Punching Nazis

[Kyriakos]

Don't know why you'd assume that. Although you're right, recently I haven't been involved in any of that because I can't be. When I was younger I got into fights and have indeed been at the receiving end of a knockout.

Heads aren't watermelons. We're durable creatures. Doesn't mean you should go for KOs where possible, just means it's not the shrieking death sentence it's being portrayed as in this thread. There's risks associated with it. There are risks with body shots too. There are risks with any type of serious fight. A well-placed hit to the chest can damage your liver and kill you. A strong enough hit to the back can cripple you or make you walk with a seizing limp for the rest of your life. Who knew that you could hurt people when you're throwing fists?

So you argue that a KO by punch to the head isn't potentially having chronic effect because... other types of hits have chronic effect. (?). Or that its ok he punched him cause he could cause chronic physical harm otherwise too. (?). Man, there is really a messed up "you got what you had coming" mentality, for small (or should i say tiny) fish like some moron nobody wannabe-nazi, when all sorts of ruin is caused by people who happily present themselves as saviours of the public and speak of los deplorabilos

Reminds me of the ending paragraph of Animal Farm. In the end... one could see no difference between the sides.

 

[Akka]

Don't know why you'd assume that.

Because people who have experience in what is serious fighting, tend to know that a strong strike can seriously hurt (as in : weeks in the hospital, with possible debilitating effects).

Although you're right, recently I haven't been involved in any of that because I can't be. When I was younger I got into fights and have indeed been at the receiving end of a knockout.

Fights as in highschool rumbles or as in street fights ?

Heads aren't watermelons. We're durable creatures. Doesn't mean you should go for KOs where possible, just means it's not the shrieking death sentence it's being portrayed as in this thread. There's risks associated with it. There are risks with body shots too. There are risks with any type of serious fight. A well-placed hit to the chest can damage your liver and kill you. A strong enough hit to the back can cripple you or make you walk with a seizing limp for the rest of your life. Who knew that you could hurt people when you're throwing fists?

It's not a death sentence, but it's not a slap. Even a serious strike in the chest has a very low chance to do any serious damage. A serious strike to the spine or in the face has a significant chance to cause serious damage.

 

[Synobun]

So you argue that a KO by punch to the head isn't potentially having chronic effect because... other types of hits have chronic effect. (?). Or that its ok he punched him cause he could cause chronic physical harm otherwise too. (?). Man, there is really a messed up "you got what you had coming" mentality, for small (or should i say tiny) fish like some moron nobody wannabe-nazi, when all sorts of ruin is caused by people who happily present themselves as saviours of the public and speak of los deplorabilos

Reminds me of the ending paragraph of Animal Farm. In the end... one could see no difference between the sides.

Please go to the first two pages of this thread and read my replies. I've been very clear on the terms of 'acceptable' violence and why it's viable in this circumstance.

I have never argued that a KO poses no danger. Don't put words in my mouth.

Because people who have experience in what is serious fighting, tend to know that a strong strike can seriously hurt (as in : weeks in the hospital, with possible debilitating effects).

Never said it can't hurt.

Fights as in highschool rumbles or as in street fights ?

I don't know what high school you went to but I grew up in a place where putting people through windows was standard fare in a "high school rumble". But both. I've been on the receiving end of a knockout twice. Once by my father and once by someone six years older than me when I was just a wee lad at 7.

It's not a death sentence, but it's not a slap. Even a serious strike in the chest has a very low chance to do any serious damage. A serious strike to the spine or in the face has a significant chance to cause serious damage.

A well-placed punch of suitable strength can break off the bottom of your sternum which will shatter into your liver and your diaphragm. I assure you that I'm aware of the risks of serious strikes on the human body, and have never made an attempt at claiming knockouts were blase affairs. They are simply not cause for hysteria by themselves. It's often the fall after a knockout that does the most damning damage.

 

[Kyriakos]

First rule of fight club is that you don't talk of lasting effects of punches to the face

 

[luiz]

So we have to assume that if the heroes had not surrounded and knocked out this donut-eating moron, he would proceed to conduct ethnic cleansing in the city and possibly the nation and millions would have died.

Wow, these guys are really heroic. I feel much safer with them around.

 

[Lexicus]

I feel much safer with them around.

I know you're being sarcastic, but understand that your feelings of safety are far from the most important thing here, and I don't doubt that there really were people in the area who felt safer after that dude was knocked out

 

[luiz]

I know you're being sarcastic, but understand that your feelings of safety are far from the most important thing here, and I don't doubt that there really were people in the area who felt safer after that dude was knocked out

Sure, I'm sure they were terrified by that chubby imbecile and took his presence as irrefutable evidence of their doom. If he was not assaulted by that group of courageous men, millions would have died. That's what's at stake here.

 

[Senethro]

A nazi being fat and dumb doesn't really detract from his intent to change public opinion (by all means available) so that he can legally kill or displace who he wants.

I'm not sure where these arguments that nazis aren't really harmful are going....

 

[Lexicus]

Sure, I'm sure they were terrified by that chubby imbecile and took his presence as irrefutable evidence of their doom. If he was not assaulted by that group of courageous men, millions would have died. That's what's at stake here.

Other people are not so secure and confident as you, that they can be so dismissive of this stuff. Particularly with Trump's election many marginalized people are scared (for good reasons, in my view) and it really does not reflect well on you to minimize and mock those feelings.

