Poll - on punching Nazis

[Derived Absurdity]

CHOOSE!

[Boomer]

I voted no, kind of crazy it's split down the middle (4 to 4 at this time), but we live in some crazy times.

[Gendo]

I wish there'd been a third option somewhere in between the 2. Like "depends" or "not sure". But I voted no.

[Boomer]

It would obviously be okay to punch a nazi if they were being physically violent themselves; I'm reading the topic as "is it okay to punch a nazi for the sole fact that they are a nazi?"

I would say no.

[aels]

I am also surprised it is split down the middle, but for the opposite reason - namely that every time I start thinking about a universe in which I care whether a Nazi got punched in the face, I start laughing.

[Boomer]

I'm not saying I don't experience a delightful amount of schadenfreude whenever I see gifs of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face, but ultimately I believe in that pesky thing called freedom of speech.

And since I can already hear retorts of "freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences" let me say that I agree, up to a point. If I was the boss of someone I found out was a nazi I would fire them, if I was their landlord I would evict them, etc. However, people voluntarily choosing not to interact with someone because of their ideas/beliefs is far different from my fist interacting with their face because of their ideas/beliefs.

And this next thought isn't aimed at anyone here specifically but more my general view of modern liberalism: a good portion of people on the left have moved far away from Evelyn Beatrice Hall's idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"; more and more it's feeling like "I disapprove of what you say, you should die."

As I said, crazy times.

[aels]

Goddammit man, I knew you were going to post something RIGHT as I was leaving to go to dance with weird old men. Will read and reply properly when I get back, big kisses, etc, byeeee

[Boomer]

Goddammit man, I knew you were going to post something RIGHT as I was leaving to go to dance with weird old men. Will read and reply properly when I get back, big kisses, etc, byeeee

No worries, bust a move!

[phe_de]

And since I can already hear retorts of "freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences" let me say that I agree, up to a point. If I was the boss of someone I found out was a nazi I would fire them, if I was their landlord I would evict them, etc.

I disagree, up to a point.
If I was an employer or landlord, firing or evicting people for their political opinions would only be an option if their opinion had a direct effect on them as employees or tenants.

Examples at workplace: A Christian fundamentalist who works in a healthcare business and refuses to sell contraceptives to a woman or pointing them towards abortion services; a bakery clerk who refuses to take the wedding cake order for a same-sex couple; a Muslim who refuses to treat his female co-workers with the same respect as he treats his male co-workers.
In all these cases, a good boss should first talk to the employee with the strong political opinions; and if they don't change their behavior, then the boss should show them the door.

As for housing: As long as tenants pay their rent and don't harass the other tenants or the neighbors, what they do behind closed doors is none of my business.

a good portion of people on the left have moved far away from Evelyn Beatrice Hall's idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"; more and more it's feeling like "I disapprove of what you say, you should die."

And taking away people's jobs and homes is not only saying they should die; it's doing something about it.

[Derived Absurdity]

I think this proves it: Boomer is secretly a Nazi

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

Punching (or harming in any other way) people because of their beliefs is telling them it justifiable to harm others because of their beliefs. It may also re-inforce their position that they are justified in their beliefs because the world has not treated them the way they feel they deserve to be treated.

I would say it lowers you to their level, but if you start the violence, it actually would lower you below their level.

[CashRules]

It's wrong to punch Nazis simply for being Nazis. Luckily I don't strive to be right about everything, just the things that matter and Nazis don't matter.

[Boomer]

I disagree, up to a point.
If I was an employer or landlord, firing or evicting people for their political opinions would only be an option if their opinion had a direct effect on them as employees or tenants.

If I were an employer I'd face an extreme risk for knowingly employing a Nazi if it were to be found out. Lost revenue, job-seekers would not want to apply, hostile work environment. Businesses that would put up with it would be few and far between.

If I owned a multi-unit building and it was found out a Nazi lived in it I'd lose tenants, lose revenue, possibly have to deal with some vandalism, etc. Perhaps technically speaking from a legal standpoint eviction would not be possible, I'd have to look into the law, but at the very least their lease would not be renewed.

And taking away people's jobs and homes is not only saying they should die; it's doing something about it.

Kind of a false equivalence. You don't have a fundamental right to be employed at my business or live in a place I own, you do have a fundamental right to freedom of speech and to not be assaulted.

[Boomer]

I think this proves it: Boomer is secretly a Nazi

[Anakin McFly]

In the past I would have said nay, but these are crazy times. While I still don't advocate going out to punch Nazis, if someone were to punch a Nazi, I wouldn't be that concerned.

[phe_de]

If I were an employer I'd face an extreme risk for knowingly employing a Nazi if it were to be found out. Lost revenue, job-seekers would not want to apply, hostile work environment. Businesses that would put up with it would be few and far between.

I was talking about unknowingly employing someone with questional opinions. In Germany, AFAIK, employers are not allowed to ask potential employees personal questions.
If later, the political opinions of the new employee become known, I'd have to see how to deal with it. I'm not a boss.

If I owned a multi-unit building and it was found out a Nazi lived in it I'd lose tenants, lose revenue, possibly have to deal with some vandalism, etc.

The same could happen if the new tenant turned out to be homosexual or a musician.
As long as the tenants don't harass their neighbors, their political opinions should not matter to me.

