Punching Nazis

[civver_764]

NSDAP Platform:

1. A union of all Germans to from a great Germany on the basis of the right to self-determination of peoples.
2. Abolition of the Treaty of Versailles.
3. Land and territory (colonies) for our surplus population.
4. German blood as a requirement for German citizenship. No Jew can be a member of the nation.
5. Non-citizens can live in Germany only as foreigners, subject to the law of aliens.
6. Only citizens can vote or hold public office.
7. The state insures that every citizen live decently and earn his livelihood. If it is impossible to provide food for the whole population, then aliens must be expelled.
8. No further immigration of non-Germans. Any non-German who entered Germany after August 2,1914, shall leave immediately.
9. A thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The science of citizenship shall be taught from the beginning.
10. All newspapers must be published in the German language by German citizens and owners.

Some of Hitler's race-centric decrees prior to WW2.

Snippets of Hitler talking about the Jews.

The Nazi regime's approach to the undesirables wasn't a sudden surprise foisted upon the people. They were pretty clear about what they thought about those who weren't Aryan.

I mean...there's a pretty big difference between a German ethnostate and literally exterminating everybody who isn't a German. I fully understand that they only wanted Germans in their country, and that people supported that. I will only note that they were not the first ethnostate, and certainly not the last.

Anyways, you didn't answer my question about democracy, which I think is the more interesting part of this discussion. I'm really not trying to defend the NSDAP here, just the idea of free speech and not attacking someone who doesn't pose an imminent threat. As an American, I hold freedom of speech to be almost sacred. It's important to remember that this guy had nothing to do with the crimes of Nazi Germany, and is merely a human being like you and me.

 

[Ajidica]

The idea that citizens of the DPRK view the Kim family as gods is simply false and western propaganda.

The Kim family and their coterie present the Kim family as, if not mortal gods, at the very least divinely inspired whose rule is divinely ordained.

I fully understand that they only wanted Germans in their country, and that people supported that.

Remind me again how many elections the Nazi's won the majority in?
Oh, right, none.

 

[Kyriakos]

Remind me again how many elections the Nazi's won the majority in?
Oh, right, none.

'Fawning over nazis' thread is in the history forum

 

[Synobun]

Anyways, you didn't answer my question about democracy, which I think is the more interesting part of this discussion. I'm really not trying to defend the NSDAP here, just the idea of free speech and not attacking someone who doesn't pose an imminent threat. As an American, I hold freedom of speech to be almost sacred. It's important to remember that this guy had nothing to do with the crimes of Nazi Germany, and is merely a human being like you and me.

Yeah, the "they're human beings just like you and me" argument doesn't really fly when a Nazi regime would experiment new chemical weapons on someone like me.

America in general has a rather warped perspective on the merits of free speech. There is a difference between the freedom to express yourself and the freedom to espouse extermination policy. There is no 'good side' to Nazism. Supporting an ideology that is explicitly built upon discrimination and extermination is not a mere matter of different opinions in the glories of Democracy™. There is no value to allowing speech that is directly supporting or encouraging abhorrent behaviour.

 

[civver_764]

Yeah, the "they're human beings just like you and me" argument doesn't really fly when a Nazi regime would experiment new chemical weapons on someone like me.

America in general has a rather warped perspective on the merits of free speech. There is a difference between the freedom to express yourself and the freedom to espouse extermination policy. There is no 'good side' to Nazism. Supporting an ideology that is explicitly built upon discrimination and extermination is not a mere matter of different opinions in the glories of Democracy™. There is no value to allowing speech that is directly supporting or encouraging abhorrent behaviour.

I'm not saying there is a good side to Nazism. I can agree with you about espousing extermination policy, but as far as I can tell this guy was not saying anything about exterminating anyone. It seems like he was just talking about "only white people should get welfare". I can see why that sort of thing is distasteful, but it's not really on the same level as literally exterminating people.

 

[Synobun]

I'm not saying there is a good side to Nazism. I can agree with you about espousing extermination policy, but as far as I can tell this guy was not saying anything about exterminating anyone. It seems like he was just talking about "only white people should get welfare". I can see why that sort of thing is distasteful, but it's not really on the same level as literally exterminating people.

Again, Third Reich flag = not a fashion choice. You don't wake up in the morning and decide the Third Reich regalia would go well with your outfit.

 

[inthesomeday]

Vincour, do you now see what so frustrates me? People won't even accept that someone is a Nazi when they wear a swastika armband in public. I don't think I and my ilk are on a witch hunt so much as the rest are covering up their eyes and ears and singing.

 

[civver_764]

Of course it's not a fashion choice. It is almost definitely a political statement, but the question is what is the political message they are trying to get across? It is my view that these symbols mean different things to different people. To you the swastika might mean extermination, but to him it might just mean "white solidarity" or something like that. To the Germans that voted for the NSDAP it meant a "German ethnostate".

Take for example the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Many white prisoners join this gang in prison not out of a desire to exterminate anybody, but out of a desire for self-protection. They may acquire swastika tattoos while doing this. These swastika tattoos are of course not a fashion choice, but they are also not a desire for extermination.

That's not to say I think you should support Nazis or swastikas, just that there's probably more to the story than meets the eye.

This is somewhat related but people might find it interesting. When Malcolm X met the Nazis.

 

[Archon_Wing]

A heartwarming story where both sides drop their differences to..... hate on Jews.

:S

 

[Synobun]

"I want all the racist benefits of the party platform with none of the blood on my hands" isn't what I would call a compelling argument towards "they're harmless". The Third Reich is very clear on what it stood for. You don't fly their flag if you don't support their regime.

