Punching Nazis

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't know many people who have been improved by punching (I never met Leon Spinks).

Not specifically "by punching," but I know a whole lot of people who were definitely "improved" by spending an extended time in an environment where the threat of immediate physical consequences made openly being a jerk problematic. In fact, I am one.

 

[Mouthwash]

Not specifically "by punching," but I know a whole lot of people who were definitely "improved" by spending an extended time in an environment where the threat of immediate physical consequences made openly being a jerk problematic. In fact, I am one.

Yeah, gulags are judged so unfairly. All they were doing was correcting society's problems.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So, you have no opinion on the likelihood that this guy just came up with this all by himself as a bit of spur of the moment trollery as opposed to he's been kicking it around in some group, probably on line, most likely at least intermittently in the pages of the "news site" that was dedicated for their use by the managing publisher who is now advising the president?

No because it's an irrelevance, as I already said. That these groups/people exist is not in question, but their existence alone doesn't back up any of the other stuff.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Running Breitbart as an attempt to provide a mainstream platform for the alt-right is certainly evidence that Bannon wants to amplify their message, and bring it closer to the mainstream of American politics.

How many steps removed from a legitimate threat of genocide is this though? And if it was actually only a few steps removed, do you think punching a few people is actually going to be an effective counter?

Let's be honest here. Punching people in the face is only ever going to be an effective counter to groups who are too weak, disorganised, or not numerous enough to need countering in the first place. It's just bullying and intimidation to silence minority opinions. If they're actually any sort of legitimate threat then you need some other tactic anyway.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, this guy ranting on the corner could only work up a handful of people at the most, and they might be able to get two or three victims, tops. That isn't genocide so what's the big deal? Get some popcorn and watch the show, AmIRite?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, this guy ranting on the corner could only work up a handful of people at the most, and they might be able to get two or three victims, tops. That isn't genocide so what's the big deal? Get some popcorn and watch the show, AmIRite?

What are you even saying now? No-one's claiming that there is only one Nazi/white supremacist/whatever group you're talking about in the world, and that this single person is ranting on a street corner. You're not countering any argument that's being made, nor are you adding anything in support of your own (if you even have one in this instance).

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm quoting this here because it's buried on page 12, and I want to make a public announcement about this sort of post in general.

"Without fear of reprisals" and "unimpeded by the government" are such not equal things that they shouldn't even be in the same sentence...but you made me do it.

Just because I'm willing to cut someone's tongue out with a pocketknife doesn't mean that I advocate for releasing the congress from their constitutional obligation to not infringe on freedom of speech. I think the much bigger threat comes from people muddying the waters by waving "but free speech" over my pocketknife as if it had been elected to congress.

Moderator Action: This sort of post, among several others of yours (and a few others' posts as well), goes too far into advocating violence to be acceptable. Talking about what general circumstances might warrant a violent response is allowed, but don't post about what violent acts you are willing to do to people you consider to be trolls, or discuss personally assaulting people for not being civil.

TBH, I've dropped the ball here and let several of these types of posts (from multiple posters) slide. That will not be the case anymore.

 

[bernie14]

Well, this guy ranting on the corner could only work up a handful of people at the most, and they might be able to get two or three victims, tops. That isn't genocide so what's the big deal? Get some popcorn and watch the show, AmIRite?

Well, if we apply the categorical imperative that many are espousing to your logic, we may justify pre-emptively fire bombing every mosque in the middle east..

WHICH I DO NOT THINK IS A GOOD IDEA

 

[aelf]

Ok, I got needlessly distracted by that second criterion. Then again, why was it even necessary to introduce the second one at all?

Because we're discussing Nazis. Some conformity to Nazi ideology seems necessary to be a Nazi.

Well, if we apply the categorical imperative that many are espousing to your logic,

What does that even mean? How does Kant figure into this?

 

[Zardnaar]

Punching Nazis is completely counter productive. I used to work with a holocaust denier, not a traditional Nazi as such as he made no effort to deny the Nazi's other crimes for example. Never punched him.

 

[Mouthwash]

I recall Raul Hilberg saying something to the effect that Holocaust deniers might be useful for pointing out genuine errors in histories of the Holocaust.