[Gendo]

And since I can already hear retorts of "freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences" let me say that I agree, up to a point. If I was the boss of someone I found out was a nazi I would fire them, if I was their landlord I would evict them, etc.

I disagree, up to a point.
If I was an employer or landlord, firing or evicting people for their political opinions would only be an option if their opinion had a direct effect on them as employees or tenants.

Examples at workplace: A Christian fundamentalist who works in a healthcare business and refuses to sell contraceptives to a woman or pointing them towards abortion services; a bakery clerk who refuses to take the wedding cake order for a same-sex couple; a Muslim who refuses to treat his female co-workers with the same respect as he treats his male co-workers.
In all these cases, a good boss should first talk to the employee with the strong political opinions; and if they don't change their behavior, then the boss should show them the door.

As for housing: As long as tenants pay their rent and don't harass the other tenants or the neighbors, what they do behind closed doors is none of my business.

a good portion of people on the left have moved far away from Evelyn Beatrice Hall's idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"; more and more it's feeling like "I disapprove of what you say, you should die."

And taking away people's jobs and homes is not only saying they should die; it's doing something about it.

This is important. So often I see my liberal friends sharing articles about a person who got fired after posting or saying racist things, with the comment of "good riddance". I for one am not ok with a world where it is the corporations that get to decide which things you're allowed to believe publicly. If a company is allowed to fire you for things that you say outside of work, then we end up with a market of ideas where the ideas that are allowed are only those chosen by big corporations. That works out great when a corporation decides that they don't like racism; but what about when a corporation decides that they don't like people supporting gay marriage, etc?

Last time I tried to point that out on Facebook, in a response to an article about a racist teacher getting fired, I was called a racist and blocked.

[Boomer]

I was talking about unknowingly employing someone with questional opinions. In Germany, AFAIK, employers are not allowed to ask potential employees personal questions.
If later, the political opinions of the new employee become known, I'd have to see how to deal with it. I'm not a boss.

Right, obviously the situation I'm talking about is hiring a person and then later finding out they're a Nazi. If I'm never made aware of it then the whole conversation is moot, isn't it?

The same could happen if the new tenant turned out to be homosexual or a musician.
As long as the tenants don't harass their neighbors, their political opinions should not matter to me.

Anyone who doesn't want to live in one of my units because a homosexual would be their neighbor probably aren't the kind of tenants I'd want anyway. As far as renting to a musician there could certainly be a quiet hours rule worked into the lease agreement or various other things, but ultimately if people are adamant about living in a quieter building they would be free to rent elsewhere; neither of these situations are really comparable to renting to a Nazi and all of the implications that go along with that.

[Boomer]

This is important. So often I see my liberal friends sharing articles about a person who got fired after posting or saying racist things, with the comment of "good riddance". I for one am not ok with a world where it is the corporations that get to decide which things you're allowed to believe publicly. If a company is allowed to fire you for things that you say outside of work, then we end up with a market of ideas where the ideas that are allowed are only those chosen by big corporations. That works out great when a corporation decides that they don't like racism; but what about when a corporation decides that they don't like people supporting gay marriage, etc?

Last time I tried to point that out on Facebook, in a response to an article about a racist teacher getting fired, I was called a racist and blocked.

So in order to avoid some dystopian future where corporations are racist and homophobic we need to compel them to keep racists and homophobes employed?

[Gendo]

This is important. So often I see my liberal friends sharing articles about a person who got fired after posting or saying racist things, with the comment of "good riddance". I for one am not ok with a world where it is the corporations that get to decide which things you're allowed to believe publicly. If a company is allowed to fire you for things that you say outside of work, then we end up with a market of ideas where the ideas that are allowed are only those chosen by big corporations. That works out great when a corporation decides that they don't like racism; but what about when a corporation decides that they don't like people supporting gay marriage, etc?

Last time I tried to point that out on Facebook, in a response to an article about a racist teacher getting fired, I was called a racist and blocked.

So in order to avoid some dystopian future where corporations are racist and homophobic we need to compel them to keep racists and homophobes employed?

Close... in order to avoid some dystopian future where corporations are in charge of which thoughts are allowed to be spoken out-loud, we need to compel them to keep racists and homophobes employed. Oh, and that dystopian future is pretty much the current situation in America.

[aels]

Right, my fluffy darlings, I am BACK. I mean, I was back last night but I was so flipping tired that it took me about three hours to get into bed because I couldn't negotiate my pyjamas.

I am going to start with My Very Important Treatise on why I don't care if Nazis get hit and then go back through the thread and reply to people more specifically. Therefore please note that the words below are not aimed at anyone particular on this thread and are drawn from things I have read in various places over the last week.

But Aels, Punching Nazis Is Hypocritical:

I have seen this argument a lot, usually in Daily Mail comments. LIBRULS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PACIFIST ONES BUT NOW THEY ARE SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLOURS AND LIBRULS ARE THE REAL TYRANTS SO MUCH FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. It's an argument that would carry some weight with me if I have ever thought or espoused the notion that violence is Always Wrong but I don't and I haven't because it isn't. Some times I have been fine with violence: any time anyone has acted to protect themselves or another person from tangible harm (like, say, the harm by a malevolent and poisonous ideology with blood on its hands), any time a suffragette hit a policeman, the Battle of Cable Street, that time my entire country murdered a bunch of Nazis for being Nazis.

