Punching Nazis

[sophie]

Referring to this OP.

This Richard Spencer?

He dresses neatly, eschews violence, and works to sound rational. /.../ In an address at white supremacist Jared Taylor’s 2013 American Renaissance conference, Spencer called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” As an example of how this could be accomplished, he cited the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, where new national boundaries were formed at the end of World War I. “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so),” Spencer said. “But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.”

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0
Seems like he would fail your "simple bright line test"...

The Nazis, notably, also advocated for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing.

 

[Hehehe]

The Nazis, notably, also advocated for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing.

I realize that this Richard Spencer guy is highly problematic, and I am not defending his views. That being said, he does not, as far as I know, explicitly advocate violence. Can we therefore attribute such views to him, despite him denying it? If yes, can we then direct political violence against him, based on the views that we have attributed to him? If such train of thought is completely valid, could other political groups also use similar reasoning in order to justify their political violence?

Make no mistake; I'm not defending Spencer. Were this an election, I definitely would not vote for him. Spencer is a meaningless nobody; what I am exploring here is CFC's attitudes to political violence. I understand that some people receive emotional satisfaction from political violence, but I see this issue as somewhat problematic for several reasons.

 

[W|M]

Referring to this OP.

This Richard Spencer?

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0
Seems like he would fail your "simple bright line test"...

1919 was not peaceful

 

[Yeekim]

I realize that this Richard Spencer guy is highly problematic, and I am not defending his views. That being said, he does not, as far as I know, explicitly advocate violence. Can we therefore attribute such views to him, despite him denying it? If yes, can we then direct political violence against him, based on the views that we have attributed to him? If such train of thought is completely valid, could other political groups also use similar reasoning in order to justify their political violence?

Make no mistake; I'm not defending Spencer. Were this an election, I definitely would not vote for him. Spencer is a meaningless nobody; what I am exploring here is CFC's attitudes to political violence. I understand that some people receive emotional satisfaction from political violence, but I see this issue as somewhat problematic for several reasons.

Ditto.

 

[Commodore]

what I am exploring here is CFC's attitudes to political violence. I understand that some people receive emotional satisfaction from political violence, but I see this issue as somewhat problematic for several reasons.

It has widespread support here, even among the staff, as long as that political violence is directed against those they disagree with. And I say the staff supports it because many of the posts in this thread clearly violate the site's rules against advocating for violence, yet the moderators sit silently by and let this crapfest continue.

 

[aelf]

The thread title says "Punching Nazis." The OP doesn't give details, but it's actually in reference to a very specific pseudo-Nazi, and right wingers are now crying for a safe space because lots of people agree with punching Nazis.

I say Hygro trolled us.

 

[Flying Pig]

It has widespread support here, even among the staff, as long as that political violence is directed against those they disagree with. And I say the staff supports it because many of the posts in this thread clearly violate the site's rules against advocating for violence, yet the moderators sit silently by and let this crapfest continue.

Moderator Action: This has been clarified in Site Feedback, but to restate the rule here:

We generally allow people to discuss when violence is appropriate - otherwise we'd never be able to have any non-pacifist discussion about military interventions, for instance. It's advocating specific, extralegal acts of violence that is not okay. For instance, in the thread about the Berkeley riots, I infracted someone for saying that Milo Yiannopoulos should be lynched, but talking about whether violent protest is acceptable or wise is allowed, in general.

Moderator Action: Emphasis mine.

 

[Lexicus]

The notion that anyone might have *rational reasons* for voting for Trump is dismissed out of hand. As far as I can see, the only real improvement is that some of the contempt has been replaced with patronization.

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to admit that rich people had a perfectly *rational reason* to vote for him, ie that he would be on their side and help them get richer at everyone else's expense.

If you make less than about $300,000 a year, you almost by definition could not have had "rational reasons" to vote for Trump - I'm assuming you don't consider "keep this country white" to be a rational reason but who knows?

It has widespread support here, even among the staff, as long as that political violence is directed against those they disagree with. And I say the staff supports it because many of the posts in this thread clearly violate the site's rules against advocating for violence, yet the moderators sit silently by and let this crapfest continue.

Just out of curiosity, do you support US drone strikes? The invasion of Iraq? US involvement in World War II?

I don't know the first two, but I'm pretty certain you think World War II was a good idea. If that's the case then wouldn't you be supporting political violence against Nazis much more comprehensive and deadly than just punching a few nerds on camera?

 

[metalhead]

Referring to this OP.

This Richard Spencer?

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0
Seems like he would fail your "simple bright line test"...

Come on now, that's a total cop-out. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that such "peaceful ethnic cleansings" always end up in mass killings of the minority population being "relocated." Note how he doesn't say that violence is unacceptable, just that it isn't necessary from a policy standpoint. Except that, of course violence up to and including mass murder is an integral part of any such plan. The fact that he uses a rhetorical construct to eliminate that nasty part of his policy prescription in order to make it more palatable only strengthens my belief that he should be punched.

 

[Farm Boy]

hm, bad bounty bad feast

Concurrence.

