Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

In more directly politics in America news: dude puts on swastika armband, talks shit, gets hit and of course the discussion I've seen ends up coming back around to "words shouldn't result in violence" type of arguments where it's a blanket "civil discourse should be valued" position, with occasional asides to discuss things like whether the people cheering nazipunching would be ok "if it was their team getting punched" and I'm like... whoa.

Wait a second, last I checked, "our team" held the world title in nazipunching and was called "Americans" wasn't it?

Real easy to not get punched for being a nazi: don't be a fucking shitheel who spews nazi bullshit at minorities in public while wearing nazi armbands, right? Last I checked, it isn't easy for someone who happened to be born a few shades too dark to avoid being a potential target for folks who are literally claiming white people are superior to everyone else, and thus to be alarmed hearing it now when said hateful bullshit wound up involving terms like "purge" or "genocide" the last time it wasn't answered with a quick pop in the jaw before it built any support.

Should the dude who punched him have to deal with the cops? Technically yes, society kinda relies on that shit, but it isn't going to fall apart if people look the other way when shitlerpunks get their shit slapped for being hateful and vocal racists in public.

You're welcome to think it was wrong to punch the dude, but you don't have to get mad about him getting punched, you can even laugh about it: fucker picks this shit up online, feels tough in a nazi echo chamber forum, gets worked up enough to start actually going public with it, ends up dropped on the pavement, humiliated, but alive.

Nice. Dude dropped his punk ass like a sack of potatoes.

[Trekkin]

Should the dude who punched him have to deal with the cops? Technically yes, society kinda relies on that shit, but it isn't going to fall apart if people look the other way when shitlerpunks get their shit slapped for being hateful and vocal racists in public.

Do you want widespread jury nullification? Because that's how you get widespread jury nullification: somebody thinks that if only there were a way for the vigilantes and the violent folks with "the right idea" to get off scot-free, the world would be a better place ... and then the rule of law is subordinated to a glorified popularity contest.

As I said way upthread, I'm all for relaxing the enforcement of certain malum prohibitum laws in extremis just as a matter of efficient policing, but torts should never be one of them. The day you can punch a Nazi and walk free, all their far-right fever dreams of a lawless Wild West state look like they're coming true and every idiot with a swastika tattoo is going to rush out just trying to be the next martyr for the cause. They would not be Nazis in 2017 if they could not convince themselves that they're right because nobody likes them; actually turning the system against them will make their day ideologically.

So no, not just "technically yes". If the rule of law means anything, emphatically yes, axiomatically and automatically yes. Laugh at them by all means; cover over their graffiti with art and drown out whatever idiocy they're chanting Make disparaging comments about how Hitler had more balls than they do, if you care to work blue. But never forget that these are, like all bullies, cowards. They are crushingly afraid that maybe they're the crazy ones, that perhaps all the hate and evil they live on is totally unnecessary. To hurt them is to validate them, but compassion makes their worst nightmare come true.

Besides, if you hurt them, they cry for a while and then get mad. Reform them, and you can drink their tears of shame for decades.

[scriver]

Whenever I see ridiculous Internet Tough Guy posts like Max's or RedKings above on matters such as this it always reminds me of the lyrics of a David Bazan song called 'People'.

When I was young
I saw people helping people
All the time
Because you were
People helping people
In your prime
I thought that people loving people
Were the norm
Because you were people
Loving people
Before the long dark storm

But now you’re selfish and mean
Your eyes glued to a screen
And what titillates you
Is depraved and obscene
And U know that it’s dangerous to judge
But man you’ve gotta find the truth
And when you find that truth don’t budge
Until the truth you found begins to change
And it does, I know
I know

Cause when you love the truth enough
You start to tell it all the time
When it gets you into trouble
You discover you don’t mind
Cause the good is finally gonna trump

It's about his upbringing among religious Christian conservatives compared to what he sees in Christian conservatives today (or around 2010, when he wrote it). As I've been watching the US develop from abroad though it's becoming very clear well it describes the American "left" as well.

Then posts like Max's reinforce my judgement that the reason leftist sentiment has never succeeded, and more importantly will never succeed, in the US is that the American culture just lacks the fundamental sentiments needed to be the cornerstone of such a society. Even among those who claim to embrace it.

