Current Events > Why you don't punch a Nazi.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=richard%20spencer

This is pretty much the only reason that matters, imo. Whether it's morally justifiable or not is secondary to the fact that this guy could have faded into complete obscurity just like the irrelevant fuck he should be, but now he's a minor internet celebrity.
---

You know who punched a Nazi?

Captain Freaking America.

If Cap is wrong I refuse to be right.
---

DrizztLink posted...

You know who punched a Nazi?

Captain Freaking America.

If Cap is wrong I refuse to be right.

Let it be said that a fully blown crimes-against-humanity genocidal maniac in a comic book is not quite equal to an edgy fucklord saying vile shit on the internet.

Godnorgosh posted...

this guy could have faded into complete obscurity just like the irrelevant f*** he should be, but now he's a minor internet celebrity.

If punching Nazis were the norm, this wouldn't have been the case.

Why stop there? There's a lot of people with awful ideologies. Let's organise some vigilante hitsquads for all of the stuff they think also.
---

its a case of equal and opposite reactions

not to mention the fact that the left has been on an authoritarian streak the past few years, it sort of seems like any dissenters to them are heroes.
---

Assault is bad.

fire810 posted...

its a case of equal and opposite reactions

not to mention the fact that the left has been on an authoritarian streak the past few years, it sort of seems like any dissenters to them are heroes.

What hurts me is that I've always considered myself one of "the left", but I can't remember at what point being a leftie meant taking up arms like some kind of guerrilla fighter in the 3rd world.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Why stop there? There's a lot of people with awful ideologies. Let's organise some vigilante hitsquads for all of the stuff they think also.

Not a defense of your original argument.

Essentially I don't want to live in any society where it's so normal to go around enacting vigilante justice that it doesn't even warrant a news article.
---

Didn't Richard Spencer argue for exterminating black people? Why are people defending this shitstain?
---

hyperpsycho posted...

Didn't Richard Spencer argue forexterminating black people?

He did, yes - at least he justified it in a theoretical sense. Completely, horrifically vile, I agree. But up until then virtually nobody took him seriously.

The obvious point here is that no matter how much vile shit he said he was always irrelevant, but now the whole getting-punched fiasco has done the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

I assume when you punch someone in this context you're telling them to stfu and go away, and this is exactly not what happened.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

If you don't want to punch a Nazi every day before breakfast and afternoon tea and get all your friends to do the same, then when it does happen, it's going to be a spectacle. That's the tradeoff.

Yeah again, really don't want to live in that kind of world where vigilante squads are a-ok. I'm 100% serious when I say I would rather live in a world with Nazis in it so long as they're just vile irrelevant little blights with no platform.
---

pinky0926 posted...

fire810 posted...

its a case of equal and opposite reactions

not to mention the fact that the left has been on an authoritarian streak the past few years, it sort of seems like any dissenters to them are heroes.

What hurts me is that I've always considered myself one of "the left", but I can't remember at what point being a leftie meant taking up arms like some kind of guerrilla fighter in the 3rd world.

I think its similar in a way that people join ISIS. The ones that join don't actually care about the religion, and most don't even fully understand what it is they're actually fighting for. Its about glory and 'being' something in this world. This kind of individualized crusader savior against all odds and rejected by 'the man'

look at Zarna Joshi. She just babbles and gets pompous and angry, but in her mind she's just posturing herself like she's some kind of social leader with her own chapter in the history books

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8Kas5gdos
---

pinky0926 posted...

https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=richard%20spencer

This is pretty much the only reason that matters, imo. Whether it's morally justifiable or not is secondary to the fact that this guy could have faded into complete obscurity just like the irrelevant fuck he should be, but now he's a minor internet celebrity.

Because Internet fame lasts forever and isn't a fleeting thing.

So him getting punched has right wingers up in a frenzy for a few days, big deal. Just sounds like your normal incessant whining
---

You're worse than the person spewing hate speech if you assault them purely for their views. Just to be clear on how big of a piece of shit you both are.
---

pinky0926 posted...

hyperpsycho posted...

