Punching Nazis

[OranHarken]

Have you not recognized that the whole "unemployment is so awful" narrative is a fake? Unemployment is down to the level generally accepted as frictional.

The official numbers have been cooked for years, "workforce participation" is at an all time low, "unemployment" doesn't include anyone who has stopped seeking employment in the last 6 months.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

LOL..yeah. It doesn't include RETIRED PEOPLE. One more time, if you have no clue about the facts of a situation, go barf your false narratives elsewhere or be quiet and try to learn something.

 

[caketastydelish]

The unemployment rates in the united states are definitely bad. But we are hardly the only country in that regard, even if you want to compare us to other first world countries.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The unemployment rates in the united states are definitely bad. But we are hardly the only country in that regard, even if you want to compare us to other first world countries.

No, they aren't. Look at the real numbers and don't feed into false narratives spread by idiots. I can't stop this gullible visitor, but I can point you to the facts if you are interested.

 

[cardgame]

Have you not recognized that the whole "unemployment is so awful" narrative is a fake? Unemployment is down to the level generally accepted as frictional.

Virtually every new job post-2010 has been for lower salaries and/or for lesser hours than previous job gains were.

I made a proper post on this some time ago, I believe the figure cited was ~70% of all new jobs/job growth stats were for under $15/hr, with half being under $12/hr

 

[OranHarken]

LOL..yeah. It doesn't include RETIRED PEOPLE. One more time, if you have no clue about the facts of a situation, go barf your false narratives elsewhere or be quiet and try to learn something.

Unemployment rates don't include NEETs supported by there parents either but they are still people not working. You need to quit gaslighting, just because you don't accept the numbers I have doesn't mean you are not the one who is being fed the wrong numbers by someone else. There is literally no way to resolve this type of disagreement because every organization with a scrap of power to be an authority on these things are ENTIRELY PARTISAN WITH THEIR OWN AGENDA.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unemployment rates don't include NEETs supported by there parents either but they are still people not working. You need to quit gaslighting, just because you don't accept the numbers I have doesn't mean you are not the one who is being fed the wrong numbers by someone else. There is literally no way to resolve this type of disagreement because every organization with a scrap of power to be an authority on these things are ENTIRELY PARTISAN WITH THEIR OWN AGENDA.

Sure there is. We can recognize that the workforce participation number is performing exactly as expected given the age demographics of the population, and that in performing exactly as expected it offers a perfect opportunity to intentionally create a false narrative as long as you can count on idiots not realizing what that number represents and parroting on about it to gullible people like yourself. By understanding the source of the false narrative we can then discount the credibility of people who spread it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Virtually every new job post-2010 has been for lower salaries and/or for lesser hours than previous job gains were.

I made a proper post on this some time ago, I believe the figure cited was ~70% of all new jobs/job growth stats were for under $15/hr, with half being under $12/hr

Without question we need to establish minimum wage at a living wage, but that has nothing to do with the false narrative about unemployment being high.

 

[cardgame]

Underemployment is grouped in with it for a reason though

 

[Timsup2nothin]

By the way, if the Bureau of Labor Statistics is reporting false partisan data then there literally is no data. If that is genuinely what you believe than you are acknowledging that you believe there is no data backing whatever numbers you cite, so they are just made up.

 

[caketastydelish]

Moderator Action: If you think that somebody is a double login, report their posts and the staff will look into it. Please do not derail the thread to discuss other posters. FP

 

[OranHarken]

You believe the higher minimum wage will fix anything myth so I don't see how I can take anything you say seriously. Raising the minimum wage will result in lay offs and an increased workload for the people still there until they are replaced by machines who will do it for pennies on the dollar in industries such as food services, transport and even legal aid and pharmacy positions.

Unfortunately for America it's also too large to make a universal basic income work either. Canada is looking at that right now though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Underemployment is grouped in with it for a reason though

Indeed. It is grouped in with it because it wasn't in the past. So by changing the statistic that you attach to the common shorthand reference "unemployment" to a different, higher, statistic you create moving goalpost support for the false narrative that "Unemployment is running rampant! Fear!!! Fear for your livelihoods!!!" There are people who benefit from the spread of such narratives.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

<---more ridiculous efforts to change the subject---->

You bought into the whole "let's talk about workforce participation" construct, so you already fire saled your credibility. You also said that you want to get banned, so go read the rules and figure out how. So far you are a miserable failure at that as well.

 

[Yeekim]

Apparently there are some posters here who are so pacifist (or so sympathetic) that they hem and haw at the idea of waging war against the Nazis of Hitler, but unless you're one of them, if someone is advocating genocide and identifies with elements of Nazi ideology, there really isn't a comparison to be made between punching such a person and punching anybody who does not advocate crimes against humanity.

"Identifies with elements of Nazi ideology". Now that is useful. Like people who identify with the "socialism" part of "national socialism", huh?

Now, seriously - maybe my own position needs clarification (was I counted among those posters you referred to?). I have no problem with using violence - state-sanctioned violence, preferably - against people who advocate violence, let alone genocide. Much less against people who actually commit violence.
My problem is how - in virtual absence of people "advocating genocide" - the label "Nazi" tends to get slapped on all and sundry even a smidge right from the center.

