Punching Nazis

[W|M]

By far the most effective way of eliminating Nazis from public discourse is with force. I also happen to know that you're supportive of Pinochet and the Greek military junta during the Cold War - Both of which were cryptofascist regimes - Which doesn't scream ''pro-free-speech'' to me

Right, just to be clear...

I don't particularly have a problem with enjoying seeing someone you don't like getting punched in the face. That's perfectly understandable. I don't claim I wouldn't do that, or indeed haven't done that. I don't even claim that I would never punch anyone who wasn't directly threatening me, just because something they said or did provoked me. Tempers flare up and things happen. I won't EVEN claim that I couldn't hold a grudge for a long time and then punch someone later, in a much more "dish served cold" way. Or enjoy the thought of going around attacking people I just find really annoying in general.

But to openly and proudly advocate for physically attacking people purely on the basis of their ideological stances, and to think that this makes you a GOOD PERSON, to wear that as a badge of honour and virtue, is on a whole other level. Jesus, take a look at yourselves.

And clearly the terminology is playing a part here. When people hear "Nazi" they think of guys riding around in tanks, invading countries and gassing people to death. But what we're actually talking about is people who merely hold and express views that you find abhorrent, but at most are doing nothing more than holding public speaking events or the like. To wilfully conflate the two and then act as though any actions justified against the former group are equally justified against the latter group is actually grotesque.

You quite genuinely disgust me. PLEASE take a look at yourselves.

Ideology isn't something that's detached from everything else, ideology plays a central part in people's lives, and it's what most affects people's lives. Ideology is a core part of identity, and if someone's ideology involves them being a fascist, then yes, violence against them is justified, because they are automatically a terrible person. Fascists may not be gassing people to death now, but that's only because they don't currently have the means to do so. They'd take the first oppurtunity they get to kill whoever they don't like, and the history of fascism in the US clearly shows this, especially with regards to the KKK and the lynching of black people. Even at public speaking events, fascists can cause a lot of harm - Milo Yiannoupolous, among other things, publically outed and ridiculed a trans student at a university he was speaking at last year.

Does every single fascist, by definition, advocate for genocide? That wouldn't seem to be true. And even if it were, is advocating for genocide as bad as committing, or attempting to commit, actual genocide? You just said "killing people who hold supportive views about killing people is a good thing". I mean... Christ.

I guess I should thank whoever started this thread for shining such a great spotlight on what we actually have in residence here.

I don't know what world you're living in, but in the world I'm in, fascists love genocide. Fascists would commit genocide at the first chance they get, and antifascist action is in no way comparable to genocide, and you should be ashamed for making such a comparison

 

[Lexicus]

If you cannot persuade Nazis themselves, you can persuaded those who are leaning towards those ideas to abandon them. At the very least, you can prove the fallacy of their positions to the non-Nazis so that their movement does not spread. In any care, punching people for their political ideas (no matter how horrible those ideas may be) is abhorrent to me. Call me naive, but I believe in free speech (even for controversial ideas) and civilized discourse in politics.

Again, you fundamentally misunderstand how Nazi ideas spread and gain purchase. It's not because of their logical or intellectual power. Attacking the arguments of Nazis on an intellectual level does exactly zero to stop Nazism from taking over.
I don't really care about punching Richard Spencer and his ilk. I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm not going to complain if other people want to do it. As I implied, I think the bigger question in 'how do we stop Nazis' is 'how do we run society in such a way that Nazi ideas have at best fringe appeal?'

By the way, if you believe in 'civilized discourse in politics' then advocating for genocide, enslavement, and segregation should simply be off the table, no?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

By far the most effective way of eliminating Nazis from public discourse is with force.

Well of couse it is. The best way of stopping people saying ANYTHING you don't want to hear is to kill all the people who might say those things. That doesn't justify it in the slightest though.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

if someone's ideology involves them being a fascist, then yes, violence against them is justified, because they are automatically a terrible person.

Well, from my point of view, anyone who would make a statement like that in all seriousness is automatically a terrible person. The difference is that I don't see that as justification for physically attacking you. As disgusted as I am by at least half this thread, I'm still not going to advocate violence as a way to deal with it. Because I don't have the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.

 

[W|M]

So you'd rather close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and start shouting than stop the persecution of innocent people?

 

[christos200]

By far the most effective way of eliminating Nazis from public discourse is with force. I also happen to know that you're supportive of Pinochet and the Greek military junta during the Cold War - Both of which were cryptofascist regimes - Which doesn't scream ''pro-free-speech'' to me

Both are wrong statements. I do not support either the junta nor Pinochet. I have indeed spoken in favor of Pinochet's economic reforms but I have denounced his domestic policies and dictatorship. I am a Libertarian, I support the principles of limited government and liberty.

 

[W|M]

His economic reforms would not have been possible without the dictatorship and heavy suppression of opposition

 

[christos200]

Such economic reforms are possible in a democratic state (see Reagan, Thatcher, etch). If anything, thanks to those reforms Chile is one of the most stable democracies in South America.

 

[metalhead]

But to openly and proudly advocate for physically attacking people purely on the basis of their ideological stances, and to think that this makes you a GOOD PERSON, to wear that as a badge of honour and virtue, is on a whole other level. Jesus, take a look at yourselves.

