Forum > Touchy Subjects > Nazi Punching
"Shooting Hitler in the past is a whole different can of worms (involving the ethical implications of time travel, etc.), and I'm not going there."
You mean an absurdity that doesn't even deserve attention? Honestly, I don't believe that fwip, spore, and everyone else would ever actually do it, I think they're just fantasizing about the idea. I urge all of you to go out and record videos of yourselves walking up to "nazis" and punching them in the face and put them on youtube. Otherwise, y'all just acting tough. I'm pretty sure you've all voiced concern over random violence against homosexuals numerous times. Dragging fags from your truck is bad but doing it to nazis is good, huh? You're practically using "nazi" like "faggot." It's not like you could ever tell who is and isn't a nazi unless they said something or they've got swastikas. I bet if y'all did make youtube videos of yourselves punching nazis, you'd just end up in court later on for punching Joe Schmoe the butcher.
  
See, the difference is that Nazis are bad.
  
The same way the cops used to think gay people and socialists were?
  
Clearly there are no differences between those groups and Nazis. We should totally respect ethnic cleansing as no different from normal political discussion or people's personal sexuality. As the wise man once said: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
  
I think there's a crucial difference between fighting a Nazi state and punching an obviously batshit crazy political minority. I think if you want to play out violent fantasies about harassing political minorities it'd pay to remember what was said about socialists not all that long ago.
  
It's not about political minorities or majorities. Nazis are wrong whether they're one guy on the street or a fully-fledged Nazi state. The unjust persecution of socialists does not mean that anyone target is equally unjust, in the same way that overturning the conviction of an innocent man does not mean that no one has ever committed a crime.

You can advocate not punching nazis when you're in a group that would be targeted by many of their twisted ideals.
I am so sick of this flavor of ad hominem. It's used all the time against men during debates on abortion, and it's just as logically absurd and morally repugnant in this case. There is no reason we cannot make moral claims concerning things that do not directly affect us. I am allowed to call pedophilia evil. I am allowed to called the Rwandan genocide evil. And I'm allowed to call unjustified violence against Nazis evil.
You can argue about where human life begins and what rights it should be afforded until you're blue in the face, but it's a lot easier to weigh a fetus as more important than bodily autonomy if you'll never be the one who has to give up that autonomy. You can, of course do all the moral reasoning anybody else can, but your willingness to make a sacrifice is absolutely worth less when it will never actually affect you. Similarly, it's easier to not worry about Nazis if you're not the people they want to harm.
  
Grayseff said:
I think there's a crucial difference between fighting a Nazi state and punching an obviously batshit crazy political minority. I think if you want to play out violent fantasies about harassing political minorities it'd pay to remember what was said about socialists not all that long ago.


I was a lot more willing to dismiss them as an obviously crazy minority before our notoriously weak-minded president appointed a white supremacist as his Chief Strategist and personal assistant. He's possibly the most powerful man in America right now, once you adjust for Trump's failing mental capacities.
  
I'm firm on this - no, I don't believe you should punch Nazi's in the face. I don't think you should punch people in the face even when they are hateful shitbags. I don't ever advocate for violence and I don't think it is an effective means for changing the political views of the people in question or of the general public.
  
I mean, we can hem and haw about when it's appropriate to punch a person all day long. Here are the facts of the matter:

1) It's not okay to punch somebody for having a different point of view.

2) It doesn't help your cause to punch somebody who disagrees with you. It helps your cause to make them look stupid, uninformed, or otherwise unlikeable. Punching people makes them more sympathetic.

3) It shouldn't matter if the person is a Nazi. The argument should be reframed, "Punching ideological opponents."

4) Punching an ideological opponent doesn't make the people already following him less likely to follow him. It's cathartic but ultimately self-damaging. edit: like a punching a wall.

5) Punching an ideological opponent makes it look like your ideas can't stand up to his, which makes his stance look more reasonable.

