The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[pErvinalia]

Aww, those poor nazis.

Yeah. The only surprise here is that it took 42 so long to post this thread.

16603066_1095347987243048_76413372816007460_n.jpg (29.41 KiB) Viewed 4412 times

[pErvinalia]

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.

The cunt can't think properly. That's the problem here.

[pErvinalia]

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.

[Forty Two]

Aww, those poor nazis.

Yeah. The only surprise here is that it took 42 so long to post this thread.

16603066_1095347987243048_76413372816007460_n.jpg

Well, if you are talking about responding to a Nazi group after they, stage a putsch, then absolutely, I agree with you. Hitler left the army in about 1918. Was it o.k. to beat the shit out of him then? How about in 1920 or 21, when he was starting to attend meetings of the National Socialist German Workers Party? Or maybe in 1921, when he became the leader?

Do we get to simply declare a person a nazi or a fascist and then beat the shit out of the? What about communists? I fucking hate communists and I think they are just as bad as fascist - just as authoritarian - just as violent. Do I get to beat the shit out of communists? What if I hate Marxists in general, and view them as authoritarian and violent? Anarchists? Or just fascists and Nazis.

Look - come down on them like a ton of bricks if they are caught attempting to stage a Beer Hall Putsch or something like that. When Hitler was jailed, he should have been ended then. He had committed crimes, arguably treason, against the German State. There was no reason he couldn't have been dealt with then.

That's completely different than going around beating people up because they're talking about ideas you don't like. I can't even believe this is something that has to be explained to you.

[Forty Two]

But I like Louis CK's idea to deal with Hitler - instead of going back in time there to kill him, send someone back there to rape Hitler.

[Forty Two]

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.

you folks need to recognize the possibility that someone else finds your views just as repugnant as you find theirs.

[laklak]

If I have to choose between Nazis and Commies I'll take the Nazis. I look like a sack of potatoes in a Mao suit but I could fucking ROCK a Standartenfuhrer uniform.

[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).

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.

I did not suggest that you advocated anything. I asked what YOU think Nazis stand for, and that way I could determine if a particular person that got punched was a Nazi (based on your definition). I did not say that you thought people whose politics you disagreed with should be punched.

It's ironic that you are beginning to think that I don't read beyond the first lines of replies. You just quoted me, and accused me of saying something I did not say. And, I have not categorized your politics at all.

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

How so? Have you read any material on Communism? What sounds "nice" about it? It sounds like a terrible idea to me. No private property. No private business for profit. Rents are collected only by the state. Industrial armies. forced relocation to eliminate the distinction between cities and the countryside. Seizure of the assets of dissenters and expatriates. The lack of the right to dissent against the will of the community. The destruction of the nuclear family. I mean - what of this is "nice?"

- but people like owning stuff.

Sounds nice, actually. I like to know my car will be there when I trot down to the parking lot, or that at least it will not be permissible for others to take it for a drive. And, I do like to know my wife and kids can lock the door and exclude others from using our house, even if there are extra bedrooms in it. Owning stuff is rather nice. Is owning stuff not nice, IYO?

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.

From the standpoint of the individual, how is communism something other than "authoritarian" even in its purest, ideal sense? (Maybe you don't think it is other than authoritarian, I'm not sure). But, when you say it "would've worked" by now -- what do you mean? Do you mean that the way communism is supposed to work would be "nice"? If so, how? What would be good about it?

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...

It has plenty of consequences; however, one of them is not physical violence (not lawfully anyway)

You may not like what people say on street corners, but you can say what you want on the street corner and so can they. What makes you so special? What if someone thinks your ideas are intolerant and bigoted?

I go into a government building quite often, and outside there are often these two street preachers, railing away, holding their bibbles, trying to pass out cards telling people how damned they are and how much they need saving, and telling them all about sin and salvation, hellfire and brimstone. A lot of people might be offended by that subject matter.

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.

Well, this thread is about punching them. So, if you're talking about something else, then that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the ethics of punching nazis (and as a corollary, punching people who hold ideas people don't like).

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.

The perpetrator of a person who sucker punches a person they think is a white supremacist is the punch-er. The alleged white supremacist in that case is the victim of the assault and battery.

Vilifying someone is not the same as punching. Abuse is a vague term. If the abuse is that people are hollering at the Nazi or demonstrating against the Nazi or alleged Nazi, then that's one thing. Beating him or her up, that's another thing altogether. Right?

