Print

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

[alway]

The main argument I've heard against the "punch a nazi" meme is that people willing to go there have an ever-extending set of people who count as "nazis", e.g. the other half of the country e.g. "every man woman and child who didn't vote for Hillary" wouldn't be an incorrect assessment of the people considered Nazi-enough to punch, by the core group most likely to go punching Nazis.

First they came for the nazis wearing nazi uniforms, then, they came for the nazis wearing nazi hats, then... they came for me despite only wearing a nazi armband!

Like, that's literally what we're talking about here. A guy wearing a nazi armband going around harassing minorities for hours at a time. Not some hypothetical wrong-on-the-internet idiot, actual factual nazi complete with nazi regalia celebrating a regime known primarily for its murder of millions.

[martinuzz]

So Trump's eldest son dumped the Secret Service protection. Says he and his family are fed (pun) up with the intrusion on their privacy.
Apparently he already went cruising on a yacht without security detail.

I wonder if his yacht has a docking bay for Russian mini subs haha

[scriver]

Why would anyone justify wanting the Nazis around?

Honestly, people, that discussion might've (apparently) ended in this thread, for now, but take a look at what happens when an ideology is SUCCESSFUL.

The thing is, neo-Nazism in the US in no where near sucessful. Comparing alt-right to ISIS or Nazi Germany may work in a comparison about their goals and ideologies, but as for what they actually are? One is fighting several wars in several different countries around the world right now and have already genocided several peoples, the other was a imperialistic super power invading countries left and right. American neo-Nazis doesn't even make a thousand when they do a country-wide call to action. The comparisons are completely out of relation to each.

For the life of me I can't figure out what watching animus means, like are you going with Jung or an rpg or something?

It's okay, I'm just saying you're making shit up again.

[Reelya]

I think you're conflating the incident with the wider "punch a nazi" meme. Suddenly becoming strict literalists in incidents like this is disingenious. It's like you don't want to think.

e.g. mobs attacking Charles Murray and other academics on campus causing injury is also justifiable under the "punch a nazi" concept, despite him not really being a nazi, but a controversial academic. Same with e.g. if a mob attacked Milo or Ann Coulter (though Ann skirts closer to fascism). Which conservative pundits would not be nazi-enough to punch, given the chance?

[RedKing]

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm not asking you to punch Nazis. I'm asking you (and a lot of other people) to stop treating the people who are willing to go there as part of the problem, rather than...y'know, the ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. Otherwise, you're no different than Trump with his "both sides are equally to blame" Charlottesville bullshit.

The main argument I've heard against the "punch a nazi" meme is that people willing to go there have an ever-extending set of people who count as "nazis", e.g. the other half of the country e.g. "every man woman and child who didn't vote for Hillary" wouldn't be an incorrect assessment of the people considered Nazi-enough to punch, by the core group most likely to go punching Nazis.

So while it's easy to justify "punch a nazi" on "purely literal terms", because actual nazis are vile and dangerous, "purely literal terms" are almost always a fallacious argument. What they actually mean by "punch a nazi" is "punch all Republicans", because bona fide actual Nazis are rare enough to not really need a lot of punching to keep them down even in the worst-case scenario.

Wow, that's one of the shittiest slippery slope arguments I've seen in a while.

1. I'm pretty sure Antifa's ranks aren't loaded with establishment Democrats. Like, you'd literally be more accurate if you had said "every man woman and child who didn't vote for Bernie Sanders". I could actually give that one a 5% chance of being a true position that someone hypothetically held. Somewhere.
2. When someone is wearing Nazi regalia? THATS A PRETTY GOOD INDICATOR.
3. Giving a Sieg Heil salute? Pretty good indicator. Sure, they could be doing it "ironically"...but then they're a hipster Nazi, which deserves a double beating.
4. Pickelhaube? Could be just a biker, or a Nazi with a shitty understanding of history.
5. Chanting slogans like "Blood and Soil" or "Arbeit Macht Frei" (or that old favorite, "Gas The Jews")? Yeah, that's probably a good indicator.

The one area where I think you have legitimate controversy around is whether the Confederate flag counts as a Nazi symbol. I would argue that no, it doesn't. But if they're happy to be carrying it while shoulder-to-shoulder with a guy carrying a swastika flag? Guess what, Skeeter, you're fair game now.

I mean, honestly, the reason this has become a thing is because it's NOT hard to play Spot the Nazi these days. If they were so few and secretive that you really had to parse someone's behavior and dress to determine it, they wouldn't need to be punched back under their rocks.

[smjjames]

Well, the person in the first link actually might need some psychological help because of the bullying that she encountered, but hers is a more complex situation than just acceptance and some help for the mental scars.

They're all complex situations. Comes with being human. My point was just that there are people amongst those groups who, given the chance, can change. Can be redeemed. And a recurring theme amongst the stories tends to be actually meeting and interacting with the people they taught themselves to hate.

Now, do they deserve that chance for redemption? I'd say nobody ever deserves it, and that's the whole point. If enough of those chances get created, then that removes the core foundation for the extremism and cripples the movement.

You're being self contradictory, you said that they can be redeemed and then the next paragraph you reply to your own rhetorical question that they don't deserve redemption and then you say that giving them a chance at redemption erodes the core of the extremism.

[Reelya]

I've heard the argument from sjws.

The point is that the punch a nazi meme's being floated around for quite a while, it just stews up an us-vs-them mentality. Basically the implied meaning has always been "all trump voters". Saying it's literally limited to hostility to actual swastika-armband wearers seems like a very poor justification for the general sentiment.