 

[Yeekim]

Come on now, that's a total cop-out. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that such "peaceful ethnic cleansings" always end up in mass killings of the minority population being "relocated." Note how he doesn't say that violence is unacceptable, just that it isn't necessary from a policy standpoint. Except that, of course violence up to and including mass murder is an integral part of any such plan. The fact that he uses a rhetorical construct to eliminate that nasty part of his policy prescription in order to make it more palatable only strengthens my belief that he should be punched.

See, there are perfectly good arguments to raise against the guy without starting to throw punches around.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I realize that this Richard Spencer guy is highly problematic, and I am not defending his views. That being said, he does not, as far as I know, explicitly advocate violence. Can we therefore attribute such views to him, despite him denying it? If yes, can we then direct political violence against him, based on the views that we have attributed to him? If such train of thought is completely valid, could other political groups also use similar reasoning in order to justify their political violence?

Make no mistake; I'm not defending Spencer. Were this an election, I definitely would not vote for him. Spencer is a meaningless nobody; what I am exploring here is CFC's attitudes to political violence. I understand that some people receive emotional satisfaction from political violence, but I see this issue as somewhat problematic for several reasons.

Sorry. Forced relocation is not "non-violent." So, yes, his advocacy for "ethnic cleansing by fiat" is in fact advocating violence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, there are perfectly good arguments to raise against the guy without starting to throw punches around.

So what?

There are "perfectly good arguments to raise" against an arsonist setting fire to houses just to see the flames. Do you think standing around in the street patting each other on the back for the reasonableness of their arguments provides people with adequate compensation while their homes burn down?

 

[Civitar]

@Timsup2nothin, realize only that if it is ok for you to hurt the nazi... it is ok for the nazi to hurt you.
You say that advocating for forced relocation is "advocating violence". They say that advocating for race-mixing is "advocating genocide". So if you get to hurt people because you don't like what they are saying, they can do the same thing to you; and they hate what people like you say.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you make less than about $300,000 a year, you almost by definition could not have had "rational reasons" to vote for Trump

That's a rather capitalistic outlook for an anti-capitalist.

 

[Lexicus]

it is ok for the nazi to hurt you.

They already think it's ok to hurt me, so what's changed?

 

[Hehehe]

The thread title says "Punching Nazis." The OP doesn't give details, but it's actually in reference to a very specific pseudo-Nazi, and right wingers are now crying for a safe space because lots of people agree with punching Nazis.

I say Hygro trolled us.

If "safe space" means not getting punched, then I don't think that the request is entirely unreasonable. If, however, a safe space means that ideas aren't allowed to be criticized, then my answer to that is an impolite no.

Come on now, that's a total cop-out. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that such "peaceful ethnic cleansings" always end up in mass killings of the minority population being "relocated." Note how he doesn't say that violence is unacceptable, just that it isn't necessary from a policy standpoint. Except that, of course violence up to and including mass murder is an integral part of any such plan. The fact that he uses a rhetorical construct to eliminate that nasty part of his policy prescription in order to make it more palatable only strengthens my belief that he should be punched.

And if Richard Spencer were running for a public office, and we were discussing whether or not we should vote for him, this would be an extremely relevant point. You would be absolutely right, and I would completely agree with you. However, since this discussion is about whether or not political violence is justified, I would like you to read my previous post. A post which, in my opinion, covers this and is still legitimate (post number 442 on page 23 in this thread).

Sorry. Forced relocation is not "non-violent." So, yes, his advocacy for "ethnic cleansing by fiat" is in fact advocating violence.

I don't know if Spencer has specifically mentioned forced relocation in some of his speeches; I'm only going based on that one quote Yeekim gave us. Should you have additional information about this matter, then please by all means, do share. But from the quote Yeekim gave us, it seems as if he was hoping to redraw borders. It seems like a terrible idea, but it isn't an explicit call for violence either, which brings us back to the point that I originally made.

 

[Yeekim]

They already think it's ok to hurt me, so what's changed?

It might very well decide how third parties react.

 

[metalhead]

And if Richard Spencer were running for a public office, and we were discussing whether or not we should vote for him, this would be an extremely relevant point. You would be absolutely right, and I would completely agree with you. However, since this discussion is about whether or not political violence is justified, I would like you to read my previous post. A post which, in my opinion, covers this and is still legitimate (post number 442 on page 23 in this thread).

I don't really disagree with you that the stance that punching Richard Spencer ought to be tolerated, if not condoned, is a problematic one. But I also think that we can set out a specific set of circumstances and limit our "tolerance" of punching in response to speech to that narrow set of circumstances. We can limit it only to punching (i.e., not condone beating, stabbing, or shooting), and limit it to people who espouse the supremely morally repugnant act of mass killings of other human beings. I mean, this is not a moral grey area, it is universally accepted that such mass killings are a crime against humanity. So I think you can limit this to only the mildest of violence, and only the most extreme of advocacy, and generally square it with the ideals of freedom of speech.

 

[Civitar]

They already think it's ok to hurt me, so what's changed?

What has changed is that they are correct in thinking that.