Punching Nazis

[inthesomeday]

Wait has your whole argument been legal? Legality is utterly unimportant to me, morality is far more relevant.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, laws are somewhat crucial here as well, given we have a violent and criminal act.

People are debating the morality, not the legality.

 

[Kyriakos]

People are debating the morality, not the legality.

Reminds me of the ex DoJ's (in)famous phrase: "I am talking about 'due process', not judicial process". Dangerous :/ Acting like that isn't legal exactly because it is not something to be deemed as correct. Moral isn't just "i felt i had reasons, so i punched you on the head"; that is personal reasons, commonly known in web parlance as "because reasons". It isn't logically termed as 'moral' to potentially cause lasting physical harm to another on account of the other just wearing a nazi armband and/or just thinking in his dumb mind that he is right to wear such crap.

 

[Lexicus]

Acting like that isn't legal exactly because it is not something to be deemed as correct.

Civil disobedience is a thing

It isn't logically termed as 'moral' to potentially cause lasting physical harm to another on account of the other just wearing a nazi armband and/or just thinking in his dumb mind that he is right to wear such crap.

Okay, as I've explained at length, I don't agree.

 

[bernie14]

As a matter of fact I do. What of it?

good for you....I for one have great difficulty judging a current society for the actions of several of it's members years and years ago. besides, you went from modern day descendants to WE as a society....as noted by others in this thread, just going after the descendants of those who committed atrocities is not the "moral" thing to do, no real justice there, well, because they aint got no money. also, why should society as a whole pay reparations for the actions of a few?? what about white descendants of fallen civil war soldiers that fought and died to free slaves....should they be paid reparations too? nah, the underlying assumption is that wealth needs to be redistributed from the white man because of course, the wealth is nothing but ill gotten gains.

Well, laws are somewhat crucial here as well, given we have a violent and criminal act.

Sure, if you can just prove how this nazi had the power to place those opposite to concentration camps, it would be on equal footing or worse for him. As things stand, he is just some cretinous dough-body with a nazi armband, concentration camps are a fantasy or at best rhetoric, while the potentially lethal and likely chronic physical issue inducing punch is not a fantasy but a reality. Like it or not, the nazi wasn't the one breaking laws and actually physically harming others here.

ahhh, that is the key word right, potential....see, the possibility that the words of this nazi would at some point, cause others to join his cause (and at some further point, lead to genocide) justifies the action of punching him in the face, because you know, potential is as relevant as the final product (unless a fetus is involved) and words are as dangerous as actions.

 

[Synobun]

Well, laws are somewhat crucial here as well, given we have a violent and criminal act.

Are they? We're not talking about legalities. I've mentioned nothing about whether or not it should be legal to assault self-admitted Nazis. The question I addressed is the morality of the situation which is tied to your post below.

Sure, if you can just prove how this nazi had the power to place those opposite to concentration camps, it would be on equal footing or worse for him. As things stand, he is just some cretinous dough-body with a nazi armband, concentration camps are a fantasy or at best rhetoric, while the potentially lethal and likely chronic physical issue inducing punch is not a fantasy but a reality. Like it or not, the nazi wasn't the one breaking laws and actually physically harming others here.

Nobody has made the claim that the one punching the Nazi wasn't breaking any laws.

You also vastly overestimate the life crippling potential of a knock out.

Reminds me of the ex DoJ's (in)famous phrase: "I am talking about 'due process', not judicial process". Dangerous :/ Acting like that isn't legal exactly because it is not something to be deemed as correct. Moral isn't just "i felt i had reasons, so i punched you on the head"; that is personal reasons, commonly known in web parlance as "because reasons". It isn't logically termed as 'moral' to potentially cause lasting physical harm to another on account of the other just wearing a nazi armband and/or just thinking in his dumb mind that he is right to wear such crap.

