Punching Nazis

[Hehehe]

Yes, Trump and Bannon are in power because of the failure of democratic institutions to keep proto-fascists out of power. And the moderates will fail to check him, if most of them are even really interested in doing so.

"Proto-fascists"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump won the elections, did he not? And as far as I know, he hasn't (at least yet) suspended democracy? Even if Trump were a fascist (which I don't think he is) the US still has a system of checks and balances to stop him, do they not? I would imagine that the system is stronger than one man.

If we were living in an alternate universe, where Hillary won the election, would you accept similar kind of reasoning from Trump supporters? Them saying that Hillary is a fascist and therefore violence is ok?

 

[metalhead]

The Nazis won elections. Hitler became Chancellor purely through the democratic organs of the state. Authoritarians usually rely on elections to legitimize their governments; the smart ones even ensure a decent measure of fairness remains in the election process. It's the ones which attempt to take power by force that tend not to last very long.

 

[Hehehe]

The Nazis won elections. Hitler became Chancellor purely through the democratic organs of the state. Authoritarians usually rely on elections to legitimize their governments; the smart ones even ensure a decent measure of fairness remains in the election process. It's the ones which attempt to take power by force that tend not to last very long.

Non-nazis have also been known to win elections occasionally. The fact that Trump won elections in and of itself does not prove that he is a nazi. If anything, if anyone is a fascist, I would say that it's Aelf. Judging by his posts, he wants to remove a democratically elected leader and use violence to suppress his political opponents.

Also, I feel that it is worth pointing out that Nazis didn't actually win their elections, they usurped power with the help of one smaller party

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes, Trump and Bannon are in power because of the failure of democratic institutions to keep proto-fascists out of power. And the moderates will fail to check him, if most of them are even really interested in doing so.

Democratic institutions have no business of keeping eligible people out of power but making sure that those elected act democraticly.

The Nazis won elections. Hitler became Chancellor purely through the democratic organs of the state. Authoritarians usually rely on elections to legitimize their governments; the smart ones even ensure a decent measure of fairness remains in the election process. It's the ones which attempt to take power by force that tend not to last very long.

See above.

 

[metalhead]

I think you missed the point. Trump winning an election and not suspending democracy was offered as evidence he's not a fascist. My point is merely that successful authoritarians typically both win elections, and continue to hold them in a manner that still appears free and fair to most people. So the fact that these things are true is in no way relevant to the question of his propensity towards authoritarianism. Whereas his antagonism of the press and the judiciary are a pretty ominous sign about his proclivities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Non-nazis have also been known to win elections occasionally. The fact that Trump won elections in and of itself does not prove that he is a nazi. If anything, if anyone is a fascist, I would say that it's Aelf. Judging by his posts, he wants to remove a democratically elected leader and use violence to suppress his political opponents.

Also, I feel that it is worth pointing out that Nazis didn't actually win their elections, they usurped power with the help of one smaller party

While we're rewriting history, why stop at "they didn't win elections"? Why not just go all the way to "Hitler wasn't really an authoritarian"?

Watching people like you and Commodore, who as Aelf correctly pointed out supports authoritarianism in every aspect of life that he ever posts about, claim to be the "true defenders of democracy" would be hilarious if it weren't so disgusting.

 

[Hehehe]

While we're rewriting history, why stop at "they didn't win elections"?

As I'm sure you remember from history, a lot of people voted for Hitler, but not enough for him to gain the majority.

Why not just go all the way to "Hitler wasn't really an authoritarian"?

Ummm... Because this is a ridiculous strawman on your part?

Watching people like you and Commodore, who as Aelf correctly pointed out supports authoritarianism in every aspect of life that he ever posts about, claim to be the "true defenders of democracy" would be hilarious if it weren't so disgusting.

Wait what? This is where we are now? Me speaking against political violence now makes me an "authoritarian"? Does that mean that I am now liable to get punched?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I'm sure you remember from history, a lot of people voted for Hitler, but not enough for him to gain the majority.

Ummm... Because this is a ridiculous strawman on your part?

Wait what? This is where we are now? Me speaking against political violence now makes me an "authoritarian"? Does that mean that I am now liable to get punched?

You haven't spoken enough to draw any conclusions. You do happen to be saying (on this topic) basically the same things as Commodore, who has more than enough history here to say that he will come down on the authoritarian side literally every time. If you read my previous statement more carefully I wasn't saying anything conclusive about you in pointing out the company you are keeping, just pointing out that you are in that company at the moment.

Meanwhile "didn't gain the majority" doesn't change the fact that Hitler did get elected to office. Your previous premise that there was no need to worry about Trump since he won the election is thus squashed. As others have already pointed out most totalitarian governments trace their roots to an election.

 

[Hehehe]

You haven't spoken enough to draw any conclusions. You do happen to be saying (on this topic) basically the same things as Commodore, who has more than enough history here to say that he will come down on the authoritarian side literally every time. If you read my previous statement more carefully I wasn't saying anything conclusive about you in pointing out the company you are keeping, just pointing out that you are in that company at the moment.

Meanwhile "didn't gain the majority" doesn't change the fact that Hitler did get elected to office. Your previous premise that there was no need to worry about Trump since he won the election is thus squashed. As others have already pointed out most totalitarian governments trace their roots to an election.

What company I'm in? I am responsible for no opinions other than my own. As for this "authoritarian side", if you guys want to violently overthrow Trump, then I guess I would reluctantly side with Trump. If Trump tries to overthrow democracy, then I would side with the rebellion. In principle, anyway, I'm not an American.

