So much as whisper on a corner of the internet that 9/11 was a good thing and those people in those buildings/airplanes deserved to suffer and die, and dudes in black masks will come for you, never to be seen again. Say out in a public space and in-person that the European (and African-American) holocausts were good things and those people deserved to suffer and die, and suddenly people are concerned about your safety instead of everyone else’s. I honestly don’t get the disparity.
Seriously? Dudes in black masks and all that?
You doubt that we are disappearing folks who have technically committed no crime but are jihadi-adjacent? We droned an American citizen overseas for talking too much about the benefits of Islamic jihad. Meanwhile, extolling the virtues of white-straight-Christian jihad might score you a legislative seat.
“We droned an American citizen overseas for talking too much about the benefits of Islamic jihad.”
Really? This is way, way off topic, so we can let it go, but suffice to say I has me doubts.
Welcome back from living in a cave for 2 decades?
The topic seems to be “How should we confront people in our midst who espouse violent ideologies and glorify historical genocide.”
I suggest one approach is to treat it more like we would if there was a pro-9/11 commemorative armband that people were wearing in public. These potential terrorists are self-identifying, this should be a no-brainer if we are truly concerned with “protecting the homeland”.
I see your point. I think we all agree that violence is acceptable when one is physically threatened. My question, then, is whether expressing an ideology rises to that level. I don’t know where the line is.
We should figure that out before finding ourselves on the wrong side of it.
Reading the other comments above regarding ideologies that call for the extermination of people should help you out there.
They have an opinion.
This particular ideology is not political, they just want to take over the world and kill everyone they don’t like. If anyone deserves to be slugged for yammering about, they do. It doesn’t bother me to see; I even enjoy it. Still, I come back to the question: Is it okay to strike someone who isn’t physically threatening you?
I don’t think so. I think there is a point where it becomes necessary, and everything before that is just anger.
There are a lot of loose pronouns in those sentences, making me a bit unsure of which them and those you speak. I’m not really interested in getting into a hair splitting debate on “where the line is” though. People have overall been pretty clear about what is unacceptable.
Oh, is that all?
Anyone who espouses such beliefs is lucky if the only thing bad that happens to them is a punch to the face.
Sorry if the post is poorly penned. Our little sub-convo is all over the place.
People have been very clear on their opinions, which is not the same thing as what is actually okay. I’ll say this again:
“Is it okay to strike someone who isn’t physically threatening you? I don’t think so. I think there is a point where it becomes necessary, and everything before that is just anger.”
Is that too ambiguous?
The above are opinions and you are trying to define now what is actually “okay”?
Ummmm. Do you see the contradiction?
Well of course. Isn’t that the point of this whole comment section? To discuss whether punching a Nazi is okay?
No, wanting to hurt you is not the same as attempting to hurt you.
They are literally wearing a badge that says “I am going to kill you.”
I think it just says they want to, not that they are about to.