And clearly the terminology is playing a part here. When people hear "Nazi" they think of guys riding around in tanks, invading countries and gassing people to death. But what we're actually talking about is people who merely hold and express views that you find abhorrent, but at most are doing nothing more than holding public speaking events or the like. To wilfully conflate the two and then act as though any actions justified against the former group are equally justified against the latter group is actually grotesque.

You really don't get nuance at all, do you?

Saying it is OK to punch people who have one particular ideological stance - in this case, advocating for genocide - is not the same thing as advocating for attacking people on the basis of any ideological stance. A society has a right to say that certain ideas are so antithetical to its values that to advocate for them is to invite a violent response. We have the right to protect those values, with violence if necessary.

They aren't just "holding public speaking events," these people want to use the Trump presidency as a springboard to enacting their genocidal policy. Richard Spencer himself has stated that this is his goal. So yeah, the guy who wants to kill tens of millions of black Americans invites a punch in the face, especially if it ends up with him shuttered in his mom's basement crying about how they need better security so he doesn't get punched in the face in public so much.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why can you not see the difference? A physical attack is obviously justified in when defending against another physical attack, or a threat of a physical attack, or a situation where a physical attack genuinely appears to be likely. A physical attack is not justified against someone who's just "being a jerk".

Even if you don't agree with me on that, it's baffling to me that you can't even see the difference between the two things or comprehend how someone else might think if proper to treat them differently. But then your go-to reaction for most things seems to involve punching people in the face so maybe that's just normal in your eyes.

Could we take a sidebar here for a minute...

Why is it that whenever we disagree you assume that me not agreeing with you is because I "can't even see" or "don't comprehend" but when you disagree with me it's because you are right? Are you just so arrogant that that's your "go to reaction"?

Okay, now back to the discussion at hand...

Being a jerk is no more "justifiable" than a physical attack. Being a jerk tends to spread more. Being a jerk tends to have longer lasting effects. Being a jerk almost always lasts longer. If being a jerk is met with physical violence that the jerk doesn't like they have a very simple option called "don't be a jerk."

If "I don't spew hate but I immediately punch people who do in the face" were the norm the world would be a much better place. Not because it would be filled with people punching people in the face, because it wouldn't. But it would be filled with people making at least a cursory effort to not spew hate.

 

[Mise]

Don't advocate it, don't think it should be legal, don't think it's ethical, don't think it's effective.

But I'm not going to shed a tear if some Nazi gets punched in the face. You reap what you sow.

Now, someone accuse me of victim blaming so this circle can be complete.

Also, LMFAO at the "but what if I punched a black guy?????" retort on the first page. Touché!

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't believe in punching Nazis when bullets are cheaper than medical treatment for my fists.

 

[metalhead]

That's why you should always wear Hulk hands when you punch a Nazi.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know the bar is low, but compared to Donald Trump, that's what I have.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I support any cause that makes people unironically edit Niemöller's poem to say "First they came for the Nazis"

 

[Yeekim]

I'm happy with punching Nazis as long as it remains for courts to decide who is or isn't one.

 

[Akka]

I'm pretty chill with the idea of punching people with disgusting ethics, so in one way I do agree with the thread's title.
The amusing thing is, I'm pretty sure a good deal of the people who promote this in the thread are blind to their own argument and don't realize they actually fall right into it themselves.

Also, LMFAO at the "but what if I punched a black guy?????" retort on the first page. Touché!

TBH, while I understand the point, I think it was a very poor reply. Being black is a state you're born with and you've no choice about and which has nothing inherently bad in it. Being nazi is a political choice, a moral position you decide about and is ethically bad.
I think a much better answer would have been "but what if I punched a SJW ?". Though SJW are not as bad as the nazis, at least the parallel is pretty much exact in everything but intensity.

 

[Kyriakos]

Bad idea. Right to free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Besides, branding people as "nazi" can easily be abused (don't know at all about this case in particular, maybe they are indeed nazis).

What worries me more is the abysmally low level of debate, which leads to such phenomena in the first place. Let alone that US isn't some european-sized country; it is continent-sized and can actually split if this goes on and escalates.

 

[metalhead]

TBH, while I understand the point, I think it was a very poor reply. Being black is a state you're born with and you've no choice about and which has nothing inherently bad in it. Being nazi is a political choice, a moral position you decide about and is ethically bad.
I think a much better answer would have been "but what if I punched a SJW ?". Though SJW are not as bad as the nazis, at least the parallel is pretty much exact in everything but intensity.

Maybe we have different definitions of what constitutes a "SJW," but I don't think I see where they are equivalent to people who advocate genocide. But maybe there are genocidal SJWs out there that I'm not aware of?

 

[Akka]

Maybe we have different definitions of what constitutes a "SJW," but I don't think I see where they are equivalent to people who advocate genocide.

=>

TBH, while I understand the point, I think it was a very poor reply. Being black is a state you're born with and you've no choice about and which has nothing inherently bad in it. Being nazi is a political choice, a moral position you decide about and is ethically bad.
I think a much better answer would have been "but what if I punched a SJW ?". Though SJW are not as bad as the nazis, at least the parallel is pretty much exact in everything but intensity.

Reading comprehension. I know it's hard, but managing to miss about one third of two sentences is a pretty nice display.