Forum > Touchy Subjects > Nazi Punching
@Ombra
Only way to kill Antifa is to kill fascists. As long as these fuckers keep popping up, Antifa will show up to fight them

@Grayseff
You're right, sorry. Nazis and white supremacists are just mere political dissidents. There's literally no reason to categorize them differently from Communists, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Ancaps, etc. We have to respect their opinions; it's their right to establish a society where Jews and poc are exiled or killed. In fact, we should give them the US and most of Europe as reparations for violating Hitler's free speech and murdering his armies for their mere difference in opinion.
  
Obviously. That's not a reach in the slightest.
  
I mean, do you want to explain why we can't treat people with ethnic cleansing-based ideologies differently from people who we just disagree with, other than "something, something, *hand wave*, Slippery slope"? Germany bans all sorts of Nazi shit and they haven't slipped into banning all opposing political parties. There are plenty of plausible arguments against violence, but the one you seem to be making here is that it can only be indiscriminate or nonexistent, which is nonsense.
  
Let's just hold the damn bus for a minute with this Motte and Bailey "Germany bans Nazi salutes" like you didn't just advocate murder.
  
If we're murdering nazis, let's go, where do I sign up? I'm smoll and angry and ready to have 100 natzi scalps
  
How can anyone say they're better than someone who uses violence to achieve their goals, if they use violence to achieve their own?
Is it the goal that you're worried about? Because the Nazi goal was honorable, it was their methods that were atrocious.
Humanity would undoubtedly have known an era of peace and prosperity it had never before seen if Hitler had made a one world government with one race of people, all speaking the same language. That was the goal, no?

It's just, how do you get there? Do you get there by killing everyone else? By conquest and genocide? That's kind of fucked up.

I don't think anyone would call a futuristic society that achieved those same goals over a large period of time through a non-violent transition evil. So the end result of an unchecked Third Reich and that same futuristic society, while being similar, are of two vastly different natures.

It's really all just a surrogate for the age old question of "Do the ends justify the means?". Much more eloquent, educated, and generally informed people than I have weighed in on that debate, and so I suppose I can do no more than state my own take on it, which is that no, the ends do not justify the means.

If we want to rise above the hate, we can't very well use the weapons of hate. You don't defeat the sith and bring balance to the force by becoming Darth Vader.

On a side note, i'm beginning to realize far too much of my moral compass comes from movies. So feel free to disregard the above.
  
I'd say we're all clearly better than Nazis but you did just call the Nazi goal of a pure, Aryan race (clearly a eugenicist endeavor) a noble goal.
  
What I meant by that is accomplishing those goals affords stability and peace. How many times has a war been started over a clash of cultures? Reduce the masses to a single culture, a single system of belief, a single language - you will escape the conflicts we see today in many societies between different races, cultures, religions, etc.
In many ways, a society that developed over a large period of time to a one world government, would create that same effect; a unified human race united under a single banner.
Obviously I don't agree with Nazi methods, because I pointed out the atrocities committed in the course of achieving that end result.
Eugenics is one of those methods.
I like how you completely disregarded the entire point btw, to jump on a single phrase that had already been supported with enough following context to abrogate any sort of misunderstanding you had regarding the intent of that wording.
  
@Gray
I responded to the argument you made. You didn't make the argument that murdering Nazis is wrong because murder is wrong. You made the argument that killing Nazis is wrong because killing all political dissidents indiscriminately is wrong and killing Nazis is the same as killing all political dissidents. I don't disagree that killing all dissidents is wrong, so I argued with the part that I do disagree with. I even explicitly circled back to clarify I was applying my arguments to the concept of violence.
I'm giving an example where Nazis are discriminated against without it harming the rights of a broader range of political groups, not trying to claim I was actually arguing for banning hate speech the whole time. Can you explain why we can't apply the same restraint in the context of murder?

@deuces
1) "Do the ends justify the means?" is kind of a silly question. It implies that the answer is always or never, which is absurd. Some ends justify some means.
2) You're wrong about the Nazi's ends being noble. Things can be evil by omission. Nazis could justify their evil because the utopia they intended to build omitted those they considered inferior.
3) For similar reasons, you're also wrong about why their means were wrong. They were wrong because they harmed innocents, not because killing is inherently wrong, but because killing innocent people is wrong. This is pretty much the fundamental disagreement underlying the whole "violence against Nazis" debate: who is an innocent?