 

[aelf]

"Identifies with elements of Nazi ideology". Now that is useful. Like people who identify with the "socialism" part of "national socialism", huh?

Non-sequitur seemingly intended to shoehorn your pet hate into the discussion.

Now, seriously - maybe my own position needs clarification (was I counted among those posters you referred to?). I have no problem with using violence - state-sanctioned violence, preferably - against people who advocate violence, let alone genocide. Much less against people who actually commit violence.
My problem is how - in virtual absence of people "advocating genocide" - the label "Nazi" tends to get slapped on all and sundry even a smidge right from the center.

Don't know about "virtual absence", but this isn't really relevant to what I was discussing.

 

[Hehehe]

The guy who compared punching Nazis with punching black people also insisted that the logic is the same, but it isn't. If a Nazi and a Jew or a black person aren't moral equivalents, then committing violence against them can't be morally equivalent. That's logic; not silly comparisons that don't work because the two instances are completely different.

The original example was about me defending myself against your insinuations. I can defend Jewish people without being one of them. I can defend homosexuals without being one of them. I can defend even people like Spencer without being one of them.

"But what if he's not really a Nazi???" Okay, how many Wehrmacht soldiers were really Nazis? Heck, how many SS troopers were really Nazis in the sense that they believed in every single Nazi tenet? Apparently there are some posters here who are so pacifist (or so sympathetic) that they hem and haw at the idea of waging war against the Nazis of Hitler, but unless you're one of them, if someone is advocating genocide and identifies with elements of Nazi ideology, there really isn't a comparison to be made between punching such a person and punching anybody who does not advocate crimes against humanity.

Don’t get me wrong, if Richard Spencer’s SS stormtroopers start to go around genociding people, then yes, absolutely they should be stopped.

I'm sure you will continue complaining about my intolerance, like you constantly complain about the intolerance of the left. But I'm definitely not trying to get you silenced on this forum through official enforcement. And if the left isn't trying to legally ban your speech, then it's not an issue of freedom of speech either, but of your desire for a safe space.

Where on earth do you get this stuff? Freedom of speech? Safe spaces? Sir, I am here to argue against you, with words. Should I be grateful to you that ”you are not trying to get me silenced”? I have never called for a ”safe space”. How on earth is debating against you a ”desire for safe space”? Or are you perhaps projecting your own desire of safe space onto me?

It isn't a question of views I hold. Just like stopping an arsonist from burning down someone's house is not a question of ideology. It has everything to do with actions I took. Given the tenor of relations between Finland and the USSR at the time one might expect a little gratitude, though I am not overly concerned if there is none forthcoming.

Gratitude for what, exactly?

As for the example about the arsonist, it is precisely a question of ideology, if you are seeing arsonists where there are none, and then you go around inflicting violence upon others based on your own twisted views. I never thought that I would use such a sentence, but your moral compass might actually be even more twisted than the actual 1940’s nazis. You will ”make my entire quadrant of the planet unfit for habitation if your employer deems it necessary”? You will do that for money? Even the nazis, in their own extremely sick and twisted way, probably thought they were doing a good thing by committing genocide. Whereas you will do that for a quick buck? You will commit such acts for nothing more than your own financial gain?

It truly amazes me, to see how far the human mind is capable of twisting morals in exchange for money. You are nothing more than a petty thug for hire, and it is beyond me how you find it in yourself the moral authority to come here and defend such views as the ones you hold. You come here to defend your self-serving petty rental violence, and you claim it is for some kind of greater good, when your own moral compass is, quite frankly, possible even more broken than it is for actual nazis.

 

[Yeekim]

Non-sequitur seemingly intended to shoehorn your pet hate into the discussion.

Rather a demonstration how claming that someone "harbors elements of ideology x" is so vague it could mean anything and as such isn't sufficient to sanction use of violence.

Don't know about "virtual absence", but this isn't really relevant to what I was discussing.

That's the problem - people here are talking past each other.
The question in the OP was apparently raised in a context of specific recent incident, so I'm wondering over the issue if there are contemporaries who fit the description and thus should be punched - and if so, who are they. Related question is, if one could fit the description and yet shouldn't be punched - and if so, who are they.
If you wish to discuss whether it was OK for Allies to fight Hitler, you can do so, but I doubt you'll find anyone disagreeing.

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: Please discuss the issues at hand, not each other.

 

[cardgame]

Indeed. It is grouped in with it because it wasn't in the past. So by changing the statistic that you attach to the common shorthand reference "unemployment" to a different, higher, statistic you create moving goalpost support for the false narrative that "Unemployment is running rampant! Fear!!! Fear for your livelihoods!!!" There are people who benefit from the spread of such narratives.

OK, you're getting a bit narrowly focused here.

I mentioned they're grouped together not to conflate statistics, but because they're both economic negatives. It's important to notice both because even if unemployment is truly declining in a significant way, underemployment is climbing even faster.

LOL..yeah. It doesn't include RETIRED PEOPLE. One more time, if you have no clue about the facts of a situation, go barf your false narratives elsewhere or be quiet and try to learn something.

Erm, you don't know how they collect unemployment statistics? If the person "stops looking for work," they're counted as retired... even if they're 27 and living with three roommates while in debt.