You'll note that I very clearly stated that this isn't a case of "because reasons". If multiple, unrelated people have witnessed someone along their entire trip spouting Nazi rhetoric and is adorning themselves with a Third Reich armband, it is hardly a circumstance of someone wearing something they find pretty. They're not doing it for a "laugh". Indeed, my post even says "it's just a prank, bro!" isn't a viable defense for reprehensible behaviour.

This isn't "I'm punching you because I feel I have reasons". It is "I'm punching you because you are actively supporting an ideology built upon the massacre of others".

There is no "just wearing" Nazi symbolism. It's not a fashion choice. You don't wake up one morning and decide the Third Reich regalia would look nice with your Starbucks drink. Spare us the meek attempt at turning Nazi support into a mere matter of a different opinion when history not only tells a far different story, but the ideology itself would explicitly reject such a notion.

 

[Kyriakos]

Are they? We're not talking about legalities. I've mentioned nothing about whether or not it should be legal to assault self-admitted Nazis. The question I addressed is the morality of the situation which is tied to your post below.



Nobody has made the claim that the one punching the Nazi wasn't breaking any laws.

You also vastly overestimate the life crippling potential of a knock out.



You'll note that I very clearly stated that this isn't a case of "because reasons". If multiple, unrelated people have witnessed someone along their entire trip spouting Nazi rhetoric and is adorning themselves with a Third Reich armband, it is hardly a circumstance of someone wearing something they find pretty. They're not doing it for a "laugh". Indeed, my post even says "it's just a prank, bro!" isn't a viable defense for reprehensible behaviour.

This isn't "I'm punching you because I feel I have reasons". It is "I'm punching you because you are actively supporting an ideology built upon the massacre of others".

There is no "just wearing" Nazi symbolism. It's not a fashion choice. You don't wake up one morning and decide the Third Reich regalia would look nice with your Starbucks drink. Spare us the meek attempt at turning Nazi support into a mere matter of a different opinion when history not only tells a far different story, but the ideology itself would explicitly reject such a notion.

I am assuming he actually believes nazism is cool. It still doesn't change the FACT that he is a wealking (physically as well, just look at him) posing ZERO threat to the group he was in front of, and one of which did punch him and caused him to faint. Now some people here may think such punches aren't much to worry about, but i see no reason to think that is so. Humans aren't made of metal, and the head is the most delicate part of the body, containing the most significant apparatus for actually being able to think or act on anything. Yeah, the victim is a stupid/vile nazi, yet without posing imminent/obvious threat to those who attacked him in a rather brutal manner. That he is such a nazi isn't enough to drop him with a punch, and i would never condone such an action as it was done. If he has a gun and was threatening using it, or if he was known to be a killer or whatever, that would change things. As things stand, he is indeed the victim.

 

[Synobun]

I am assuming he actually believes nazism is cool. It still doesn't change the FACT that he is a wealking (physically as well, just look at him) posing ZERO threat to the group he was in front of, and one of which did punch him and caused him to faint. Now some people here may think such punches aren't much to worry about, but i see no reason to think that is so. Humans aren't made of metal, and the head is the most delicate part of the body, containing the most significant apparatus for actually being able to think or act on anything. Yeah, the victim is a stupid/vile nazi, yet without posing imminent/obvious threat to those who attacked him in a rather brutal manner. That he is such a nazi isn't enough to drop him with a punch, and i would never condone such an action as it was done. If he has a gun and was threatening using it, or if he was known to be a killer or whatever, that would change things. As things stand, he is indeed the victim.

Nobody is talking about whether or not he was a victim either.

Assuming you are right about your very first sentence, he will know better than to publicly display how cool he thinks being a Nazi is from now on.

 

[bernie14]

punching someone for reprehensible behavior sounds like daddy needed to give someone a good spanking.....why not a time out?, like, let's say a reeducation camp?

 

[inthesomeday]

Ban all schools

 

[Ryika]

I thought I would be against this, but honestly, I sort of buy into it. But please let's add Communists to the same list of people who need to be shown that it's not cool to align with such a murderous ideology. It just so happens that I know a few people in these forums who identify as communists and openly argued that in to implement communism people who have a lot and don't want to share their wealth must ultimately be disposed of.