But Aels, Punching Nazis Makes You As Bad As They Are/But Aels, We're Supposed To Be The Good Ones:

Richard Spencer, Nazi fuckhead who got punched in the face twice, is in favour of 'peaceful ethnic cleansing', by which anyone who is not a white American 'volunarily' leaves the US. Richard Spencer, white supremacist who learnt the hard way that white people are pretty good at being clocked in the fucking jaw, hangs out with people who make Nazi salutes. Richard Spencer, a man who was banned from my country for his work to promote white nationalism and create a 'European ethnostate', actively tries to mainstream white nationalism and National Socialism and recruit and radicalise young white people. I struggle with my self-esteem quite regularly but I feel perfectly comfortable saying that I am better than Richard Spencer. If I am amused by Richard Spencer getting hit, I am better than Richard Spencer. If I hit Richard Spencer, than I am better than Richard Spencer. The big difference between us is that only one of us advocates for genocide. The Nazi movement was responsible for the murder of millions of Jews, queer people, leftwingers, Roma, disabled people (like myself, who were deemed 'life unworthy of life'), and religious minorities and Richard Spencer thinks they had the right idea.

This is some 'Let's let creationists debate evolutionists for the sake of balance' shit. This is some 'But who is the *real* bigot, the intolerant person or the person who is intolerant of intolerance?' to which the answer is 'THE FIRST ONE, JESUS CHRIST, HOW ARE WE HAVING THIS FUCKING CONVERSATION'. Jesus fucking Christ. Everyone is buying into this kinder, gentler Nazi shtick and the normalisation of fascist fuckwittery to the extent that we are actually having a conversation about who is more moral than a Nazi. LITERALLY EVERYONE, ARE YOU FUCKING NEW HERE

But Aels, Punching Nazis Feeds Their Victim Complex:

Nazis already have a victim complex, boom, sorted, on to the next point.



For serious, Nazis already believe that the white race is under threat. They already believe that white Christian men are the most discriminated-against group in the world. They already believe that America/Britain/wherever has fallen to the Muslim scourge. They already believe that gays are destroying marriage and women and immigrants are stealing their job. To be a white supremacist is to be a whiny pissbaby who believes they are fighting the noble fight against the oppression of their people. The existence of Barack Obama fed their victim complex. Look at these fuckdicks celebrating Donald Trump (employer of Steve Bannon and chosen man of the KKK) as an underdog victory who will lead them to the promised land. Nothing done to or for Nazis will stop them in their lil old Nazi ways until they get what they want (it's the eradication of anyone who is not a right-leaning cishet white Christian!)

But Aels, Punching Nazis Encourages Retaliation:

Oh no, oh God, now we have to worry that a neo-Nazi will do something like victimise Jews or attack a mosque or shoot up a black church or murder an MP now that the famously peace-loving and law-abiding hate groups have been inflamed further than they already were by having to share their planet with black people. They might have to take time out from their flyering campaign to beat up a passing Pakistani kid, something they absolutely weren't going to do at any point ever.

But Aels, There Are Other Ways To Deal With Nazis:

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE

That's not a trap, fucking tell me so we can stop them. Because arguing with Nazis in a calm and dispassionate way as you try and reason them out of their prejudices isn't going to work on account of how a debate requires both parties to engage honestly and in good faith and Nazis don't engage honestly and in good faith, and are in fact, an underhanded bunch of dissembling shitfucks. I'm also not sure that ignoring the Nazis is going to do much good either on account of how they are IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS WE SPEAK. The greatest success of the neo-Nazis is that they have been able to identify themselves as a respectable 'alt-right' organisation. They are deliberately trying to make themselves mainstream and palatable. They are deliberately trying to radicalise people online with use of 'fun' memes. They are deliberately trying to wangle themselves into high office (HELLO STEVE BANNON YOU BLOATED CHIMP). Putting our fingers in our ears and humming really loudly because we are the nice liberal ones who don't want to make a fuss doesn't seem to be going brilliantly and I am genuinely all out of ideas. Like, the only time we fought the Nazis before, we had to hit them pretty fucking hard before they stopped. Plz advise because everything is scary.

But Aels, Punching Nazis Is Morally Wrong:

This is the closest you can get to convincing me on anything! This is my Achilles' heel! I could be persuaded that it's morally wrong to punch a Nazi. I've never hit anyone in my life. I can't imagine the circumstances under which I would. But every time I try and feel morally compromised about Nazis getting punched in the face, I feel nothing but the cheery beating of my coal black heart. I just... I just can't find myself in anyway able to feel bad about it. I cannot, even in the abstract sense, even in the mind of someone who once got called a 'self-righteous hypocrite' on IMDb (only half of that was true!) feel any pity or pain or even disapproval towards the temporary mild discomfort of a man not just advocating for but actively working towards the oppression and eradication of minorities. Not sorry. Don't care. I am not in favour of Richard Spencer being tortured. I am not in favour of Richard Spencer being murdered. But I cannot care about him getting biffed in the face, under the sacred principles of 'talk shit, get hit'. He has made a lot of people feel frightened for their safety over the course of his career. I'm not sorry if he feels a little nervous.

Convince me, Pitters. I'm halfway there, I just... I don't care! Convince me!