@enby
If you're seriously interested and not already involved in this stuff, PM me and I can point you to some anarchist/leftist facebook groups, websites, etc and some ways you might find local groups to get you started.
  
As a general rule, political violence is not acceptable because what you view as "fair game" and what others view as" fair game" are wholly different entities. If you're allowed to advocate for the murder of one group, why can others not advocate for yours? It's not a slippery slope "next they'll come for me" argument, it's a "politics are subjective and breaching the RoE will have consequences you won't like." If your argument is "Nazis want to kill people, therefore we should kill them." I view you as a similarly backward, violent fascist who believes killing is an acceptable political tool, it's not about who made the first violent threat, it's about the sum of violent beliefs.

What scares the shit out of me is that if the rules of engagement as we know them do disappear, we might find out how tenuous the left's existence really is. For you, it's gonna be a glerius revelooshun where all the workers will rise up, and it's my opinion that the glerius revolution will in reality be a bloodbath by the right, and if the left are the instigators of political violence, it won't even garner sympathy internally or from the global community.

Edit: Furthermore, if you use this site to actually instigate public violence (by linking any of those groups you're talking about) they'll be removed and so might you. If this goes from a philosophical discussion to an actual rally for political violence it's crossed a line.
  
Notably, They did describe these as private messages
  
Still a liability for this website.
  
Grayseff said:
As a general rule, political violence is not acceptable because what you view as "fair game" and what others view as" fair game" are wholly different entities. If you're allowed to advocate for the murder of one group, why can others not advocate for yours? It's not a slippery slope "next they'll come for me" argument, it's a "politics are subjective and breaching the RoE will have consequences you won't like." If your argument is "Nazis want to kill people, therefore we should kill them." I view you as a similarly backward, violent fascist who believes killing is an acceptable political tool, it's not about who made the first violent threat, it's about the sum of violent beliefs.
Everything is subjective, but based on the response to todays events it seems like society can pretty broadly agree that Nazis and White Supremacists are distinctly bad. Also, how is not about who made the first violent threat? The Nazi uses violence as a political tool in order to establish/enforce their politics. Antifa uses violence as a defensive tool to prevent Nazis from creating their vision. I'm assuming you would consider killing someone who is attacking you with a knife, so it seems like your argument boils down to "but it would be unsportsmanlike to attack them on their way to the knife store, even if they explicitly tell you they're buying a knife to kill you with".
Grayseff said:
What scares the shit out of me is that if the rules of engagement as we know them do disappear, we might find out how tenuous the left's existence really is. For you, it's gonna be a glerius revelooshun where all the workers will rise up, and it's my opinion that the glerius revolution will in reality be a bloodbath by the right, and if the left are the instigators of political violence, it won't even garner sympathy internally or from the global community.
I have no illusions about the left's current capabilities or the horrors that would come with an actual violent revolution. I'm skeptical that the state will ever allow itself to be voted away, but I still consider violent overthrowing the government to be somewhat of a last resort, given that those most likely to be caught in the crossfire are the ones the revolution is supposed to help. I think violence isn't morally wrong and is sometimes the tool that is needed, but I'm being somewhat facetious in advocating murder (That is to say: I do think Nazis deserve it, but I was mostly just expressing anger at the truly awful people terrorizing Charlottesville, I still don't think it's a good idea in the current state of the world, and I would prefer to convert Nazis into good people if possible).
Anyway, the "rules of engagement" are basically just whatever wins over public opinion. They are flexible and a good PR campaign is essential. I think that, especially since the election of Trump, the Nazis and co. have grown bolder with everything that they can claim as a victory, so it is imperative that they are met in force on every possible occasion. Every time they are ignored they will claim another inch.
Grayseff said:
Edit: Furthermore, if you use this site to actually instigate public violence (by linking any of those groups you're talking about) they'll be removed and so might you. If this goes from a philosophical discussion to an actual rally for political violence it's crossed a line.
If I were in a group that sat around planning illegal activities, I wouldn't be dumb enough to post its information publicly or send it to random people on the internet. I'm talking about political facebook groups, which would be instantly banned if they did anything that was a liability.
  