 

[Synobun]

I thought I would be against this, but honestly, I sort of buy into it. But please let's add Communists to the same list of people who need to be shown that it's not cool to align with such a murderous ideology. It just so happens that I know a few people in these forums who identify as communists and openly argued that in to implement communism people who have a lot and don't want to share their wealth must ultimately be disposed of.

Communism, as a base ideology, does not espouse ethnic cleansing. The "let's try on a different hat for size" approach doesn't work when arguing about Nazism. You will need to do a better job if you hope to play a Devil's Advocate role here.

 

[Ryika]

Communism, as a base ideology, does not espouse ethnic cleansing. The "let's try on a different hat for size" approach doesn't work when arguing about Nazism. You will need to do a better job if you hope to play a Devil's Advocate role here.

That's why I specifically mentioned the people who say that to implement Communism, heads of people who don't want to play the game have to roll.

Surely they're in the same category, of people who buy into an idea that ultimately requires people to die.

 

[Synobun]

That's why I specifically mentioned the people who say that to implement Communism, heads of people who don't want to play the game have to roll.

Surely they're in the same category, of people who buy into an idea that ultimately requires people to die.

I haven't seen anyone here say that.

But even if there are people here who say that, it will be difficult to make an equivalence argument unless they were to wear the symbolism of a state specifically built around an ideology that espouses such a view. Perhaps the Khmer Rouge? I could see people doing that getting punched too, although it's certainly less visible and on-the-nose as Nazism is in the West.

Really, it's just generally good thinking to not openly support ideologies that are explicitly built on massacres.

 

[Ryika]

I do not think people said that publicly here, but let's pretend for a moment, purely hypothetical of course, that I know that some people have been discussing these things in places that are more... liberal with what can and cannot be said publicly. Let's pretend there was an extensive discussion about how a communist revolution would happen, and during a disagreement in that discussion, some people were very honest with their position that the unspoken truth about such a revolution is that it would have to be violent, because the "haves" that do not want to share cannot be allowed to keep their stuff.

So if I do know those are their positions, then I do not need them to wear a symbol of a murderous ideology to know that they are the followers of such thing, right? I assume you would not argue that if he hadn't had the arm band but just argued that Jews and black people need to be put into concentration camps would change something about whether punching him is okay or not? I would argue it would make it worse.

So while I agree that the many communists that have a fever dream about a peaceful revolution should of course not be harmed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with punching communists who dream of violently overthrowing democracy and are okay with the implications of that. It is surely fine to punch them, and that surely includes anybody who is part of these forums, just like any Nazi who might be part of these forums should not feel safe from political violence.

 

[Synobun]

Sure, if they are self-admitted to support an ideology that explicitly entails killing demographics. I don't think it's particularly wrong to respond with violence if they are gallivanting around espousing that rhetoric. If the state won't ban such speech it is up to the people to ensure that propagandizing of that sort isn't welcome in a public place.

 

[inthesomeday]

I hereby publicly renounce all Tankie regimes, as well as all capital punishment. Attacking others must occur only as a last resort, and only in self-defense or the defense of others.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, if they are self-admitted to support an ideology that explicitly entails killing demographics. I don't think it's particularly wrong to respond with violence if they are gallivanting around espousing that rhetoric. If the state won't ban such speech it is up to the people to ensure that propagandizing of that sort isn't welcome in a public place.

Of course when the state takes up protecting the Nazis and forces the people to welcome them it's time to find a new state.

 

[Berzerker]

You also vastly overestimate the life crippling potential of a knock out.

two concussions... I'd say that punch probably took a couple years or more off his life, we dont see too many elderly boxers and football players

 

[Synobun]

two concussions... I'd say that punch probably took a couple years or more off his life, we dont see too many elderly boxers and football players

A street knock out is not at all equivalent to daily repetitive head blows.