I don't see any compelling reason to imagine that this is all just lively good humour on their part.

It's as much a historical project as Marxism is a recipe in a cook book or you can visit the national landmark of 20 Celsius.

You have such an absurdly baffling idea of what "humanism" is, and about which people are human beings and which aren't, that I'm not sure you're even TF.

This is all pretty standard Marxist-humanism. It's only "absurdly baffling" because you can't recognise a New Left cliché when you see one. Disagree, if you want, but give me the credit of assuming that I'm not making it up quite as I go along.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Liberals are like Nazi's these days. They kill millions around the world in their wars against terrorists, autocracists, homophobes. They brand the whole nations evil. They genocide undesirable nations and territories through embargoes and blockades. They throw nations into debt holes, exploiting them to death. And that all is covered by the best propaganda machine in history.

 

[Akka]

There have been times when a punch in the mouth made me take stock of what had been coming out of it, which made me appreciative of the person delivering the message.

I very often feel the urge to punch dumb people, but sadly I must admit that :

a) More often than not, it actually stiffen people into their ideas rather than making them realize they were wrong.
b) It's not because they shut up they actually change their mind in any way.
c) It just means the biggest guy silence the others, not the guy who is right.
d) I prefer to actually strike from the back, because I don't like being hit back.

So I'm afraid I had to fall back to argue, shout and shake my head in disbelief at the stupidity of regular people.
Though yeah, if I can't convince someone he's wrong, at least punching him is a great way to vent steam (as long as he's weaker).

This isn't demonisation, it's a blunt state of moral theory. Humanity is an historical project

Humanity is the human population. Unless you're in some sort of alien world engineering, that's about it and there is no grand project.

 

[Mise]

I really don't understand the rhetorical, political or philosophical value in trying to argue that a certain section of the population are not really human, and therefore deserving of physical violence.

I do, however, appreciate the ironic value in making such an argument in a thread about actual Nazis.

 

[metalhead]

"Deserving" is too strong. I'd say, "Odious enough that the good outweighs the bad." That's exactly why "advocates genocide" is integral in the calculus; the benefit of a punch in response to generally directed speech is directly proportional to the terribleness of what is being said. Once you get below "Calls for the systematic extermination of millions of people," the cost-benefit analysis becomes murky, at best.

 

[Lexicus]

Once you get below "Calls for the systematic extermination of millions of people," the cost-benefit analysis becomes murky, at best.

Yes, exactly.
I mean, it's sort of like bomb threats. The authorities have to take them seriously; there just isn't any other workable way of dealing with them.

 

[Traitorfish]

I really don't understand the rhetorical, political or philosophical value in trying to argue that a certain section of the population are not really human, and therefore deserving of physical violence.

Well, first you'll that I have not actually said, anywhere in this thread, that Nazis are deserving of physical violence. That isn't the point. The point is that they must be dissolved as a political force, by whatever means the circumstances demand. This might mean ignoring them, it might mean marching two million Russians into Berlin and demolishing everything over three foot high. I don't pretend to have an answer to every situation.

But the value of my argument is that it gives an historical basis to the refusal to tolerate intolerance. A free society isn't just a good idea or a widely-shared preference, it is an historical imperative, a multi-generational project that has been won in blood, and it must be defended with the same force that its enemies would bring against it.

I don't know if that means that punching this specific Nazi in this specific time or place is a sound proposition, but we cannot dismiss it out of hand, least of all on the spurious and frankly senile premise that the Jew in Auschwitz owes some debt of sympathy to the SS trooper marching him into the gas chamber.

I do, however, appreciate the ironic value in making such an argument in a thread about actual Nazis.

It's like ray-hee-yain on your wedding day.

Humanity is the human population. Unless you're in some sort of alien world engineering, that's about it and there is no grand project.

If humanity is simply the human population, it has no moral significance. If it has moral significance, then it requires more rigorous definition. Perhaps my definition isn't correct, but it's better than "tolerate this other hairless ape yelling about how he's going to kill your entire family because reasons".

