Punching Nazis

[Yeekim]

This is what I do not understand, Lexicus. You are ok with attacking nazis and communists for what they believe, but where does it stop? Who decides where the line is drawn that means you can attack these people for their views but not these?

Don't you do it with Muslims yourself?

 

[Civitar]

I know the discussion has gone on to all kinds of other things, but could I hone in on this claim? That thread where the dude posted the alt-Right's manifesto got closed down before I was able to make one of my comments. He kept asking respondents if they were advocating for white-genocide. What I wanted to ask and say is "doesn't preventing this kind of 'white-genocide' lie entirely within the hands of the whites themselves? If someone is concerned about this, go find a nice white girl and have kids with her. Bam, the white race lives on for another generation." Nobody is advocating for obligatory race-mixing. Most sane people would probably support "race-mixing" at the discretion of the involved parties. But if a "white genocide" occurred as a result of millions of individual choices to "race-mix," who would there be to miss the white race that had disappeared that way? And until that should happen, the white genocide has been avoided.

I mean, of all the overstated menaces . . .

I have not entirely decided what my own position on this is. The neo-nazis, as they are prone to do, have blown the issue far out of proportion. I mentioned it simply to give an example of their beliefs.

The irony of claiming "muslim infestation" but denying support of "racial superiority" in the same post is apparently lost on you. At least you didn't combine that into a single sentence.

They might still take you in kindergarten, if you pass the entrance exams. Islam is not a race, you blithering fool.

Don't you do it with Muslims yourself?

I do; I know where my line is drawn. I do not understand how or where they draw theirs.

 

[metalhead]

You should probably be aware that Islam is not a race is widely seen as a total cop-out whenever someone brings up the point that people generally talk about getting rid of Arab Muslims only when they talk about getting rid of Muslims.

Or do you favor tossing out white Muslims as well?

 

[Lexicus]

You should probably be aware that Islam is not a race is widely seen as a total cop-out whenever someone brings up the point that people generally talk about getting rid of Arab Muslims only when they talk about getting rid of Muslims.

They're not talking about only Arabs, they mean brown people from Southwest or Southeast Asia.

 

[Civitar]

You should probably be aware that Islam is not a race is widely seen as a total cop-out whenever someone brings up the point that people generally talk about getting rid of Arab Muslims only when they talk about getting rid of Muslims.

Or do you favor tossing out white Muslims as well?

100%. Every single Muslim. If Muhammad is your prophet you are not welcome in my country.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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

What I quoted doesn't say that though does it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yup. An unfortunate conundrum. I favor dissolution, with an agreed period of assisted immigration between the formerly united countries available on request.

Wouldn't that be forced relocation?

 

[Civitar]

Wouldn't that be forced relocation?

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: 1. The personal attacks in this thread need to stop.

2. Please get back on topic. The thread's subject is whether it is acceptable to protest violently against extreme, hateful political views.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hehehe]

Wow, this thread has been moving fast.

Because, if you put my politics into action the result would not be genocide and war killing tens of millions of people?

Indeed, and this is why I hold you in much greater esteem, and therefore, I also hold you up to a higher standard. I expect higher moral standards from you than I would from a nazi.

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.

Wait, 2pac is a nazi? I didn't even know that. I find it slightly surprising that nazis have become so diverse in their hiring practices. As for the nazi intellectuals, do you really believe that this guy Spencer is a "nazi intellectual"?

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.

Alternate history is an extremely complicated subject, but Neville Chamberlain did what he could, which is nothing (I don't think there was much he could have done, although that depends on what kind of alliances he would have been able to build).

In any case, if you're fighting people who are actually committing genocide, then you get no argument from me. In that case you have my axe.

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"?

This is a rather stupid example. Or are you going to go around punching everybody who even thinks about buying gasoline, even if they don't actually do it? Should we not have a discussion as to when violence is acceptable when it isn't?

As for Spencer, I doubt he's ever going to get enough support to run for office. And if he does, what are you going to do about it? Have punching matches with his supporters?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They might still take you in kindergarten, if you pass the entrance exams. Islam is not a race, you blithering fool.

The idea that "my hatred of a group can be excused, since it is based on religion not race" is pretty disgusting, and certainly doesn't support your implication that you are somehow better educated than me. I suggest you haul your namecalling off to somewhere it would be appreciated, like Breitbart or Stormfront.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is a rather stupid example. Or are you going to go around punching everybody who even thinks about buying gasoline, even if they don't actually do it? Should we not have a discussion as to when violence is acceptable when it isn't?

For a "stupid example" it seems to have worked well.

No, I'm not going to punch "potential arsonists" every time someone buys gasoline. The equivalent there would be punching everyone with a mouth because they could start spewing out fascist nonsense about the "virtues" of ethnic cleansing.

But notice that you had no answer for the actual questions, like do you punch them when they are pouring accelerant, or wait until they strike the match? Because that is more in line with the positions taken by many in this thread. "He's only spewing his stuff on the internet, on a street corner, on a stage in front of a few hundred like minded people" or whatever other platitudes. How much momentum do we let his movement gain before we take action? I get that my answer might not be the same as yours, but I've at least made mine pretty clear. The question is where you draw that line...or whether you even do.

And the discussion is valuable specifically because it reveals truths, like the fact that some people don't draw that line at all because they believe their hatred of a group based on religion instead of ethnicity makes them morally superior to "actual nazis." Other people are so focused on "but they might hit me if I try to draw any line" that they literally allow for "anything goes." That's how the example fits into a discussion of "when violence is acceptable."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wouldn't that be forced relocation?

Technically, no. Examine the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The individual republics went somewhat separate ways. People who recognized immediately "crap, I'm going to be in a marginalized minority in this republic" could, if they had the where with all, move to a different republic based on their existing soviet citizenship. Had all the Russians in Ukraine been encouraged and supported to be able to have done so there may have been less of a problem there.

But there is nothing "forced" about it. Most of the people I know who whine about the "liberal rampage" that is California's state government would, I would think, want to leave if that government was to become a national government and another national government more to their liking was readily available to them elsewhere. If they choose not to take the opportunity, fine, they are welcome to stay.

 

[metalhead]

100%. Every single Muslim. If Muhammad is your prophet you are not welcome in my country.

You'd strip people of their citizenship on account of their religion?

 

[Lexicus]

I still think @Traitorfish put the point best and in a way that no one has really refuted. Nazis must be stopped as a political force, whether through violent means or not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You'd strip people of their citizenship on account of their religion?

Hasn't he made that obvious? Not only would he, he'd relish it and expect them to be grateful they got out alive rather than perishing under his righteous jackboots.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I still think @Traitorfish put the point best and in a way that no one has really refuted. Nazis must be stopped as a political force, whether through violent means or not.

That's just a reiteration of the thread title. It's not an argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's just a reiteration of the thread title. It's not an argument.

Is an argument really necessary?

 

[Lexicus]

As for the nazi intellectuals, do you really believe that this guy Spencer is a "nazi intellectual"?

Of course Spencer is a Nazi intellectual. That's literally what he is, a geek who theorizes about Nazi stuff.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is an argument really necessary?

Yes. If you don't think so then why even post in the thread at all?