Punching Nazis

[caketastydelish]

That guy looks badass and hot. I'd bang him.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sadly somebody already did.

 

[caketastydelish]

<delete>

 

[Hehehe]

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.

First of all, I appreciate the good intentions that I would like to believe that you have. I truly do. But with that being said, am I allowed to weigh in on whether or not the use of force is justified?


When it comes to the use of violence, I am no stranger to that. I have made a commitment to protect my country, using lethal force if necessary. And I will honor that pledge if I have to. It’s not that I don’t believe that violence is always wrong; I just believe that we should be extremely careful when to use violence. If it comes to that, I absolutely will use force, but I simply do not want to, unless I have to. I will do it if I have to, but I gain no pleasure from it.


When it comes to the example of burning houses, I just don’t think we are anywhere close to that. The neo-nazis are, at best, buying gasoline at a gas station. There have always been people like Richard Spencer. They have always been there, and I do not think that people like that present a threat to the current world order. If anything, I am afraid that by using violence, people such as yourself have brought him to prominence. He is a nobody; always has been, and most likely, always will be. I simply do not share your ideas of this mysterious beyond where we need to go to inflict violence upon our enemies. I don’t want you to inflict violence and ”accept the consequences”. As for your example about the arsonist, am I allowed to decide when this hypothetical arsonist is threathening my house? I don’t want you to protect me from words. People like Spencer will never rise to prominence. They are a non-entity. To me, what you describe sounds like nothing more than pure sophistry, aimed at justifying violence.


In short, I am afraid that, even with your good intentions, you’re doing more harm than good. That is why I would like you to refrain from political violence, and leave law enforcement to the police. I see you as a moral equal to all these ridiculous neo-nazis; the way I see it you maybe their polar opposite but also their moral equivalent

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)

You know what, forget everything I said about good intentions. It is statements such as this that really make me question your judgement. This is exactly why I do not want you to be out there enforcing the law. ”Unless I were paid to do so”? Are you serious? So morals be damned, you are nothing more than a thug for hire? If money changes hands, so do morals?


At the end of the day, you have free will. You can do acts that are illegal and immoral. You can take money in exchange for inflicting violence upon others. But please do not come to me to tell how that is somehow justified, or how you are, in fact, working for the greater good, when you are no better than the ”nazis who are just following orders”. I do not know which is worse, someone who inflicts violence upon others in fear of a punishment, or someone who inflicts violence upon others in exchange for money. I find it absolutely deplorable, how you find it in yourself to be a thug for hire, and then come to me to tell me about how it is ”justified”. You come up with all of these non-reasons to justify your violence, when it is in fact nothing more than you being a rent-a-thug? If you are gaining a financial benefit from violence, then you secede all moral authority on this subject.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When it comes to the use of violence, I am no stranger to that. I have made a commitment to protect my country, using lethal force if necessary.

”Unless I were paid to do so”? Are you serious? So morals be damned, you are nothing more than a thug for hire? If money changes hands, so do morals? You come up with all of these non-reasons to justify your violence, when it is in fact nothing more than you being a rent-a-thug? If you are gaining a financial benefit from violence, then you secede all moral authority on this subject.

I take it that when we took the same oath you did so under different circumstances and you have never accepted payment?

 

[Hehehe]

I take it that when we took the same oath you did so under different circumstances and you have never accepted payment?

I doubt we took the same oath. And when I took my oath, I took it under a legal obligation, while receiving the payment of 4,4€ per day. Needless to say, I did not do it for the money. I will be called upon my oath should a war be declared, as is stipulated in the social contract. I do not have the authority or the will to go on to enforce the law on my own. I will only enforce the rule of law as my elected government wills.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I doubt we took the same oath. And when I took my oath, I took it under a legal obligation, while receiving the payment of 4,4€ per day. Needless to say, I did not do it for the money. I will be called upon my oath should a war be declared, as is stipulated in the social contract. I do not have the authority or the will to go on to enforce the law on my own. I will only enforce the rule of law as my elected government wills.