Didn't Richard Spencer argue forexterminating black people?

He did, yes - at least he justified it in a theoretical sense. Completely, horrifically vile, I agree. But up until then virtually nobody took him seriously.

The obvious point here is that no matter how much vile shit he said he was always irrelevant, but now the whole getting-punched fiasco has done the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

I assume when you punch someone in this context you're telling them to stfu and go away, and this is exactly not what happened.

I should also point out that we're living in an empathetic society. Where the victim is valued no matter what. Remember those Apple commercials with the nerdy guy and the cool guy making fun of him? They found out that those commercials were actually having the opposite of their intended effect.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

pinky0926 posted...

https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=richard%20spencer

This is pretty much the only reason that matters, imo. Whether it's morally justifiable or not is secondary to the fact that this guy could have faded into complete obscurity just like the irrelevant fuck he should be, but now he's a minor internet celebrity.

Because Internet fame lasts forever and isn't a fleeting thing.

So him getting punched has right wingers up in a frenzy for a few days, big deal. Just sounds like your normal incessant whining

"For a few days"

You mean, he's now had more internet fame than ever before and continues to benefit from the incident? The guy wanted a platform, he was given one. He was punched back in January and I still see this topic being brought up by others on forums everywhere.

Him getting punched has galvanized his cause and made him several million % more relevant than ever before. That's just an observable fact, nothing to do with my opinion.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

I also like to have my cake and eat it, too.

Where the hell did you get that from? I'm saying I'd rather live in a world with a genuine system of justice and a few miserable Nazis, than a world with a non existant justice system even if hypothetically it exterminated all the Nazis (but we both know, it totally wouldn't).
---

I'm not sure what people who support this "punching Nazis" narrative think they'll gain. You do realize this gives people like Spencer relevance when otherwise nobody would've said much? Imagine if nobody punched him. Most people wouldn't recognize his name. You give him unwarranted exposure.

The only winner when somebody punches Spencer is Spencer. I'll just re-post my whole rant on this shit:

People are not generally donning Nazi regalia and marching through Washington declaring that Hitler has risen to take the West. White nationalism is more subtle than that, which is why it garners practitioners. No shit it's based in ignorance - but "incredible ignorance" doesn't warrant violence.

People don't join with the expectation of being Nazis. I've seen this indoctrination occur enough times in enough ideologies to have a grasp on how it functions.

-By perception or by experience, a person feels that society is wrong somehow.
-They find rhetoric from crazy people that provides an explanation for society being wrong in a roundabout way.
-That person attaches themselves to this as a form of confirmation bias.
-That person starts reading hypotheses about their movements and even begins participating in forums.
-The forums, whether they be tumblr, reddit, 4chan, etc - become echo chambers to seal opposing viewpoints out.
-Because these forums exist as echo chambers, handy rhetoric and insults are invented or applied to people who disagree. Strawman arguments are taken and used to "debunk" people who disagree with the echo chamber's ideology.
-This results in people religiously dedicated to an ideology because they eventually believe it to be true and do not subject themselves to opposing viewpoints and create an increasingly dismal image of the opposition by constructing strawmen against them.

This can apply to literally any ideology, but it's poisonous among really radical ones. I've seen this in high concentrations with:

-AnCaps.
-Feminists and Social Justice movements.
-White Nationalists.
-Young-Earth Creationists.
-Flat Earthers.
-Political movements in general, but Trump's ardent support base on T_D are a noteworthy recent example.

*I'm not suggesting these are all equivalent in morality or intelligence, just that they all have movements that really reflect echo chamber mentality.

