Punching Nazis

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not so much about "hiring a thug" as a proxy, it's that I have no faith in the judgement calls made by people such as yourself. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I think that quotes such as this one are enough evidence that you should not be allowed to be the judge, jury and executioner at the same time:

Do I even need to explain why we have a justice system? Why we have a court of law? Why we don't just let people take justice into their own hands and do what they please with it?

As has already been said, there are clear lines. I demonstrated one with the arsonist. Well, I tried at least. Your response that when the guy is pouring accelerant on your house and striking the match you would just call a cop and have them investigate indicates that you are not going along with the idea that such clear lines exist.

For myself, I don't trust the judgement of surrogates more than my own. If there has been no clear crossing of a line I would rather not launch a police investigation, because being wrongfully investigated by the police is, frankly, worse than being wrongfully punched in the face. If there is a clear crossing of the line I have no problem responding for myself without the false sense that I have avoided responsibility or not participated in the violence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The key point of his statment wasn't who takes the action, but when that action is warranted. You focused in on the wrong part.

Maybe I just focused on the part that people who take that position would rather no one talked about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I understand. Fair enough.
I don't think it makes me a hypocrite though, since my original parallel wasn't meant to criticize, but merely to point out rather delicious irony that at the end you want similar things - i.e. to (preferably peacefully) get rid of each other.

I apologize for not being more clear the first time.

The irony only comes out of the misrepresentation, in my opinion. I want both sides of the ideological divide that has formed within the US to have their own satisfying government. Spencer wants to create an apartheid state "somewhere" to ship off the, in his opinion, not quite people to.

 

[Bamspeedy]

People have always punched nazis, everyone from Joe Greenstein taking on a dozen and a half of them all by himself in 1939 to an old lady punching a leader in 1985.

And then there was Joe Greenstein, aka The Mighty Atom, a Polish-born American strongman and one-man Nazi wrecking crew. In 1939, Bad Ass of the Week reports, "The Mighty Atom was walking past the headquarters of the American Nazi Party and took offense at the 'No Jews Allowed' sign they'd hung out front. Atom, with his trademarked balls of iron, walked right up to the front door, pulled down the sign, and ripped it in half with his bare hands. An angry mob of roughly twenty hardcore skinhead Nazi sympathizers charged out to beat this guy's ass into a bloody pulp. The Mighty Atom was not impressed.

"When Joe Greenstein was brought to court to defend himself against charges of Aggravated Assault, Grievous Bodily Harm, and Mass Mayhem (awesome) a few weeks later, the Judge was surprised to see one small man sitting in the defendant's chair, and 18 bandaged, bloodied, and beat-up skinheads on the plaintiff's side. When the Judge asked why there were more plaintiffs listed on the complaint than there were in court, the skinheads said that a few of their people were still in the hospital.

"The Judge looked at Greenstein, and asked him about the fight.

"Greenstein said, 'It wasn't a fight, your honor. It was a pleasure!'"

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/punching-nazis-an-introduction

Hilarious, unless someone of his strength is on the other side.

Though sometimes it just breeds more violence.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/video-richard-spencer-punch-antifa-fascism

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe I just focused on the part that people who take that position would rather no one talked about.

Or maybe it highlights that you both have different priorities, but you're wrongfully assuming he actually shares yours and is just being dishonest about it.

 

[Yeekim]

I apologize for not being more clear the first time.

The irony only comes out of the misrepresentation, in my opinion. I want both sides of the ideological divide that has formed within the US to have their own satisfying government. Spencer wants to create an apartheid state "somewhere" to ship off the, in his opinion, not quite people to.

Apology, though unnecessary, is gladly accepted.
It is also quite possible I've misunderstood what Spencer wants, because my entire research of him was/is admittedly limited to that article/dossier from SPLC. Hence I got an impression he wants to similarly divide the US, to get an all-white ethnostate for himself and his buddies in some corner, rather than ship "undesirables" off somewhere else. If that's wrong, I must apologize myself for making an erroneous comparison.

 

[Hehehe]

As has already been said, there are clear lines. I demonstrated one with the arsonist. Well, I tried at least. Your response that when the guy is pouring accelerant on your house and striking the match you would just call a cop and have them investigate indicates that you are not going along with the idea that such clear lines exist.

I will leave things like that to the cops, if possible. If there is no time for them to arrive, and burning is absolutely imminent, then I will go stop them myself. I won't, however, accept crappy metaphors as a justification for random violence.

For myself, I don't trust the judgement of surrogates more than my own. If there has been no clear crossing of a line I would rather not launch a police investigation, because being wrongfully investigated by the police is, frankly, worse than being wrongfully punched in the face. If there is a clear crossing of the line I have no problem responding for myself without the false sense that I have avoided responsibility or not participated in the violence.

