Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by 14thDoctor, Feb 15, 2017.
If you punch someone for their political views--no matter how repugnant--you are committing a crime.
Lame non-answer. Not every crime is morally or ethically wrong.
Violence is only the answer in self defense or in defense of a third party from aggression
Or against your wife if she gets uppity.
No. I'm totally against violence against women and children.
Yeah, these two pretty much cover it. If it's an actual Nazi, self-defence is more likely to be an issue, and then it's alright, of course. But self-defence happens against violence or the direct threat of violence, not against speech or stupidity.
No no, see, it's actually okay to punch both Nazis and those who say it's not okay to punch Nazis unless you're defending yourself or others (unless you're female, or nonwhite, then you shouldn't be punched in any case)
ETA: Just in case you think he's joking, https://twitter.com/monteiro
So, can we call this a slippery slope yet? Dude lives in my city, I'm concerned I should maybe be afraid for my safety.
Also, poll sucks, violence is definitely the answer to violence, but speech is almost never violence.
Nazis are only dangerous in large numbers. A lone Nazi is just pathetic. Punching him would be neither honorable nor an effective counter-argument to his ideology.
It's not only illegal, it's immoral if you believe that people shouldn't (1) take the law into their own hands and (2) use violence against someone simply because they hold a different view.
So, it is a crime and should be.
I have no problem with punching Nazis.
No one should resort to violence unless in self defense or in the defeof others. 14D would probably get his ass kicked to irl but I guess it is easy to be an internet warrior.
Not to mention it starts a downward spiral where the Nazis/whoever decide to beat up leftists/socials/communist s/whatever and before you know there are running street battles where people are getting beaten/killed for their political beliefs and it is real hard to put that genie back in the jar once it starts.
A better response to objectionable speech is more free speech and logical argumentation. The left in America is very poor at that logical part, I admit, but if they tried they could get better. Maybe they would actually even come up with better policies and start winning elections again. Stranger things have happened.
It is always okay to punch a nazi.
Not just "Nazis," but any fascist, right?
Frank Zappa on the fascist left
So, including leftie fascists - some of them need punchin too, right?
Thing is, the lefty authoritarians (you and Frank are misusing the word as fascism is by definition right wing) can usually be reasoned with. While you may not change their ideals, you can usually bring them to moderation.
Nazis and fascists tend towards either aggression or bafflegab. That is, you not only can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get to, and they'll often jump you for trying.
Personally, I don't think violence is ever morally justifiable (even in self-defense or defense of others), and I recognize I'm in the minority on that. But to play devil's advocate, a strong argument could be made that punching a Nazi is legally and morally justifiable.
First, the Nazi ideology unequivocally calls for violence against non-whites and non-Christians. Punching a Nazi is arguably self-defense (if one falls into that targeted demographic), or at least defense of others. Both self-defense and defense of others are legally justifiable uses of force in certain situations, but the threatened violence usually needs to be imminent. Arguably, the collective Nazi movement poses an imminent threat, whereas an individual Nazi would not necessarily (unless actually acting in that way).
Second, the Nazi ideology is not one that can be rationally argued with. It is inherently an emotional ideology, devoid of any reason, and based on violence against non-whites and non-Christians. If all a Nazi recognizes is hate speech and violence, it could be morally justifiable in certain situations to react to a Nazi similarly.
But again, violence is bad. Don't punch anyone, and do your best to resist the very compelling urge to punch Nazis.
Instead, melt them with the Ark of the Covenant.
^Yeah, both groups of germans thought they were right too.
That is, both the Nazis and couple of decades later the hundreds of students at Zappa's concert (as far back as the fuckin 60s) that rushed the stage shouting "ho ho . . ho chi mihn" because Zappa refused to help them attack a base, and had the gall to question their mental health.
Out of curiousity how do you arrive at that?
If they are actual Nazis from WW2, who are all likely dead, then yes.
It certainly is funny that the "Love Trumps Hate" crowd is going around arguing in favor of using violence in this way. Even better is when they try to defend it because the target is a Nazi when they literally go around and label everyone they don't like a Nazi. So basically they're saying they should be able to beat up anyone they don't like.
All of this has happened before.
Yeah, because white libertarians are totally the same as Nazis.
Unlike you, I think that more violence is never a good solution.
This is literally you:
What makes you think I advocate "more violence"?
From what you said in this very thread:
Does that not constitute more violence?
Separate names with a comma.