George Soros (Nazi collaborator in WW2)

Soros is, first, Jewish, and secondly, was fourteen years old when the war ended. His family survived the Holocaust by obtaining forged documents testifying a Christian heritage. Please refrain from repeating ghoulish anti-Semitic conspiracy theories unless you really believe they add something to thread.

The Irony of this all. "The fascists of the future will be anti-fascists"-The late great Winston Churchill.

Noting that this is the same man who said of Mussolini,

"Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism."

One should read his comments on anti-fascism as those of a man worried that he might end his political career swinging from a lamppost.

 

[Lexicus]

The rant got a bit off topic, but there you have it.

I'll say. A good name for your rant might be 'how many poorly corroborated, more or less anti-Semitic, right-wing internet myths can I fit into a single post?'

 

[Traitorfish]

"More-or-less" seems generous. And he claims that the left is lacking in tolerance!

 

[Lexicus]

"More-or-less" seems generous. And he claims that the left is lacking in tolerance!

Well, some were more, some were less. *shrugs* All pretty odious though.

One should read his comments on anti-fascism as those of a man worried that he might end his political career swinging from a lamppost.

As best as I can tell the Churchill quote is entirely fabricated anyway. A Google search for it turned up nothing except some Nazi subreddits and Nazi posts in the comments sections of obscure blogs.

The point is that they must be dissolved as a political force, by whatever means the circumstances demand. This might mean ignoring them, it might mean marching two million Russians into Berlin and demolishing everything over three foot high. I don't pretend to have an answer to every situation.

I'm going to keep this little tidbit for safekeeping because it perfectly expresses everything that needs to be expressed about this topic.

 

[sophie]

Just saying, Trump supporters aren't the ones on the streets rioting and setting things on fire.

They certainly fantasize about it plenty.

They aren't the ones physically assaulting people.

Yes. They. Are.

 

[Old Hippy]

I think I will start growing multi coloured flowers again so I can place them in the barrels of the guns when I protest our politicians open suport of torture that seems to be happening
maybe have a love the Nazi day, it worked so well a couple of months ago here when a march protesting the indefinite detention of refugees in concentration camps and supporting 'Multiculturalism' was turned into a riot by Nazis from a town 110 kilometres away, that came to punch a liberal or when the same group dressed up as Muslims and disrupted a Christian worship service to show as just how bad them Muslins are....
start carrying signs saying '' have you hugged a Nazi today?''

after all every one knows the left is crazy.....

 

[sophie]

Your contention wasn't "the left does it too!". Your contention was "The left does it and Trump's supporters do not."

 

[Berzerker]

This coward managed to make a Nazi appear sympathetic and his defenders cant figure that out

Indeed. Yours.

To make a definitive statement of the "you are wrong and I am right" form, as you did in jumping on Lexicus, when you have no direct knowledge and the court findings that you are subsequently claiming as source have been relegated by history to the "dubious at best" category was ignorant. No one posting on this forum is in a position to say with any certainty what happened there.

Your ignorance is based on mine? How does that work? Lexicus said Martin was killed for walking. Did you complain about his 'certainty'? Did you accuse him of ignorance for making a definitive statement? What a load of straw... As I already pointed out, I do have direct knowledge - we have a recording of Zimmerman after he lost track of Martin. Now what exactly did I mention about the trial that qualifies as 'dubious at best'? All I mentioned was that recording of Zimmerman and Martin's friend who was talking to him. Is she the very dubious source?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lexicus said Martin was killed for walking. Did you complain about his 'certainty'? Did you accuse him of ignorance for making a definitive statement?

Lexicus wasn't responding to someone with a "you are wrong I am right" form when neither of you has any certain knowledge. His statement was clearly opinion. Yours was less apparently opinion, because of the form. So no, I had no complaints about his comment, and still think yours was ignorant. If you had stated your opinion first and he had jumped on you the way you jumped on him I'd be having the same conversation with him...though I am pretty sure he would have been smart enough to get out of it, if not smart enough to have never gotten into it in the first place.

Meanwhile, I always get a good laugh when people from the sidelines use the word coward to describe someone taking an action, so thanks for that.