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.

Then we are agreed.

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.

Generally agreed.

[Forty Two]

If I have to choose between Nazis and Commies I'll take the Nazis. I look like a sack of potatoes in a Mao suit but I could fucking ROCK a Standartenfuhrer uniform.

Hillary Clinton was fond of the Mao suit fashion.

[JimC]

pErvin, this is a reminder that the following post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1696809

contains an attack on a fellow member. Please desist in future.

[pErvinalia]

Aww, those poor nazis.

Yeah. The only surprise here is that it took 42 so long to post this thread.

16603066_1095347987243048_76413372816007460_n.jpg

Well, if you are talking about responding to a Nazi group after they, stage a putsch, then absolutely, I agree with you. Hitler left the army in about 1918. Was it o.k. to beat the shit out of him then? How about in 1920 or 21, when he was starting to attend meetings of the National Socialist German Workers Party? Or maybe in 1921, when he became the leader?

Do we get to simply declare a person a nazi or a fascist and then beat the shit out of the? What about communists? I fucking hate communists and I think they are just as bad as fascist - just as authoritarian - just as violent. Do I get to beat the shit out of communists? What if I hate Marxists in general, and view them as authoritarian and violent? Anarchists? Or just fascists and Nazis.

Look - come down on them like a ton of bricks if they are caught attempting to stage a Beer Hall Putsch or something like that. When Hitler was jailed, he should have been ended then. He had committed crimes, arguably treason, against the German State. There was no reason he couldn't have been dealt with then.

That's completely different than going around beating people up because they're talking about ideas you don't like. I can't even believe this is something that has to be explained to you.

You are absolutely right. Because we can't definitely tell when a group becomes a threat to society we must just sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss things in a gentlemanly fashion at all times.

[pErvinalia]

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.

you folks need to recognize the possibility that someone else finds your views just as repugnant as you find theirs.

Possibility? I know it as a fact. Yet strangely I don't get on internet forums and whine like a naive child about it.

[Forty Two]

You are absolutely right. Because we can't definitely tell when a group becomes a threat to society we must just sit down and have a cup of tea and discuss things in a gentlemanly fashion at all times.

Leftists are a threat to society.

Shall we punch them?

[Forty Two]

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.

you folks need to recognize the possibility that someone else finds your views just as repugnant as you find theirs.

Possibility? I know it as a fact. Yet strangely I don't get on internet forums and whine like a naive child about it.

You don't whine? That's a laugh and a half.

Look, do you really not get it? When others find your views just as repugnant -- and punch-worthy - as you find a white supremacist's views, they will punch you too. And, you'll likely want the police to intervene.

Lot's of people have lots of different ideas as to what is dangerous to society, and such. A Christian or Muslim group might thing gay and lesbian advocates are a danger - and even evil and hateful -- they might want to do some punching of their own.

You are certainly entitled to place your sympathy where you want it - and you may lose no sleep over a Nazi getting punched, but you may be rather upset to see a feminist get punched. However, from the standpoint of the law, and what is lawful speech and what gets prosecuted and police protection -- the Nazi is as entitled to free expression as you or anyone else.

You'd have to be either a dishonest ideologue, or a complete and total moron not to understand that.

[pErvinalia]

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.

you folks need to recognize the possibility that someone else finds your views just as repugnant as you find theirs.

Possibility? I know it as a fact. Yet strangely I don't get on internet forums and whine like a naive child about it.

You don't whine?

No I don't. That would be you.

Look, do you really not get it? When others find your views just as repugnant -- and punch-worthy - as you find a white supremacist's views, they will punch you too. And, you'll likely want the police to intervene.

How is this relevant to anything? Have I said that the police shouldn't intervene?

Lot's of people have lots of different ideas as to what is dangerous to society, and such. A Christian or Muslim group might thing gay and lesbian advocates are a danger - and even evil and hateful -- they might want to do some punching of their own.

And?

You are certainly entitled to place your sympathy where you want it - and you may lose no sleep over a Nazi getting punched, but you may be rather upset to see a feminist get punched. However, from the standpoint of the law, and what is lawful speech and what gets prosecuted and police protection -- the Nazi is as entitled to free expression as you or anyone else.

How is this relevant to anything? Have I said that the police shouldn't intervene?

You'd have to be either a dishonest ideologue, or a complete and total moron not to understand that.

Morons can't read what other people have written and impugn their own biases on to what others write.