How about we not compare the punching of a hate-monger to the murder of a child… You’re aware that it’s not remotely the same thing. Spencer isn’t dead.
No one is making a legal argument here, either. If you think that either @bibliophile20 or I (or any of us) can punch a nazi and not suffer legal repercussions if caught doing so, then you’re mistaken.
GTFO. This shit is going to be too much for four years.
Straight up Nazi playbook. It’s as though someone read Animal Farm of Fahrenheit 451 and thought “Yes. That’s the way to do this.”
Also, I just want to offer this: It is always ok to punch Nazis in the face. Always. They’ve shown exactly what they’ll do if given the opportunity. They have no benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I wouldn’t blame you for say, applying a cricket bat to the problem on sight, but I’ve got an irrational bias against nazis. A flying forearm smash in passing while they’re spewing hate on camera is IMO both morally justifiable and hilarious.
I’d consider contributing to either of your legal fees both a duty and a privilege.
Thanks. But I would happily plead guilty and go to jail, if I had to (although, in my case, being a white women would probably mean I’d not get locked up). Again, I will not say that punching a nazi should be legal, just that I find it okay to punch a nazi.
Neither are most people beat up by gay bashers, that doesn’t make non-leathal gay bashing ok either.
I also have to disagree, using physical violence because you don’t like who someone is or what they say very much is related. Just because you think you have the moral high ground doesn’t mean that using violence to suppress speech and using violence to suppress speech aren’t “remotely the same thing”. Violence is, in fact, related to violence, even if you think yours is the “good” kind of violence, somehow.
Now those are some rapidly moving goalposts.
Doctrine of the first sin; he’s a Nazi, so he’s good to go.
Really?
Because bibliophile20 is specifically asking about when, exactly, he can kill Nazis:
I would say “immediate danger” or some such, not based on what he/she seems to be implying, that he/she should be able to take lethal action now based on a perceived future threat of Naziism.
Not all speech is the same. Not all violence is the same.
You seem to disagree with both of those statements.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
The exact same? No, related, yes. Mindysan tried to claim “not remotely the same thing.”
Absolutely. It should be illegal. It should also be done on a regular basis. Like, Cable Street would have been far less effective in putting an end to British Nazis in the 30s if they’d just stood around asking politely.
I get where you’re going with this, but the US didn’t declare war on Nazi Germany because they were Nazis. In fact, the US only declared war on the Nazis as a tit-for-tat thing. And all that fighting and killing and dying that came after wasn’t because they were Nazis either, but because they had invaded Poland, and everywhere else as well. They were a threat to other nations.
If Hitler had stayed home and just gassed all the German Jews and Gypsies, and gays, and feeble minded, and political opponents and … so on, it is unlikely anyone would’ve ever done anything more than write stern editorials. This notion of active intervention in the internal affairs of other states is very much a post-WWII idea. Without WWII, it would’ve taken something very much like WWII to get going.
Which is not to say that punching Nazis is wrong (Popehat link read and absorbed). Punching Nazis is right, but should be illegal (again, Popehat link read and absorbed). EDIT: which is the exact point you’ve been consistently making 
EDIT2: correcting historical error pointed out by @anon61221983
Don’t weasel out of it, because your entire argument is framed around them being exactly the same.
I think that @Wanderfound addressed the gay bashing example quite nicely. I also agree with @nothingfuture about what we already KNOW about nazis and the kind of world they wish to create. It’s a world created on mounds of dead bodies of people they deem as less than themselves. Let’s not kid ourselves that anything they advocate is based on anything remotely positive for humanity, because it’s not. We can all certainly debates the merits of capitalism vs. communism till the cows come home and still all be on civilized ground. Nazism… not so much. Pat Buchanan was entirely wrong that Hitler had a few good ideas, because the core of his ideas all relate back to the destruction of Jews. It poisoned literally everything else they tried to do in Germany.
Is violence always anathema, though? Again, we’ve ceded power to the state to decide what violence is acceptable and what isn’t. Even today (in the case you brought up earlier with Trayvon Martin’s murder) they’ve created a monopoly on that which is still weighted towards justifying white violence against non-white people.
I did? I think we have a well-developed body of legal challenges to the first amendment to disagree. Yes, some language is different (the oft trotted out “fire in a theater” idea). But I’m not advocating that speech should be shut down or that violence should be made legal at all. Spencer is welcome to spew his bile - I’m not advocating for strictures on the first amendment, of him or anyone else. But me or anyone punching him is NOT a violation of the first amendment by any stretch of the imagination. Others are welcome to stop his mouth moving while he’s doing it (and I think should suffer the consequences of that action). Despite the very real violence inherent in his ideas, one of those people goes to jail.
You’re 100% correct. But we did declare war on nazi germany after they declared war on us. [quote=“JonS, post:368, topic:93289”]
Punching Nazis is right, but should be illegal (again, Popehat link read and absorbed). EDIT: which is the exact point you’ve been consistently making 
[/quote]
Also, exactly right.
This is what I mean. Get The Fuck Out seems like a bit of a strong reaction to me mentioning that seeing people punch Nazis is cathartic, but that violence isn’t always the answer.
Hey, I chuckled at seeing Richard Spencer get clocked in the head. He’s definitely on the short list of eminently punchable people along with Milo Yiannopolous and Martin Shkrelli. By no means am I saying that people who are actively advocating for the death or elimination of wide swaths of America don’t deserve a punch to the head. I just don’t want physical violence to be the first thing people turn to when they encounter anyone they disagree with or things are going to escalate right quick. With, say, a protester getting shot in the gut.
I think you’ve jumped a bit far here.
Okay, so I have to wait until they point a weapon at me before I can treat it as a sincere threat. Gotcha. Glad we got that cleared up.
And this is, again, part of why I’m making sure I’m getting out of the USA as quickly as possible.
Are you leaving for good or just taking a few years abroad? I reckon the Trump storm won’t last - he’s not going to get a second term and might well be impeached before that. Surely the Democrats are going to win big in 2018, given the scale of the objection over the weekend?
So, let’s see here… we have
an attempt at inducing the genetic fallacy (attempting to conflate the racist Stand Your Ground laws with an actual question on self-defense)
slippery slope fallacy (making the implicit assumption that “wanting to know when it is acceptable to actually engage in self-defense” is code for “I wish to go out and murder Neo-Nazis, or people that look like them”)
Appeal to Celebrity (while not quite exactly the point, it’s the closest fallacy to the name-dropping of George Zimmerman, which is done for the setup to the genetic fallacy)
Moral Equivalence fallacy (apparently being afraid of people who have doxxed you and threatened you with death by torture and wondering “when, to you, will it be acceptable for me to defend myself?” makes you just like them)
Loaded Language fallacy (George Zimmerman and the scare quotes around “self-defense”)
Poisoning the Well fallacy (again, Zimmerman)
Argument from adverse consequences (“you’re not allowed to lethally defend yourself against Neo-Nazis who want to murder you, because then they’ll be free to murder you too.”)
I think that there are more in there, but I’m not going to tease them out. That’s the major bunch.