As for the elections, yes, Trump getting elected doesn't prove that he is not a fascist. Just like it does not mean that he is. Going back to the Nazi comparison, as far as I know, in 1930's Germany, both Nazis and communists openly stated that they wanted to overthrow democracy. As for Trump, to the best of my knowledge, he has made no such claims. Perhaps he has made some dubious claims, but nothing about destroying democracy.

I think you missed the point. Trump winning an election and not suspending democracy was offered as evidence he's not a fascist. My point is merely that successful authoritarians typically both win elections, and continue to hold them in a manner that still appears free and fair to most people. So the fact that these things are true is in no way relevant to the question of his propensity towards authoritarianism. Whereas his antagonism of the press and the judiciary are a pretty ominous sign about his proclivities.

I don't need to provide evidence that he is not a fascist. Since it is you who made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. As for Trump's antagonism of the press, perhaps this can be explained by the press' antagonism of Trump? I am not a Trump supporter, and I would not have voted for him even if I could. Still, even so, it seems to me like the press has done their absolute best to demonize Trump in every way possible. I'm not saying that there are no legitimate criticisms to be made against Trump; there are plenty of them. But it seems to me like the press is throwing everything at him: legitimate criticism, illegitimate criticism and absolutely unprovable character assassinating smears. It seems to me like the press is no longer trying to provide information, but rather they are trying to tell people what to think (in Trump's case, that he is an incompetent Hitler). As for Trump's brush with the judiciary, forgive me if I have not been following the latest drama that has erupted. Is CNN calling him Hitler again?

 

[Traitorfish]

so far, the best excuses we have to punch nazis are vigilantism and dehumanization, that's rich...

If the dehumanisation of Nazis is more troubling to you than Nazism itself, you may want to re-examination your priorities.

Whatever happened to the hippie left? Put flowers into gun barrels?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

 

[jma22tb]

This thread is a perfect example of how unqualified the moderators are to maintain a discussion forum.

Political violence will be inevitable if people continue to advocate for this, and Noam Chomsky has said that the side calling for it is not brutal enough to deal with those consequences.

If the moderators were responsible in any way, shape, or form, they would have shut this thread down a long time ago.

Instead, you show your hatred and disdain for people with the "wrong political ideas."

If you want to punch "Nazis" do not be surprised at the response.

 

[Mouthwash]

Scott Alexander says, "Remember that thing where Trump started out as a random joke, and then the media covered him way more than any other candidate because he was so outrageous, and gave him what was essentially free advertising, and then he became President-elect of the United States? Is the lesson you learned from this experience that you need 24-7 coverage of the Ku Klux Klan?"

I think this is good advice to follow: stop giving racism free advertising.

(Also, why is this guy being called a Nazi? I'm not sure he's even technically a Neo-Nazi, just a run-of-the-mill white nationalist.)

 

[jma22tb]

Scott Alexander says, "Remember that thing where Trump started out as a random joke, and then the media covered him way more than any other candidate because he was so outrageous, and gave him what was essentially free advertising, and then he became President-elect of the United States? Is the lesson you learned from this experience that you need 24-7 coverage of the Ku Klux Klan?"

I think this is good advice to follow: stop giving racism free advertising.

(Also, why is this guy being called a Nazi? I'm not sure he's even technically a Neo-Nazi, just a run-of-the-mill white nationalist.)

The political winds are blowing toward a White Reconquista for exactly the reasons you describe. The hostility being displayed to slightly right of center people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump is emboldening the harder right groups to demand that the most hostile groups be expelled from the country and prevented from immigrating.

Spencer is not a Neo-Nazi at all. He's what can be described as a White version of a Jewish Zionist, and the unrestrained insanity in response to his message, the conflating of his ideas to Nazism, is already de-legitimizing opposition to his message.

Everyone joining in on the Punch a Nazi circlejerk are going to get much more than they bargained for.

 

[Traitorfish]

If Yiannopoulos is slightly-right-of-centre, Reagan was a communist.

 

[jma22tb]

For a "nationalist" his social values and life are as Leftist as someone can be. The guy is probably going to die of AIDS before he's 50 because of his sexual life, but yeah he's a "far right extremist."

Reagan granted amnesty to millions of foreign nationals, which is not at all right-leaning. Reagan did nothing about the IRS' blackmail against Christians, which is not right-leaning.

If by Far Right we are defining that as Christian + Authoritarian

 

[Traitorfish]

"He's gay, so he's a liberal"?

Nobody told the Aryan Warrior here about Ernst Röhm, I guess.

 

[jma22tb]

There is no such thing as a gay traditionalist because gays cannot have a nuclear family, which is a cornerstone of the Christian family. The New Testament is also very clear about homosexuality.

Russia banning Brazzers and homosexual propaganda is instructive in how the Far Right would handle those matters

 

[Traitorfish]

C'mon, dude, "traditionalist" is the 2014 euphemism for "Nazi", the new term is "alt-right", get with the times.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that Milo is that close to Trump, character-wise. Milo seems to be more of a career troll (with some actual degree of eloquence and stage presence, as if it was a movie) while Trump is more of the Mussolini clown-leader type. He even looks like il Duce, and moves like him
Imo Milo is more of a version of Colbert, really. Just not working as a comedian who has a virtually 100% political routine (Colbert), but a politically-using troll, in the vein of a character by Sascha Coen (Borat, Ali G etc, and btw i think Coen was/is even more of a douche than Milo )

 

[Senethro]

great googly moogly we got a live one here