Yep, the rules of engagement are subjective. People were imprisoned/killed for having the beliefs that are now considered mainstream in the early 20th century. I don't want to return to that. The person who ran into counterprotesters was a terrorist and should be imprisoned. Using their actions as a wholesale excuse for violence will beget more wholesale violence as a response.

As it stands, the biggest opportunity for a jump from isolated violence and clashes at protests to widespread violence is if the public views Antifa as the instigators.

Edit: Also, you can argue the point, but if you make the switch from "political discussion" to "getting people to politically organise immediately after threats of violence" I'm making the switch from "polite conversation" to "ban."
  
Every time they are ignored they will claim another inch.

No, every time they're acknowledged outside a passing joke they gain an inch.
  
Grayseff said:
People were imprisoned/killed for having the beliefs that are now considered mainstream in the early 20th century. I don't want to return to that.
Nor do I? What we do to Nazis is not inherently applied to other arbitrary outgroups; there's a reason it's Nazis and not Furrys or Juggalos. Unless your point is that you think one day in the future society will figure out that "omg the Nazis were right all along!" which I'm assuming is not the case, because that would be ludicrous.
Grayseff said:
Using their actions as a wholesale excuse for violence will beget more wholesale violence as a response.
See you say that, but I'm inclined to think there's some room in the middle where the violence gap can be shrunk between the two sides without boiling over into all-out war (*Not for the sake of increasing violence, but because the gap has effects on the overall struggle). Nazi-types attack plenty of people already. If those people are at the disadvantage of having their peace of mind, or, god forbid, their lives, taken by the next Dylann Roof or Adam W. Purinton or James Harris Jackson or Jeremy Joseph Christian, why shouldn't Nazis at least lose some sleep about which eye is gonna be black during there interview with some ostensibly liberal publication just itching to gush about how wonderfully polite they are when they explain why black people are inferior and jews secretly control the world.
Grayseff said:
As it stands, the biggest opportunity for a jump from isolated violence and clashes at protests to widespread violence is if the public views Antifa as the instigators.
Yes, because of the perception gap. That's why you need to work hard at PR and education, and be careful about when you choose to use violence. Just because I think violence is a tool that should be on the table doesn't mean I think it's always a good idea. There's a lot of new blood in the movement that's too eager for a fight, and needs to sit back and do some studying. Threats to the status quo are always received poorly, though, and I don't think that violence is the only thing that could trigger more widespread violence. Remember, Cville was some of the worst shit we've seen yet, and it was ostensibly triggered by the removal of a confederate statue. There was always going to be a Reichstag fire, because the Nazis needed one, and whatever Nazis need to sell their story, they will fabricate. We have limited control over when it will come, so we at least ought to do our best to prepare for the fallout.

@Ombra
Sure seems like they lost a few inches today. Plenty of people condemning them for once. Without the overwhelming number of counterprotesters, they likely wouldn't be in such a big and negative spotlight, few would've bothered to condemn them, and they would've marked Cville down as one more place they can march with impunity and proceeded to plan something worse for their next event. Hanging out with their Nazi buddies is a victory for them. Forcing people who actually live there to avoid their invasion in the name of ignoring it would be a victory for them. Instead, there's damage they have to assess.
  
Cool, so if it's ok for us to dish out political violence to certain out-groups, can they respond? I mean, violence is apparently acceptable when applied to someone who's trying to inflict it on you right?
  
Notably, and I can't quote online sources for this, but Germans to Nazis (Peter Fritzsche) and Harold Mock (hist: UVA) suggest that Nazis successfully rose to power in the Wiemar Republic for various reasons but one of them was the failure of liberals to see them as more than a nuisance to be debated and that actively confronting them might have been more successful and that the attempts by the Austrians and the Prussians to outlaw them were too little too late.
  
Can they? Yes.
Will they? Almost certainly.
Are they in the moral right? Hell no. The Nazis created the problem. Everything that happens is pretty much on them. The rights of people not advocating genocide are prioritized over the rights of those who do.
  
Just so we're clear, I think if you're endangering other lives (not in theory, in action) they have the moral right to defend themselves, Nazi or not.
  