But Aels, You Can't Punch Someone Just Because You Disagree With Them:

No, you most certainly can't, we agree (and therefore I will not punch you). I have assiduously not punched any of the people I disagreed with on Anakin's thread. I have not punched anyone I have disagreed with in my life, in fact. The basic humanity of minority groups and their right to live 100% ungenocided is where I have a little wiggle-room in my policy of Not Hitting Someone Even If They're, Like, A Mega Cunt



But Aels, These Arguments Are Just Straw Men:

Every single one of these things is something I have seen someone say at some point this week. If it helps, you are definitely allowed to punch straw men. Those insolent hay fucks.



tl;dr: it's possibly a bad thing to punch Nazis but I could not give a flying fuck if someone does

[Derived Absurdity]

preach

[Monk]

And since I can already hear retorts of "freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences" let me say that I agree, up to a point. If I was the boss of someone I found out was a nazi I would fire them, if I was their landlord I would evict them, etc.

I disagree, up to a point.
If I was an employer or landlord, firing or evicting people for their political opinions would only be an option if their opinion had a direct effect on them as employees or tenants.

Examples at workplace: A Christian fundamentalist who works in a healthcare business and refuses to sell contraceptives to a woman or pointing them towards abortion services; a bakery clerk who refuses to take the wedding cake order for a same-sex couple; a Muslim who refuses to treat his female co-workers with the same respect as he treats his male co-workers.
In all these cases, a good boss should first talk to the employee with the strong political opinions; and if they don't change their behavior, then the boss should show them the door.

As for housing: As long as tenants pay their rent and don't harass the other tenants or the neighbors, what they do behind closed doors is none of my business.

a good portion of people on the left have moved far away from Evelyn Beatrice Hall's idea of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"; more and more it's feeling like "I disapprove of what you say, you should die."

And taking away people's jobs and homes is not only saying they should die; it's doing something about it.

This is important. So often I see my liberal friends sharing articles about a person who got fired after posting or saying racist things, with the comment of "good riddance". I for one am not ok with a world where it is the corporations that get to decide which things you're allowed to believe publicly. If a company is allowed to fire you for things that you say outside of work, then we end up with a market of ideas where the ideas that are allowed are only those chosen by big corporations. That works out great when a corporation decides that they don't like racism; but what about when a corporation decides that they don't like people supporting gay marriage, etc?

Last time I tried to point that out on Facebook, in a response to an article about a racist teacher getting fired, I was called a racist and blocked.

I generally agree that people who are e.g. filmed acting like assholes in public shouldn't be targeted by people in order to get them fired, even if they are shitty people. There are exceptions, like you said, but I would include that exception to school teachers. I don't think we should allow blatantly racist people to be teaching kids.


Also, Aels is right about everything.

[OpiateOfTheMasses]

I don't really have an issue with a company saying that it is a disciplinary matter if an employee does X or Y "out of office hours". If they come up with some "evil" policy (e.g. something homophobic) it will become public knowledge quickly enough and if the public find it unacceptable they will boycott their products/services.

Similarly if they come up with a "good" policy (e.g. we vet our employees to make sure they're not kiddy fiddlers before we let them interact with you) then that may well earn them more business.

[the_dork_lord]

Every time a Nazi goes out in public without resistance, they are emboldened. Smash their heads without thinking twice.

[Anakin McFly]

I love you, aels.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Yeah - I voted no, its not ok to punch Nazi's

But Aels, Punching Nazis Is Hypocritical:

I have seen this argument a lot, usually in Daily Mail comments. LIBRULS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PACIFIST ONES BUT NOW THEY ARE SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLOURS AND LIBRULS ARE THE REAL TYRANTS SO MUCH FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. It's an argument that would carry some weight with me if I have ever thought or espoused the notion that violence is Always Wrong but I don't and I haven't because it isn't. Some times I have been fine with violence: any time anyone has acted to protect themselves or another person from tangible harm (like, say, the harm by a malevolent and poisonous ideology with blood on its hands), any time a suffragette hit a policeman, the Battle of Cable Street, that time my entire country murdered a bunch of Nazis for being Nazis.

I certainly don't see any meaningful reason to equate being liberal with being a pacifist, so I guess on the face of it, that argument doesn't hold water with me either. I can think of many instances where some level of violence is required, self defence is an easy example. My issue is, that as a liberal I believe in freedom of speech even when that speech is malevolent .. he had a right to shout out what he believes and everyone has a right to shout him down.. The violence here just doesn't seem warranted, punching him did nothing to stop the threat of these ideas gaining traction - it was just an emotional reaction to an emotional hate filled argument that, if anything, has as much potential to muddy the ideals of the side that's correct and lend support to people that already supported his ideals.


But Aels, Punching Nazis Makes You As Bad As They Are/But Aels, We're Supposed To Be The Good Ones:

This is some 'Let's let creationists debate evolutionists for the sake of balance' shit. This is some 'But who is the *real* bigot, the intolerant person or the person who is intolerant of intolerance?' to which the answer is 'THE SECOND ONE, JESUS CHRIST, HOW ARE WE HAVING THIS FUCKING CONVERSATION'. Jesus fucking Christ. Everyone is buying into this kinder, gentler Nazi shtick and the normalisation of fascist fuckwittery to the extent that we are actually having a conversation about who is more moral than a Nazi. LITERALLY EVERYONE, ARE YOU FUCKING NEW HERE

I agree - there is still a world of difference in terms of the merits of both parties looking at what each respective player's actual arguments are.. there is no conceivable way you could say that reacting to an abhorrent belief makes them equally abhorrent on the surface of it all. But I still think that anyone who brings physical violence into a situation where there was none, is still in the wrong on that point and that point alone.