That's pretty much it. You can talk all day long about whether or not there are times to punch people, but if you ever stand up for punching somebody on the basis of disagreement, you are in the wrong and self-damaging.
  
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, this is in no way a case of punching an "ideological opponent"

This is punching someone who holds real political views promoting your death.
  
So you would not be in favor of punching Richard Spencer then since he does not hold political views promoting your death?
  
Does that legitimise violence against people who post Die Cis Scum?
  
This is punching someone who holds real political views promoting your death.


There's a lot of people that think the world would be better if I were dead. That's a distinct difference from those same people overtly enacting policies to kill me via governmental control. He might want to do that, but he hasn't and a good way to help him is to make his case for him by punching him in the face.

I don't think Spencer has ever killed somebody, nor do I think he's ever proposed that the government kill people on his behalf. It doesn't do you any good to lie about his stance: if you propose an EXTREME version of his ideology, it makes the real version of his ideology look reasonable by comparison.

His ideology is not reasonable. You can demonstrate that it isn't reasonable. Why not do that instead of punching him and making him look victimized, reasonable, and nonviolent? Even if morality isn't a reason to punch somebody in the face, strategy should be.
  
* I didn't see anyone invalidate the generalization from 'punching Nazis' to 'punching any other group that I want to suppress'. As far as I can tell every ideology responds to physical suppression by growing and going underground.


* Hypothetical: [only] Committing or promoting illegal violence legally justifies violent suppression. Would a body of law based on this principle make authoritarianism a self-correcting problem?


* "...the last refuge of the incompetent" sounds a lot like ultima ratio regum, which reflects poorly on kings, doesn't it.
  
I don't see how you get authoritarianism being a self-correcting problem from what you put down there. It sounds like authoritarianism would be a self-perpetuating problem given your suppositions.
  
This relates to the discussion.
  
JFC what a load of reactionary garbage

The ending pretty much says it all: "I want you to be safe . . . I miss Twitter fights. I miss when this shit was just like on the internet." Or, in other words: "Nothing bad has ever happened to me in the twelve years I've been a live, so obviously nothing bad has happened to anyone ever. I'm a young, white, and pretty but I can totally extrapolate from my experience to people of all types. How could racism or transphobia or homophobia or literally any form of oppression possibly exist when I've never experienced any of those things? The world is just sunshine and rainbows, guys, and if you try to change literally anything ever we're all going to die."
  
Ignore her, lets go punch Pewdiepie. The Wall Street journal did some in-depth and intense investigative journalism to discover that he's a fascist and Nazi-sympathizer. His Nazi supporters (53 million) keep spewing "muh context, muh joke, muh hitpiece because of failing media platform" but I think we all know what's really going on.
  
JFC what a load of reactionary garbage

Yeah, I only managed to watch like 15 seconds of it. Glad I was right about it.
  
I agreed with about 90% of what she had to say, but that shouldn't be a surprise by now.
  
I watched that whole thing and I wish I hadn't cause she's really stupid.
Her thing on "politcial stances are not violent, blah blah blah is not violent" etc... as my main man Donald would say... WRONG :o
I respectfully disagree. Siding with a person that is the embodiment of hate is a promotion of that hate. And they knew (or I'm assumimg as a responsible voter, they would've known) that Trumps plans of action were not to peacefully remove an entire group of people from the country. His talk of 'grabbing women by the pussy' was not a non-violent statement. And if ya voted for someone who is a nazi, then dammit you're a nazi too. If you don't believe in everything he's saying or suggesting, then you shouldn't have voted for him. Are you going to agree with all stances of a presidential candidates? Hell no! But if you voted for him, essential I see that as, "it's not okay to sexually assault women, but if he can get rid of illegals...then what's a few rapes?"
Personally, I'm not gonna roll over and allow someone to say hateful and rude shit, their getting decked.
  