[EnigmaticHat]

Really?  Because what I see in that song is "you youngsters with your iPhones and your Bee-Dee-Ehs-Ehm, get off my lawn!"

More seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.  You seem to have strategically editted the song so the last word is trump, implying that what the lyrics describe is what created Trump.  But the lyrics are already kind of vague, and the context you've provided doesn't help.

Like

And when you find that truth don’t budge
Until the truth you found begins to change
And it does, I know
I know

You have to admit that's a little ambiguous.

[RedKing]

Cry me an enlightened Euro river. Fat lot of good it did y'all when these fuckers reared their heads last time around.

The American Left got a reputation in the 1980's for being hippy-dippy, kum ba ya pacifists, which emboldened a number of right assholes into thinking they can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it for the last 30-35 years.

Some people also have a tendency to forget that MLK couldn't achieve what he did without Malcolm X. Gandhi couldn't achieve what he did without Subhas Chandra Bose. If you're going to get people to accept nonviolent change, there has to be the specter of violent change as the less palatable (but very real) alternative. No carrot without a stick.

If you want Nazis to stop being Nazis, you have to offer them a choice: dialogue, or facepunching. Otherwise, it's just "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Noted heuristic: Whenever Europeans start talking about "values of the American culture", it's safe to tune out harder than when Pat Robertson has had enough exlax to restart his vocal cords.

I remember once hearing that the reason soccer isn't popular in America is that our "values" mean we're all brainwashed to hate sports with "a team effort".

[alway]

A reminder that we are currently using drones firing missiles into homes to kill slightly browner rightwing extremists. And hey, if a bunch of innocents, including kids, die or are maimed for life, that's considered acceptable causalities. Never forget we are responsible for that.

If you want to start on nonviolent approaches to combating extremism, you should probably start on the 'kill them and everyone nearby' end of things, rather than the 'they can't do whatever they want to non-whites without consequence' side. When the latter is seen as more problematic than the former, your claims of "pacifism in the face of extremism" shows as utter hypocrisy. Unless you also plan on exclaiming punching ISIS is immoral and wrong? If so, props to you for at least being self-consistent.

[scriver]

Really?  Because what I see in that song is "you youngsters with your iPhones and your Bee-Dee-Ehs-Ehm, get off my lawn!"

The "eyes glued to a screen" is referencing people slavishly following things like Fox News. It's literally a song about the religious right and how he feels it has changed. I have no idea why you would think it is complaining about "youngsters today" when he isn't at all addressing anything about today's young people.

More seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.  You seem to have strategically editted the song so the last word is trump, implying that what the lyrics describe is what created Trump.  But the lyrics are already kind of vague, and the context you've provided doesn't help.

That word is trump as in trump card. The next two lines is something about lumps and trickle down economics, I cut them because I couldn't quote them from memory and they aren't related to the rest of the message.

You connecting the song to having to do with Trump is just completely nonsensical, it was written some time before Obama had even finished his first presidential time. It makes absolutely no implications about what "created Trump" and neither do I by ending it there - on the contrary I am a bit insulted by the ridiculousness of the very idea that you think I would do that.

Like

And when you find that truth don’t budge
Until the truth you found begins to change
And it does, I know
I know

You have to admit that's a little ambiguous.

It's not ambiguous at all? It describes how the stronger you believe you are right, the more you dig your boots into the ground in the face of opposition, the more you will diverge from what you originally believed in. It the describes the radicalisation of the right and how it stems from their sense of moral superiority, of being the Good, of championing the Truth, of Being In The Right.

Cry me an enlightened Euro river. Fat lot of good it did y'all when these fuckers reared their heads last time around.

Nice "If I'd weren't for us you'd all be speaking German durr" argument. Wait, was that what you intended to say next? I'm sorry for forecoming you.

The American Left got a reputation in the 1980's for being hippy-dippy, kum ba ya pacifists, which emboldened a number of right assholes into thinking they can do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it for the last 30-35 years.

Some people also have a tendency to forget that MLK couldn't achieve what he did without Malcolm X. Gandhi couldn't achieve what he did without Subhas Chandra Bose. If you're going to get people to accept nonviolent change, there has to be the specter of violent change as the less palatable (but very real) alternative. No carrot without a stick.