It's usually more detailed/complicated than the bullet points list I made but it all starts with people who are psychologically vulnerable in some manner and aren't exposed enough to critical thinking. This is why you can have nice-seeming people who have bizarre or crazy viewpoints.

education and proper debate is the soap to the germs that are cancerous radical ideologies, not punching morons

The fact that some people interpret "don't punch a guy saying things" as "muuhhhh muhhhh ur defending spencer" shows how intellectually soft the left got in the last 8 years. Jeeeesus.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

education and proper debate is the soap to the germs that are cancerous radical ideologies, not punching morons

this x1000000000000000000
---

I agree TC. This dude was (and still is largely) irrelevant, but ignoring him is a far better strategy than trying to combat his ignorance.
---

Furthermore, the very narrative itself doesn't make sense. Punch them? Why? Is the goal to silence them? Punching them won't silence them. That's not how it works. You can't intimidate them into silence when they've given zero fucks about social stigmas on the issue for a century.

I don't even get the end goal here lmao
---

Know why we punch Nazis? Because they advocate for our genocide. Their existence is a form of violence, but they've evolved to the point they can achieve their goals through the law. Therefore, any retaliation on our behalf is merely self-defense, as well as punishment in the off-chance that fear of being hit will scare these ghouls back into hiding, or better yet make them drop their ideologies entirely. But that won't happen. So we keep punching them until they learn their lesson not to start a fight.
---

teepan95 posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

education and proper debate is the soap to the germs that are cancerous radical ideologies, not punching morons

this x1000000000000000000

lolno

You can't debate Nazis. They throw out radically false claims. Not because they necessarily believe them, but because then their opposition will try and debate each fine point. But Nazis never cared about facts. They already have their confirmation bias. You can't reach the unwilling.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Know why we punch Nazis? Because they advocate for our genocide. Their existence is a form of violence, but they've evolved to the point they can achieve their goals through the law. Therefore, any retaliation on our behalf is merely self-defense, as well as punishment in the off-chance that fear of being hit will scare these ghouls back into hiding, or better yet make them drop their ideologies entirely. But that won't happen. So we keep punching them until they learn their lesson not to start a fight.

Objectively though, as the google trend shows and as Zero_Destroyer succinctly put it, punching a nazi does nothing to accomplishing the goals of self defense. Do you think someone who supports a fascist ideology is scared of being punched? They relish that shit. Violence is a central tenet of fascism.

It's as if you've complained of someone attacking you with a knife, and your solution was to stand still and show him where your vital spots are.
---

gunplagirl posted...

teepan95 posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

education and proper debate is the soap to the germs that are cancerous radical ideologies, not punching morons

this x1000000000000000000

lolno

You can't debate Nazis. They throw out radically false claims. Not because they necessarily believe them, but because then their opposition will try and debate each fine point. But Nazis never cared about facts. They already have their confirmation bias. You can't reach the unwilling.

yeah. Education is good for stopping people from becoming Nazis in the first place. It has less effect on people who are already nazis.
---

pinky0926 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Know why we punch Nazis? Because they advocate for our genocide. Their existence is a form of violence, but they've evolved to the point they can achieve their goals through the law. Therefore, any retaliation on our behalf is merely self-defense, as well as punishment in the off-chance that fear of being hit will scare these ghouls back into hiding, or better yet make them drop their ideologies entirely. But that won't happen. So we keep punching them until they learn their lesson not to start a fight.

Objectively though, as the google trend shows and as Zero_Destroyer succinctly put it, punching a nazi does nothing to accomplishing the goals of self defense. Do you think someone who supports a fascist ideology is scared of being punched? They relish that shit. Violence is a central tenet of fascism.

It's as if you've complained of someone attacking you with a knife, and your solution was to stand still and show him where your vital spots are.

Please. Have you seen all the things Richard Spencer has said about being afraid of going in public? He might not actually be scared.

But every time something bad happens, we need someone to find and punch him.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Know why we punch Nazis? Because they advocate for our genocide. Their existence is a form of violence,

Well, no. No it isn't. Words are not violence. They can invoke strong reactions, like - say - disgust, hatred, and anger, but their advocacy is not violence. It's just really fucked up, and pretty much all of modern society recognizes that. Whodathunkit.

but they've evolved to the point they can achieve their goals through the law.

No, they haven't. No, they cannot. They can't debate on a national stage because their viewpoints are unpalatable and the United States has a long list of laws and checks and balances that prevent early 20th-century despot-like figures from taking over.