 

[Zardnaar]

I recall Raul Hilberg saying something to the effect that Holocaust deniers might be useful for pointing out genuine errors in histories of the Holocaust.

Existing mainstream scholars already do that.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, perhaps false assumptions or groupthink produced by scholarship might not apply to people who are predisposed to reject mainstream thinking as a whole. But my point is that Hilberg didn't seem to be fazed by tribal boundaries the way leftists are.

 

[Hygro]

I recall Raul Hilberg saying something to the effect that Holocaust deniers might be useful for pointing out genuine errors in histories of the Holocaust.

Weirdos are usually good for intelligence even if their work itself is not so hot.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, perhaps false assumptions or groupthink produced by scholarship might not apply to people who are predisposed to reject mainstream thinking as a whole. But my point is that Hilberg didn't seem to be fazed by tribal boundaries the way leftists are.

Whereas your very-not-tribal hatred of leftists leads you to entertain the idea that holocaust deniers have something going for them, because they have this One Weird Trick to make lefties hate them?

 

[Hygro]

A group of 99 smart people and 1 dumb person tends to outthink a group of 100 smart people.

 

[aelf]

[citation needed]

 

[metalhead]

How many steps removed from a legitimate threat of genocide is this though? And if it was actually only a few steps removed, do you think punching a few people is actually going to be an effective counter?

Let's be honest here. Punching people in the face is only ever going to be an effective counter to groups who are too weak, disorganised, or not numerous enough to need countering in the first place. It's just bullying and intimidation to silence minority opinions. If they're actually any sort of legitimate threat then you need some other tactic anyway.

I think the election of Donald Trump puts it squarely in the realm of "legitimacy." The fact that these people feel like they can speak out in public about genocide is itself pretty strong evidence that there is legitimacy to their movement.

I agree, if punching is going to be effective, the group it is aimed at needs to be relatively small, in its infancy for a mildly violent response to be effective. But I don't agree that the group currently being small is evidence that they pose no threat. Movements grow. The ingredients are there for the movements to grow, the most significant one being that they perceive they have allies at the highest levels of government. Demagogues who have proven quite willing to scapegoat minorities for all of the country's ills. Imagine what it will look like if the country takes a nose dive and actually starts to look like the bleak place President Trump describes it as. Do we really want emboldened neo-Nazis around feeling their oats when that happens?

It's not about silencing minority opinions, it's about silencing one, specific, particularly repugnant opinion that presents a threat to the lives of millions of people.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not about silencing minority opinions, it's about silencing one, specific, particularly repugnant opinion that presents a threat to the lives of millions of people.

I'd replace "one specific opinion" with "a cluster of specific opinions", otherwise yes.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think the election of Donald Trump puts it squarely in the realm of "legitimacy." The fact that these people feel like they can speak out in public about genocide is itself pretty strong evidence that there is legitimacy to their movement.

Only if you equate Donald Trump with an actual Nazi though, which isn't reasonable.

I agree, if punching is going to be effective, the group it is aimed at needs to be relatively small, in its infancy for a mildly violent response to be effective. But I don't agree that the group currently being small is evidence that they pose no threat. Movements grow. The ingredients are there for the movements to grow, the most significant one being that they perceive they have allies at the highest levels of government. Demagogues who have proven quite willing to scapegoat minorities for all of the country's ills. Imagine what it will look like if the country takes a nose dive and actually starts to look like the bleak place President Trump describes it as. Do we really want emboldened neo-Nazis around feeling their oats when that happens?

Too many steps removed. Far too many "what ifs" yet to be answered. Far too many opportunities to deal with any of those potential steps in a more reasonable way. No justification for violence at this stage.

It's not about silencing minority opinions, it's about silencing one, specific, particularly repugnant opinion that presents a threat to the lives of millions of people.

So it is about silencing a minority opinion then, as I said. What you just said doesn't contradict what I said at all, and you're not giving any reasons to justify the claim that it presents any significant threat, let alone to the lives of millions of people. That's ridiculous hyperbole. You just yourself admitted that the group is small and powerless.

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but at least you are responding to things I'm actually saying so I appreciate that much. Makes a nice change around these parts.