Oh, that's more or less the same oath, though mine was active duty, voluntary, and I got paid fairly well for my part. Much like your social contract, my oath and the honoring thereof did not include any room for stipulations like "unless I deem it immoral at the time." Just like you would inflict violence upon me if your employer deemed it necessary, I would have made your entire quadrant of the planet unfit for human habitation had my employer deemed it necessary. That's what the oath means, that you will accept their judgement of what is "defense of the country" and what is not.

The difference is that I have acknowledged that doing so is, in fact, the definition of thuggery.

 

[Hehehe]

Oh, that's more or less the same oath, though mine was active duty, voluntary, and I got paid fairly well for my part. Much like your social contract, my oath and the honoring thereof did not include any room for stipulations like "unless I deem it immoral at the time." Just like you would inflict violence upon me if your employer deemed it necessary, I would have made your entire quadrant of the planet unfit for human habitation had my employer deemed it necessary. That's what the oath means, that you will accept their judgement of what is "defense of the country" and what is not.

The difference is that I have acknowledged that doing so is, in fact, the definition of thuggery.

I think that you are drawing parallels where there are none. I took my oath under an obligation by the law, and I got paid a sum which is, to be frank, not worth my time. As for the obligations that come with the oath that I took, there is zero room for me to maneuver in. Unlike you, I will only take action as the democratic majority wills it. I do not do what I do for money, I do it for honor. And now you are telling me about how you will "make my entire quadrant unfit for habitation" if your employer wills it? And you seriously think that you and I are morally equivalent? Sir, you are nothing more than a thug for hire, as you so gleefully admit. I do what I do in defence of the existence of our nation, whereas you do what you do only for money, which is to say, what you do serves you and you only.

 

[caketastydelish]

Actually, I don't think punching Nazis is necessary. It will only freak them out even more, and make them double down in their racist views.

Here is the better approach:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think that you are drawing parallels where there are none. I took my oath under an obligation by the law, and I got paid a sum which is, to be frank, not worth my time. As for the obligations that come with the oath that I took, there is zero room for me to maneuver in. Unlike you, I will only take action as the democratic majority wills it. I do not do what I do for money, I do it for honor. And now you are telling me about how you will "make my entire quadrant unfit for habitation" if your employer wills it? And you seriously think that you and I are morally equivalent? Sir, you are nothing more than a thug for hire, as you so gleefully admit. I do what I do in defence of the existence of our nation, whereas you do what you do only for money, which is to say, what you do serves you and you only.

How do you think a volunteer military works? People go "for honor" and give away years of potential earnings? Be serious.

When I took that oath I was reasonably convinced that I could trust my government to only order me into violent action if it was "necessary" in the "defense of the nation." Yes, as it turned out the violent action that was my assigned task would have involved incinerating you had it ever been deemed "necessary." Nothing personal, or even national. Just the close proximity of Finland to the Soviet Union would have undoubtedly made you collateral damage and in order to fulfill my function as agreed I had to be able to accept that.

When I had completed my agreed term of service I opted not to renew because I had by then lost confidence that my employer could be trusted to make the sort of decisions that I would be agreeing to carry out. Contemplation of being potentially involved in hundreds of millions of deaths will do that. So even "in defense of my nation" I would no longer provide such service. Your claim to some sort of moral high ground I seriously question, because I think it is rooted more in having never been forced to consider such consequences, but whatever makes you feel righteous.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll also add something else. Maybe this point is not in very good taste, but is still valid: People in poverty, or otherwise oppressed, tend to have more babies. All of them. Yes, even the white poor. There are simply less of them. So giving African Americans and other minorities equal footing with whites would make their birth rates level out. Thus, the "white genocide" (which is not a real thing to begin with but I'll play along with them) would stop.

