Sure, but I never said anything even approaching that.
1 Like
nazis literally believe that some people do not have a right to exist. they literally advocate for violence against those they disagree with or view as subhuman. they literally don’t believe that you and i should enjoy the same rights that they take advantage of to safely and effectively disseminate their ideas. their overt presence and exercise of speech in public is wholly meant to intimidate, incite, and chill the speech of others. fuck nazis and fuck people who insist on their right to exist unmolested in a free society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
13 Likes
The post you quoted was my first in this thread, so I can’t be “backpedaling.”
Physically assaulting people because you dislike their speech/skin color/religion/wardrobe is stooping to their level, which stripped of all disguise, is merely the primitive doctrine that might is right.
fucking up nazis is self defense.
3 Likes
equating speech with skin color, wardrobe, or religion is an equivalence of the falsest order.
They’re getting punched for threatening people. They’re not being threatened with a punch. Only cowards make threats.
7 Likes
Exactly, it’s far more important to preserve rule of law, otherwise we do not have a society worth living in.
Vigilante violence is not good for anyone, no matter what the cause is. I don’t see people hunting down so called nazis from information shared in twitter posts, to be any better than the assholes involved in pizzagate.
1 Like
Yes. Weird. The different things that go through my mind are:
-
He is emboldened by all the current neo-Nazi activity and thinks he can get away with this, and/or
-
he’s trying to spark some kind of larger violence by portraying himself as a victim, “free speech” etc.
6 Likes
Probably not a good time to mention that I have very little faith in our legal and ‘justice’ systems; they, like all other US systems, are badly broken.
15 Likes
“I give the Devil the benefit of the law for my own safety.”
--Thomas More, per Robert Bolt’s play
In this complicated discussion, there is some irony that Robert Bolt’s Thomas More would have a thing to say to the real-life Thomas More, who had some familiarity with the torturing and incinerating of Protestant heretics.
7 Likes
I’m not sure where anyone has said the punchers of the notzees should face no legal repercussions.
Your statements seem to indicate that, and I think you’re making a HUGE rounding error with the assumption.
4 Likes
I’d bet on a mix of both. Being a racist, and trolling the left is a pretty popular pastime with the alt-right. Especially since it’s so easy to push some progressive buttons.
1 Like
Do you actually think he was punched because of a personal dislike of speech/skin color/religion/wardrobe? I can’t speak for others, but it seems to me he was punched for advocating a system of governance based on white supremacy and the systematic genocide of non-whites as well as his spreading hatred. As far as the armband and faux nazi jacket goes, those are public hate symbols which harm people. Wearing those clothes and spewing Nazi rhetoric is a direct assault on us all. I think he was punched in reaction to his continuing assault on people like me rather than some personal dislike.
13 Likes
…so called nazis…
wut?
2 Likes
Definitely, I think he was hoping for a YouTube video of him just standing there, being stoic and non-confrontational while people screamed and yelled and threw things, a video which out of context would show how “strong” he was with his silent free speech as other people went into hysterics.
Then, apparently, he threw bananas and racial insults around to provoke people and got a fist to the head, and gave up.
8 Likes
The courts may not save us.
9 Likes
Thank you for clarifying that you meant exactly what I thought you meant. You have already dismissed me as a trolley, so please go about your business. The following is not for you. It is for those future beings who come across this thread.
This is not about personal preference of wardrobe or speech. It’s fine if you don’t want to assault people. Most people don’t want to, and shouldn’t. It’s illegal, and for good reason. I don’t think that punching Nazis should be legal. But there are oceans of difference between the ideas of genocide and racism, and stopping people from popularizing and espousing those ideas with violence. Saying that they come from the same pool of “might is right” is intellectually dishonest at best.
12 Likes
Yes, I agree 100% that there are horrible, sickening problems with how justice is meted out by the system…
… and, yes – in light of the chance that anger-blinded vigilantes could harm innocent people – this is probably not a good time (point of discussion-wise).
4 Likes
So called as in anyone on the internet can claim things, or be mistaken. Just like that damn man hunt for the boston bomber that accused an innocent person.
Actually, punching people to stop them from popularizing and espousing their ideas of genocide and racism is the definition of “might is right.” If you must silence views with which you disagree, you raise the question: is your own position so weak that it cannot withstand a debate?
You don’t need to punch Nazis. All you need is a tuba.
5 Likes
Except it isn’t? Have you read Might is Right? I have; the message is pretty clear there as well, and it has nothing to do with shutting people up you don’t like. And you would be hard pressed to find me advocating that violence is “right” [edit: “positive”] or “good”. Violence sucks, but seems to sometimes be necessary. I personally believe that this is one of those situations where it is necessary.
Punching Nazis has 1 step - punch Nazis until they shut up. There is no second step, or end goal, as their in in the “might is right” paradigm. Nazis, on the other hand, have a nice set of steps; a game plan that ends with “only Christian whites survive”.
I feel like we’ll just have to disagree on this, but as I mentioned before, I do appreciate your clarifications and positive engagement otherwise.
9 Likes
