The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:23 pm

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. :lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Hermit » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:36 pm

pErvin wrote:I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. :lol:
What? Still reading those rants? How many more times do you need to be regaled about peace loving Trump supporters merely voicing their opinions only to be beaten to a pulp by leftie thugs before you tire of Coito's slant?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:59 pm

LOL - that's right - the leftist thugs didndonuffin.... the videos of them rioting, smashing, assaulting, battering, blocking traffic, commandeering stages, shutting down peaceful presentations, preventing students from hearing opinions, attacking professors, etc., that's all just a small minority, and nothing compared to all the Trump supporters doing the same thing..... because you've cited so many examples....

Once again, it's the left that openly states that it is a moral good to punch people whom they, in their discretion, determine hold not only Nazi, but "anti-immigrant" and "Trump supporter" views.... they basically openly declare for themselves the right to beat up their political opponents, because the leftist scum are, they believe, on the side of righteousnous. No thought is given by them that others may hold different opinions, and that just because a leftist thinks it's "hate speech" to oppose some variety of marriage, or to want to restrict immigration, doesn't mean that it is, or that it should be "intolerable" in a free society.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:49 pm

Hermit wrote:This discussion reminds me of a similar one we had in a thread titled The Ethics of pinching Nachos. In the end there was almost unanimous agreement that whereas theft was in principle unethical, immoral, criminal and ultimately deleterious to the cohesion and harmony of society, there is an exception. The exception is that laws can be broken when someone deprive others of basic human rights without actually breaking any existing law himself. The nacho incident turned out to be one of those cases when Don Dummkopf, the owner of the sole bakery in Jerome, Arizona sold all his tortillas to a major hotel in New York, New York because it was more profitable than selling them to the local villagers. Rather than starve to death, the villagers overpowered the driver and guards of a tortilla truck and made off with the goods.
:potd:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by rainbow » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:33 pm

Forty Two wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Mainstream leftist progressive view is that beating people whose views you find abhorrent is not only ethical, but morally imperative.
Explain why you have a problem with that.

Why are you not bothered when Fascists do the same?
:?
:o Double Standards :shock:
I am - link to fascists doing the same, and I'll lambaste them within an inch of their lives.
:swoon: So bwave :swoon:
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Hermit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:50 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
-- A Man for All Seasons (1960).

That is a very good argument, and Robert Bolt stated it very eloquently, as did Martin Niemöller, whom he echoes. I won't be surprised to discover that others have made the same point even earlier than those two.

There are two somewhat interlinked considerations that ought to generate pause for thought. One is that More would give the Devil benefit of law, for his own safety's sake. Is the irony lost on you that the Lord Chancellor lost his life precisely because of his unshakeably principled stand?

More importantly, there is a limit beyond which the principle is actually dangerous. Godwin, here we come: After the failed Beer Hall Putsch Hitler changed tack. Increasingly the brownshirted brawlers under the leadership of Ernst Röhm were sidelines. If Frederic Grunfeld, who was not a historian, is to believed, Hitler announced that he will "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy". So far I have not been able to find any other source than Grunfeld's book on the man. From the same book comes the claim that the NSDAP made a similar announcement: "We shall overthrow the present parliamentary regime of the destroyers of our people in a legal way with legal means".

Be it as it may, Hitler became Germany's Chancellor before he became its dictator. I venture to say that had he not become its head of state first, the Ermächtigungsgesetz would not have passed through parliament, giving cabinet the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, and the Gleichschaltung (basically total nazification) culminating with the flag of the Nazi party becoming the national flag during the Nuremberg Rally of 1935 would quite certainly not have happened.

In view of the cortege Trump has surrounded himself with, I can see something similar happening. He'll stack the supreme court, then the FBI and other security institutions with more of the same. Bit by bit the bodies safeguarding the liberties and freedoms the US citizens are taking for granted will be whiteanted. He'll declare "The Left" as the enemy of the state, and any individual or organisation opposed to him or simply not to his liking will be declared as part of "The Left". All it takes then is to organise a terror bombing (or perhaps some Islamic fundies will play into his hands by doing it themselves) of Congress to clear some undesirables out of there, and you'll be able to kiss your treasured liberties and freedoms goodbye.

Never gonna happen? Don't be so sure. Trump knows who his core supporters are. They are the ones who would still support him, no matter what he did, including murdering someone in public for no particular reason. Yes, he was rather hyperbolic when he said that, but there is more than a kernel of truth underlying his boast. His supporters will not insist on legality or keeping within the law. They don't particularly value or respect it. They just want a strong Führer leader who makes Deutschland America great again, no matter how.



Until a few months ago I agreed with Bolt and Niemöller without qualification. Looking at what has happened over your way recently, reservations arose, and they keep growing every time I read another article about what your dear leader is doing. Civil war coming? Maybe. Don't expect me to blame "The Left", though.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:45 pm

Indeed. And 'Leftist Scum' are the new Jews and the new degenerates.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:25 am

Image
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Animavore » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:05 am

If you catch Nazis in the act of desecrating Jewish graves, beating up gays or transsexuals, attacking black churches, attacking Muslims, attacking Sihks or Indians because they're stupid and can't tell the difference -stuff they have been doing increasingly since they got one of their own in the White House - then you can punch them into the ground. Actually, it's America. Just shoot them.

If they're just on a street corner talking guff don't give them publicity and allow them claim to be victims by punching them.

