Punching Nazis

[Kyriakos]

Ah so you need video evidence that a guy yelling on a street corner wearing a swastika armband was harassing people, okay.

You know who else would want request proof? A judge, if this comes to court as a violent and illegal attack. I am sure it won't just fly that "hey m8, he wears a nazi armband, he was on the street, later was punched to the head, so obviously he was threatening others cause otherwise the attack makes no sense and is criminal. Now pls make the criminal charges against me go away, k?".

Proof is asked for a reason. Else all you are left with is making stuff up.

 

[inthesomeday]

Legality is not something I'm concerned with in the interest of moral arguments.

@Valessa

Do you not see him yelling loudly and getting in those peoples' personal space literally seconds before he is hit?

 

[Ryika]

@Valessa

Do you not see him yelling loudly and getting in those peoples' personal space literally seconds before he is hit?

If you have a video that starts before the point that this video here starts, then please post it.

If on the other hand you're referring to that video, then you're being ridiculous.

 

[Berzerker]

Wrong. Read the thirteenth amendment sometime.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[Perfection]

Legality is not something I'm concerned with in the interest of moral arguments.

@Valessa

Do you not see him yelling loudly and getting in those peoples' personal space literally seconds before he is hit?

 

[inthesomeday]

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Unless you have lots of faith in the American judiciary then this bit ought to seem quite suspicious to you.

 

[Berzerker]

paying restitution for your crimes is not slavery

 

[inthesomeday]

paying restitution for your crimes is not slavery

Unless you have lots of faith in the American judiciary then this bit ought to seem quite suspicious to you.

 

[Lexicus]

No, I don't. But let me guess: you don't support reparations?

No, I dont, 'repairing' slavery by enslaving people is not a moral endeavor.

paying restitution for your crimes is not slavery

Ladies and gentlemen, Berzerker

 

[Berzerker]

paying restitution for your crimes is slavery?

or

we're criminals because slavery existed?

 

[Synobun]

I'm replying to this here since the Safe Space thread really isn't the place to be talking about the Nazi punching incident.

Hm okay well I guess you have a much more flexible definition of harassment than... Probably almost every other person

@Lexicus might remember that long ago, when the subject of attacking Nazis in public first came up, I 'rallied' to their defense based on the assumption that people who weren't Nazis were being labelled as ones and thus the attackers were given social immunity for assaulting people. This has been largely true in many of the instances I've seen since then and I don't feel regret for dying on that hill, but what went mostly under the radar since it wasn't pertinent was that I am not explicitly opposed to violence (keyword being violence and not a word like murder or maiming) if the person is a verifiable, self-admitted Nazi.

This is what that person was.

And to be frank, I don't find the "it was just a prank bro" defense endearing when we are talking about wearing and espousing symbolism of a very specific regime and ideology. If you are wearing a Third Reich armband, chattering Third Reich views, and actively going to ethnically diverse areas, then you know what you are doing. You know what you are doing and you are subject to the consequences of that. There is no absolutely NO moral or societal imperative for people to be welcoming of views that are explicitly based on erasing others.

Nazism is not a misunderstood system. It was built around very specific social policies that were reprehensible then and especially reprehensible today. Its political leaders, the people who made it popular, the people who got the 'proletariat' to buy in, shared these views and actively built a state which would conduct their vision of an ideal populace. Nazism is not divorced from the actions of the Nazi regime. They are one and the same. Someone wearing Nazi symbolism and voicing views that align with Nazism is giving direct support for that regime's actions. By specifically aligning themselves with Nazism they are specifically aligning themselves against the 'undesirables'.

I don't begrudge the undesirables not being okay with that in a world that is supposed to be more moral, more just. The state is clearly not equipped to handle it unless the Nazi is in the middle of beginning their own personal ethnic cleanse (7-day juicing optional). Peaceful options for silence or disruption become illegal if enacted effectively. This is beyond the circumstance that Nazism is built on expected resistance. The cleansing programs were not designed for woeful acceptance. The Third Reich fully expected the undesirables to resist being wiped out from existence. The many massacres, camps, forced ghettos, and branding speak to that. Singing 'kumbaya' or peacefully standing in the way of a self-admitted Nazi does nothing. They will just see it as you living up to your failure as a genetic inferiority.