Siding with a person that is the embodiment of hate is a promotion of that hate.
And hatred alone is not morally equivalent to violence.
And if ya voted for someone who is a nazi, then dammit you're a nazi too. If you don't believe in everything he's saying or suggesting, then you shouldn't have voted for him.
By that standard, no one can ever vote for anyone ever again.
Are you going to agree with all stances of a presidential candidates? Hell no! But if you voted for him, essential I see that as, "it's not okay to sexually assault women, but if he can get rid of illegals...then what's a few rapes?"
When there are only two candidates with any chance of being elected, it's impossible to infer with certainty much of anything about a person's ideology based only on which candidate they voted for.
Personally, I'm not gonna roll over and allow someone to say hateful and rude shit, their getting decked.
Well I won't roll over and allow someone to deck someone who wasn't hurting or threatening to hurt anyone. I hope if you ever try to do so, someone else decks you first. You'll deserve it.
  

Are you going to agree with all stances of a presidential candidates? Hell no! But if you voted for him, essential I see that as, "it's not okay to sexually assault women, but if he can get rid of illegals...then what's a few rapes?"
When there are only two candidates with any chance of being elected, it's impossible to infer with certainty much of anything about a person's ideology based only on which candidate they voted for.


I completely agree. I think the mistake people make when talking politics is failing to acknowledge that support for one proposal or policy position does not imply support for all of the party's positions or proposals. In fact, the notion of a mandate for any particular proposal on the basis of an electoral win has always struck me as strange. You have no way of knowing which combination of the mess of policies you put forward people supported, especially not in a two party system like you have in the US.
  
Not gonna use quotes cause I'm on mobile but my point in regards to voting.. if someone says "grab em by the pussy" and "mexicans are rapists" and plans to build a wall, force another country to pay for it, ban members of a certain religion, give the VP seat to an anti-lgbt person, etc. etc. And you vote for him, idc if you agree 100% with everything he says... you must've felt it was okay to vote because the ends justify the means.

I voted for Hillary. Am I pleased with the email scandle? Do I support using a personal device to send gov emails? No and no. But I had to decide if that was a big enough issue for me to vote for someone else, or not vote at all. It wasn't.
So I'll take responsibility for my vote and whatever that may mean, but those who voted for Trump need to do the same. A vote for him is a vote for sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. etc.

You seem to be under the impression that words have no impact on people? Online bullying has caused people to commit suicide. All that was was words. Does it make it okay as long as they don't touch you? If someone came up to one of my gay friends, or transgendered friends, my sister, my jewish cousin, or muslim friend and said increibly mean and insulting, hateful things.. or called someone a n***** and told them to go back to Africa, I'm not going to sit there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to swing at someone for simply having a differing opinion, I'll try to reason with them. But words hurt and if I hear anyone trying to deliberatly harm another person emotionally, they aren't safe. There's such thing as emotional abuse because people can be harmed without it being physical.

Someone whose at the point they feel confident enough to say shit like that to another person is past the point of reasoning, and I'd applaud a good hit to the jaw.

Mod Edit: Censored your slur.
  
If someone came up to one of my gay friends, or transgendered friends, my sister, my jewish cousin, or muslim friend and said increibly mean and insulting, hateful things.. or called someone a n***** and told them to go back to Africa, I'm not going to sit there.
If a transgender antisemite scorned your Jewish cousin, would you call him an anti-transgender slur? If a black person insulted your gay friend, would you tell him to go back to Africa? Whatever evil you retaliate with, verbal or physical, is still evil. If your loved one is suffering harassment from which he or she cannot escape, seek legal recourse. Otherwise, you can walk away, or you can try to ignore it. It is a sad truth that we cannot always prevent others from hurting us or those around us. That does not justify us to retaliate in kind.

Perhaps I'm just more out of touch with modern values than I thought.
From 1 Peter 3:9:
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
From Matthew 5:38-42:
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Nazi Punching