In the broader context, the meme isn't actually about punching neo-nazis, the mindset it creates is "punch first, politics never" for the entire conservative / liberal divide. It's a symptom of extreme polarization.

e.g. the comparable right-wing statement would be "kill all commies" and them trying to justify it that "commies" only refers to hardcore Stalinists with actual sickle-and-hammer armbands, when in actual fact we know damn well they mean "liberals" when they say "commies". Works both ways.

[MorleyDev]

You're being self contradictory, you said that they can be redeemed and then the next paragraph you reply to your own rhetorical question that they don't deserve redemption.

I'm saying nobody deserves redemption, but the chance should be offered anyway.

EDIT: Basically what RedKing said below (I'm not Christian but hey, it's just the source of the redemption that differs)

[RedKing]

Well, the person in the first link actually might need some psychological help because of the bullying that she encountered, but hers is a more complex situation than just acceptance and some help for the mental scars.

They're all complex situations. Comes with being human. My point was just that there are people amongst those groups who, given the chance, can change. Can be redeemed. And a recurring theme amongst the stories tends to be actually meeting and interacting with the people they taught themselves to hate.

Now, do they deserve that chance for redemption? I'd say nobody ever deserves it, and that's the whole point. If enough of those chances get created, then that removes the core foundation for the extremism and cripples the movement.

You're being self contradictory, you said that they can be redeemed and then the next paragraph you reply to your own rhetorical question that they don't deserve redemption.

That's not necessarily self-contradictory. A lot of Christians believe that we don't deserve redemption, but are given it nonetheless. (Note: Not trying to start a religious derail, no flaem plz)

[smjjames]

Oh, I misinterpreted/misunderstood/mislogicked it then.

[MorleyDev]

Oh, I misinterpreted/misunderstood/mislogicked it then.

I was being needlessly overly philosophy-speaky there(y). Been in that mood lately, ya know?

Aww, the BBC changed their frontpage picture for the UN thing to something less hilarious. I am disappoint.

[smjjames]

Anyways, with Trump wanting to pull out of the Iran nuke deal just because it was an Obama thing (there aren't any legit reasons for him to pull out of it that I know of), Iran's President says that it would come at a high cost, particularily to the US's credibility.

Also, he said in an interview yesterday (mentioned in the article) that he did not think Washington would be willing to take a risk of damaging credibility. Pfft, has he not been paying attention? Half of Congress would rather scrap the deal and Trump isn't Washington and evidently he doesn't care about credibility.

Back to domestic stuff, the GOP is attempting a 'hail mary' health care repeal plan.

[RedKing]

I've heard the argument from sjws.

The point is that the punch a nazi meme's being floated around for quite a while, it just stews up an us-vs-them mentality. Basically the implied meaning has always been "all trump voters". Saying it's literally limited to hostility to actual swastika-armband wearers seems like a very poor justification for the general sentiment.

I don't buy that at all. That's like saying that agreeing that we should bomb ISIS is bad, because what we REALLY mean is "bomb all Muslims" (regardless of whether that's what we actually mean). I think "Punch a Nazi" is pretty clear. Punch. A. Nazi.

It's not "Punch a Republican", it's not "Punch a Redcap", it's not "Punch Anyone Who Didn't Vote For Hillary Clinton". Those would receive far less support.
Just as Antifascist !=AntiRepub or AntiTrump. Now certainly, Antifa's are 99.9% likely to be against those groups because ideology, but that's not their core mission.

I've always described myself as an Anti-Republican, but I don't go around assaulting them or firebombing their offices. As much as I might want to at times.
Those are groups which have a legitimate place at the table in civil society and the political arena. Nazis do not.

[Reelya]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

I don't think that's a valid counter-argument, because activists have actually target people with "Trump hats" for direct action, too. Girl got pepper spray in the face by a brave masked Antifa hero over at Berkeley because she had a "make bitcoin great again" cap, which he mistook for a Trump hat.

The nazi word is thrown around far more widely than you suggest it is. Hell one of the best-known internet laws the Godwin is specifically about spurious comparisons to just about everything to Nazis.

Also, your "attack on ISIS" argument doesn't work, because targeted attacks from government spill over into bigotry against the wider groups all the time. e.g. if ISIS does something and the government starts a big deal over it, third-party people go and attack tons of non-involved muslims. Spillover is a real thing. By your logic if Trump targeted "mexican illegal immigrant criminals" in a speech and then Trump supporters beat up innocent Mexican Americans, that's not Trump's fault, because after all he literally only said "mexican illegal immigrant criminals". If you tell everyone to "punch all nazis" then they're going to use their own person opinion of who counts as nazi-enough to get a beating, and in general it closes further avenues of left/right dialogue. The wider message is that talking is useless, it's the kind of attitude that encourages tribalism and people to sink further into their personal echo-chamber / thought bubbles.

[Trekkin]

I don't buy that at all. That's like saying that agreeing that we should bomb ISIS is bad, because what we REALLY mean is "bomb all Muslims" (regardless of whether that's what we actually mean). I think "Punch a Nazi" is pretty clear. Punch. A. Nazi.

At which point everyone starts trying to prove that whoever they don't like are Nazis because they are Republicans or whatever. When you give people a way to justify their hatred, they will hate who they already hate first and sort out a justification after the fact. We've tried this before, and it ended up with Joseph McCarthy waving around a list of 57 known Communists working in the State Department and everything that followed.

Or perhaps you want a committee to decide who is a real Nazi? We've done that before too, guillotines and all.