A quick and violent solution displays effectively that their views are not welcome and will not be supported. The Nazi will need friends, many friends, if they hope to intimidate and rule over their targets.

I still stand by the viewpoint that unless they are undeniably a Nazi you're best to let it go. This changes when they admit their allegiance. It is not a difference of opinion. It is someone actively telling you that they want you dead. Not 'from a certain point of view'. Not 'based on my interpretation'. Someone telling you they are a Nazi is explicitly clear. A well-placed punch seems fair game. It tells them that their vile (and it is vile) view will be challenged where met. They do not get a free pass to creating their exclusionary utopia built on the massacre of others.

 

[Berzerker]

Unless you have lots of faith in the American judiciary then this bit ought to seem quite suspicious to you.

yes I know the judicial system isn't perfect... if you're arguing slavery was never abolished and still exists 'legally', you'll be comparing the victims of slavery with criminals. I wont join you out on that limb.

 

[inthesomeday]

There is a very clear and discernable history of the word slave being transformed into the word criminal in American history. Modern prisons are essentially the manufacturing equivalent of slave plantations in many ways.

But don't take my word for it. Go watch the documentary Thirteenth, it's on Netflix as well as being readily available for free on many torrenting websites.

 

[Berzerker]

Ladies and gentlemen, Berzerker

Please explain how paying restitution to the victim of your crime is comparable to paying reparations for slavery. Was your crime enslaving someone?

There is a very clear and discernable history of the word slave being transformed into the word criminal in American history.

I noticed... You just turned slaves into criminals to argue slavery was never abolished.

Modern prisons are essentially the manufacturing equivalent of slave plantations in many ways.

If only that were true... Victims would be getting more compensation for their suffering.

 

[sophie]

paying restitution for your crimes is not slavery

I don't know about you, but being forced to perform labor under threat of harm or punishment, without being recompensed for said performed labor sounds an awful lot like slavery to me. Perhaps it's a form of slavery that you are morally okay with, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed slavery.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't know about you, but being forced to perform labor under threat of harm or punishment, without being recompensed for said performed labor sounds an awful lot like slavery to me. Perhaps it's a form of slavery that you are morally okay with, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed slavery.

1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
2. The practice of owning slaves.

Making a thief pay his victims back is not slavery... On the contrary, the thief stole - enslaved - the labor and time of their victims and you're equating them with the thief. Outrageous!

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm replying to this here since the Safe Space thread really isn't the place to be talking about the Nazi punching incident.



@Lexicus might remember that long ago, when the subject of attacking Nazis in public first came up, I 'rallied' to their defense based on the assumption that people who weren't Nazis were being labelled as ones and thus the attackers were given social immunity for assaulting people. This has been largely true in many of the instances I've seen since then and I don't feel regret for dying on that hill, but what went mostly under the radar since it wasn't pertinent was that I am not explicitly opposed to violence (keyword being violence and not a word like murder or maiming) if the person is a verifiable, self-admitted Nazi.

This is what that person was.

And to be frank, I don't find the "it was just a prank bro" defense endearing when we are talking about wearing and espousing symbolism of a very specific regime and ideology. If you are wearing a Third Reich armband, chattering Third Reich views, and actively going to ethnically diverse areas, then you know what you are doing. You know what you are doing and you are subject to the consequences of that. There is no absolutely NO moral or societal imperative for people to be welcoming of views that are explicitly based on erasing others.

Nazism is not a misunderstood system. It was built around very specific social policies that were reprehensible then and especially reprehensible today. Its political leaders, the people who made it popular, the people who got the 'proletariat' to buy in, shared these views and actively built a state which would conduct their vision of an ideal populace. Nazism is not divorced from the actions of the Nazi regime. They are one and the same. Someone wearing Nazi symbolism and voicing views that align with Nazism is giving direct support for that regime's actions. By specifically aligning themselves with Nazism they are specifically aligning themselves against the 'undesirables'.

