Punching Nazis

[Timsup2nothin]

@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.

This has been the cowards response from time beyond reckoning. "If I stand up to the bully I'll get hit, so I guess I'll let him shove feces in people's mouths and just hope he never notices me." It has absolutely never worked.

If a Nazi wants to hurt me they are welcome to send me an e-mail I will arrange to meet them. They better bring their lunch.

 

[Yeekim]

There is a difference between "standing up to" and "initiating/escalating" though.

 

[Civitar]

This has been the cowards response from time beyond reckoning. "If I stand up to the bully I'll get hit, so I guess I'll let him shove feces in people's mouths and just hope he never notices me." It has absolutely never worked.

You are the coward, when you advocate violence against a political group to stop them from saying what is on their minds.

If a Nazi wants to hurt me they are welcome to send me an e-mail I will arrange to meet them. They better bring their lunch.

Another internet antifa tough guy.

 

[W|M]

Violence against Nazis is entirely justified, and your pathetic condescending tone doesn't change the fact that they actively want to commit genocide and must be stopped

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

Saying that rich people look out for their own interests isn't an inherently pro-capitalist outlook

 

[Civitar]

@west india man, violence against Muslims is entirely justified, and your pathetic condescending tone doesn't change the fact that they actively want to destroy civilization and must be stopped

Perspective is very important in these issues.

 

[Lexicus]

Violence against Nazis is entirely justified, and your pathetic condescending tone doesn't change the fact that they actively want to commit genocide and must be stopped

Indeed, what I'm hearing from civitar and Yeekim makes me think they would be collaborators, or even Hitler's willing executioners, if push came to shove.

There are no 'third parties' when it comes to Nazis: you are either with them, or against them. And there is no point in talking about what's ethically justified in this context. For many of us, preventing Nazis from carrying their politics into action is self-preservation, no more or less. History makes it quite clear that dealing with Nazis is a kill-or-be-killed situation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Another internet antifa tough guy.

LOL...sure. Except that I say the exact same thing on my local news site, and in person. Feel free to test that out.

But of course you wouldn't test that out anywhere but the safe space of this forum. Because as Lexicus points out, you can't even stand up against Nazis HERE. I have no doubt you'd wind up at the next Nuremberg saying "but I had to follow orders or they'd have shot me too." Cowards never change.

 

[Hehehe]

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.

First of all, when it comes to limitations to free speech, I don't think that hate speech laws are unreasonable. Provided of course, that in those laws, hate speech is clearly defined so as to not protect ideologies or religions from legitimate criticism (essentially, hate speech laws would limited to calls for violence). But even in those circumstances, if a person violates those laws, I would not advocate for vigilante justice. Let the police take care of it. As for the prevention of mass killings, even in a case where a person does advocate such things, I'm not sure if thuggish violence is effective in stopping them. Allow me to bring up an example from history:

Second, we already know from history that "punching nazis" does not work. Nazis were able to gain power in Germany, but it wasn't because of any lack of punching. In fact they got harassed a lot, and in response, they created the Nazi brownshirts to protect themselves (the brownshirts' mandate quickly exceeded merely protecting their rallies however, as the political violence escalated). In any case, it's not that there weren't violent opposition to nazis back then, there was. It simply did not stop them.

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?

This isn't a valid comparison. We're talking about political violence. What you are talking about is violence in defense of people or property. If the hypothetical question were, is it ok to punch nazis who burn houses, then I would say yes, absolutely, if that's what it takes to make them stop it.

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

Lexicus, we hold you to a much higher standard. Neo-nazis are widely known as violent thugs, a reputation which I'm sure they have earned. If you were to stoop to their level (and I'm not saying that you have, this is nothing but a hypothetical), should we not view you in the same way as we view them?

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus, we hold you to a much higher standard. Neo-nazis are widely known as violent thugs, a reputation which I'm sure they have earned. If you were to stoop to their level (and I'm not saying that you have, this is nothing but a hypothetical), should we not view you in the same way as we view them?

Because, if you put my politics into action the result would not be genocide and war killing tens of millions of people?
The problem, incidentally, is not that Nazis are 'thugs.' Plenty of people fit that description but are pretty cool, like 2pac. The Nazi intellectuals were just as bad as the SA.

Neville Chamberlain tried your strategy of being the bigger person, holding the British Empire to a higher standard. It didn't work. In fact, it just made the issue worse by allowing Hitler more time to build up his strength. Waiting until the Nazis crossed the Polish border was waiting too long.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This isn't a valid comparison. We're talking about political violence. What you are talking about is violence in defense of people or property. If the hypothetical question were, is it ok to punch nazis who burn houses, then I would say yes, absolutely, if that's what it takes to make them stop it.

