Punching Nazis

[Akka]

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.

While I don't disagree with the idea of punching jerks in the face, the practicality is simply nonworkable.
What you advocate is basically the dreamland of gun right proponents, where there is no crime because anyone who does a crime is shot. Reality tells a pretty different story, obviously.
Punching people in the face if you don't like what they say doesn't mean "nobody is a jerk". It means people are always ready to fight (because anything anyone says might mean someone else will feel entitled to punch them) and strong people can get away with it and weak people are victims.

 

[sophie]

Except the reason why Nazis are getting punched is because Nazis advocate for literal racial genocide. That's the sole criterion for punching. SJWs don't fit that criterion, so it's a false equivalency. Burglars don't fit that criterion. Neither do murderers. Unless those burglars and murderers also happen to be Nazis.

 

[Akka]

Except the reason why Nazis are getting punched is because Nazis advocate for literal racial genocide. That's the sole criterion for punching. SJWs don't fit that criterion. So it's a false equivalency. Burglars don't fit that criterion. Neither do murderers. Unless those burglars and murderers also happen to be Nazis.

Hiding being "it's just about genocide" (adding "racial" here is pretty dumb BTW, even if the word "race" seems to give some people a sort of hard-on) is a pretty pitiful attempt at weasel around to avoid facing the consequence of what is encouraged.
The core idea is not about something specific in genocide, it's about expressing the disgust at horrible moral opinions. The problem being, once you go down that argument, it can very quickly turn against you - which is why you fall back on "but but but it just works if it's about genocide !".

Notice that, once again, I don't disagree with the concept that disgusting morals are blamable and should be punished. The point is that most people advocating this in this thread are totally oblivious/impervious to the very idea that maybe THEY could be the ones with disgusting morals and end up victims of their own wishes.

 

[metalhead]

=>

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

I'm sorry, I took "the parallel is pretty much exact" to mean that there is some kind of equivalency between the two. If that isn't what you meant, then the problem is that you didn't properly articulate what you meant.

Hiding being "it's just about genocide" (adding "racial" here is pretty dumb BTW, even if the word "race" seems to give some people a sort of hard-on) is a pretty pitiful attempt at weasel around to avoid facing the consequence of what is encouraged.
The core idea is not about something specific in genocide, it's about expressing the disgust at horrible moral opinions. The problem being, once you go down that argument, it can very quickly turn against you - which is why you fall back on "but but but it just works if it's about genocide !".

You know, you don't get to re-define other people's positions in order to fit your argument. Slippery slope arguments are generally a sign of intellectual weakness, because if that is the best you have, then it isn't very convincing. The core idea is most definitely about genocide. You can draw a line in the sand and say, "yeah once you get to the level of advocating the mass killing or human beings, that's the kind of thing that earns you a punch in the face." You want to basically re-define the argument just so you have something to argue against, but I don't know what authority you're claiming to tell Owen or anyone else what the core of their argument is.

 

[JollyRoger]

I confess to punchlining grammar Nazis.

 

[trader/warrior]

I don't think I could punch only on the basis of someone being a Nazi. I couldn't punch old naive arthritic grandma Helga who thought Hitler was a nice person who attempted to prevent the Bolshevik threat she later experienced firsthand in the rape of Germany and that all the genocide and racism was just misunderstandings and slander. An over the top hypothetical of course, but I feel it should come into the equation as it is the reality of these things even if not the most common. One might take it further and consider how to treat brainwashed child-nazis.

Punch people based on their actions or intentions, not their (political) identity, and yes, these vary even among nazis. Luckily you should be able to find plenty of reasons to punch your run-of-the-mill politically active nazi or white-supremacist.

 

[Akka]

I'm sorry, I took "the parallel is pretty much exact" to mean that there is some kind of equivalency between the two. If that isn't what you meant, then the problem is that you didn't properly articulate what you meant.

=>

Being nazi is a political choice, a moral position you decide about and is ethically bad.