 

[Old Hippy]

I made it almost 30 years before our better informed on all things Nazi posters on civfanatics informed me "88" was a numerology code-knock for Nazis.

so you presumably don't have 88 tattooed on your neck next to a swastika....

edited in light of Tim's comment
not that I think that you would, to be clear about it
it was just a general comment about things I see daily that I would delete except then I would have to ask Tim to delete as well
I'm just digging a deeper hole aren't I

sorry

 

[Timsup2nothin]

so you presumably don't have 88 tattooed on your neck next to the swastika....

While I get the jest here, I'm not impressed. Even an off hand mention of a swastika tattoo is best left unsaid unless you genuinely know it is there.

 

[Hehehe]

How do you think a volunteer military works? People go "for honor" and give away years of potential earnings? Be serious.

When I took that oath I was reasonably convinced that I could trust my government to only order me into violent action if it was "necessary" in the "defense of the nation." Yes, as it turned out the violent action that was my assigned task would have involved incinerating you had it ever been deemed "necessary." Nothing personal, or even national. Just the close proximity of Finland to the Soviet Union would have undoubtedly made you collateral damage and in order to fulfill my function as agreed I had to be able to accept that.

When I had completed my agreed term of service I opted not to renew because I had by then lost confidence that my employer could be trusted to make the sort of decisions that I would be agreeing to carry out. Contemplation of being potentially involved in hundreds of millions of deaths will do that. So even "in defense of my nation" I would no longer provide such service. Your claim to some sort of moral high ground I seriously question, because I think it is rooted more in having never been forced to consider such consequences, but whatever makes you feel righteous.

First of all, may I remind you, I was not in a "volunteer military". Finland uses conscription, meaning that I did not have a choice of whether or not to service my country. And now you are telling me a bout how you would "incinerate" me, as you had agreed to? Nothing personal? Are you serious?

I would have made your entire quadrant of the planet unfit for human habitation had my employer deemed it necessary.

I am not entirely sure as to what you mean by "my quadrant", but if "my quadrant" means Europe, that is some 700 million people. And you are telling me that you would exterminate all of us, "if your employer deemed it necessary"? I do not like to compare people to nazis without a good reason, but you sir, in my opinion, deserve it. You readily admit that you are willing to exterminate 700 million people, for money? I honestly do not know which is worse, exterminating people for money or for ideology. I don't even know what to say; you seem ever so eager to exterminate people based on your ideology. I have never ever before had a discussion with someone who is as pure evil as you are. Someone who will readily exterminate 700 million people. And what is even worse, you seem to be willing to do this for a financial compensation. That's all it takes? Pay money, exterminate people? And you seriously have the balls to proclaim that you do what you do in order to "stop nazism"? You come here, to this thread, to proclaim that you and I are on an equal moral footing?

I may have made an oath to my country, to protect it from threats, but if I were faced with a choice, to kill civilians or take the bullet, I probably would take the bullet. You sir, you seem like pure evil. You seem ever so readily available to exterminate people. You seem like nothing more than pure evil. I do not use such terms lightly, I was willing to engage you in the war of ideas, and yet, you readily admit that you are willing to exterminate people for money. Even Richard Spencer, the man you ever so loathe, would not admit to views as deplorable as the ones you hold.

I never thought that this would be a topic that I would have to ponder on, but now I seriously wonder. What is worse, exterminating people for money or exterminating people for ideology? I didn't even know that the former group exists.

 

[Kyriakos]

While I get the jest here, I'm not impressed. Even an off hand mention of a swastika tattoo is best left unsaid unless you genuinely know it is there.

You are condoning german cultural appropriation of an ancient symbol having no ties to war-thugs

But yes, that symbol is yugely unlikely to ever be disassociated with nazis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

First of all, may I remind you, I was not in a "volunteer military". Finland uses conscription, meaning that I did not have a choice of whether or not to service my country. And now you are telling me a bout how you would "incinerate" me, as you had agreed to? Nothing personal? Are you serious?