Yes, I understood perfectly well what your stance is. I don't trust your judgement, and I don't trust your moral compass, which is exactly why I put my faith in the justice system. In my opinion, people like you, on both sides of the political spectrum, are a part of the problem, rather than the solution.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Apology, though unnecessary, is gladly accepted.
It is also quite possible I've misunderstood what Spencer wants, because my entire research of him was/is admittedly limited to that article/dossier from SPLC. Hence I got an impression he wants to similarly divide the US, to get an all-white ethnostate for himself and his buddies in some corner, rather than ship "undesirables" off somewhere else. If that's wrong, I must apologize myself for making an erroneous comparison.

Well, I think that you are maybe getting their intent as "in some corner" when their idea is more like they get everything except some corner, but perhaps their actual desire lies somewhere in between.

And that still leaves a difference between my understanding of an acceptable plan for those who find themselves on "the wrong side of the new line." Saying that they should be allowed to move to the side they find more comfortable if they choose and even given assistance in doing so if they want to but can't afford it on their own or would face undue hardships is clearly different from shipping off undesirable against their will. Unless we believe that Spencer and his ilk are actually talking about forming their "ethno-state" not only "in some corner" but in a genuinely unpopulated corner there is bound to be someone stuck there that either doesn't want to be there or that they consider undesirable...and I don't see them advocating a plan like the one I described. They are definitely more in the "just ship them off" mode.

For my part, having just pointed out what I believe to be an error in your comparison I accept your apology as well, though I too don't think such was necessary. Errors are part of what we do, and the purpose of further discussion is to correct them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, I understood perfectly well what your stance is. I don't trust your judgement, and I don't trust your moral compass, which is exactly why I put my faith in the justice system. In my opinion, people like you, on both sides of the political spectrum, are a part of the problem, rather than the solution.

See, this is the problem. You operate from "violence is never the answer" so automatically the judgement of someone who openly acknowledges the willingness to use it becomes not just suspect but dismissed out of hand. But at the same time you look to someone openly espousing fascism and offer "benefit of the doubt" because "they haven't done any harm yet that can be clearly seen from a great distance." Also at the same time you are fully open to using violence in a much more destructive form yourself, but since it is "one man removed" consider that to not be a reason that your judgement should be similarly dismissed out of hand.

 

[Hehehe]

See, this is the problem. You operate from "violence is never the answer" so automatically the judgement of someone who openly acknowledges the willingness to use it becomes not just suspect but dismissed out of hand. But at the same time you look to someone openly espousing fascism and offer "benefit of the doubt" because "they haven't done any harm yet that can be clearly seen from a great distance." Also at the same time you are fully open to using violence in a much more destructive form yourself, but since it is "one man removed" consider that to not be a reason that your judgement should be similarly dismissed out of hand.

First of all, allow me to clarify my position a little bit. I am not completely anti-violence. Unfortunately, the enforcement of laws may sometimes require the use of force. If someone is in the process of killing other people, and does not willingly stop, then I realize that stopping him will require the use of force. I would, however, rather let the law enforcement to deal with these things, always whenever that is possible. This is not because I want to distance myself from the act, or because I don’t want to get my hands dirty (both of which are true, but I also have a deeper reason). It’s simply because I trust the law enforcement more in dealing with these issues than I trust private citizens. Law enforcement is more likely to be reasonable in the measures they take. The court system will use proper consideration when handing out judgements; they will hand down judgements based on the code of laws which we have collectively agreed upon. Court of law has a due process, where the defendant has a chance to defend himself. A court of law also has a due process for determining if the defendant is actually guilty of whatever he is being accused of. Now contrast all that to a thug using violence in whatever arbitrary way he thinks is fit. I think I will put my faith in the justice system.

I know you that you think you’re completely justified in everything you do. That’s what every ideologue does. They bad, Hulk brutalize them. And yes, I know what you’re thinking. ”B-b-but my ideology is true and theirs is not, they are evil and therefore I’m completely justified”. Again, every ideologue thinks that. Even the ones who are the complete opposites of you think that their ideology justifies their violence.

Furthermore, I find your reasoning rather ridiculous. You say you are doing this to stop another holocaust. Is that even close to happening? Is that even a remote possibility? Even if he is secretly planning for a holocaust, this Richard Spencer guy is a nobody, do you honestly think that he has any chance of ever gaining real power? I don’t think that the US is being taken over by nazis, so what exactly are you fighting for? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don’t see them as a threat. So what exactly is it that you're doing, other than committing petty violence for the sake of committing petty violence?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is there much to be gained by debating the rights and wrongs of petty violence with a self-proclaimed, proud violent thug?

(Incidentally, didn't we establish a while back that "thug" is considered a racial slur on CFC? Is that no longer a thing?)

 

[Hehehe]

Is there much to be gained by debating the rights and wrongs of petty violence with a self-proclaimed, proud violent thug?