This is pretty much the fundamental disagreement underlying the whole "violence against Nazis" debate: who is an innocent?
A more pressing disagreement is "Who is a Nazi?".
You're right, sorry. Nazis and white supremacists are just mere political dissidents. There's literally no reason to categorize them differently from Communists, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Ancaps, etc. We have to respect their opinions; it's their right to establish a society where Jews and poc are exiled or killed. In fact, we should give them the US and most of Europe as reparations for violating Hitler's free speech and murdering his armies for their mere difference in opinion.
Literal-Holocaust-Nazis aside, I think it's fair to describe Nationalists like Richard Spencer (ie the victim in the OP) as political dissidents. But that's the problem with this thread which everyone is skirting around: this bait-and-switch with the word "Nazi". The OP talks about punching Richard Spencer, a man who to the best of my knowledge does not advocate genocide and is not a Nazi. Maybe this is a tedious semantic issue for some, but I think it's crucial to understanding the disagreement. Myself and others are reluctant to support punching [people with the same views and actions as Richard Spencer], and the response we get is that "Nazis" are illegitimate because of the Holocaust. The word "Nazi" is being used deliberately to invoke literal-Nazis-who-want-to-exterminate-Jews, but the target of proposed "anti-Nazi" violence is far broader than that. In practice, you're saying white people anywhere on the spectrum of nationalist opinion should be fair game on the grounds that they're all probably Nazis really. This is no better than punching Muslims because of Islamist violence.

Let's pretend that Nazism as we know it never happened. Adolf Hitler got into art school and became a mediocre painter of landscapes, dying of old age in the 1970s, with his name mostly invoked on Antiques Roadshow. The German Worker's Party is remembered only by historians as one of many fringe political parties in post-war Germany that fizzled out. But Richard Spencer still gets born and still grows up to say what he says. If Nazism wasn't a reference point, what would you be calling Richard Spencer and his ilk? Would you still want to punch him? Or would his ideas be okay because they weren't Nazism? Presumably it's possible to criticise his actual position without referring to Nazis, so why not do that instead of confusing and distracting everyone by calling him a Nazi and punching him. Because if there are people giving fair rebuttals to his real positions, they're being lost underneath this much more sensational debate about whether he's a Nazi and whether it's okay to punch him. And that's a debate that will shift support to Spencer, because the general unideological public will always view violence as worse than opinion.
Sure seems like they lost a few inches today. Plenty of people condemning them for once.
Millpond said:
Making Nazis victims gives them sympathetic publicity they otherwise wouldn't get.
This is a good reason why you shouldn't violently attack your opponents.
  
Millpond said:
A more pressing disagreement is "Who is a Nazi?" . . . Literal-Holocaust-Nazis aside, I think it's fair to describe Nationalists like Richard Spencer as political dissidents. But that's the problem with this thread which everyone is skirting around: this bait-and-switch with the word "Nazi". The OP talks about punching Richard Spencer, a man who to the best of my knowledge does not advocate genocide and is not a Nazi. Maybe this is a tedious semantic issue for some, but I think it's crucial to understanding the disagreement. Myself and others are reluctant to support punching [people with the same views and actions as Richard Spencer], and the response we get is that "Nazis" are illegitimate because of the Holocaust. The word "Nazi" is being used deliberately to invoke literal-Nazis-who-want-to-exterminate-Jews, but the target of proposed "anti-Nazi" violence is far broader than that. In practice, you're saying white people anywhere on the spectrum of nationalist opinion should be fair game on the grounds that they're all probably Nazis really. This is no better than punching Muslims because of Islamist violence.
Holy fuckin' shit with that last sentence, Mill. Hold the fucking phone. Most muslims don't go around supporting ISIS bullshit. Spencer has explicitly advocated for ethnic cleansing. He engages in "race realist pseudoscience and promotes the idea that other races are inferior. He surrounds himself with Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. advocates for the exact parts of the Nazi platform that were problematic and then refuses to condemn hitler or the KKK and dances around how exactly he intends to achieve his perfect racially homogenous society. We're calling him a Nazi because, if it goose-steps like a Nazi and it salutes like a Nazi, I'm comfortable with it being crushed under the treads of a T-34 like a Nazi.
Millpond said:
Let's pretend that Nazism as we know it never happened.
Let's pretend Barney the dinosaur is president of the United States, and donuts grow on trees, and it rains licorice every Thursday. History matters, Millpond. Facts matter. Nazis cobbled together a morally abhorrent ideology, and then proceeded to demonstrate that, no, you can't just ignore them, if left alone they will, in fact, commit atrocities. When people like Richard Spencer pick up that ideology, and try to repair its PR, you can point to the historical example and say, "These people aren't joking; they will absolutely cause massive harm if you don't put them down hard and fast."
Millpond said:
Because if there are people giving fair rebuttals to his real positions, they're being lost underneath this much more sensational debate about whether he's a Nazi and whether it's okay to punch him.
This is how it should be. There are plenty of rebuttals out there, but the bulk of discussion shouldn't bother to treat his views as legitimate, for the same reason you shouldn't stop every time you talk about dinosaurs to say, "and this is why God might've put these fossils here to test our faith in the fact that the world is exactly 6,003 years old." Nobody is going to be convinced watching Richard Spencer debate someone who's not a raging asshole. They're either going to already think Spencer is a dick and just feel smug the whole time, or they're going to say "who's this fool? why would I believe him? He doesn't even think black people are inferior." But if these kind of debates become mainstream, it enforces the idea that,
"yeah, wanting to get rid of other races is a totally legitimate view. We have to respect people's opinions and debate them civilly when they question our humanity."
Millpond said:
And that's a debate that will shift support to Spencer, because the general unideological public will always view violence as worse than opinion.
See you say that, but like the number one trick in politics when you need good PR is to go bomb some brown people while explaining why they're evil and this is justified. Even after all of the bullshit that happened in the 2000's and all of the Trump hate, lob a couple of Tomahawks at an airbase in the Middle East and everyone suddenly praises you.
Millpond said:
Sure seems like they lost a few inches today. Plenty of people condemning them for once.
Millpond said:
Making Nazis victims gives them sympathetic publicity they otherwise wouldn't get.
This is a good reason why you shouldn't violently attack your opponents.
There was plenty of violence on both sides, as there has been at all of these skirmishes; the difference is the Nazis didn't manage to win the narrative this time.
  