But Aels, There Are Other Ways To Deal With Nazis:

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE

I have no idea past combatting incorrect rhetoric with facts .. I just don't think punching someone in the face is more effective than rational debate and punching someone in the face can conceivably result in these alt-right arguments gaining more traction.

Like, the only time we fought the Nazis before, we had to hit them pretty fucking hard before they stopped. Plz advise because everything is scary.
True But I still think there is a material difference between reacting to a situation where there is mass genocide going on at a state level and reacting to someone who thinks that genocide is a good idea.

But Aels, Punching Nazis Is Morally Wrong:

This is the closest you can get to convincing me on anything! This is my Achilles' heel!

And this is really at the core of my argument. Not only that it is morally wrong at some theoretical level, but that this sense of morality is grounded in real world effectiveness.. Its the same "When they go low we go high" mentality that I wish there was more of then less .. so, it bothers me when people construct arguments that make exceptions for doing the right thing given that feeds into a mentality that there are legitimate excuses to act poorly that somehow work to a greater good. I cannot reconcile with a position that the world is made a better place by people acting on a violent impulse.
Essentially - if I wouldn't advise my kids to act in a certain way, then I am not about to argue that that way is correct for me or anyone else. No matter what some kid at school says to my kid, the second my kid raises a hand to harm that kid, my kid is in the wrong.. like always.
That's what I believe for him, and that's what I believe for me.

tl;dr: it's possibly a bad thing to punch Nazis but I could not give a flying fuck if someone does

Same exact conclusion.

Despite all of the above, I don't give a rats arse whether the man got punched or not but if I saw this being debated, I'd be happier to say that people consider the action to be wrong on principal but not really care than I am seeing people attempt to justify people assaulting other people. At least that way we clear the floor of any moral ambiguity by not acting morally expedient and carry on with the job of being examples of what we would like to see.

I see a lot of cross over between this sort of reaction and people who argue for capital punishment, its also why I feel uncomfortable when people make an argument against capital punishment on the basis that we can't be guaranteed of guilt. I mean, sure, there's that but even if I knew 100% that someone committed a terrible crime, I would still argue against capital punishment because I do not agree that anyone (or a state made up of anyones) has the right to kill someone in cold blood, its a stand alone principal that killing really bad people when there are other options is a really bad idea from the POV of lowering the standards of the legal system to one that glorifies retribution..

So - if I hear that some awful seriel killer has been executed, I'm not likely to shed a tear or feel emotional, but I would still argue that the law is wrong and that I shouldn't be making arguments in support of it because of how terrible the person at the pointy end of it is. What they do is who they are and what I do should be reflective of what I believe ..

[Anakin McFly]

it was just an emotional reaction to an emotional hate filled argument that, if anything, has as much potential to muddy the ideals of the side that's correct and lend support to people that already supported his ideals.

For most things I would agree, but the idea that punching Nazis makes non-Nazis look bad doesn't really work.

I just don't think punching someone in the face is more effective than rational debate

It's not, but I think the punch was about emotional catharsis and not to be effective. Otherwise I'm with you that punching people for saying bad things is wrong on principle, but I'm not at all upset that he got punched.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

For most things I would agree, but the idea that punching Nazis makes non-Nazis look bad doesn't really work.

Well, that wasn't my primary point but, I do actually think that attempting to justify it as being right, is a bad look because it goes against the ideals I think liberals should be fighting to protect. Freedom of speech is a pretty fundamental value and it really does mean that anyone has the right to voice an opinion whether or not I agree with that opinion or how strongly I disagree with that opinion. Obviously there are exemptions to how far you should legally be allowed to go in this regard, you cannot incite violence etc .. but if that's what was happening I'd still rather someone arrested him for inciting violence and prosecuted him thru the correct channels than simply cheering on someone committing a whole new actual crime in the process of reacting to someone being a shitfuck.

So - whether it makes someone "look bad" is a secondary consideration to creating an argument sanctioning assault under a particular set of circumstances that suit one agenda. The bad look in this case is simply not being able to hold your self up to your own ideals, and one of those ideals that I happen to actually believe in is that no-one has the right to punch someone else in the face unless its in self defence.

So, unless the argument here is that it should be legal .. that we actually want to live in a society that sanctions assault as a response to abhorrent ideals - which I do not, I don't see what value there is in presenting an argument that effectively states that this chap was in the right.

Maybe I'm not expressing this correctly, but to me, this isn't all that different from rabid Christians attempting to justify abortion centre bombings. Their sincerely held belief being that abortion clinics murder babies so, an appropriate response to this is to damage abortion clinics .. Well - no its not.. its never right for someone to blow up a building no matter how morally right you think your arguments are and Its not morally right to punch someone in the face because they are saying reprehensible things.

It's not, but I think the punch was about emotional catharsis and not to be effective. Otherwise I'm with you that punching people for saying bad things is wrong on principle, but I'm not at all upset that he got punched.

Yes - I know what was about and I'm not even saying I couldn't conceivably see myself loosing my shit and doing the same thing .. I'm not a particularly violent person but I have a temper and who knows.
But - if I did the same thing - I wouldn't be falling over myself claiming I did the right thing .. it would be giving into my irrational side and doing something because it felt right, not because it was right.

Like I said - I don't care. I get why people do these things, I've certainly got trigger issues that could see me doing the same - but I'd still not be justifying it as the right thing to do.