(Incidentally, didn't we establish a while back that "thug" is considered a racial slur on CFC? Is that no longer a thing?)

I think that even violent thugs have a right to have their case heard. I may not agree, but I am at least willing to listen.

As for the phrase "violent thug", Timsup2nothin used this in his post, referring to himself. I am not using this term to slander him, and I apologize if it seems that I did. I would not use such a word, had he not self-identified as one.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think that even violent thugs have a right to have their case heard. I may not agree, but I am at least willing to listen.

Of course, I didn't really mean that. What I meant is that the bar for "who I'm willing to spontaneously punch" is already set so far below "Nazi" that you're never going to make any headway arguing about whether or not punching Nazis is acceptable. If you're arguing with someone who generally opposes violence, but is willing to make an exception in this case, then there's at least the possibility of reaching some concord.

 

[metalhead]

(Incidentally, didn't we establish a while back that "thug" is considered a racial slur on CFC? Is that no longer a thing?)

I'm going to hazard a guess that there was a lot of nuance on this topic that went right over your head.

 

[Hehehe]

Of course, I didn't really mean that. What I meant is that the bar for "who I'm willing to spontaneously punch" is already set so far below "Nazi" that you're never going to make any headway arguing about whether or not punching Nazis is acceptable. If you're arguing with someone who generally opposes violence, but is willing to make an exception in this case, then there's at least the possibility of reaching some concord.

You're probably right. I don't seriously think that I will completely change someone's most deeply held beliefs with a couple of lines of text over the internet. But I can try; even if it yields no results, it is at least a learning opportunity for me. I try to make an effort to get out of my safe spaces and opinion bubbles, to see if some of the people living outside my opinion bubble have valid points to make. I realize that I can't always make people give up violence, but if I can, I would consider that a bonus.

Some say that arguing on the internet is always a complete waste of time. I'd like to think that's not the case, otherwise I have lost way more time than I care to admit.

EDIT: I apologize if the word "thug" is a racial slur. If that word has any demeaning racial connotations, then I assure you that I did not intend to use the word in that sense.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm going to hazard a guess that there was a lot of nuance on this topic that went right over your head.

Ha, no, there was literally no nuance at all. It obviously stuck in my memory more than others I guess.

 

[Flying Pig]

(Incidentally, didn't we establish a while back that "thug" is considered a racial slur on CFC? Is that no longer a thing?)

Moderator Action: No, we didn't. However, like many words, it can be used as a racist dog-whistle. Using it as such is not allowed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When I said I am a violent thug, I meant it in the strict definition of the word. I acknowledge that I have taken pay to influence the behavior of others through violence or threat of violence. That's one reason that I have such an easily accessed opinion on the people who want to "keep their hands clean." It's also a reason that I am more sympathetic to paid thugs and the uncomfortable position you put them in when despite the fact you are paying them you expect them to use judgement superior to your own. Despite my reputation for badmouthing cops at every turn, whenever they sit down and talk to me they find that I am more understanding about the dilemma they face than any of their sycophantic supporters.

I also tried, though I apparently failed, to provide an example that was simple. You use violence or hire someone to use violence to stop an arsonist from burning down your house, not because of your ideology, but because it is a necessity. Yes, we can create a comparison to ideology by extending the example into absurdity, where we end up with the SWAT team shooting patrons at the gas station for buying gas, but the example as given does not extend to that absurdity, it ended at the guy with the gas can pouring accelerant on your house.

There actually are clear lines, and there are grey areas as well, but there is also a beyond. In that beyond, whether it is beyond a clear line or even beyond a grey area, lies disaster. It does not require an ideologue to acknowledge that what is out there in the beyond is disaster, it just requires someone willing to deal with it and accept the consequences. The pretense that we can just ignore the denizens of the beyond until they show up at the door, or strike the match, is a proven failure. I am more than happy to display the traits that you think qualify me to be called a denizen of the beyond, because in doing so you are at least acknowledging that there are such denizens.

But at the end of the day you can rely on my judgement to not only keep me from harming you (unless I were paid to do so) but to stand up to those who would. I am not the neighbor who would look out my window to see a guy pouring gas on your house and shrug as I called the cops so they could arrest the guy. By the time they got there he would be watching the flames consuming you. I'm the violent thug who would stop the arsonist before the fire started, just for the payment of a thank you. If you would withhold that payment under those circumstances, that's the breaks. I was sufficiently paid in my day that I'll survive either way.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't mean to derail this as an obnoxious Seahawks fan, but

 

[Lexicus]

Richard Sherman is talking about the use of the word in a specific context. I'm pretty positive he wouldn't think this is racist:

Spoiler :

What's racist is when you see black people protesting police violence and think "they're thugs" but see white people rioting because their sports team lost and think "youthful exuberance"