So when is it okay to punch the arsonist? When he is pouring out gasoline? When he strikes the match? Only when the first home is engulfed in flames?

I ask because it is a perfectly valid comparison. Do we need to wait until this reprehensible spewer of hate runs for office? Do we need to let false narratives that undermine the electoral process spread until it collapses? When does it become "defense of people or property" rather than "political violence"?

By the way, don't hold me to the Lexicus standard. I'm a violent thug and happy to acknowledge it.

 

[Civitar]

@Timsup2nothin, I don't have to stand up to Nazis. They are not offering me any violence, nor are they threatening anything I sympathize with. It is only left-wing pieces of crap like you that mean me and people like me harm. And I have been standing up to your type since I was 12 years old. You old losers are the exact kind of people ruining Europe today.

 

[Yeekim]

Indeed, what I'm hearing from civitar and Yeekim makes me think they would be collaborators, or even Hitler's willing executioners, if push came to shove.

There are no 'third parties' when it comes to Nazis: you are either with them, or against them. And there is no point in talking about what's ethically justified in this context. For many of us, preventing Nazis from carrying their politics into action is self-preservation, no more or less. History makes it quite clear that dealing with Nazis is a kill-or-be-killed situation.

Self-preservation, huh? Boy, that's obviously serious. I'm sorry for trying to undermine your resolve in such a critical situation.
You know, why don't you go ahead, find this Spencer guy and live up to your principles? I have a feeling general society is going to benefit regardless of the outcome.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin, I don't have to stand up to Nazis. They are not offering me any violence, nor are they threatening anything I sympathize with. It is only left-wing pieces of crap like you that mean me and people like me harm. And I have been standing up to your type since I was 12 years old. You old losers are the exact kind of people ruining Europe today.

Of course Nazis aren't threatening anything you sympathize with. That's been obvious from the moment you entered the conversation. They are no threat to you because they represent you.

Meanwhile, any time you want to demonstrate how you've stood up to people like me drop me a line.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course Nazis aren't threatening anything you sympathize with. That's been obvious from the moment you entered the conversation. They are no threat to you because they represent you.

Change my original point over to 'he'd be in the SS.'

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Change my original point over to 'he'd be in the SS.'

And mine about trying to defend himself at Nuremberg. He'd be one of those that stood in the courtroom puzzled about why he was on trial rather than being thanked, and then wet himself when the verdict came down.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I often wonder why Nazis, while indeed an evil philosophy, get held up to some level of super evil instead of Communism, which killed far more people and left a geopolitical scar that has marred the course of this planet's history.

And I don't think its fair to use the Nazis started WWII argument either, because given the chance the Communists would have started their own World War. Haven't y'all played Red Alert!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I often wonder why Nazis, while indeed an evil philosophy, get held up to some level of super evil instead of Communism, which killed far more people and left a geopolitical scar that has marred the course of this planet's history.

And I don't think its fair to use the Nazis started WWII argument either, because given the chance the Communists would have started their own World War. Haven't y'all played Red Alert!

I've actually heard this one in person. I knew a Dutch guy in prison who played the "commies are worse, and besides, no one really liked the jews anyway" defenses pretty regularly. He was similarly expressive in regards to apartheid in South Africa, where he felt that the German and Dutch were clearly on the right track until English colonists ruined everything by treating the "kaffirs" like they were actually human. Bad move given the venue. He's dead, and well so.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Neville Chamberlain tried your strategy of being the bigger person, holding the British Empire to a higher standard. It didn't work. In fact, it just made the issue worse by allowing Hitler more time to build up his strength. Waiting until the Nazis crossed the Polish border was waiting too long.

In defence of Neville Chamberlain, it is quite unclear that going to war a year earlier in 1938 over Czeckoslovakia would have been any more successful.

 

[Lexicus]

In defence of Neville Chamberlain, it is quite unclear that going to war a year earlier in 1938 over Czeckoslovakia would have been any more successful.

Uh, what are you talking about? The size and readiness of the German forces increased vastly in the interim period between the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland. In fact the German officers were planning to get rid of Hitler if he had started a war over Czechoslovakia, precisely because they knew how unwinnable such a war would have been.

 

[Yeekim]

In defence of Neville Chamberlain, it is quite unclear that going to war a year earlier in 1938 over Czeckoslovakia would have been any more successful.

Well, duh. Clearly, 1920 was the right time to strike.