Punched Nazi loses tax-exempt status

[Grahamers20021]

[quote=“Ministry, post:21, topic:96998, full:true”]
Objecting to a gif of a person inflicting violence on another person (irrespective of who’s on the receiving end - that’s not relevant) is NOT equivalent to “preaching tolerance for Nazis”.[/quote]

I am going to pick a nit, here. Just stream of thought thinking, but thinking of tolerance as a binary state is possibly an error.

Saying that posting this GIF is wrong IS saying that known Nazi’s (people explicitly or implicitly advocating genocide) should be tolerated to the point that they should not be punched if they are not an imminent threat to themselves or others.

Now, that level of tolerance also extends to many, many other types of people, as it should. But, if that tolerance is not extended to ALL people - and while I am not saying that it does not, it may not - then you are at least arguing that Nazi’s should be lumped in with the “non-punch-on-sight” group which means Nazis are to be tolerated more than the members of the punch-on-sight groups.

Now, the question becomes is there any group imagined or real that is a “punch-on-sight” group?

How about people who kidnap, imprison for years, and rape young children? Your child? Donald Trump if he orchestrates a coup and destroys the U.S. Constitution? Anything else that would qualify?

IF there are punch-on-sight groups, then your argument is that we should be more tolerant of Nazi’s (people advocating genocide, explicitly and implicitly) than member of those groups. I used to agree with you. I am not sure I do any more.

[Ministry]

I’d say there are no ‘punch-on-sight’ groups at all, ever. ‘Arrest-on-sight’, certainly, but what would be the purpose of ‘punch-on-sight’? Satisfaction? Revenge? I wouldn’t condone either.

I’m not even saying known Nazis should be tolerated at all, but that punching them is never an acceptable response, if they are not an imminent threat to themselves or others. And even if it was, posting a gif glorifying that violence is even less acceptable.

[hecep]

Oooohhhhhhh yyyeeesssssss!

[hecep]

The guy helping to hold up WW – the guy in the white jacket. Where’s his right arm?

[aikimo]

@Wanderfound

The current observation that TrumpGOP presents an imminent threat of fascism is not absurd, because the TrumpGOP are fascists, and they very clearly intend to put their ideology into practice.

As much as I loathe Trump and his crew, the idea that they “present an imminent threat of fascism,” that they truly want to or ever could turn the U.S. into 1930’s Germany is baseless. I’m sorry, but it’s downright silly. There are too many people like you and me and all the people here disagreeing with me to allow it.

@chenille

Perhaps freedom of speech zealots might notice there are places where espousing Nazism is even illegal, and they do not appear worse tyrannies for it compared to the US, which is suffering a surge of anti-Semitic attacks.

I believe that in those countries it is still illegal to walk up and punch someone when they aren’t being violent. Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in a country where you can’t kill Nazis in a video game because people are so frightened of Nazis. Seems rather irrational.

I also wouldn’t want to live in a country where someone could legally sucker-punch me if they thought I was a Nazi, or as in this case, defending Nazis. Members of the ACLU would have to take out some kind of special insurance.

@anon73430903

And if their words are about how you are worthless and should be killed?

The only solution to terrible words in a liberal society are better words. As a child, Daryl Davis had rocks thrown at him by white supremacists. He dealt with that as an adult by following the example of MLK. Preemptive violence and censorship are easy. Engagement and effective disagreement are much, much more difficult. But also, demonstrably much more effective.

@anon73430903

I am watching the setup happen again right now in the US, yet some people choose to remain oblivious.

Again, I’m sincerely sorry for what you’ve been through, but to suggest that this country is heading towards what Nazi Germany was is as grounded in reality and historical fact as suggesting that this country is heading towards sharia law or that there’s a “war on cops.” The links you provide actually weaken your case. Our country today, even with the horrible people running the federal government, looks nothing like Germany in the 1930’s. One would have to really have no idea what life was like for Jews and homosexuals and other oppressed people who lived in Germany at the time, in order to seriously suggest that life for those people today in America is under a similar threat.

@smulder

It may not be your intention to promote a cultural double standard wherein black Americans are expected to be polite to white racists.

I don’t expect anyone to do anything. I’m merely pointing out the example of a brave man who actually made a difference by intellectually engaging his enemies, and how it compares in effectiveness and liberal thought to sucker-punching enemies, instead.

@bibliophile20

I find it amazing that you, who claim to be a liberal, are more concerned with a Nazi’s right to spew hatred than you are with the rights of the Nazis’ victims to live without fear.