[Anakin McFly]

this isn't all that different from rabid Christians attempting to justify abortion centre bombings. Their sincerely held belief being that abortion clinics murder babies so, an appropriate response to this is to damage abortion clinics .. Well - no its not.

I actually consider that to be both justified and wrong. I think it's a good thing that people are passionate about what they strongly believe is right, and in those cases were agonised enough about what they consider the mass murder of innocent lives to act desperately to stop it, where taking a handful of lives then becomes a necessary evil to save thousands more. I do not condone their actions, but I can respect that mindset, vs someone who witnesses horrific evils going on next door and just shrugs and walks on by. Anti-abortion protesters don't have much legal recourse (though that's changing), and if I honestly believed someone was murdering children en masse, and the police didn't care, and the only way to stop them is to take action myself, I like to think I would be brave enough to do so. I also like to think that if it turns out I was wrong about that, someone else would stop me before I can do any damage.

So I don't think that that impulse itself is the enemy here, but rather the ways in which it's often misguidedly channelled for harm rather than good. The same impulse that makes people blow up abortion clinics is what drives other people to lead revolutions against social injustices and overthrow cruel dictators and fight back against bullies even when no one else will help you. It shouldn't be something we aim to eliminate.

So my ideal approach in these things is to convince people that they are wrong about something being evil (be it about abortion = killing babies, Muslims = terrorists, or LGBT people = perverts trying to rape your kids), and not that they should do nothing in the face of evil, because I do think we should. It doesn't have to be a violent response, but there are times when peaceful protest is ineffective to the point that you may as well not bother.

I don't think that non-violence is necessarily inherent to liberal ideology - most people consider it right in the case of self-defence, so if for instance a Nazi was talking about wanting to kill people like you, punching him could in that sense fall under self defence. This doesn't infringe on his freeom of speech - he's free to speak, and people are free to retaliate. Neither does it mean there should be no consequences for that retaliation, legally or otherwise.

I also think the motive behind the violence is important: Are you being violent as a last resort to protect others or yourself? Or are you being violent because you delight in it? I can respect the former but consider the latter to be abhorrent in all cases, even in the context (excuse?) of self-defence.

[aels]

I love you, aels.

I love you too!

[Boomer]

As I've said I'm not going to lose sleep over a Nazi getting punched, but I agree with Salmon.

Either you support the right to free speech even for people you despise, or you don't support free speech.

[Derived Absurdity]

seconded what anakin said

[CashRules]

Either you support the right to free speech even for people you despise, or you don't support free speech.

I fully support to right of free speech...and I support the right to punch Nazis in the face every time they exercise their right to free speech.

[Blade Azaezel]

I don't support free speech so I'm fine with Nazis getting pummeled

[Derived Absurdity]

I don't support free speech so I'm fine with Nazis getting pummeled

^ that

[Boomer]

Crazy times.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

this isn't all that different from rabid Christians attempting to justify abortion centre bombings. Their sincerely held belief being that abortion clinics murder babies so, an appropriate response to this is to damage abortion clinics .. Well - no its not.

I actually consider that to be both justified and wrong. I think it's a good thing that people are passionate about what they strongly believe is right, and in those cases were agonised enough about what they consider the mass murder of innocent lives to act desperately to stop it, where taking a handful of lives then becomes a necessary evil to save thousands more. I do not condone their actions, but I can respect that mindset, vs someone who witnesses horrific evils going on next door and just shrugs and walks on by. Anti-abortion protesters don't have much legal recourse (though that's changing), and if I honestly believed someone was murdering children en masse, and the police didn't care, and the only way to stop them is to take action myself, I like to think I would be brave enough to do so. I also like to think that if it turns out I was wrong about that, someone else would stop me before I can do any damage.

So I don't think that that impulse itself is the enemy here, but rather the ways in which it's often misguidedly channelled for harm rather than good. The same impulse that makes people blow up abortion clinics is what drives other people to lead revolutions against social injustices and overthrow cruel dictators and fight back against bullies even when no one else will help you. It shouldn't be something we aim to eliminate.

So my ideal approach in these things is to convince people that they are wrong about something being evil (be it about abortion = killing babies, Muslims = terrorists, or LGBT people = perverts trying to rape your kids), and not that they should do nothing in the face of evil, because I do think we should. It doesn't have to be a violent response, but there are times when peaceful protest is ineffective to the point that you may as well not bother.

I don't think that non-violence is necessarily inherent to liberal ideology - most people consider it right in the case of self-defence, so if for instance a Nazi was talking about wanting to kill people like you, punching him could in that sense fall under self defence. This doesn't infringe on his freeom of speech - he's free to speak, and people are free to retaliate. Neither does it mean there should be no consequences for that retaliation, legally or otherwise.

I also think the motive behind the violence is important: Are you being violent as a last resort to protect others or yourself? Or are you being violent because you delight in it? I can respect the former but consider the latter to be abhorrent in all cases, even in the context (excuse?) of self-defence.

I have absolutely no problem with passion and I completely understand why people do the things they do, that's not really being called into question.

This " I do not condone their actions, but I can respect that mindset, vs someone who witnesses horrific evils going on next door and just shrugs and walks on by." - ignoring the potential for a false binary, is what I am actually saying.

The question here is "Do I support this persons actions" .. not do I understand why this person did what they did. Of course I understand why he acted in this way, and I'd be happy to explain to someone who didn't get the context, the context .. but I'm still going to stop short of condoning it as the right thing to do cos Its just not.

There were other options that still fall under the category of "doing something" as opposed to just walking on by, that are potentially more effective and more importantly, more consistent with my belief that assault (as opposed to self defence) is the wrong way to go.

So - reading thru the balance of your response, you are effectively saying the same thing - what this man did was wrong but understandable .. and I 100% agree.
But to this
This doesn't infringe on his freeom of speech - he's free to speak, and people are free to retaliate. Neither does it mean there should be no consequences for that retaliation, legally or otherwise.

People are morally free to retaliate in kind - not just with any level of response that they feel is emotionally appropriate. Physically, you can do whatever you are physically capable of. You are not "free to retaliate physically" in any meaningful way past saying "you have that ability". I could equally argue that I am free to walk up to a random and shoot them in the head on the basis that I can do it.

The law would/should restrain you from doing this in this circumstance so you are demonstrably not currently free to do so. The question then is the law that prevents assault over a difference of opinion right or wrong?.

You simply cannot promote the worst possible behaviour in people and expect you are going to get a robust better society as a result of all that. Framing this as self defence, or rather the sort of self defence where violence is completely appropriate, is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Drawing on the previous example - and using some of the reasoning that's already been touted on this thread. If I felt strongly enuff that someone who was pro choice was actually advocating "killing babies" .. then I should also be in support of that person punching a pro-choice activist in the face for spruiking womens rights.. yet I feel if there was a "Punching womens rights activist Poll" thread, I don't think there'd be too many people voting "yes" ... on the basis that that person was acting in defence of babies..

And to the "I don't agree with freedom of speech stuff" .. seriously?
I mean, I certainly believe there should be some restrictions on freedom of speech. I don't think it should be legal to promote violence, we have slander and liable laws, I'm generally for hate speech laws.. but I'm wary of how much intrusion our legal system should have on our right to express opinions, good or bad. Underpinning all these laws should be the notion that freedom of speech should be protected wherever possible..
So, unless you're being pithy or sarcastic, are these people seriously against freedom of speech and what sort of society do you get when we start arguing that freedom of speech should be restricted?

[phe_de]

But Aels, There Are Other Ways To Deal With Nazis:

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE

How about ignoring them; not giving them the importance they wish they had?
Or how about insulting them, like calling them "lonely virgins"?

Seriously, when I compare this thread and the thread about the "lonely virgin" insult, I get the impression that some people here are ok with punching Nazis, but not with insulting them. What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

As for the points on the other thread, about how calling someone "lonely virgin" is insulting to all lonely virgins out there; or how some people call SJW-types not consistent if they object to racist or misogynistic insults but not to "lonely virgin": If you deplore verbal violence but are ok with punching someone, then it's you who are not being consistent. After all, what message does this tolerance of physical violence send to those kids who are not only victims of verbal violence but also physical violence? That it's ok if others punch them?

Maybe one reason for this rant is that from what I remember from my childhood, I perceived physical violence to be worse than verbal violence.

[the_dork_lord]

How about ignoring them; not giving them the importance they wish they had?

That would be awesome if they weren't booking universities and showing up on mass media.

Or how about insulting them, like calling them "lonely virgins"?

Someone almost mocked Hitler's moustache but chose not to. Shame that; he could've stopped the Holocaust.

[Anakin McFly]

@phe_de - I don't deplore verbal violence, and consider it preferable to physical violence in all forms. But it should be *targetted* verbal violence. Say there's a female Nazi being a Nazi. I am in full support of people verbally destroying her in delightfully insulting and specific ways. I am not at all in support of people telling her "you should go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich, bitch, that's all you women are good for", because that's going to harm not just her but any listening woman, and it would suggest the speaker is a bit of a misogynist, because I can't imagine a feminist using that insult.

Demographic-based insults are to verbal violence what blowing up a building just to kill one person is to physical violence. I'm not against it being verbal, but rather the unnecessary collateral damage it produces.

[BruceSmith78]

Yeah, the people against freedom of speech in this thread are also against democracy. They want a dictator who decides what's moral for everyone, but they also have a huge level of distrust for pretty much all government officials (rightly so, I think). In other words, people in power are corrupt and can't be trusted, so we should give them more power and remove a bunch of their checks and balances.

[Derived Absurdity]

Makes sense to me!

[Derived Absurdity]

2bserious though I'm not against freedom of speech. I'm just not a zealot about it. I mean, we talked about this a year or so ago during the Charlie Hebdo thing, and I thought I made my position pretty clear. It's not as though I've changed it since.

Free speech is a good principle, but like all principles, there should be exceptions in special circumstances. Honesty is a good principle, but there are circumstances in which it's morally wrong to be honest. Not killing people is a good principle, but sometimes in self-defense or defense of others, it's perfectly okay. Same thing with stealing. Almost everyone can think of real-world situations where their principles would break down; if they can't, they're zealots.

Well, personally, Nazis are my exception. I couldn't possibly give less of a fuck about a Nazi's right to free speech. Or the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals. If the government wants to stop them doing that, more power to it. If you think the WBC should have that right, you're just a zealot and a moron. It'd be like someone saying you should never resort to violence even if a person was going to beat up a helpless family member. Or that abortion was wrong even if the kid is never going to live anyway and it would kill the mother. He'd be a moron. Even if you're pro-life, you should accept that there are circumstances in which abortion is not only okay but correct.

Everyone has lines that can't be crossed. Nazis are my line. The principle behind saying Nazis deserve free speech and that abortion is always wrong even if would kill the mother are the same. You're upholding your precious principles even in situations where they don't make any sense.

And in an imperfect world you also have to trade off one principle for another. What if giving Nazis and other racists free speech rights makes it more likely that they'll gain a legitimate following and do some serious damage to the world? Well, freedom of speech might be a personal principle, but not allowing vile racists to gain a foothold in society is an infinitely greater one to me. If the way to achieve the second principle is to do away with the lesser first, well, so much for freedom of speech. If you think freedom of speech is more important than preventing racists from harming people, well, to be frank, you need to get some perspective.

And people always say, "Well, if you let the government take away Nazis' freedom of speech, then that'll be just a slippery slope to banning ANOTHER group's freedom of speech!" Oh, just give me a fucking break. No, it's not. Germany's banned Holocaust denial and it hasn't slipped into a fascist hellscape yet. We're not in a 1984-type tyranny just because it's illegal to threaten the President. Get over yourselves. It's like saying "well, killing someone in self-defense is just putting us on a slippery slope to where we'll be able to KILL ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!!!" No, that's fucking stupid. And by the way, why isn't allowing Nazis a platform a "slippery slope"? Cuz that'd be a more dangerous one. That argument cuts both ways, bitches.

[Blade Azaezel]

^ basically this.

The UK has laws against hate speech and i think if you're an advocate of genocide, or terror, or just generally being a fucktard like the Westboro lot, then you need to shut the fuck up.

You can argue slippery slope, how giving a government this much power over speech is bad and yadda yadda, but as much as i hate them right now, i have faith the population of this country would be able to stop such a thing if it ever happened. We aren't North Korea yet

[Derived Absurdity]

I get the impression that this "freedom of speech is SACRED" attitude is purely an American thing. Other countries are far more level-headed and practical about it. In Russia there was a poll that said only 14% of people thought freedom of speech was an important right. Most of them thought the rights to employment, housing, and healthcare were more important. Crazy, right. Communism melts your brain.

Hilariously, even in America we have hate speech laws. We've had them for decades. I'm still waiting for them to push us all on the road to a fascist dystopia.

[Blade Azaezel]

I get the impression that this "freedom of speech is SACRED" attitude is purely an American thing. Other countries are far more level-headed and practical about it. In Russia there was a poll that said only 14% of people thought freedom of speech was an important right. Most of them thought the rights to employment, housing, and healthcare were more important. Crazy, right. Communism melts your brain.

Hilariously, even in America we have hate speech laws. We've had them for decades. I'm still waiting for them to push us all on the road to a fascist dystopia.

I think it's largely American to consider it sacred. There are certainly things i don't think should get advocated and those people need shutting down. I mean, Mein Kampf was made illegal for decades for a reason. Silencing Nazis has a historical precedent

[Anakin McFly]

Over here we've got the other extreme where saying racist things publicly on the internet can land you in jail, but nowadays I'm not so sure it's a bad idea after all. The censorship here is a bit too much, but sites like Stormfront would have been instantly shut down before they had time to get a following.

[aels]

But Aels, There Are Other Ways To Deal With Nazis:

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE

How about ignoring them; not giving them the importance they wish they had?
Or how about insulting them, like calling them "lonely virgins"?

Seriously, when I compare this thread and the thread about the "lonely virgin" insult, I get the impression that some people here are ok with punching Nazis, but not with insulting them. What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

As for the points on the other thread, about how calling someone "lonely virgin" is insulting to all lonely virgins out there; or how some people call SJW-types not consistent if they object to racist or misogynistic insults but not to "lonely virgin": If you deplore verbal violence but are ok with punching someone, then it's you who are not being consistent. After all, what message does this tolerance of physical violence send to those kids who are not only victims of verbal violence but also physical violence? That it's ok if others punch them?

Maybe one reason for this rant is that from what I remember from my childhood, I perceived physical violence to be worse than verbal violence.

I objected to 'lonely virgin' on the grounds that shaming people for their sexual activity (where their sexual activity or lack of is lawful, obv) is gross - I've no compunction with shaming people for their morals or the the harm they do to others (like, say, a Nazi). Also making fun of virgins means making fun of good people as well as making fun of Nazis and that's not cool. The person who gets hurt by punching Nazis is Nazis and also possibly your knuckles depending on how hard you did it. As I say, I'm only inconsistent if I say that physical violence is always wrong, and I don't say that.

[aels]

And people always say, "Well, if you let the government take away Nazis' freedom of speech, then that'll be just a slippery slope to banning ANOTHER group's freedom of speech!" Oh, just give me a fucking break. No, it's not. Germany's banned Holocaust denial and it hasn't slipped into a fascist hellscape yet. We're not in a 1984-type tyranny just because it's illegal to threaten the President. Get over yourselves. It's like saying "well, killing someone in self-defense is just putting us on a slippery slope to where we'll be able to KILL ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!!!" No, that's fucking stupid. And by the way, why isn't allowing Nazis a platform a "slippery slope"? Cuz that'd be a more dangerous one. That argument cuts both ways, bitches.

You reminded me of one of the points towards the end here: http://thoughtsonthedead.com/on-the-pro ... is-an-faq/