I am not entirely sure as to what you mean by "my quadrant", but if "my quadrant" means Europe, that is some 700 million people. And you are telling me that you would exterminate all of us, "if your employer deemed it necessary"? I do not like to compare people to nazis without a good reason, but you sir, in my opinion, deserve it. You readily admit that you are willing to exterminate 700 million people, for money? I honestly do not know which is worse, exterminating people for money or for ideology. I don't even know what to say; you seem ever so eager to exterminate people based on your ideology. I have never ever before had a discussion with someone who is as pure evil as you are. Someone who will readily exterminate 700 million people. And what is even worse, you seem to be willing to do this for a financial compensation. That's all it takes? Pay money, exterminate people? And you seriously have the balls to proclaim that you do what you do in order to "stop nazism"? You come here, to this thread, to proclaim that you and I are on an equal moral footing?

I may have made an oath to my country, to protect it from threats, but if I were faced with a choice, to kill civilians or take the bullet, I probably would take the bullet. You sir, you seem like pure evil. You seem ever so readily available to exterminate people. You seem like nothing more than pure evil. I do not use such terms lightly, I was willing to engage you in the war of ideas, and yet, you readily admit that you are willing to exterminate people for money. Even Richard Spencer, the man you ever so loathe, would not admit to views as deplorable as the ones you hold.

I never thought that this would be a topic that I would have to ponder on, but now I seriously wonder. What is worse, exterminating people for money or exterminating people for ideology? I didn't even know that the former group exists.

This has been a lot of fun, but I'm starting to wonder if you genuinely have no knowledge of late twentieth century history. Like, none at all.

 

[Hehehe]

This has been a lot of fun, but I'm starting to wonder if you genuinely have no knowledge of late twentieth century history. Like, none at all.

Oh, I know what happened in the 20th century. What I do not know however, is how that justifies the views you hold.

 

[Lexicus]

Perhaps the phrase "nuclear weapons" might ring a bell?

 

[aelf]

Obviously they are not moral equivalents, but the logic there is the same. Why should I worry about violence against nazis, unless I am one of them? Why should you worry about violence against Jewish people, unless you are one of them? Why should you worry about violence against homosexuals, unless you are one of them? It's as if concepts, such as a commitment to basic decency, are completely incomprehensible.

The guy who compared punching Nazis with punching black people also insisted that the logic is the same, but it isn't. If a Nazi and a Jew or a black person aren't moral equivalents, then committing violence against them can't be morally equivalent. That's logic; not silly comparisons that don't work because the two instances are completely different.

"But what if he's not really a Nazi???" Okay, how many Wehrmacht soldiers were really Nazis? Heck, how many SS troopers were really Nazis in the sense that they believed in every single Nazi tenet? Apparently there are some posters here who are so pacifist (or so sympathetic) that they hem and haw at the idea of waging war against the Nazis of Hitler, but unless you're one of them, if someone is advocating genocide and identifies with elements of Nazi ideology, there really isn't a comparison to be made between punching such a person and punching anybody who does not advocate crimes against humanity.

I'm sure you will continue complaining about my intolerance, like you constantly complain about the intolerance of the left. But I'm definitely not trying to get you silenced on this forum through official enforcement. And if the left isn't trying to legally ban your speech, then it's not an issue of freedom of speech either, but of your desire for a safe space.

I think this demonstrates your ideological blinkers in action. As far as I recall, I don't think I've ever even expressed any strong opinions on immigration, either way, because it isn't an issue that particularly concerns me. In the Brexit thread, I may well have defended the stance that not all Leave voters are anti-immigration (me being a case in point), but other than that I don't particularly recall talking about it. Feel free to point me to some examples that refute this of course, but to me this just looks like you making assumptions again.

My apologies. I forgot that your reasons for supporting Brexit has remained unclear and undefined.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I know what happened in the 20th century. What I do not know however, is how that justifies the views you hold.

It isn't a question of views I hold. Just like stopping an arsonist from burning down someone's house is not a question of ideology. It has everything to do with actions I took. Given the tenor of relations between Finland and the USSR at the time one might expect a little gratitude, though I am not overly concerned if there is none forthcoming.