These three criteria are clearly spelled out and fit the SJW. This was not only very clear from context, but I even bothered to bold it out for the deliberately dumb who try to pretend they didn't see. It's not about me not articulating myself, it's about you being your usual self and working through pure bad faith.

You know, you don't get to re-define other people's positions in order to fit your argument. Slippery slope arguments are generally a sign of intellectual weakness, because if that is the best you have, then it isn't very convincing.

It's not about a slippery slope argument, it's about getting the core of a concept and showing it can be used on someone else than you intended.
You can't even manage to get your logical fallacies right :-/

The core idea is most definitely about genocide. You can draw a line in the sand and say, "yeah once you get to the level of advocating the mass killing or human beings, that's the kind of thing that earns you a punch in the face."

There is nothing singling "genocide" in either the title nor the first post. It's about "nazis". You're just proving my point, "genocide" was specifically added to avoid the uneasy fact that allowing to punch people whose opinions you hate means you can just be on the receiving end of the blow.
It's certainly less comfortable than circlejerking and virtue signaling on a forum.

You want to change the core idea just so you have something to argue against, but I don't know what authority you're claiming to tell Owen or anyone else what the core of their argument is.

You're the one claiming the core idea is different. As you seem to like to quote logical fallacies, have a look at the "moving goalposts".

 

[metalhead]

Do you honestly not know what a "Nazi" is? Belief in genocide is integral to the ideology. More to the point, the person whose punching inspired this thread has openly called for genocide of black people in the United States.

So no, your "core" is stupid and your argument doesn't apply. It's not about "morally bad" ideas, it's about a specific ideology which advocates for the extermination of people deemed "lesser" by those in authority. It's not difficult to understand; Owen spelled it out for you and then you dismissed it and tried to make the argument about something else.

 

[Hygro]

The thread is about punching Nazis. Included and alluded is a conversation about the meme "punch Nazis", the act of punching specifically Nazis, and what constitutes acceptable punching based on identity or creed. Nowhere does my OP limit the discussion to one preferred line of reasoning.

 

[Akka]

Do you honestly not know what a "Nazi" is?

Oh well, as I said you're your usual self, waste of time.

Though an amusing perfect example of my point, many people in this thread would end up on the receiving end of what they advocate, and you're definitely included.

Edit : and Hygro just confirms that trying to weasel around by specifically singling just whatever is convenient so the concept can't be thrown around is a subsequent and unwanted addition.

 

[metalhead]

Right, which is why when someone says, "it's OK to punch people who advocate for mass murder," it's dumb to respond, "no the argument is REALLY about punching people with bad moral ideas!" When the terms were spelled out quite clearly.

 

[Hygro]

and Hygro just confirms that trying to weasel around by specifically singling just whatever is convenient so the concept can't be thrown around is a subsequent and unwanted addition.

"Punching specifically Nazis" would mean that those saying "I'm for it" might very well be saying "the punching is warranted because Nazis promote genocide".

If bad morals are a rectangle, and the specific bad morals of "promote and commit genocide" are a square, and people are saying it's okay to punch a square, it doesn't follow that rectangles are necessarily punch-worthy.

 

[Akka]

"Punching specifically Nazis" would mean that those saying "I'm for it" might very well be saying "the punching is warranted because Nazis promote genocide".

If bad morals are a rectangle, and the specific bad morals of "promote and commit genocide" are a square, and people are saying it's okay to punch a square, it doesn't follow that rectangles are necessarily punch-worthy.

Maybe. The joy of jumping into the circlejerk when the only thing written was "nazi", and then jumping on "it's only because genocide" later, simply doesn't make me believe for one second it's something specific about genocide.
And in any case, even if it were the case and people wanted to punch nazi because "genocide", there must be a reason why genocide warrant the punch. And sooner or later it all come down to "this is morally especially repugnant" (which, in fact, IS true).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

While I don't disagree with the idea of punching jerks in the face, the practicality is simply nonworkable.
What you advocate is basically the dreamland of gun right proponents, where there is no crime because anyone who does a crime is shot. Reality tells a pretty different story, obviously.
Punching people in the face if you don't like what they say doesn't mean "nobody is a jerk". It means people are always ready to fight (because anything anyone says might mean someone else will feel entitled to punch them) and strong people can get away with it and weak people are victims.

