A Chart to Help Those on the Fence About Punching Nazis

Oh, okay, so "they don't really mean it", or "they're just playing around".
Right?
"It's just jokes"?
Or maybe hi-jinks?
Is it hi-jinks?
Howabout shenanigans?
That work for ya?
Shenanigans?
Shenanigans from rapscallions?
Hey, howcome when it's shenanigans from black rapscallions, it becomes "it's what those people do"?

Yes, Nazis, like radical Jihadists are actively trying to overthrow the US and should be opposed by all able bodied people with the power to oppose them.

I'm not aware of ISIS having an official uniform, but I fully support punching anyone that decides to walk around waving an ISIS flag as well.

See it's the bold part that's unsubstantiated. I don't doubt they'd like to. But they have no power, and that's a rather important prerequisite. What little individual violence they can inflict is dealt with by the police. The punching can start when the arrests stop (and frankly the police should be being punched too at that point).

Sure that happened

I don't think anyone endorses that but as the former head of the SCotUS the anwser to objectionable speech is more free speech. If he does do something illegal then force could be justified but simple speech, even objectionable speech, should not result in violence. If you did then you'd rightly be brought up on charges. This isn't a difficult concept so you and Anc shouldn't be have such difficulties.

I will break thos down for you as you seem a bit slow. If someone tries that then that is a crime and of course force is then justified to stop a crime. Simply being a big mouth with objectionable speech is no where close to that standard and the cops would be right to lock your ass up.

Police stood down. I completely agree that the police should deal with the threat of violence. But pretty much by definition, when police action is required but lacking in order to prevent physical harm, self-defence is justified.

I'm still not 100% sold on that I should just automatically punch out a nazi but I definitely don't think a person with full on nazi beliefs should be considered someone with legitimate political views. Tens of millions of people died respectfully fighting that to make the West into the great thing it is today.

Hopefully these nazis are held under the same amount of surveillance and scrutiny that we currently hold Muslims to, am I right?

Also why don't you think that dudes that literally and openly wear swastika armbands don't endorse that? It's no secret what that represents.

I don't like them either but if everyone got to punch someone who's speech they found objectionable then there would be no free speech because someone will object to just about anything. In a very real sense objectionable speech is the only speech which needs protection because popular speech certaonly does not need protection.

Also I am pretty sure hate groups are under massive surveillance where as muslims barely are. Especially given that close to 90% of the world's terrorism comes from muslims. I would be fine with both of these evil groups being under much tighter scrutiny as both are obviously ticking time bombs which need to be monitored accordingly.

I am sure they do but big talk does not equal action. Monitor them, infiltrate their organizations, and if they give the slightest hint of planning anything illegal swoop in and arrest them just like you would with any criminal organization because they broke the law. Speech is nit illegal though especially not from stupid pussies who can't back up a single word of their big talk. Laugh at them, ostracise, tell everyone how stupid tgey are, and point out where their "logic" goes off the rails.

Having vigilantes running around attacking people in tge street, even objectionable people, is simply not the way to go because it is used to justify a violent response and then you have open gangland warfare which just favors the extremists.

That is exactly what happened in pre-Naxi Germany and nuch of their support came from regular people saying "Well, at least they are beating up the communist thugs who are terrorizing the streets." I would like to prevent such a thing from happening again but repeating the mistakes of the early 1930's (endorsing political violence which makes it ok for everyone to justify political violence) just results in gang warfare which allows the extremists to rise.

The correct response is strict law and order including arresting, trying, and imprisoning anyone who breaks the law especially violence for political means.

Oh, self-defense, sure. But only to actual violence. Sticks and stones.

1. The first step is to signal to other Nazis and form groups. When they're walking around openly, that's them taking the first steps.

2. So now you're opposed to even basic self defense? We're all about the 2nd Amendment most of the time, but when Nazis start committing violence, we're just supposed to call the cops?

Y'know, there're troll baits set out without the intention of being troll bait, yet you went ahead and went for that troll bait anyway.

Yes, we have several people including our forum's shadow owner currently supporting Antifa/black bloc as well as political violence. Their game is to legitimize violence as a political tool and then to use it against everyone who disagrees with them just like how the absurdly call so many people Nazis these days.

Are there Nazis? A few but not many and they are marginalized yet to hear Anc speak they are under every rock and every conservative is a secret Nazi who deserves a beat down. There is nothing good for democracy down the path of political motivated violence. That is how democracies die.

Maybe @K. can expand on this, but from what I remember of history class, Hitler's rise to power had fuck all to do with Communists and everything to do with the financial situation post-war and Hitler promising to make Germany great again, while taking the piss on Jews.

Sure, the financial problems destablized everything but the communists started a street mivement to beat up everyone they deemed a capitalist and blamed them for the financial problems. The Nazis declared themselves to be the protectors of the people who would go out onto the streets to battle the communists. In a very real sense thst was when the Nazis went from marginal fringe movement into a major pokitical force and it was all opportunism brought about because of politically motivated violence by the communists which broke down the taboo against political violence and inabled the Nazis to also use political violence. The argument became the communists already make use of violence so now we must use it against them.

After that you know have a bunch of thugs who have learn violence is how you deal with things and accomplish your political goals. If the communists hadn't first started using political violence it is much less likely the Nazis could have justifed their own violence. Fact.

Yes, Germany suffered a depression at the same time as we did and many people blamed the Jews who were bankers and financiers, Hitler latched on to that and stirred up fears amongst the people and that's how he slowly rose to power.

Do you get your history lessons from Alex Jones?

No. That is literally Nazi propaganda, from just after they took power, already rewriting what was then recent history. In reality, Nazis and Communists used to march together right up to the point when the Nazis got into power, and started stabbing their various allies and chapters in the back. 'Nazis protected neighbourhoods from Communists' is the answer they gave to the very factual observation, "Wait, didn't we see armed thugs from both groups on the streets?"

Yup. @Dinner's version of history is so insane that it contradicts even what comparatively little common ground @Federal Farmer and @Anna share.

I guess @Dinner doesn't realize Stalin's reason for entering the war?

Leave it to @Dinner to repeat Nazi propaganda.

Those are the first steps toward anything. Whoop de fuckin' do.

I knew you were stupid, but to not be ashamed of missing the post immediately above yours where I explicitly say self-defense (to actual violence) is fine enough to delete this part of your post is just sad. When I say the police can deal with it, I mean in terms of after-the-fact accountability, not at the time. I certainly don't expect that, nor want the omnipresent force that would require. Arrests, induction to the criminal justice system, etc, is what they do, or should be doing.

Link? Because there are lots of documentaries which say that is correct.

Yo @Captain X why would you disagree with the assertion that literal nazis - I mean we're talking about some cunt that was wearing a swastika armband and trying to start fights - don't deserve to be treated as people with valid political opinions? Expound on that bro

Personally I think the guy who knocked out the Nazi should be arrested. At the time the guy punched him the Nazi was not committing an illegal act. Supposedly he was "starting fights" but certainly not at the time he was struck. Was the puncher trying to make a "citizens arrest?" It doesn't appear so, and if the puncher was doing so he certainly went about it the wrong way - using an unwarranted & sudden escalation of force. My point is we are a nation of laws, not opinions. Personally as a parent I hate pedophiles. I would put lead through their melons one and all and not give two shits about it, but the law says otherwise. But unless I run across a known pedo attempting to do their pedo thing, I just can't physically assault them. If I do, I should expect to suffer the legal consequences - end of story!

Ah, but you're only a German. We can't expect you to know German history, so we're gonna hafta learn ya good.