If you watch this, you might notice the part where he mentions both extremist camps hating on moderates as "enabling evil." Now where have we heard something like this recently? Oh yeah, salty Clinton supporters bitching at people who either voted third party or didn't vote at all.
Uh oh, the Irish leftist is endorsing political violence again. You'd think the last century of history for your country would have taught you why violence for political reasons is a bad idea.
Is it OK to punch a communist? They did have higher body counts than the nazi's and were pretty good at oppressing their people.
Funny, I didn't have you down as a pacifist. Or would you like to suggest some non-political reasons for violence?
Whatever happened to "Godwin" or the so called "Godwin Rule" regarding online debating? Personally, I think it should be revived for ALL kinds of debate and discussion both online and in real life. Whomever brings up Hitler, Nazis or something related to them and indicates in some way that they apply to a current modern day people, group, movement or set of ideas automatically lose the argument. Because to me, bringing them up amounts to World War Two wank and nostalgia. The longing to bring up what many see in world history as the ultimate enemy being defeated in the ultimate war. It is an appeal to unthinking jingolism as much as any of the nationalistic propaganda people are accused of using.
What? You're bullying me into obeying Godwin's Law? That's the sort of thing Hitler did. Nazis are best ignored (if at all possible). What they crave is attention. Don't give it to them. Above all, don't afford them the opportunity to claim martyrdom. That's why Germany's recent unbanning of Mein Kampf was long overdue. Stupid to have banned it in the first place.
By the way, haven't been following this thread, but I find that neither answer is valid. 1) Punching them is just what they want. So that's not the answer. 2) Personal violence is hardly ever the answer, but in some circs can be. As can state violence.
Of course not, which is why he posted a picture of war protesters protesting war with Germany knowing full well many Americans opposed the war prior to the Pear Harbor bombing.
Perhaps you haven't read much about the history and stated ambitions of Nazism, but "get punched" isn't really on their Top 5 list of goals.
You're talking about modern-day skinhead/Bannon-style nazis, aren't you? They ain't goin' nowhere no how. So yes, things like getting punched and going to jail are absolutely what they're into. In the extremely remote event that you're talking the Wehrmacht & Co, then no, punching is kinda useless. But you weren't talking about Nazi Germany, were you?
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Hitler has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law
Richard Spencer sure didn't enjoy getting punched in the face. And he absolutely wasn't into that punch becoming a meme. And he definitely doesn't like being constantly reminded about that punch on Twitter. But go ahead, tell yourself you're making a difference by not punching Nazis. Whatever makes you feel better about your cowardice.
so you just quoted a non canonical variation? congratulations, you've proved Quest's point that you got it wrong.