And your evidence of this is what, some imagined parallel universe where Malcolm X never existed? Or just your opinion?

xIf you want Nazis to stop being Nazis, you have to offer them a choice: dialogue, or facepunching. Otherwise, it's just "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

When I see posts like yours and Max's I get the feeling it's a lot less about stopping Nazism for you and a lot more about needing to be John McClane or some other Good Guy Hero who can solve every problem with his fists.

[martinuzz]

Nazis wearing swastikas, and inciting the masses to hate, are one of the few exceptions I'd drop my pacifist stance for, and who I will gladly facepunch.
That's not violence against words, that is nescessary self defense. Last time we didn't facepunch them back into their gutters in time, over 90% of my direct ancestors were shot, gassed, or burned alive. I.e. my grandma had well over 100 family members (parents, grandparents, aunts, nieces etc). In 1945, it was just her, her sister and her mother left. All the others had put on trains to the East, or if they were lucky, they were shot in the back of the head while still in the Netherlands.

[Max™]

When I see posts like yours and Max's I get the feeling it's a lot less about stopping Nazism for you and a lot more about needing to be John McClane or some other Good Guy Hero who can solve every problem with his fists.

No it's literally about my stance on the matter being roughly summed up as "fuck nazis" and that I'd be totally fine with them knocking that shit off and just, yanno, not being nazis, but when it comes to protecting the rights of someone to be a nazi or condemning someone else for socking one in the jaw... I'm not going to argue that anyone has a right to flat out declare an arbitrarily decided and enormous chunk of the human species is inferior while wearing a sigil that suggests they favor a violent or grotesque end for said "inferior people" because, as I've said before, fuck nazis.

I've saved lives, I don't need to pretend to be a hero, and punching nazis certainly doesn't suffice for being one... but it doesn't prevent it either.

[Trekkin]

Unless you also plan on exclaiming punching ISIS is immoral and wrong? If so, props to you for at least being self-consistent.

The way we're doing it? Absolutely. Our drone strikes, particularly our signature strikes and our double-taps, are not only unconscionable but also counterproductive in the long term: it's a hell of a lot easier to radicalize people to fight the folks who routinely kill emergency responders en masse with flying death robots.

Incidentally, I should probably remind the people in favor of punching Nazis that the last time we did that, they didn't actually go away. There have been neo-Nazi groups worldwide ever since. We punched Nazis so well that they've been part of us for the past seventy years -- and as long as we keep punching and just punching, we have no reason to expect that to change.

It's enough to make you wonder if maybe that's the point. Maybe people don't actually want to run out of Nazis and other terrorists to punch, because then they'd have to stop punching.

[Cheeetar]

Truthfully, if we want to stop Nazism, we should sit down and have a nice talk with them about the pros and cons of killing minorities, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing else. Also, real reason there are so many Nazis? We won World War 2. If only we had lost it, we could have really stopped them.

[MorleyDev]

People aren't born Nazis, they learn it. Prevention is better than Treatment, and Treatment is better than Amputation.

I mean, if someone is actively trying to put people in gas chambers and overthrow governments and whatnot, then yes self-defence is obviously a necessary thing. And people have no obligation to enable a platform in which to preach hate. But that just as people can start being Nazis, they can stop, and outreach and attempting to get them to stop is a valuable part of the process.

Violence is wrong, but sometimes wrong things are necessary. But necessary is not the same as good. Too often do people convince themselves that because something is necessary it must be right, helps them sleep at night. But maybe they don't deserve to sleep at night, and maybe needing to be not only necessary but also right just causes more problems in the long run.

To break their own morals without breaking their own sense of morality to fit, not sure anyone is truly capable of it.

[Wolfhunter107]

Truthfully, if we want to stop Nazism, we should sit down and have a nice talk with them about the pros and cons of killing minorities, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing else. Also, real reason there are so many Nazis? We won World War 2. If only we had lost it, we could have really stopped them.

Nice strawman.

[smjjames]

I guess talking about nazis is talking politics.

As to Redking's point, who's the MLK or Ghandi to the Nazis as Malcom X and Chandra Bose were to their counterparts? The problem with dialogue is that there IS no less awful alternative to the Nazis. White supremacy is still white supremacy no matter how you slice and dice it and water it down. I really don't see what dialogue would achieve.

In other more politic things, Trump is going to give his first UN speech soonish.