Punching Nazis

[civver_764]

I love how it's always the literal Communists that make the biggest stink about the supposed "fascist" threat. Like, I'm pretty sure you guys have more than a few skeletons in your own closet before you start lecturing other people about the threat of evil regimes.

Ban all schools

Lol. Who's gonna do the "banning" there, Mr. Anarchist?

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.

Ok, what about Zionism though?

Zionism is arguably an ideology that is fundamentally based on ethnic cleansing. When the Zionist state was created almost of the native Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes. The policy of the Zionist state since it's inception has also been a continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the neighboring territories of West Bank in Gaza. Homes are regularly seized from native Palestinians, bulldozed, and replaced with settlements for Israeli citizens. I'm not sure how can this be described as anything but an ethnic cleansing.

Unlike Nazis, who are entirely a fringe group and are relegated to talking to people on the street, Zionists are all over our political landscape. This is an article by the Zionist Ben Shapiro, arguing for the forced removal of Palestinians. See:

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Lots of Zionists argue for the same thing, or worse, whether publicly or privately. And to be clear, Ben Shapiro is a very mainstream figure in American politics. He runs one of the most popular American political podcasts. Clearly, any threat that you think these fringe Nazis pose, Zionists like Ben Shapiro pose a much larger and more present threat.

And please don't just dismiss this as "anti-Semitism". You will hear far-leftists like Noam Chomsky saying much the same thing.

So how about it? Should we make "punch a Zionist" a thing?

I haven't seen anyone here say that.

Oh baloney. @Traitorfish has repeatedly expressed his desire to "hang capitalists". You can say he was joking, but remember you've already said you don't buy the "it's just a prank, bro!" defense. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you what happened the last time people with his attitude came into power.

I say all of this not to say we should punch Zionists, or Traitorfish, nor to excuse the crimes of the Nazis. I say all of this to point out that you all have a pretty gaping moral blindsplot when it comes to leftist crimes, and the size of that blindspot seems to be proportional to how big of a threat you view fringe groups of Nazis to be. Something to reflect on.

He had invaded their communities and was harassing them.

What if he was wearing the same swastika armband but was doing charity work? What if he was raising money for children with cancer, or taking care of puppies at a local animal shelter?

It's pretty funny how you say that property rights are invalid but insist that the community is theirs and this guy is invading them. Sounds like something someone on the far right would say about immigrants.

I would challenge you to be more consistent with your ethics here. This guy was clearly not posing any threat, and you did nothing to stop his ideas from spreading. Nobody watched that video and then thought to themselves, "gee, I guess the Nazis were worse than I thought". If anything, you just made the guy seem like a more sympathetic figure. He's also probably now more radicalized in his views. In his mind he came out to try to talk to people and share his ideas. You could have used this opportunity to learn about his story, and convert him to your anarcho-communist ideals. Instead you attacked him in cold blood. Now he gets to play the victim and might gain a few converts because of it. The "violent leftist" meme is employed quite successfully on the far right and stuff like plays right into that. You really ought to re-evaluate your tactics here.

You talked a big game about the "inherent value" of human life. These are great opportunities for you to walk the talk, so to speak. You speak of criticising Islam and not Muslims, why not apply the same principle here? A human being is a human being, no?

Most "Maoists" I'm acquainted with seem to spend most of their time calling people white supremacists from behind keyboards for not supporting North Korea in its anti-imperialist struggle, so I'm not too concerned about them tbh

Spoiler :

 

[inthesomeday]

I oppose Zionism too, buddy, and it ain't left wing by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Lexicus]

Where I live, the police have power to require anyone whose presence might reasonably cause fear to 'move on' from an area. Surely that's the sort of solution you'd be after.

Yeah, I mean, in the long run, but the police generally are of the "communists are the real problem" opinion you see all over OT. So the most we can hope for is faux neutrality.

What you are asking for is a change in law.

As I said upthread, I would be willing to accept an assault charge as the price of holding my opinion.

Lots of Zionists argue for the same thing, or worse, whether publicly or privately. And to be clear, Ben Shapiro is a very mainstream figure in American politics. He runs one of the most popular American political podcasts. Clearly, any threat that you think these fringe Nazis pose, Zionists like Ben Shapiro pose a much larger and more present threat.

I normally make it my goal to ignore you, but I want to just take this chance to denounce your disgusting attempt to use the crimes of the Israeli government as support for your reprehensible anti-Semitism.

 

[Synobun]

Ok, what about Zionism though?

Zionism is arguably an ideology that is fundamentally based on ethnic cleansing. When the Zionist state was created almost of the native Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes. The policy of the Zionist state since it's inception has also been a continued ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the neighboring territories of West Bank in Gaza. Homes are regularly seized from native Palestinians, bulldozed, and replaced with settlements for Israeli citizens. I'm not sure how can this be described as anything but an ethnic cleansing.

Unlike Nazis, who are entirely a fringe group and are relegated to talking to people on the street, Zionists are all over our political landscape. This is an article by the Zionist Ben Shapiro, arguing for the forced removal of Palestinians.