If the civil war comes- kill zem all.

Simple rules.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by rainbow » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:01 am

Animavore wrote:If you catch Nazis in the act of desecrating Jewish graves, beating up gays or transsexuals, attacking black churches, attacking Muslims, attacking Sihks or Indians because they're stupid and can't tell the difference -stuff they have been doing increasingly since they got one of their own in the White House - then you can punch them into the ground. Actually, it's America. Just shoot them.

If they're just on a street corner talking guff don't give them publicity and allow them claim to be victims by punching them.

If the civil war comes- kill zem all.

Simple rules.
Shooting is bad as it can lead to lead poisoning.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Animavore » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:33 pm

Hilarious discussion on punching Nazis here. It's the very first discussion.

http://dissonancepod.com/alternative-facts/
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:16 pm

pErvin wrote:Image
That cartoon is an inaccurate metaphor. The person in the house does not own the political discourse in that house, at least not anymore than the evil "fascist" outside the window. They are both equal participants in the society represented by that house. It's no more the right of the person inside the house to say "you can't come in" than it is the right of the person outside the house to say "you can't come outside." The cartoon, also, does not specify the politics of the person inside the house. Maybe that person holds really awful, authoritarian views that are as bad or worse than the guy outside the window -- you know, like the kind and gentle folks who assaulted Charles Murray and Professor Allison Stanger, and those protesters, who in your cartoon would be represented by the person in the house, began pulling fire alarms, temporarily shutting off power to the live stream. When Murray finished his speech, he left the building with Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics, and other college officials, but was met by a group of protesters who wore bandanas to cover their faces. They assaulted the two professors and physically injured Allison Stanger.

So, should we be afraid of Murray (the guy outside the house who wants to get in)? Or, should we be afraid of the person inside the house, actually assaulting and battering the people that they want locked out of the house?

And, in this other example, the person "outside the house," Jordan Peterson, tried to give a peaceful, orderly presentation at McMaster University, and the innocent, kind, gentle people, the non-fascists, inside the house did this:

To tell you the truth, I'd rather throw those people who assaulted Allison Stanger and disrupted and shut down Peterson's speech out of the house, and I'd much rather keep Murray, Stanger and Peterson inside the house. Since it's as much my house as it is theirs, maybe people who agree with me should throw THEM out of the house? Would that be acceptable? Is this just a question of who can muster the most force to keep the people they view as "fascists" or otherwise unacceptable out of the house? Do you think the SJW crew has the strength to win that fight, if the people they oppose were to start striking back in kind?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:19 pm

Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?

If your response is that communism is not illegitimate, then you need to think about that a little. What makes an ideology illegitimate? Is one inherently illegitimate? Or, aren't we really just talking about subjective opinion, and depending on one's premises various political ideologies can be thought to be illegitimate?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Strontium Dog
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:28 am
About me: Navy Seals are not seals
Location: Liverpool, UK
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Strontium Dog » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:50 pm

Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?
For someone who loathes fascism, you spend an inordinate amount of time advocating for the rights of fascists. Anyone would think there were no more pressing injustices in the world than whether or not someone can spread hate without getting a punch up the bracket.
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Post by Forty Two » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:46 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?
For someone who loathes fascism, you spend an inordinate amount of time advocating for the rights of fascists.
Well, that has something to do with the fact that there are swaths of people -- at universities no less, including students and professors -- who appear to advocate beating the shit out of them for merely expressing their views. I do not see such a swath of people advocating the same thing about Communists. As much as I really loath communism, if someone was advocating "punching commies" I would be just as four-square opposed to them. In reality, nobody really suggests that a communist, as loathsome as his views might be, should be beaten up or have his speech on campus forcibly disrupted because of his awful views.
Strontium Dog wrote: Anyone would think there were no more pressing injustices in the world than whether or not someone can spread hate without getting a punch up the bracket.
Well, see there you fail to articulate a main issue at play. It's not agreed that what the people being punched is, in fact, hate, and is in fact, Naziism or white supremacism. For example, when Charles Murray, and a liberal professor who was simply participating (in opposition) to him on stage, get attacked, the chants are chants to suppress hate speech and such, but very arguably neither of them were saying anything close to hate speech. Same with Dr. Jordan Peterson - they pull fire alarms, blow bullhorns and noisemakers, and chant "transphobic piece of shit!" and "shut him down! shut him down!" over, and over again, disrupting any ability of the conference to take place, all on the premise that he is "spreading hate." However, it's ridiculous, it seems to me, to suggest that he's spread any hate at all.

So, one of the issues at play is that when people grant themselves the right to punch Nazis, they also seem to be giving themselves the right to determine who is a Nazi, and to even punch those who are there participating with the alleged Nazi in a discussion.

Moreover, the issue of "there are more pressing injustices" is a non sequitur. There is no shortage of room for new threads here, so if there are injustices you want to talk about, then have at it. I may even participate. Perhaps you have a new event or issue to share that others haven't seen or heard of. That's what discussion forums are for.

The same criticism of priorities -- which injustice is important enough to discuss - can also be said of the causes of the left. The left runs around crying about microaggressions and other silliness, but there are certainly bigger injustices that, but that doesn't stop leftists from going batshit over them and trying to get professors fired over them. Heck, aren't there folks rioting because Milo Yiannopoulis is speaking at their campus? Are there no greater injustices than some douchebag speaking his mind as an invited guest of a campus group?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests