He was literally being interviewed as a part of the protests during Trumps inauguration. A few months earlier he was filmed saying they finally won over the lugenpresse and throwing Nazi salutes around.
If you are going to try a moral high ground at least work within the realm of reality in your tut-tutting.
How could you kiss the butcher?
One word: syndication.
Uh, I was actually aiming for “when we owe the milkman so much.” 
I was like 8 years old; my memory ain’t that great anymore.
But I got… strong…white teeth.
Of course the issue is way more complicated than my little side note about the use of the word “pacifist”, which was really off topic, and just something that irked me.
I must be misunderstanding some part of your argument. Wouldn’t a “negative transaction” be a transaction that makes no rational sense to engage in? Or, the other way around, if it’s something that’s worth engaging in to defend your friends, why are you calling it “negative”?
And are you talking about a “stand up to nazi thugs who might be threatening to beat up people” type of situation, or a “defend against increasing nazi influence on society by walking up to a soft-spoken nazi scumbag and punching him in the face” type of situation? Both have been mentioned in this thread, and while reading, I wasn’t always sure if people hadn’t lost track who was talking about which situation. I certainly have.
I’ve lost track of a few other distinctions while reading the debate above, as well. There are more than just two positions in this debate, only most people don’t acknowledge that and arbitrarily conflate some of them. And not always the same ones.
I haven’t yet stated an opinion of my own on the main issue here. I have liked a few posts above, as I thought they were well argued, but they weren’t even all arguing for the same thing.
But I’ve already got an impassioned defense of one position as a response to a small comment about the use of the word “pacifist”. And if seen other people accuse each other of quite ridiculous caricatures of each others’ ideas. While most of the individuals involved are still arguing rationally and in good faith, the debate as a whole doesn’t seem rational any more. So I think I should just stay out of this debate. Bye for now 
He played pretty fast and loose on his site about what he published as editor back in the day.
Most people here don’t have a problem with pacifists. Most of us do have a problem with appeasers, who might be characterised as particularly foolish pacificists. Appeasers, for a variety of reasons (e.g. complacency, privilege, naivete, desperation, etc.), convince themselves that demonstrated liars with explicitly violent agendas (e.g. ethnic cleansing enthusiasts) can be reasoned with as if they are pacifists. For example, here’s a famous appeaser talking about “peace for his time”:
Historically speaking: bullshit.
In complete agreement. What differs is our sense of the minimum required in this case. And of course, fighting earlier is easier. But history has shown that for every “we should have fought this earlier”, there are hundreds or thousands of incidents that fade with a whimper when their ten minutes of fame run out.
And when the violence is private, rather than government led, that makes my worry many times worse.
US and Soviet troops did not come into direct conflict. Nor did the violence that did occur cause the eventual collapse.
I suppose if I endured 20 years of being a heartless bastard who cared nothing for the millions living in subjugation under Soviet rule because I did not support direct confrontation and violence against the Soviet Union, I can endure being a heartless bastard who cares nothing for minorities because I don’t support violence against the US self-styled Nazis.
Good God. I know we’re all prone to evaluating the lives of countrymen over the lives of foreigners, but I’m not certain under what calculus you use to have Trump’s awfulness match the 6 million Jewish and 14 million other lives lost under Hitler.
This is exactly the argument that I heard for invasion of Iraq and are now hearing North Korea and Iran.
Just great. Here I’d been believing that the left understood the unpredictability of violence. Now it seems like we just needed someone to push our buttons and we’re up there using the same slogans I’ve heard for 40 years under the Republicans.
sigh
And to think, a week ago I was being told that us liberals allowing North Korea to threaten the rest of the world without violent reprisal was actively promoting North Korea. Whee!
Now personally, I don’t think they should be allowed to preach their vile text. But that’s government action, and if I want change there, then I do it by democratic means. Vigilantism doesn’t have a stellar history of enforcement.
I’m going to guess that most of us who don’t believe that private vigilantism is the right response to Nazis also don’t believe that private vigilantism is the right response to Islamists.
Do you have a source for that? My google-fu fails to find any reported increase in numbers over the 6 months and anecdotal reports of a mild decrease (or at least a lack of activity), but it’s easy to overlook something.
That’s not what I want to hear. My point was that punching Nazis can leak into violence against other groups. And now you are telling me it already does? Just bloody great. This is exactly why I don’t support punching Nazis.
Which is why I’m not particularly worried about the anitfa (at least wasn’t - now they’re going after Wahhabists?) My concern here has been our glorification of their vigilantism could help lead some wacko to the “guns and bombs” method of dealing privately with the mid-terms. After all, Trump is apparently more dangerous than Hitler.
The right then ups the ante even further, and obviously they have to take violent measures to protect democracy, just as the left apparently does, and then it all goes to hell from there.
Again, highly unlikely, but then I think it highly unlikely my house burns down, and I take appropriate countermeasures to reduce that.
Very true, but do you really think your support for private violence won’t contribute to the general support for private violence for “appalling things”? As I said above, the NRA doesn’t support school shootings, but their general support for legal gun ownership certainly plays a role.
I was referring to Trump’s warmaking potential; I thought that was clear from the context. The 1930’s Wehrmacht was a gnat compared to the 21st century US military.
There are 25 million lives under threat in the DPRK alone.
I’m not seeing a lot of people here saying you’re a bad person if you don’t punch Nazis- more that if you’re not in favor of it, stop scolding the people who are in favor, because they have good reasons, and the Nazis really aren’t worth hand-wringing over to begin with. Punching them is a personal choice that carries risk of arrest, and that’s their choice to make, along with accepting the potential consequences.
As for me, I’ve never punched a Nazi (or had the chance) but I could see myself doing it under the right circumstances. I’ll try and break down why:
As some people have already said, actual Nazism in Germany was more complicated- it preyed on people’s national pride after being defeated in WWI, many Germans weren’t aware of the full, horrific scope of what was going on, some may have felt compelled to go along with it for fear of being killed even if they disagreed with it, etc. None of that excuses what they did, but you can at least see a human side to some of them. The Nazis we’re talking about today, though, aren’t being compelled by force by a fascist regime, they have the benefit of historical context and decades of social progress, they know what they’re doing and relish the reprehensible nature of it, and they’ve deliberately selected the most horrific, evil and worst-regarded people in world history to emulate and glorify. These are not people that you can reason with, and they’re definitely not people who are going to change their minds because of non-violent protest. They have no conscience or empathy. Violence is inherent to their worldview, it’s the only language they understand or respect and the only way to alter their behavior. I realize that’s a scary thing to say, but I genuinely feel it’s true- do you really think anyone could have defeated the Nazis in WWII through any method besides violence? If it sounds like I’m dehumanizing them, I really don’t have to- they’ve voluntarily dehumanized themselves, as anyone must in order to become a willing Nazi.
If you believe that, then it just becomes a question of who is going to inflict the violence that will make them afraid to continue their assault on society- the government and local law enforcement, or someone else? And when you have a president that thinks they’re “very fine people”, a police force (and indeed, entire government system) that’s riddled with white supremacy, a country sliding rapidly towards fascism and Nazis in your neighborhood, recruiting people to a cause that wants to murder you and everyone you care about as soon as they get enough power to do so, violence against them doesn’t seem like vigilantism, it seems like self-defense.
Here, take the quiz:
I think there’s a bug in the last poll.
Oh, it’s that “here” is unspecified, right? I mean, I’m in the UK and it’s come close to happening here at least once.
Yeah, they did.
From the very start.
How is this
not a judgmental statement that you find my definitions to be acceptable to your morals?