Does the ACLU amaze you? Did MLK amaze you for the same reasons? People For the American Way?

Allowing people to say terrible things and disagreeing with them is liberal. Sucker-punching people who say terrible things is not.

[bibliophile20]

@aikimo

Does the ACLU amaze you? Did MLK amaze you for the same reasons? People For the American Way?

Allowing people to say terrible things and disagreeing with them is liberal. Sucker-punching people who say terrible things is not.

[aikimo]

Two tweets, two strawmen. One - I’m not suggesting that Nazis should go unchallenged. Of course they should be challenged, stood up to, etc. Two - I’m not suggesting that Dwayne David Paul or anyone else has a “duty to defend other people’s rights to advocate for (his) death.” He has no such duty. Actually, the only people with such a “duty” would be law enforcement officials and lawyers, because the law is quite clear on this matter.

And while Richard Spencer is a drooling idiot with shallow, and completely ridiculous ideas regarding most everything, he has never advocated for the killing of anyone. I understand being disgusted with the man, but he (like Milo) becomes more silly than frightening when one considers that he’s been ostracized from even the most repulsive right wing circles.

In a liberal society, we do have a duty to not commit violence against people who are not actively being violent.

I’m only suggesting that it’s not okay to sucker-punch someone because they have terrible beliefs. I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t fight back while being physically attacked, because I believe one should (I’m not as strong as Dr. King in this regard).

And “since the election?” The ACLU and other liberal organizations have, for decades, been defending the right of Nazis (and non-Nazis, too!) to say terrible things. In a liberal society, people fight bad ideas with good ideas, not violent sneak-attacks. Violent sneak-attacks are the methods used by Nazis and their ilk. And, apparently, people who are really, really afraid of Nazis.

[bibliophile20]

@aikimo

And while Richard Spencer is a drooling idiot with shallow, and completely ridiculous ideas regarding most everything, he has never advocated for the killing of anyone.

If you truly believe that, then I believe we have nothing more to discuss. Because Spencer has publicly advocated for ethnic cleansing, denounced the Jewish people, and endorsed Nazi ideology that calls for ethnic cleansing of non-whites.

If you honestly and sincerely believe that he has not, as part of those statements, tacitly or explicitly advocated for my death and the deaths of my people, and of people like @anon73430903, then… well, yeah. There’s really nothing else to say.

[aikimo]

I only “honestly and sincerely” believe the information I’ve read about him. I don’t know what he honestly and sincerely believes other than what he’s said he believes, which is batshit crazy enough.

But let’s go beyond your belief that he’s tacitly advocated for the murder of Jews, homosexuals, minorities of all kinds. Let’s say he’s explicitly advocated for the organized, mass-murder of millions of people. That would make him no different than any number of religious fundamentalists in this country and in countries all over the world.

When Christian fundamentalists exclaim that homosexuals should be put to death (which they were for centuries) as is called for in the Old Testament, or when Muslim fundamentalists exclaim that heretics and infidels should be put to death (which they have been for centuries) as called for in the Koran, we don’t shut down their churches or sucker-punch them in the street, because we live in a liberal society. We’re better than they are.

That said, if you honestly and sincerely believe that the alt-right is actually going to start carrying out the Final Solution, or that our country is similar enough to Germany in the 1930’s (remember those anti-Hitler marches attended by millions of people all over Germany when Hitler was made Chancellor?) to make such a thing so “imminent” that we need to physically assault all members of the alt-right and prevent them from saying their stupid, silly nonsense, then…well, yeah. There’s really nothing else to say, because you and I are perceiving objective reality very, very differently.

[emo_pinata]

Dude… just stop…

EDIT

To really hammer it over your head, by “peaceful” Spencer means forming a whites-only country in the same way that Israel is a “Jewish only” state, and as we all know the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not been a over half a century of violence in response.

[aikimo]

Dude…stop what…? Stop suggesting that we shouldn’t commit violence against people who aren’t being actively violent?

Stop suggesting that maybe it’s not correct to believe that the alt-right present an “imminent” threat of a government takeover by fascists with plans to commit another holocaust?

Stop what, exactly?

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.

Dr. King…Dude…just stop…

[emo_pinata]

Just stop while you are behind. You’re so worked up that your posts lack coherence reply to reply, and you are actively engaging in the same fallacies you are throwing around against other people. I get that you have an axe to grind against religion, and you feel that the peace of the leaders you are speaking for equates to a peace you are offering - but it is not.