 

[luiz]

A nazi being fat and dumb doesn't really detract from his intent to change public opinion (by all means available) so that he can legally kill or displace who he wants.

I'm not sure where these arguments that nazis aren't really harmful are going....

Other people are not so secure and confident as you, that they can be so dismissive of this stuff. Particularly with Trump's election many marginalized people are scared (for good reasons, in my view) and it really does not reflect well on you to minimize and mock those feelings.

That's nonsense. This discussion is not honest. If you guys want to argue that this cretin deserves to be assaulted because he is a despicable human being who believes in a horrible ideology, fine. Argue this point : that people with evil opinions deserve to be subjected to physical violence.

But to claim this is some sort of preemptive self-defense is just dishonest. He didn't pose any threat to anyone.

Senethro was more honest with his response : the fat cretin deserved to be assaulted because he wanted to change public opinion in a bad direction. At least you're being consistent, but I must say this position opens a lot of dangerous precedents. Who else deserves to be assaulted in the streets by vigilantes due to them trying to influence public opinion in a bad way? Maoists? Islamists ?

 

[Lexicus]

If you guys want to argue that this cretin deserves to be assaulted because he is a despicable human being who believes in a horrible ideology, fine. Argue this point : that people with evil opinions deserve to be subjected to physical violence.

It's not about having the opinion, it's about sharing that opinion so aggressively. I've already made my actual thinking on this specific case clear: I think it's more acceptable to punch people wearing swastika armbands in the face than it is to wear a swastika armband. You want to wear a swastika armband in a public place, you should prepare to be punched in the face.

But to claim this is some sort of preemptive self-defense is just dishonest.

I am curious where I claimed this. My argument was mainly about feelings, and I don't think this is a case of pre-emptive self-defense. It was an example of someone being punched in the face for acting like a serious jerk.

Maoists?

Most "Maoists" I'm acquainted with seem to spend most of their time calling people white supremacists from behind keyboards for not supporting North Korea in its anti-imperialist struggle, so I'm not too concerned about them tbh

Islamists ?

I mean, yeah, some Islamic State-esque dude behaving the same way could also get punched in the face, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Senethro]

I'd like to know what red line nazis have to cross before they're punchable. I'd hope the answer comes before seizure of assets and businesses owned by a persecuted ethnicity.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The same red line that prevents you from punching someone else.

It would be fairly obvious if they are that bad, and they are, Nazis will give people ample opportunity for people to punch them for any number of acceptable reasons. So why rush? If you get into an altercation with one, it is highly unlikely you need to invent any more.

But it really depends on what your level of power fantasy is. Are you just here because you want someone to punch, or do you want to punch someone and also be vindicated for it.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd like to know what red line nazis have to cross before they're punchable. I'd hope the answer comes before seizure of assets and businesses owned by a persecuted ethnicity.

For the moderates, historically, they have to be about halfway to Warsaw.

 

[luiz]

For the moderates, historically, they have to be about halfway to Warsaw.

And for the communists, historically, it's only when there are air raids over Kronstadt and Sevastopol, about two years after moderates are already fighting.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not about having the opinion, it's about sharing that opinion so aggressively. I've already made my actual thinking on this specific case clear: I think it's more acceptable to punch people wearing swastika armbands in the face than it is to wear a swastika armband. You want to wear a swastika armband in a public place, you should prepare to be punched in the face.

It's not more acceptable. What you are asking for is a change in law. However, it appears that you are not patient enough to go through due process for that

 

[sophie]

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.

Slavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property laware applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jureform of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jureslavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Sounds an awful lot like the system of prison labor to me...

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!

So you force him to return the stolen property and hold him in bondage to account for the crime, or else garnish some of his wages from his place of employment until the debt is repaid. But forcing them to work against their will for no pay is a form of slavery. Again, maybe it's a form of slavery you're morally ok with - it's certainly not something I'm ok with - but irrespective of our personal moral philosophies, holding someone in bondage and forcing them to work against their will under threat of harm/punishment and not allowing them to leave or say no, and not remunerating them afterwards falls under a commonly held definition of slavery.

That being said - I don't think I've ever seen prison labor held up as a form of restitution in a pecuniary sort of way, aside from the old "forced to wash dishes after being caught in a fine and dash" which itself isn't really an imposed bondage, but rather an ad hoc punishment both parties consent to do as to avoid the hassle of getting the authorities involved - I've only ever heard prison labor justified either as a "well while they're there they might as well be doing something productive with themselves" which is essentially a de facto admission/apologia of prison labor as slavery, or else the individual sees the point of prison as punishment, and forcing someone to work an unpleasant job under grueling conditions fits the stipulations of prison-as-punishment rather well, which again, doesn't recommend the institution well as literal recompense for stolen property.

 

[W|M]

And for the communists, historically, it's only when there are air raids over Kronstadt and Sevastopol, about two years after moderates are already fighting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roter_Frontkämpferbund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arditi_del_Popolo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion#1930s

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, but something something just as bad, something something the real fascists.

 

[Camikaze]

I know you're being sarcastic, but understand that your feelings of safety are far from the most important thing here, and I don't doubt that there really were people in the area who felt safer after that dude was knocked out

Where I live, the police have power to require anyone whose presence might reasonably cause fear to 'move on' from an area. Surely that's the sort of solution you'd be after.