Comparing one's elective behaviour in a free society to racially segregated prison systems is hardly worth acknowledging let alone considering as an actual debate point.

 

[Kyriakos]

Vincour, do you now see what so frustrates me? People won't even accept that someone is a Nazi when they wear a swastika armband in public. I don't think I and my ilk are on a witch hunt so much as the rest are covering up their eyes and ears and singing.

Not sure what you mean, but most (all?) people here accept this low IQ guy is actually very fond of nazism (whatever it means to him; probably it means white supremacy and also violence). But he is also clearly in no position to threaten the 3 people he is up against there, and is a victim of one of them.
No one likes him (the nazi). This isn't in tautology with accepting KO punch to the head as being a good development. Else you end up with all sorts of preemptive violence (which USia is very fond of already, on a country vs country scale as well).

 

[inthesomeday]

Thousands, probably millions of Americans love him. The punch shows that not all do.

If you think there's no danger posed by white supremacism on America then you are not only wrong but also to a degree dangerous yourself as an enabler of white supremacism.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ah!

That brings me to another point.

If we can argue that people who downplay or deny the threat presented by Nazis are enabling them, and certainly there could be an argument for that, is it okay to punch them too; these Nazi sympathizers? I mean, they do contribute to the Nazis being more prominent by legitimizing them through action or inaction.

What about punching people that object to punching Nazis? Let's say you wanted to punch a Nazi, and then someone tries to break it up. Is it okay to punch them too as they are clearly shielding an immoral being? If punching a Nazi is needed to stop them from making horrible things from happening, then punching the person in between should be an acceptable sacrifice to prevent your country from being ruled by Nazis.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thousands, probably millions of Americans love him. The punch shows that not all do.

If you think there's no danger posed by white supremacism on America then you are not only wrong but also to a degree dangerous yourself as an enabler of white supremacism.

Ok, before i end up being punched too, as an "enabler of white supremacism" ( ), i have to note that one arm-band nazi is not logically a threat to the people in that specific circumstance which earned him the KO. Which is why i used the term "preemptive". If he was armed/tried to attack, the punch would be a non-issue and self-defense. Now it is an example of how trigger happy everyone is, and willing to see one person as IDENTICAL to a symbol (the swastica, and by extension ww2 german hideousness). It simply is not the same, though. Sometimes one is not helped by slapping him, nor are others helped as if some big-wig was taken down, nor is any issue solved. And to be a proponent of un-needed violence is also rather part of the problem of how ultra-violent the US is.

 

[Perfection]

I guess like random street shouting nazis probably shouldn't be punched because they're probably schizophrenic or something and i don't like punching crazies

 

[luiz]

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

Where were they between Ribbentrop-Molotov and Barbarossa?

Denouncing Churchill and Roosevelt as the real warmonger, that's where.

 

[Ryika]

I have thought about this some more and have come to the conclusion that we should also put people on the far left and people on the far right onto the list of people who are okay to punch. This might sound controversial at fist, but I think my reasoning is sound:

Punching real Nazis or real Communists is justified because they follow murderous ideologies, so if somebody shows up in your area, and shouts their rhetoric, then you have a right to tell them that you don't want them in your area, and punching them is one way of making it known to them. This is of course a fair argument, however, it is also not very well substantiated, because what is so special about a "murderous ideology" that makes "punching" okay? Nothing really, it's just a standard set at a random point of the scale, after all, what they want to do is much worse than panching. Well, not random maybe, but I do not think there is anything inherently "right" about setting the standard at that point. The real argument hidden behind that "standard" is that you should be able to punch people whose views about society you find disgusting, maybe with the restrictions that their views, if implemented, would make society substantially worse. I find that most people on the ends of the political scale to be rather disgusting views that I think most people would say would make society worse. So I would say the current standard of people who are okay to be punched is WAY too high, and I suppose moving that point to where we can punch these people.

Random funfact btw:

The guy's wearing the arm band on the wrong arm, the Nazis wore it on the left side.

 

[Kyriakos]

Personally i think that punching those people isn't beneficial. If they are argued to be a net negative or worse, they could be used as live experiment material, in the style of the japanese and (the irony) nazi "medical" units. It is all for the common good. Afterall, as USian politicians tell us time and time again, the rest of the world 'is a dangerous place', so it is not like there is any moral high-ground to be found in the wasteland outside the US.

 

[Akka]

Not sure what you mean, but most (all?) people here accept this low IQ guy is actually very fond of nazism (whatever it means to him; probably it means white supremacy and also violence). But he is also clearly in no position to threaten the 3 people he is up against there, and is a victim of one of them.
No one likes him (the nazi). This isn't in tautology with accepting KO punch to the head as being a good development.

I find the guy getting a punch in the head actually a pretty good development. Let me grin about it.

What isn't a tautology, though, is to try to claim that this primal glee is anything else than the pleasure of seeing someone you dislike getting a comeuppance, and the attempt to disguise it as some sort of heroic gesture.

 

[Kyriakos]

I find the guy getting a punch in the head actually a pretty good development. Let me grin about it.

What isn't a tautology, though, is to try to claim that this primal glee is anything else than the pleasure of seeing someone you dislike getting a comeuppance, and the attempt to disguise it as some sort of heroic gesture.

I don't feel any glee on account of that. It is also more than likely by now (due to the prominence this episode gained) that the black guy may be charged, which will not help his life at all. He may also run the risk of reprisal from more serious nazi-bros.