Lots of Zionists argue for the same thing, or worse, whether publicly or privately. And to be clear, Ben Shapiro is a very mainstream figure in American politics. He runs one of the most popular American political podcasts. Clearly, any threat that you think these fringe Nazis pose, Zionists like Ben Shapiro pose a much larger and more present threat.

And please don't just dismiss this as "anti-Semitism". You will hear far-leftists like Noam Chomsky saying much the same thing.

So how about it? Should we make "punch a Zionist" a thing?

I say all of this not to say we should punch Zionists, or Traitorfish, nor to excuse the crimes of the Nazis. I say all of this to point out that you all have a pretty gaping moral blindsplot when it comes to leftist crimes, and the size of that blindspot seems to be proportional to how big of a threat you view fringe groups of Nazis to be. Something to reflect on.

You are late to the whataboutism party, unfortunately, and it has already been addressed in the quotes you're responding to but have conveniently removed the parts that address your questions.

Attempting to catch people in zinger phrases is mostly useless. The people you're targeting in your reply would probably universally condemn an Israeli death camp approach for other ethnicities and culture groups.

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.

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.

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.

You're also forgetting that there is a wide diversity of perspectives on Zionism. Ethnic cleansing is not an explicit part of its platform and Zionism is in large part a response to essentially worldwide persecution against the Jews. You'll note that Jewish people were the primary target of a small, minor, footnote in history we like to refer to as the Holocaust. They had, have, a logical reason to want a safe haven. Many take that to mean forced relocation and a Jew-only state. Many don't. Zionism, as a base ideology, doesn't call for ethnic or cultural extermination. Nazism does.

If you like all the values of Nazism without any of the cultural extermination and ethnic cleansing, then just rally yourself around a general fascism banner. There's no need to wave the Third Reich flag if you don't support the foundation of its ideology. Nazism began and always will be an explicit call for extermination. To support Nazism is to support genocide.

 

[caketastydelish]

In my experience, people who oppose the Israeli government also tend to be anti-Semitic. They won't even give Radiohead a break for wanting to tour in Israel.

 

[inthesomeday]

I oppose the Israeli government

 

[Lexicus]

I'm kind of fond of saying things like "there will be no peace until the Zionist entity is driven into the sea" in response to people's uncritical Zionism, which can disturbingly shade into openly genocidal sentiments towards the Palestinians.
But I still am disgusted by the things civver says about Israel because rather than being based on any principled critique of Zionism generally or right-wing Zionism specifically it's pure Jew-hatred

 

[civver_764]

But I still am disgusted by the things civver says about Israel because rather than being based on any principled critique of Zionism generally or right-wing Zionism specifically it's pure Jew-hatred

I have many family members who are Palestinian. My grandfather was stripped of his home and expelled when Israel was created in 1948. You have no idea what you're talking about, and would do best to keep your hateful sentiments to yourself.

 

[inthesomeday]

Fight Zionism, not Jewish people.
Fight Islamism, not Muslim people.
Fight Nazism, not white people.

 

[Lexicus]

I ain't into fighting "Islamism" either particularly, Islamism isn't necessarily reactionary, it's just that most of the non-reactionary types were brutally suppressed by colonial governments while the reactionary types were boosted as a preferable alternative to things like Pan-Arabism and secular socialisms, etc.

 

[inthesomeday]

Nah, all theocracy is an enemy of the people. Many forms of Islamism are definitely preferable to American imperialism but only in a lesser of two evils situation.

 

[civver_764]

It seems like if you believe punching Nazis is a necessity you fall into one of three camps:

1. You think Nazi ideas are really convincing and everyone will agree with them if they are allowed to make their arguments.
2. You think that people are really dumb and are unable to figure out for themselves that Nazis ideas are bad.
3. You really like punching people and will use any opportunity to attack a group of "undesirables" that people won't stick up for.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Synobun]

It seems like if you believe punching Nazis is a necessity you fall into one of three camps:

1. You think Nazi ideas are really convincing and everyone will agree with them if they are allowed to make their arguments.
2. You think that people are really dumb and are unable to figure out for themselves that Nazis ideas are bad.
3. You really like punching people and will use any opportunity to attack a group of "undesirables" that people won't stick up for.

Am I missing something here?

You really can't be making any argument like this when there was a world war fought over Nazism. Almost every history class around the world goes in-depth about Nazi atrocities and their underlying doctrine. It requires willful ignorance to see Nazism as a harmless fringe element.

 

[Lexicus]

Nah, all theocracy is an enemy of the people. Many forms of Islamism are definitely preferable to American imperialism but only in a lesser of two evils situation.

What? Dude, Islamism isn't the same as theocracy. That's just ignorant.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I mean, in the long run, but the police generally are of the "communists are the real problem" opinion you see all over OT. So the most we can hope for is faux neutrality.