Therefore, any retaliation on our behalf is merely self-defense, as well as punishment in the off-chance that fear of being hit will scare these ghouls back into hiding, or better yet make them drop their ideologies entirely. But that won't happen. So we keep punching them until they learn their lesson not to start a fight.

They won't learn the lesson because getting punched makes their opponents look like they have no argument and will immediately resort to violence. White nationalists like Spencer understand his ideas will not function on a national stage, so he needs to provoke violence. You've basically taken his bait. You're poison to the left because of it. Good job.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Please. Have you seen all the things Richard Spencer has said about being afraid of going in public? He might not actually be scared.

But every time something bad happens, we need someone to find and punch him.

He's doing a bang up job of painting himself as a martyr and a victim, yes.
---

So we don't punch nazis to placate people dumb enough to sympathize with or be emboldened by them. makes sense.
---

It's right terrifying to me that just the continued tolerance of Nazis is a threat to a minority's life but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it at all because it'd just increase their support.
---

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolph Hitler

I guess this quote means nothing to you, eh? After all, you don't think words can be violent.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

What you want is a world in which Nazis are irrelevant but in which they aren't punished for existing. What you call a "genuine system of justice" does not punish people like Spencer simply for being alive and holding racist views. And if it's your belief that those people shouldn't be attacked, then that's fine. But then you have to accept the consequences of that approach, which is that people like Spencer will have a platform and they will remain relevant when a few people inevitably decide to punch them and we act like it's this crazy spectacle.

The fallacy here is assuming that the only way to attack and fight against people like Richard Spencer is to punch them when you see them. At what point in my argument did I say do absolutely nothing at all against fascism? (Hint: I never said that, because I do not remotely think that). My argument is that punching nazis is not an effective means of fighting it at this level.

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

Like what is this, Judge Dredd? Instant execution? No, I don't think so.
---

MixedMartialArt posted...

So we don't punch nazis to placate people dumb enough to sympathize with or be emboldened by them. makes sense.

Pretty much. Then again, capitalism also has people convinced that property crimes should be punishable with murder so.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

What you want is a world in which Nazis are irrelevant but in which they aren't punished for existing. What you call a "genuine system of justice" does not punish people like Spencer simply for being alive and holding racist views. And if it's your belief that those people shouldn't be attacked, then that's fine. But then you have to accept the consequences of that approach, which is that people like Spencer will have a platform and they will remain relevant when a few people inevitably decide to punch them and we act like it's this crazy spectacle.

The fallacy here is assuming that the only way to attack and fight against people like Richard Spencer is to punch them when you see them. At what point in my argument did I say do absolutely nothing at all against fascism? (Hint: I never said that, because I do not remotely think that).

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

Like what is this, Judge Dredd? Instant execution? No, I don't think so.

The law and justice rarely go hand in hand.
---

gunplagirl posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

What you want is a world in which Nazis are irrelevant but in which they aren't punished for existing. What you call a "genuine system of justice" does not punish people like Spencer simply for being alive and holding racist views. And if it's your belief that those people shouldn't be attacked, then that's fine. But then you have to accept the consequences of that approach, which is that people like Spencer will have a platform and they will remain relevant when a few people inevitably decide to punch them and we act like it's this crazy spectacle.

The fallacy here is assuming that the only way to attack and fight against people like Richard Spencer is to punch them when you see them. At what point in my argument did I say do absolutely nothing at all against fascism? (Hint: I never said that, because I do not remotely think that).

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

Like what is this, Judge Dredd? Instant execution? No, I don't think so.

The law and justice rarely go hand in hand.

Then improve the law, don't take it into your own hands becuase you find it inadequate. Again, I don't want to live in some dystopian hellhole world without any respect for law.
---

The Admiral posted...

You're worse than the person spewing hate speech if you assault them purely for their views. Just to be clear on how big of a piece of shit you both are.

this. people that try and justify violence because the person assualted is awful are low iq neanderthals and just as fascisy as the people they are trying to silence. you defeat ignorance and hate with arguments, not violence and terrorism
---

pinky0926 posted...

