The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Forty Two]

Indeed, thus my use of the word "seems." I'm just entertaining a notion I don't agree with.

Seriously, I think it's important to understand the pressures and fears that shape the limits on our rights, and how they might vary by nation. That requires not rejecting prior restraint out of hand, perhaps not even Nazi punching vigilantism, even though I'd rather roast Nazis - in the comedic sense, not the Joan of Arc one.

BTW, I noticed you dodged my question. How do you feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process?

I didn't dodge that question.

What do you mean, how do I feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process? I've been clear on this every time it's come up: Trump critics have every right to say whatever they want about Trump, and they should be afforded the same due process of law as every other citizen. Free speech is an individual right, and justice is individual.

So, people who want to publicize naked, embarrassing statues of Trump, hold up severed heads of Trump, declare that the white house should be blown up or that they dreamed of it happening, chant to lock him up, wish for his death, wish for people to harm him, march and protest against him, camp out outside mar-a-lago and shout obscenities at him, give him the finger, and the like - whatever - the entire universe of ideas - they have every right to do that. I would staunchly oppose any government action to silence that person, and I would staunchly want prosecuted any person who would do violence against such people opposing Trump.

Is that clear?

[Forty Two]

Didn't you know that rights are privileges Joe - privileges that are revoked as soon as you endorse a socialist policy. Also, every time you do that an angle loses a feather.

Who said any of that?

[Cunt]

Didn't you know that rights are privileges Joe - privileges that are revoked as soon as you endorse a socialist policy. Also, every time you do that an angle loses a feather.

Who said any of that?

I think this is just a demonstration of what 'trolling' is. I'm trying to sort it out, but it seems that it isn't against the rules here, to accuse someone of trolling, or even of being a troll.

[Brian Peacock]

Didn't you know that rights are privileges Joe - privileges that are revoked as soon as you endorse a socialist policy. Also, every time you do that an angle loses a feather.

Who said any of that?

I was parodying an extreme position.

[Cunt]

Is this guy a Nazi? Would any of you try to punch him for his views?

Or do all the punchers look away when there is a real target?

[Joe]

Didn't you know that rights are privileges Joe - privileges that are revoked as soon as you endorse a socialist policy. Also, every time you do that an angle loses a feather.

Who said any of that?

I was parodying an extreme position.

I must admit I was stuck wondering if this was a geometry question or some deep riddle of old Britannia.

[Brian Peacock]

I guess you found my comment a little oblique?

[Cunt]

His discussions of Islam are interesting too.

Of course, some of you won't be allowed to agree with him, according to your local laws. Some may even be required to jump in and insist that 'Islam' is a race, at least when the law is needed to protect the religious nonsense.

[Joe]

I guess you found my comment a little oblique?

Yeah, it wasn't quite right.

[Brian Peacock]

That's an acute assessment if ever there was one.

[Rum]

His discussions of Islam are interesting too.

Of course, some of you won't be allowed to agree with him, according to your local laws. Some may even be required to jump in and insist that 'Islam' is a race, at least when the law is needed to protect the religious nonsense.
[yt]azNDCQsjSoQ

This is one reason the label Troll is attached to you.

You insist that people hold certain views, which in reality they don’t (I can’t think of anyone here who would defend Islam - it is a ghastly religion) and then you berate those non existent people for holding those non existent views and add a few more implications as to what else that says about those holding such views in the process.

It is baffling and I can only think you do it for giggles.

[Cunt]

His discussions of Islam are interesting too.

Of course, some of you won't be allowed to agree with him, according to your local laws. Some may even be required to jump in and insist that 'Islam' is a race, at least when the law is needed to protect the religious nonsense.
[yt]azNDCQsjSoQ

This is one reason the label Troll is attached to you.

You insist that people hold certain views, which in reality they don’t (I can’t think of anyone here who would defend Islam - it is a ghastly religion) and then you berate those non existent people for holding those non existent views and add a few more implications as to what else that says about those holding such views in the process.

It is baffling and I can only think you do it for giggles.

Well, this is just a club of bloggers who remove anyone they don't like, so that is how serious I take this place. It's as serious as your armchair diagnosis of those you disagree with.

As to your main claim, I don't insist they do, but I think I see why you would think so.

If someone insults Islam, or it's adherents, (such as Tommy Robinson has) there will be a swelling of people who leap to defend Muslims, and call him racist. (if Tommy Robinson triggers you, replace him with Sam Harris)

As if they don't already know that Muslim is not a race, but an agreement to submit to a religion.

Defend muslims and you defend Islam. Same as defending Catholics is defending Catholocism.

[Rum]

No it isn’t remotely the same. There are moral people (in the humanist sense) everywhere irrespective of their beliefs, religions, political views, race or whatever. There are also immoral ones. I think I see why you would think so, to coin a phrase you often use.

Nobody here as far as I am aware views Islam as a race. And nobody here has ever been ‘removed’.

[Cunt]

No it isn’t remotely the same. There are moral people (in the humanist sense) everywhere irrespective of their beliefs, religions, political views, race or whatever. There are also immoral ones. I think I see why you would think so, to coin a phrase you often use.

Nobody here as far as I am aware views Islam as a race. And nobody here has ever been ‘removed’.

You are correct. No-one has been removed.

This place isn't at all diverse though...it has gotten much less diverse over the years. Myself, I value opinions other than my own, so seek them out. Other than a very patient and careful Forty Two, there aren't many remaining here who are on the political right.

Who are the moral people who are very critical of Islam? Do you know what is happening to them on social media platforms?

Maybe I've missed them, and you can enlighten me, but I think Milo was a fair critic of Islam (at times...the guy IS a comic). I think Tommy Robinson is, too. By the way, if either of them ever said something racist, does that mean we dismiss everything they ever said? It seems to be the game now...if you can be found ONCE being 'wrong', your opinions on everything else can be dismissed.

Like if you pretend to diagnose people from behind a keyboard...it affects how people valuate your professional 'knowledge', and can cause them to dismiss everything else you say.

(that is my reflex, but I try to listen to the rest of what you say, despite the savagely ignorant things you say)

[Hermit]

I guess you found my comment a little oblique?

Obtuse.