In what way are you offering a solution to work as a political force? You are not, in fact your statements in this thread are only for the express purpose of making yourself feel better for universally condemning who you disagree with along with dismissing the very the real concerns people have with nothing to back it up.

[chenille]

How about stop acting as if, of the two people in that gif, it’s the one who isn’t advocating ethnic cleansing that we need to worry about?

No, I don’t think things are going to turn out like Germany in the 1930s, because I see Americans refusing to tolerate those ideas. I don’t think things are bad enough that everyone needs to be out fighting Nazis fist-to-fist. But I also don’t think things are turning out all right for everyone. Lots of people are getting hurt in all this. And I can’t believe people will moan so long about this one punchy guy being a betrayal of liberal society, when he’s the one in the frame who isn’t working to destroy it.

I mean sure, Dr. King’s advocacy of non-violence was admirable, but let’s not forget what made it admirable. It sure wasn’t him saying that racism simply wasn’t dangerous enough to warrant such a reaction.

@Dr. King

But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society.

You talk about imminent threats, well, does a famous racist getting hit really rank higher than the groups threatening synagogues and mosques all over the country? You don’t have to approve of the punch per se – though it probably did hurt Spencer’s promotion, from what I have read – and by all means we should find better ways to stop these people. We really should. But anyone more worried about stopping the puncher needs their concerns seriously recalibrated. If one wants something else, speak for better tactics, because the moralizing comes off as ridiculously myopic.

I can’t believe that in a single year, people have gone from arguing whether it would be right to go back and murder Hitler as an innocent baby to spare his victims, to arguing whether injuring an adult Hitler wannabe actively promoting ethnic cleansing will lead to the end of tolerant society. As if that doesn’t show how much we have to worry about it becoming normalized.

[aikimo]

@emo_pinata

You’re so worked up that your posts lack coherence reply to reply, and you are actively engaging in the same fallacies you are throwing around against other people.

Which fallacies, specifically?

@emo_pinata

I get that you have an axe to grind against religion

I have nothing against religion. I have plenty against religious fundamentalism, but I don’t believe in sucker-punching religious fundamentalists.

@emo_pinata

In what way are you offering a solution to work as a political force?

I don’t pretend to offer a solution. It’s funny, because what I’m saying is so very simple: Don’t use violence against people who aren’t being violent, even if their ideas scare you. Don’t give your enemies more strength than they actually have by making up stuff about what they’re capable of. How radical is this idea that you have to pretend I’m suggesting anything else?

@emo_pinata

You are not, in fact your statements in this thread are only for the express purpose of making yourself feel better for universally condemning who you disagree with along with dismissing the very the real concerns people have with nothing to back it up.

Real concerns aren’t necessarily based on real things. Lots of Americans are sincerely concerned that radical Islam is a serious threat to America. Many people here are sincerely concerned that the alt-right is a serious threat to America. I don’t dismiss those concerns. I accept that they exist and cause pain to the people who have them. But if one has concerns enough to advocate violence, then the burden of proof is on those with such concerns.

My position, despite your imaginative, ad hominem assertions, is simply that we shouldn’t let our fears cause us to violently attack people who have terrible ideas.

I have two very simple positions. 1 - Sucker-punching people with terrible ideas (and very little power) is counter-productive, and wrong. 2 - Despite their race hatred, there is no evidence that the alt-right is capable of or even interested in attempting to recreate the Holocaust.

If you can’t address those two simple positions without making stuff up about what I’m trying to do or what I believe, then it appears as if you have no real response to those two simple positions.

[aikimo]

@chenille

How about stop acting as if, of the two people in that gif, it’s the one who isn’t advocating ethnic cleansing that we need to worry about?

When the one who is advocating ethnic cleansing commits an act of violence against another person, I’ll be more concerned with him. That I’m not afraid of a person who has no power (political, or otherwise) to do the crazy things he wants to do, doesn’t strike me as a problem that I have.

@chenille

But I also don’t think things are turning out all right for everyone. Lots of people are getting hurt in all this. And I can’t believe people will moan so long about this one punchy guy being a betrayal of liberal society, when he’s the one in the frame who isn’t working to destroy it.

Of course, everything isn’t right. Of course people are getting hurt. I’ve never suggested otherwise, so why suggest that I have?

Of the two people in that frame, the one who is being needlessly violent will always be more of a concern to me than the one with stupid, crazy, unattainable ideas who isn’t being violent.

@chenille

You talk about imminent threats, well, does a famous racist getting hit really rank higher than the groups threatening synagogues and mosques all over the country?