I don't begrudge the undesirables not being okay with that in a world that is supposed to be more moral, more just. The state is clearly not equipped to handle it unless the Nazi is in the middle of beginning their own personal ethnic cleanse (7-day juicing optional). Peaceful options for silence or disruption become illegal if enacted effectively. This is beyond the circumstance that Nazism is built on expected resistance. The cleansing programs were not designed for woeful acceptance. The Third Reich fully expected the undesirables to resist being wiped out from existence. The many massacres, camps, forced ghettos, and branding speak to that. Singing 'kumbaya' or peacefully standing in the way of a self-admitted Nazi does nothing. They will just see it as you living up to your failure as a genetic inferiority.

A quick and violent solution displays effectively that their views are not welcome and will not be supported. The Nazi will need friends, many friends, if they hope to intimidate and rule over their targets.

I still stand by the viewpoint that unless they are undeniably a Nazi you're best to let it go. This changes when they admit their allegiance. It is not a difference of opinion. It is someone actively telling you that they want you dead. Not 'from a certain point of view'. Not 'based on my interpretation'. Someone telling you they are a Nazi is explicitly clear. A well-placed punch seems fair game. It tells them that their vile (and it is vile) view will be challenged where met. They do not get a free pass to creating their exclusionary utopia built on the massacre of others.

It isn't one's right to punch you on the face, unless you are logically deemed an imminent threat to the person, rendering their move as self-defense. Given this was one moron with a nazi armband, set against three (if not more) others, the others (including the one giving the dangerous punch) were under zero threat. This generally means that the puncher committed serious assault, which isn't really something to rally behind. Wearing a nazi armband is vile; what it is not is a free ticket to another to break your head or otherwise seriously harm you physically, with potential lasting physical effects.

Laws don't state that you can attack if the other person is x vile crap. There are only some provisions for accounting for some leniency, eg if aggravated. Even so, those don't make a potentially lethal punch (the dough nazi was struck to the ground and lost his senses, that looks quite dangerous, no?) anything other than a serious crime, and worthy to be sentenced by a court.

 

[Ryika]

I didn't understand what inthesomeday meant when he said that the Nazi invaded the personal space of the guy who punched him, but after reading Vincour's post I now understand that he probably meant that the whole place where they live is their personal space. While I do not agree with it, his line of thought now makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Synobun]

It isn't one's right to punch you on the face, unless you are logically deemed an imminent threat to the person, rendering their move as self-defense. Given this was one moron with a nazi armband, set against three (if not more) others, the others (including the one giving the dangerous punch) were under zero threat. This generally means that the puncher committed serious assault, which isn't really something to rally behind. Wearing a nazi armband is vile; what it is not is a free ticket to another to break your head or otherwise seriously harm you physically, with potential lasting physical effects.

Who's talking about laws?

Laws don't state that you can attack if the other person is x vile crap. There are only some provisions for accounting for some leniency, eg if aggravated. Even so, those don't make a potentially lethal punch (the dough nazi was struck to the ground and lost his senses, that looks quite dangerous, no?) anything other than a serious crime, and worthy to be sentenced by a court.

No more dangerous than the desired concentration camps.

 

[Kyriakos]

Who's talking about laws?



No more dangerous than the desired concentration camps.

Well, laws are somewhat crucial here as well, given we have a violent and criminal act.

Sure, if you can just prove how this nazi had the power to place those opposite to concentration camps, it would be on equal footing or worse for him. As things stand, he is just some cretinous dough-body with a nazi armband, concentration camps are a fantasy or at best rhetoric, while the potentially lethal and likely chronic physical issue inducing punch is not a fantasy but a reality. Like it or not, the nazi wasn't the one breaking laws and actually physically harming others here.