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

You advocate using the system to quell the problem when the problem used the system to gain its power and can/will do it again. It's not an either or system like you present. If we could stamp out Nazism with only the use of the system you would have a point. We can't. You don't. Tagging you as sympathizer.
---

andel posted...

The Admiral posted...

You're worse than the person spewing hate speech if you assault them purely for their views. Just to be clear on how big of a piece of shit you both are.

this. people that try and justify violence because the person assualted is awful are low iq neanderthals and just as fascisy as the people they are trying to silence. you defeat ignorance and hate with arguments, not violence and terrorism

Debating someone also gives them a platform and legitimizes them. It's why people said Bill Nye having a debate with a creationist was a bad idea as well.
---

MixedMartialArt posted...

pinky0926 posted...

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

You advocate using the system to quell the problem when the problem used the system to gain its power and can/will do it again. It's not an either or system like you present. If we could stamp out Nazism with only the use of the system you would have a point. We can't. You don't. Tagging you as sympathizer.

sorry, you dont get to attack your political opponent, even if they are vile and you have no political capital to end free speech so your opinion is irrelevant
---

gunplagirl posted...

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolph Hitler

I guess this quote means nothing to you, eh? After all, you don't think words can be violent.

I mean, if you're advocating we murder people who share specific abhorrent viewpoints, okay. Because that's the point you're making here. I'm not exactly worried about Hitler 2.0 considering the conditions for his rise were so specific to the era that society would have to be totally fucked in a myriad of ways for those conditions to arise again.

It's like, you say "hey they can destroy society" but you guys never specify how they'd do it when the current system of government in most western nations prevents it. Erdogan is the closest thing to the west having a dictator and that's radical Islam-based rather than neo-nazi fascists.

Pretty much. Then again, capitalism also has people convinced that property crimes should be punishable with murder so.

How so? I don't generally see people advocating shooting people over vandalism. Or are you talking about home invasions? If so, capitalism has nothing to do with people shooting home invaders.
---

SGT_Conti posted...

andel posted...

The Admiral posted...

You're worse than the person spewing hate speech if you assault them purely for their views. Just to be clear on how big of a piece of shit you both are.

this. people that try and justify violence because the person assualted is awful are low iq neanderthals and just as fascisy as the people they are trying to silence. you defeat ignorance and hate with arguments, not violence and terrorism

Debating someone also gives them a platform and legitimizes them. It's why people said Bill Nye having a debate with a creationist was a bad idea as well.

those people are dumb because that isnt how discourse works in this country. it isnt and will not be legal to physically attack your political opponents
---

andel posted...

MixedMartialArt posted...

pinky0926 posted...

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

You advocate using the system to quell the problem when the problem used the system to gain its power and can/will do it again. It's not an either or system like you present. If we could stamp out Nazism with only the use of the system you would have a point. We can't. You don't. Tagging you as sympathizer.

sorry, you dont get to attack your political opponent, even if they are vile and you have no political capital to end free speech so your opinion is irrelevant

Another sympathizer. You're a disgrace.
---

MixedMartialArt posted...

andel posted...

MixedMartialArt posted...

pinky0926 posted...

No, what I want is a world in which the punishment for the horrible stuff you think is not an instant assassination hit squad like what you're advocating. You literally think that we should allow people to instigate physical violence without anything approaching a court of law. We don't even advocate the police being allowed to do that, never mind every citizen on the streets.

You advocate using the system to quell the problem when the problem used the system to gain its power and can/will do it again. It's not an either or system like you present. If we could stamp out Nazism with only the use of the system you would have a point. We can't. You don't. Tagging you as sympathizer.

sorry, you dont get to attack your political opponent, even if they are vile and you have no political capital to end free speech so your opinion is irrelevant

Another sympathizer. You're a disgrace.

wrong, but obviously you support fascism
---

andel posted...

wrong, but obviously you support fascism

Says the Nazi sympathizer.
---