Threats are bad, violence is worse. That said, the individuals (no evidence that it’s “groups,” yet) threatening synagogues and mosques are wrong and terrible and I hope we find a way to stop them and make them responsible. And I feel much, much, much worse for the members of the defaced synagogues and mosques than I do for Richard Spencer.

But I’ll paraphrase Noam Chomsky and say that you and I, we’re not responsible for the nuts who are threatening synagogues and mosques. You and I are responsible for what we do, and what we approve of. So, when I see my liberal brothers and sisters working themselves into a frenzy over baseless fears to the point where they will actually, and very illiberally, approve of using violence against people who are not being violent, then, yes, that’s what I’ll address.

[quote=“chenille, post:94, topic:96998”]If one wants something else, speak for better tactics, because the moralizing comes off as ridiculously myopic.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what I’m doing. In my first post, I made the argument that punching Nazis isn’t effective. And celebrating violence against people, encouraging that violence, is a tactic. I am speaking not just for better tactics, but for tactics that aren’t counterproductive, and even very stupid.

@chenille

to arguing whether injuring an adult Hitler wannabe actively promoting ethnic cleansing will lead to the end of tolerant society.

You shouldn’t misrepresent my argument. At no time have I suggested that punching Nazis is the a sign of the end of tolerant society. (Needlessly punching terrible people has been going on since forever.) But misrepresenting what I’m saying has been the primary response to my simple positions, repeatedly stated.

1 - Sucker-punching people with terrible ideas (and very little power) is counter-productive, and wrong.
2 - Despite their race hatred, there is no evidence that the alt-right is capable of or even interested in attempting to recreate the Holocaust.

It’s fascinating to me that these are, somehow, such controversial concepts that some people (are your ears burning, emo pinata?) feel the need to invent my reasons for making such simple, evidence-based assertions, without once providing any evidence that the assertions are incorrect.

I mean, I could be wrong. Maybe the alt-right is, as has been suggested in this thread, on the cusp of recreating the Holocaust. Maybe punching anyone who has expressed terrible opinions about millions of people is helpful and a really good thing to do. Just give me some evidence to show that I’m mistaken and I’ll seriously consider it.

I have no doubt that I’m wrong about lots of things I currently believe, because that’s how I’ve always been. In other words, I’m doing my best to make my arguments in good faith.

[anon26625345]

@aikimo

Just give me some evidence to show that I’m mistaken and I’ll seriously consider it.

OK:

Day the East End said 'No pasaran' to Blackshirts

[anon26625345]

Also this:

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/7408/How+we+stopped+the+Nazis+in+the+1970s

Tl;DR: They didn’t stop the NF and the BNP by talking out the differences in their opinions.

[OtherMichael]

@aikimo

2 - Despite their race hatred, there is no evidence that the alt-right is capable of or even interested in attempting to recreate the Holocaust.

Because anything short of the Holocaust, while terribly concerning, should be considered non-violent threats. Of course, we would feel bad for the victims, but let us not be illiberally intolerant and resort to frenzied punches!

---

You, sir, are an appeaser. You’re swimming in heating water and trying to get us to jump in with you.

We are not jumping in.

[aikimo]

@anon26625345

They didn’t stop the NF and the BNP by talking out the differences in their opinions.

It seems to me that dealing with a violent mob by using violence is a very different thing than sucker-punching a a silly little man and running away. I mean, do you honestly believe that the guy who sucker-punched Spencer was being as brave as the people who faced the white supremacist mobs in the 60’s and 70’s? Or that, unlike them, he made any kind of difference, whatsoever? (I mean besides the internet tough guys getting to pretend that they’d punch a Nazi if only they had the chance?)

@OtherMichael

Because anything short of the Holocaust, while terribly concerning, should be considered non-violent threats.

It’s telling that the most common response to my arguments has been to misrepresent them.

@OtherMichael

You, sir, are an appeaser.

Wow, it’s like I wandered onto RedState.com or Town Hall and suggested we not bomb Iran.

I’m merely expressing the rather elementary viewpoint that, while violence can be useful against violence, it’s counter-productive against ideas. I just want to live in a society where we fight bad ideas with good ideas instead of with violence.

@FerrisWheeler

You don’t seem to understand the proposed budget.

And this is evidence for your assertion how, now?

[anon61221983]

Nazis advocate for genocide. Spencer is a nazi. He advocates for genocide. Don’t let his nice little fascist haircut and pseudo-professorial garb fool you.