Okay soooo I'm sorry I was a turd before.. wow I was so dramatic, all of it makes me sort of cringe. Anyways.. sorry!
  
@Malcolm Reynolds. I won't go quote-by-quote because it'd be huge.

Richard Spencer responding to accusation he questioned if Jews are people: "I obviously think Jews are people".

Just as most Muslims don't support running people over, most Nationalists don't support running people over. In London, a man deliberately ran over a group of Muslims because he wanted "revenge" for the recent Islamist terrorist attacks. Those Muslims were not personally responsible for the attacks, though their ideology certainly overlaps with the attackers. It was unjustified, and "revenge" attacks against Nationalists are no better. If "revenge" attacks are acceptable, then who's to say that attacking Leftists isn't revenge for attacking Nationalists.

To the general public "ethnic cleansing" means massacring people. Massacring people is bad. Has Spencer advocated massacring people? Because if you use the term "ethnic cleansing" to mean non-violent long-term demographic change, I'm sure Richard Spencer would say that ethnic cleansing of European-Americans has been happening since the 1960s. So what do you and he mean by ethnic cleansing? Governments can change demographics long-term without killing people.

The Nazis weren't the first or the last group to be antisemitic, pseudoscientific, nationalistic, genocidal, etc. Even if Richard Spencer has said "we should massacre Jews" - which I very much doubt - I'm criticising your refrain back to Nazism as an availability heuristic. What I'm saying is that if Nazism wasn't a reference point, would the things Richard Spencer advocates still be bad on their own? What would you be calling him if "Nazi" wasn't a word? You're saying he's bad because these other people were bad and he's a bit like them, that's called Guilt By Association.

Since you agree history matters, I'm sure you're familiar with things like the 1848 Revolutions which were driven at least in part by Nationalism. Those people weren't Nazis, but they advocated for nation-states. You talk about Spencer "picking up [Nazi] ideology" as if a white person who supports Nationalism has necessarily picked up Nazi ideology, as if Nationalism doesn't exist independently of Nazism. It's Post hoc ergo Propter hoc ("after, therefore because of"). When the US was founded it explicitly restricted citizenship to white people. The Founding Fathers didn't time-warp to Nazi Germany to get those ideas, those ideas existed independently of Nazism and continue to do so.
  
Yes, Millipond, white supremacists do tend to equate "white people not having enough babies" with actual genocide; it's one of their main talking points to try to make white people feel victimized.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Nazi Punching