The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Forty Two]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/bra ... hing-nazis

https://mic.com/articles/160203/is-it-e ... .wvEvLPZrr

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer ... sts-547277

[cronus]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/bra ... hing-nazis

https://mic.com/articles/160203/is-it-e ... .wvEvLPZrr

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer ... sts-547277

Nazis is short-hand for violent men who attack the talking/thinking types without warning...for me no man is beyond reprieve, millions of Nazis converted to democracy overnight at the end of WW2.

[Forty Two]

You get these "progressives" lauding the assault and battery of a supposed Nazi (he denies being a Nazi or a white supremacist, etc.), and they say that this is something that makes them feel good, and they have to fight this way because they're preventing another holocaust -- their position is that the reason the Nazis rose to power in Germany was that Germany had too much free speech back then.

So, they turn assault and battery into a virtue!

It's so weird.

And, they don't recognize that they can just as easily be on the receiving end. What if someone declares that they can't allow Communists to exist and have a platform - that they won't allow Stalinism or Leninism or Maoism to rise again, and they will fight back with fury against the Communists. Then they label a speaker a Communist who just happens to espouse leftwing or Marxist views on some issues. Do they get to punch that guy?

Then they hedge like cowards, and they declare that while it's bad to assault and batter, racism is worse, so, even though we can't make it legal to assault and batter, people should not condemn such actions. We need to just not criticize those who are punching the Nazis. And, of course, the shoe can't be on the other foot, because, well, Communism is inarguably a good and nowhere near as bad as racism, so assaulting a communist is not the same thing as assaulting a fascist.

And, this, to the Progressive mind, makes sense these days.

[cronus]

I'm not a progressive...me? I'm a circular history repeating with variation sort.

[Collector1337]

>It's somehow okay to punch "Nazis"

>Anyone who disagrees with me is a "Nazi"

>Now I can punch anyone I want

>Leftists will actually defend this

[Animavore]

Nazis want you to punch them so they can claim victim and say their opponents are vicious thugs, regardless of how small a minority it is, and they will use this to suppress their opponents and block protests.

There are many more protests, civil disobedience, and strike action to come in the coming years, so people should think about marshalling protests and letting self-defeating thugs know they're not wanted. Don't give this authoritarian government any excuse to enact 'emergency' laws to and take away freedoms.

Acts of violence play into their hands.

[Brian Peacock]

Aww, those poor nazis.

[Forty Two]

Nazis want you to punch them so they can claim victim and say their opponents are vicious thugs,

Well, in all fairness, if you go up to a person and claim them to be a Nazi, and then punch them without provocation, then they not only can "claim" to be a victim, but they are by definition a victim of an assault and battery. And, people who go around hitting other people for their political opinions are, by definition, vicious thugs. Just because one calls oneself "progressive" doesn't change that fact.

regardless of how small a minority it is, and they will use this to suppress their opponents and block protests.

But, it's the rioters at UC Berkely, for example ,and the "progressive" no-platformers who storm stages and commandeer microphones tat are suppressing their opposition and blocking protests and presentations.

How is trying to stop people from breaking windows, turning over cars, and assaulting/battering people a "suppression?"

There are many more protests, civil disobedience, and strike action to come in the coming years, so people should think about marshalling protests and letting self-defeating thugs know they're not wanted. Don't give this authoritarian government any excuse to enact 'emergency' laws to and take away freedoms.

Acts of violence play into their hands.

Well, yeah. You don't have a right to engage in acts of violence, absent self defense or other excuse/justification recognized by law. Just because some group thinks they're the good guys doesn't give them a privilege to go around macing woman and punching people they label as Nazis.

[Forty Two]

Aww, those poor nazis.

There are plenty of people who would react similarly to seeing antifa, anarchists and any number of communists or socialist groups getting their heads handed to them and the shit kicked out of them. It's not just the Nazis who are distasteful. Communists and Socialists are extremely repugnant to a lot of people, and I wouldn't shed a tear if these blac bloc and antifa folks got kicked in the nuts. However, as long as they engage in peaceful speech and expression, they have every right to march and demonstrate, and the police need to protect them. I also, however, am of the view that Nazis, too, have the same right.

[Brian Peacock]

What, would you say, defines Nazism?

[Forty Two]

What, would you say, defines Nazism?

I'll leave that to you. My position does not involve calling anyone a Nazi and it doesn't require anyone to define the term. Anyone who defines themselves as a Nazi and anyone who is accused of being a Nazi, in my view, has the same right as the worst scumbag Communist or Marxist, or the worst asshat blac bloc anarchist, and all their douchebag fuckwit monsters in the "Progressive" movement -- they all have the right to speak and march and exercise free speech. It doesn't matter what the definition of any of those ideologies is.

If you think it's important or relevant, then you provide the definition you'd like to use. For me, it doesn't matter. Maybe you can explain how and why it would matter.

[Brian Peacock]

Nah, I just wanted to see if you thought everyone's political views and actions were essentially equivalent or equal. We all know what Nazi's stand for, and it's a little bit more that strong government and fiscal discipline isn't it? Nazism is as violent and toxic as radical Islam (that's not an idle comparison btw), but I guess radicalising Imam's have just the same protected rights as fulminating Nazi's when it comes to standing up in public to propagate their hateful credo - wouldn't you agree?

