I am expecting for there to be political purges, in conjunction with the outlawing of the Democratic party, by no later than April 2018, on, heh, trumped up charges. If I’m wrong and sanity returns, maybe one day I’ll be back, but it’s unlikely.
8 Likes
I do hope you’re wrong and you can come home in the future. We’ll see if it’s as bad as we think it might be.
17 Likes
Rules:
- Be a Man
17 Likes
Tangerine Nightmare has been my go to
5 Likes
Violence wasn’t the first thing people turned to when Spencer started spewing his racist garbage. He was publicly musing on the merits of genocide for years before that well-earned punch to the face.
I’ve thought about this and I think I’m siding with Warren Ellis on this one.
I understand there’s been some confusion online as to whether it’s ever right to punch a Nazi in the face. There is a compelling argument that all speech is equal and we should trust to the discourse to reveal these ideas for what they are and confidently expect them to be denounced and crushed out by the mechanisms of democracy and freedom.
All I can tell you is, from my perspective as an old English socialist and cultural liberal who is probably way to the woolly left from most of you and actually has a medal for services to free speech — yes, it is always correct to punch Nazis. They lost the right to not be punched in the face when they started spouting genocidal ideologies that in living memory killed millions upon millions of people. And anyone who stands up and respectfully applauds their perfect right to say these things should probably also be punched, because they are clearly surplus to human requirements. Nazis do not need a hug. Nazis do not need to be indulged. Their world doesn’t get better until you’ve been removed from it. Your false equivalences mean nothing. Their agenda is always, always, extermination. Nazis need a punch in the face.
(And the argument that such assaults allow Nazis to get more attention doesn’t work so well when they were already going live on a national television network, because this is where we are now. This is how normalised their presence in our culture is.)
Glad we got that cleared up.
I see no value in leading Nazis to believe they can spew their genocidal nonsense in public without consequence. I want them to feel hated and persecuted. Living as a Nazi in America should be a fucking terrifying experience.
30 Likes
No, you’ve quote mined.
Here’s the context:
1 Like
Punching Nazis is the name of my new hardcore punk band that I’ll never start.
20 Likes
What kind of group think is going on that so many people are arguing that it is not only ok, but actually a good thing, to use violence against speech? Who the hell knew that preaching non-violence would be such an uphill battle in Boing Boing.
4 Likes
That still doesn’t necessarily imply deadly violence. Or, to quote @bibliophile20 himself:
5 Likes
All absolutely true.
And, for what it’s worth, my GTFO was more aimed at the country in general and not at you specifically. I apologize for not making that clear.
And I also don’t advocate for violence. Reasoned discussion is an important thing- but in the case of Nazis, we already know exactly where that road of “reasoned discussion” goes and I won’t have us ever go there again. They don’t get that benefit. They don’t get that patience.
They get punched in the face. Because they’re Nazis.
Again, I’m sorry. I’m not at all cross with you, and if really wasn’t my intention to direct my anger towards you. I’ll do better.
12 Likes
I think, maybe, we’re entitled to disagree on this issue.
16 Likes
Annoying Orange.
4 Likes
Accordingly can mean “report to police”, or “engage with less-than-lethal options”, or “engage with lethal force”, or as I’m actually doing IRL, which I feel is “accordingly” to the degree, quantity and explicitness of the threats, flee for my life, in recognition that this is not necessarily “speech”, but attempts at justification of future murders.
As such, I am defending myself “accordingly”, from the viewpoint that what they are engaging in is speech that has the goal of dehumanizing me and others like me.
Furthermore, reason I’m not even bothering with the “police report” stage is that I’m quite cognizant that the police departments of the United States are presently in a state where they are likely to either blow of said threat or sympathize with those doing said threatening. Furthermore, I am fully aware that, if I were to fight back, I would be the one demonized and used as justification for a second round of mechanized genocidal purges of my people.
However, you are correct in one point: Given the extent and explicitness of the threats against not only myself, but against other Jews, I feel that I could indeed lethally wound a known Neo-Nazi that had made threats against me and make a legal case for myself (if perhaps in a less White Supremacy-biased judicial system, so not in the US anyway) that, while the actus reus (guilty act) had not been accomplished, the mens rea (guilty mind) would be well established by the actions of the victim and that I was indeed in danger of losing my life.
That aside, however, the question that you’ve dragged this to is this, I suppose:
In your opinion, do I and other Jews and targeted minorities have to wait until we’re being actively extrajudicially murdered by Neo-Nazis before you feel that lethal self-defense is justified? Or, given some of your rhetoric, I have to wonder if you would feel that it wouldn’t be justified even then?
I will say this much, though: Your principles are admirable. But I’m not willing to die for your principles.
19 Likes
Yeah. . . I’m really divided on this kind of thing. I can’t help but feel enjoyment seeing him get sucker-punched, but then I think of MLK and Bull Connor and how taking the non-violent high road paid off in the face of violence.
But I also know there are a lot of people in Spencer’s little realm that have been planning on violence for years, and his attempt to legitimize racism as a political force is really about masking the violence inherent in his ideology-- Nazis don’t turn the other cheek.
6 Likes
It’s cool, I totally get it. Hell, by his standards, I’m Richard Spencer’s idea of a swell guy (white anglo-saxon German-heritage protestant), and he still scares the piss out of me; I can’t imagine how furious I’d be at that fucker if I was Jewish or black… And I absolutely agree that there’s certain people for whom the concept of ‘reasoned discussion’ is long, long past, mostly by their own doing.
I’m so glad that the massive Women’s March went off so peacefully. After seeing an anti-fascist protester get shot in the gut by a Nazi just a few hours after a prominent Nazi gets punched in the head, I was holding my breath, waiting to hear of more escalation right afterwards.
11 Likes
Absolutely, except you aren’t entitled to punch me over that disagreement, yet that is the disagreement.
No, the disagreement is closer to “Are you entitled to be violent towards someone that is advocating for an ideology based on hate-based violence towards others?”
24 Likes
Are you vocally advocating genocide? Because if not that’s really a fundamentally different kind of disagreement.
18 Likes
isn’t it possible the answer is both?
it’s easy to argue the ideology that they supported is violence; supremacy through violence; victory through hate.
violence directed against someone for something like sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity – is violence against personhood. these are intrinsic characteristics. so these are acts of hate.
violence directed at a person for the actions they are taking is very different. it’s why laws often allow for self-defense.
it’s a fine line though when a person is not directly participating in harmful actions – so it’s not an immediate self-defense – and are “merely” inciting others to such action.
it’s why some countries have laws against hate speech, and others don’t. reasonable people disagree on where the lines should be drawn.
still, if anyone deserves to get punched in the face occasionally, it’s a white supremacist.
i wouldn’t have done it myself, and i hope it’s not often repeated. perhaps creating a human shield between him and the cameras, or other more creative, less violent methods would be better.
this, for instance, was a way more powerful action to honor matthew shepard and other victims of violence.
in general, violence as the solution should be avoided, because that is a dangerous road.
in the specific? i totally get it. ( full disclosure: i watched the musical remixes, and i laughed out loud. then i watched them again. )
15 Likes
Possible? Yeah.
Plausible? No. As you mentioned: self-defence, defence of vulnerable others, etc.
Yeah, violence is dangerous and destructive. It ain’t a thing to employ casually or carelessly, or when there are equally effective non-violent solutions available. But you do need to keep it in the toolkit, for deterrent value if nothing else.
Total pacifism is a surrender to fascism; I don’t find it to be admirable.
8 Likes