You may or may not notice that I literally never said anything about "punching people in the face if you don't like what they say."

I once saw a guy put a set of headphones on a plastic jug. It had holes cut in it where the earpieces were, and a large square cutout that effectively turned the jug into a speaker, thus "allowing" everyone in the vicinity to share his music. Since a fair number of people in the vicinity didn't feel gratitude and no one had the opportunity to leave, he was informed that this qualified as "being a jerk," though the language was different. His response was to turn up the volume. Their response was to kill him. I find that reasonable.

 

[metalhead]

Maybe. The joy of jumping into the circlejerk when the only thing written was "nazi", and then jumping on "it's only because genocide" later, simply doesn't make me believe for one second it's something specific about genocide.
And in any case, even if it were the case and people wanted to punch nazi because "genocide", there must be a reason why genocide warrant the punch. And sooner or later it all come down to "this is morally especially repugnant" (which, in fact, IS true).

Post #12 in the thread, quite early on and probably the first actual post of substance in the thread read: "If said black person was a nazi, then yes, punching them would be ok. You lose your right to not get punched the instant you start advocating for racial genocide." This was posted by none other than Owen, who you later then accused of trying to change his position because of your powerful argument that Nazis = SJWs.

Advocating for genocide might warrant a punch because, well, it advocates for the action of killing an awful lot of human beings. The difference between that and an annoying twit advocating for more safe spaces on an Internet message board ought to be pretty self-evident, I think. If you like, we can make a bright-line test - are you advocating for mass killing of human beings? If so, then you are deserving of a punch in the face. If not, then you aren't. Trying to apply some weird relativism where everything you don't like is equally morally bad and therefore indistinguishable from one another is a philosophy, I guess, but not one that too many people will buy into.

 

[Akka]

You may or may not notice that I literally never said anything about "punching people in the face if you don't like what they say."

No, you said "punching a jerk". But that's the whole conundrum : who decides who is a jerk ? Again, I have no problem with the theory of people getting what they deserve - I'm the one saying that punishment is intrinsic to justice.
The whole trouble happens when we start talking about the practicalities, and how this principle would (not) work in practice.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think Nazis should be forced to wear some identifiable symbol so that we were sure that we were punching the right person in the face.

 

[metalhead]

If practicality demands that the punches be limited to Richard Spencer's face, I'm OK with that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, you said "punching a jerk". But that's the whole problem : who decides who is a jerk ? Again, I have no problem with the theory of people getting what they deserve - I'm the one saying that punishment is intrinsic to justice.
The whole trouble happens when we start talking about the practicalities, and how this principle would (not) work in practice.

The evidence that bothering to read what you argue against is something you consider to be "beneath you" is mounting. What I actually said was that if everyone thought that punching someone who spews hate in the face was appropriate people would stop spewing hate. They would even stop spewing hate at ephemeral groups like "the nazis." But when someone stands on a street corner advocating for "racial purification" they would have to consider the very real possibility that someone might accurately recognize they are spewing hate (which in fact they are well aware they are doing) and punch them in the face.

 

[Akka]

Trying to apply some weird relativism where everything you don't like is equally morally bad and therefore indistinguishable from one another

=>

Though SJW are not as bad as the nazis

Once again, you're managing to "miss" what I say just to be able to strawman by putting words in my mouth. How surprising, one of the very reason I hold you into such contempt.
So once again :

Oh well, as I said you're your usual self, waste of time.

Though an amusing perfect example of my point, many people in this thread would end up on the receiving end of what they advocate, and you're definitely included.

With emphasis on the last part of the sentence, and that's the last answer I'll grace you with on this thread.