[Forty Two]

No, I don't think they're equal. Communists, for example, follow a horrid ideology which is inherently, in my view, abhorrent and insulting to human dignity.

What do Nazis stand for, in your estimation? So that we can determine if a particular person who got punched is, in fact, a Nazi (even if they themselves deny it).

Strong government and fiscal discipline? Isn't that a hallmark of Communism? I've read the Communist manifesto, and it sure as shit places a fair amount of strength in the collective, and requires individuals to be fiscally disciplined....

Radical Imams DO have the same right to speak their minds as anyone else, without getting punched in the head. What do you think would happen if someone ran up to a Muslim Imam and punched him in the head because he was espousing the merits of Sha'ria law?

I think it's important to point out, too, that these days the people that get punched because they are Nazis are not really getting punched because they are Nazis. These aren't people who call themselves Nazis, or openly espouse Nazi ideas. These are people who are ACCUSED of being Nazis, but who deny being that. When that guy Spencer got punched in the head, a moment before he is punched, he is asked if he was a Nazi, he says "no, and those people hate me" (words to that effect), and then he is punched.

So, do we live in a world where "hate speech" is criminalized, but it's o.k. for vigilantes to mete out justice by beating up people they determine are Nazis?

I can't even believe anyone would adopt the position that Nazis are violent, therefore it's o.k. to punch someone who denies they're a Nazi but who we think really is a Nazi, even when they have not been violent and haven't attached anyone.

This is probably, I guess, an outgrowth of the pernicious identity politics -- where mere assignment to a group gets you guilt or innocence by association I'm black so I can't be racist, or I'm a woman so I can't be sexist. I'm white, and accused of being a Nazi, and therefore I am in the status of common law outlawry. Mete out that divine progressive justice!

[Brian Peacock]

No, I don't think they're equal. Communists, for example, follow a horrid ideology which is inherently, in my view, abhorrent and insulting to human dignity.

What do Nazis stand for, in your estimation? So that we can determine if a particular person who got punched is, in fact, a Nazi (even if they themselves deny it).

Oh look, you've just don't it again - suggesting that I advocate punching people whose politics I disagree with, despite making my views clear on this very matter directly to you three times now. I'm beginning to think that you either don't read beyond the first line of my replies to you, or perhaps you're just trying to wind me up by categorising my politics as violent. Ho-hum. No matter.

Strong government and fiscal discipline? Isn't that a hallmark of Communism? I've read the Communist manifesto, and it sure as shit places a fair amount of strength in the collective, and requires individuals to be fiscally disciplined....

Communism is a nice idea - but people like owning stuff. If it was gong to work it would've worked by now. Then again, 'Communism' has just the rallying cry for one bunch of authoritarians to overthrow another bunch of authoritarians, so perhaps the jury's still out on that.

Radical Imams DO have the same right to speak their minds as anyone else, without getting punched in the head. What do you think would happen if someone ran up to a Muslim Imam and punched him in the head because he was espousing the merits of Sha'ria law?

I tell you what, I'm getting a bit punch drunk here with all this gish galloping. Surely you're not suggesting that espousing a hateful credo in public has no consequences, either for the speaker, their fellow followers, or for society at large? I don't know about you but my idea of a nice day out is not to be confronted by a spouting bigot on every street corner. Here's a lesson in free speech...

I think it's important to point out, too, that these days the people that get punched because they are Nazis are not really getting punched because they are Nazis. These aren't people who call themselves Nazis, or openly espouse Nazi ideas. These are people who are ACCUSED of being Nazis, but who deny being that. When that guy Spencer got punched in the head, a moment before he is punched, he is asked if he was a Nazi, he says "no, and those people hate me" (words to that effect), and then he is punched.

Yeah sure, 'Nazi' is an all too quickly resorted to as a pejorative term, like 'Leftist', 'Communist', and 'Socialist' have been, and are. No, I'm talking about real, proper, Nazis: Aryan brotherhood, white is right, pointy hats and burning crosses, line 'em up against the wall, fascist Nazis here.

And no, I'm not talking about punching them.

So, do we live in a world where "hate speech" is criminalized, but it's o.k. for vigilantes to mete out justice by beating up people they determine are Nazis?

No, but it happens. People are vilified and abused for all sorts of reasons - it's usually a failing in the perpetrator rather than their victim.

I can't even believe anyone would adopt the position that Nazis are violent, therefore it's o.k. to punch someone who denies they're a Nazi but who we think really is a Nazi, even when they have not been violent and haven't attached anyone.

Nor can I.

This is probably, I guess, an outgrowth of the pernicious identity politics -- where mere assignment to a group gets you guilt or innocence by association I'm black so I can't be racist, or I'm a woman so I can't be sexist. I'm white, and accused of being a Nazi, and therefore I am in the status of common law outlawry. Mete out that divine progressive justice!

I think it's an outgrowth of a tawdry political convenience, the sophic declaration that there can only ever be, and there only ever is, one version of the political truth and therefore only ever one way to ensure and secure it, and everybody else is therefore automatically wrong.

[Tero]

Enough of this talk. Where do I sign up to punch these nazis?
I'll be training for my left hand as the right has now arthritis.