But I mean that's not just a right-wing policy in its invariable application against those deemed undesirable, but also in its neutral theory - the idea that people's right to be somewhere should be policed due to nothing more than fear. Of course, as soon as you move before fear alone, we're talking about something quite different from physically removing (one way or another) one person because their mere presence is perceived by some as threatening.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems like if you believe punching Nazis is a necessity you fall into one of three camps:

1. You think Nazi ideas are really convincing and everyone will agree with them if they are allowed to make their arguments.
2. You think that people are really dumb and are unable to figure out for themselves that Nazis ideas are bad.
3. You really like punching people and will use any opportunity to attack a group of "undesirables" that people won't stick up for.

Am I missing something here?

Of course you are. There's the "pleasure not necessity" group. You Nazis and white supremacists are so overtly disgusting that you make even otherwise peaceful people smile when they see you get your teeth knocked down your necks. That's the fourth, and probably largest group. I'm in that one.

Moderator Action: Please keep your violent fantasies to yourself. Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[civver_764]

You really can't be making any argument like this when there was a world war fought over Nazism. Almost every history class around the world goes in-depth about Nazi atrocities and their underlying doctrine. It requires willful ignorance to see Nazism as a harmless fringe element.

Nothing in my post you quoted has anything to do with whether or not the Nazis are a fringe element. I'm also not denying that the Nazi regime in Germany committed atrocities.

I'm just pointing out that you think it's incredibly obvious how bad the Nazis are, so why are you apparently worried about these ideas gaining support? Do you think other people will be swayed by listening to him speak?

 

[inthesomeday]

What? Dude, Islamism isn't the same as theocracy. That's just ignorant.

Religion as a motivator for political or social action or organization is theocratic.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm kind of fond of saying things like "there will be no peace until the Zionist entity is driven into the sea" in response to people's uncritical Zionism, which can disturbingly shade into openly genocidal sentiments towards the Palestinians.

No, that is garbage. This is the type of talk that Hitler would love.

It seems like if you believe punching Nazis is a necessity you fall into one of three camps:

1. You think Nazi ideas are really convincing and everyone will agree with them if they are allowed to make their arguments.
2. You think that people are really dumb and are unable to figure out for themselves that Nazis ideas are bad.
3. You really like punching people and will use any opportunity to attack a group of "undesirables" that people won't stick up for.

Am I missing something here?

You've made it pretty goddamn clear that you're a Nazi/white supremacist yourself. We've been over this.

I have many family members who are Palestinian. My grandfather was stripped of his home and expelled when Israel was created in 1948. You have no idea what you're talking about, and would do best to keep your hateful sentiments to yourself.

If most of the Palestinians are like you, can we really blame the Israelis for how they treat you?

Nah, all theocracy is an enemy of the people. Many forms of Islamism are definitely preferable to American imperialism but only in a lesser of two evils situation.

No. Islam is a good religion because it is a good counterbalance to Karl Marx.

Moderator Action: Always address people's posts in the thread, rather than your prior interactions with them. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

I know you're being sarcastic, but understand that your feelings of safety are far from the most important thing here, and I don't doubt that there really were people in the area who felt safer after that dude was knocked out

They witnessed a crime and did nothing, maybe fear of the vigilantes kept them from doing the right thing.

Sounds an awful lot like the system of prison labor to me...

Slavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property laware applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jureform of property.

Doesn't sound like it to me... You're comparing slaves to criminals while ignoring the debt incurred by the latter. You murder someone, you owe them and their kin. The rest of us want you removed from society, but you still have a debt to pay to your victims - one you cant pay, and thats too bad for them and you.

So you force him to return the stolen property and hold him in bondage to account for the crime, or else garnish some of his wages from his place of employment until the debt is repaid. But forcing them to work against their will for no pay is a form of slavery.

They're not forced, they do get pay, and even if they dont, they're paying a debt to their victims. How is that different from wage garnishment?

Again, maybe it's a form of slavery you're morally ok with - it's certainly not something I'm ok with - but irrespective of our personal moral philosophies, holding someone in bondage and forcing them to work against their will under threat of harm/punishment and not allowing them to leave or say no, and not remunerating them afterwards falls under a commonly held definition of slavery.

Do people commonly equate criminals with everyone else? "Someone" is not being held in bondage, a criminal is serving time for committing a crime. Slaves are not criminals... Are you morally okay with keeping murderers in jail? But you're not okay if they're working to pay restitution to their victims? Hell yeah I'm okay with it.

That being said - I don't think I've ever seen prison labor held up as a form of restitution in a pecuniary sort of way, aside from the old "forced to wash dishes after being caught in a fine and dash" which itself isn't really an imposed bondage, but rather an ad hoc punishment both parties consent to do as to avoid the hassle of getting the authorities involved - I've only ever heard prison labor justified either as a "well while they're there they might as well be doing something productive with themselves" which is essentially a de facto admission/apologia of prison labor as slavery, or else the individual sees the point of prison as punishment, and forcing someone to work an unpleasant job under grueling conditions fits the stipulations of prison-as-punishment rather well, which again, doesn't recommend the institution well as literal recompense for stolen property.

Would be nice if criminals could pay their debts, but their victims are not enslaving them. That is your argument, right? The criminal goes to jail and works to compensate their victims - the victims are slavers!