Current Events > Why can't you understand people aren't defending Nazis they're opposing violence

(+) Yeah! (+)

Asherlee10 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Punching nazis is a priori self defense. Of any officer tries to hassle you for it just point to the dudes swastika armband or nazi haircut and they'll just let you on your way no questions asked.

This creates a slippery slope. Yes, we should always try to squash out Nazism. But where do we draw the line? Should we be punching ISIS members we might see in public? Most people would probably say yes. Should we be punching AFA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Labeled_a_hate_group) members we might see in public? They were labeled a hate group. That can sometimes include your average mom from the suburbs.

Who decides where to draw the line in the sand and what it is it based on?

I draw the line at "if you support an ideology that caused the genocide of 6 million people and initiated a world war then you deserve to get punched for it". ISIS is bad, but they're not 6 million+ body count bad.

That is a very subjective line in the sand.

"Killing THIS many people is bad, but killing only THAT many is not so bad, so they don't deserve to be assaulted in public."

You are describing the exact slippery slope I'm referencing.

It's also a matter of salience. People purporting to be ISIS members don't show themselves until they're in the middle of committing their terrorist acts. So to effectively punch out random ISIS members involves playing whack-a-mole with random Muslim-looking individuals, which means you're just going to be punching random brown people until you eventually feel satisfied that your job is done. There's no such issue with punching nazis since they tend to not be shy with their support of Nazism.

But if you do see a card carrying member of ISIS then feel free to punch that person too.
---

If you are so intent on defending Nazis right to assemble and exist in public spaces where they make it clear they want minorities dead or enslaved, then it's pretty fair to say you're defending them because you are allowing them to exist in public and threaten others. It isn't just a matter of some killing people. It's the fact that they advocate for it, explicitly, and have acted on it. If you are okay with that kind of a danger existing in public then you're putting others in danger who might not be able to fight back. Nazis don't need to control the government to be a risk to innocent lives.

There's plenty of quotes by people who fought in WWII saying that you need to destroy them all because so long as they live, they're threats to innocent people. It does not matter if it's a new group of them, they stemmed from the originals and have just as violent (if not moreso) ideas.

If you don't fight them, at least don't get in the way or criticize those of us who do.
---

Darmik posted...

Freaking what?

Putting on a T-shirt is not a physically aggressive act is Mal's point.

I'm not sure why you can't comprehend this.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Please see post #42. It's a good response to your statements.

It's a misguided invocation of slippery slope fallacy.

I'm not picking a side here, for the record. Punching random people who arent attacking others is probably a bad idea.
---

gunplagirl posted...

If you are so intent on defending Nazis right to assemble and exist in public spaces where they make it clear they want minorities dead or enslaved, then it's pretty fair to say you're defending them because you are allowing them to exist in public and threaten others. It isn't just a matter of some killing people. It's the fact that they advocate for it, explicitly, and have acted on it. If you are okay with that kind of a danger existing in public then you're putting others in danger who might not be able to fight back. Nazis don't need to control the government to be a risk to innocent lives.

This is such a stupid point as if you OPPOSE Nazi's assembling and their rhetoric growing than the last thing you want to do is attack them in public.

Turning them into the reasonable ones. Turning you into the violent ones. Making the sympathetic and you into the loser of a discussion because you never were willing to discuss.

Again look at Wade Watts and the KKK that you intentionally continue to ignore.

People like me in half of one minute have done more to stop Nazis from gathering in public and their views spreading then every single person who has ever punched one in the street has combined in their entire lives.

Because I've actually prevented some and they've made it grow.
---

SerperiorThanU posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Punching nazis is a priori self defense. Of any officer tries to hassle you for it just point to the dudes swastika armband or nazi haircut and they'll just let you on your way no questions asked.

This creates a slippery slope. Yes, we should always try to squash out Nazism. But where do we draw the line? Should we be punching ISIS members we might see in public? Most people would probably say yes. Should we be punching AFA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Labeled_a_hate_group) members we might see in public? They were labeled a hate group. That can sometimes include your average mom from the suburbs.

Who decides where to draw the line in the sand and what it is it based on?

I draw the line at "if you support an ideology that caused the genocide of 6 million people and initiated a world war then you deserve to get punched for it". ISIS is bad, but they're not 6 million+ body count bad.

That is a very subjective line in the sand. You are appealing to your emotion.

"Killing THIS many people is bad, but killing only THAT many is not so bad, so they don't deserve to be assaulted in public."

You are describing the exact slippery slope I'm referencing.

Who has the AFA killed. "Murdered someone" seems like a pretty clear line in the sand.

What about gang members or excons who have served their time?

How would you know?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darmik posted...

Freaking what?

Putting on a T-shirt is not a physically aggressive act is Mal's point.

I'm not sure why you can't comprehend this.

Wearing hate symbols or a shirt that condones racism or racist views is certainly more aggressive than wearing an AC/DC short.

I never said anything about a shirt being physically aggressive.

If someone wore a shirt that personally insulted you and wore it around you how would that make you feel?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

lilORANG posted...

The most recent Nazi rally ended with a Nazi running a woman over. Opposing violence is opposing nazis.

Remember when that Berniebro shot at Republicans playing a baseball game and almost killed one of them?

Opposing violence is opposing Bernie Sanders.

Remember when Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords while at a meet and greet at her local supermarket, hitting 19 people and killing 6?

Yeah. I thought not.
---

Darmik posted...

Wearing hate symbols or a shirt that condones racism or racist views is certainly more aggressive than wearing an AC/DC short.

Actually it isn't.

If someone wore a shirt that personally insulted you and wore it around you how would that make you feel?

I wouldn't feel justified in assaulting that person, since unlike a lot of CEmen I don't have the emotional fortitude of a toddler.
---

Darmik posted...

If someone wore a shirt that personally insulted you and wore it around you how would that make you feel?

Depends on who they were and what it said but it still would not be physical aggression.

And I can't think of an example of what it would be that would justify attacking them.

People wear T-shirts with things I disagree with by the hundreds of millions every day. That's life. Get over yourself.
---

"Blood and SOIL" is a Nazi chant -- not a free speech chant.

The Alt-Reich has no interest in protecting free speech.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

lilORANG posted...

The most recent Nazi rally ended with a Nazi running a woman over. Opposing violence is opposing nazis.

Remember when that Berniebro shot at Republicans playing a baseball game and almost killed one of them?

Opposing violence is opposing Bernie Sanders.

Remember when Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords while at a meet and greet at her local supermarket, hitting 19 people and killing 6?

Yea, I've never trusted Independants either. We should punch them along with Berniebros and Nazis.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

"Blood and SOIL" is a Nazi chant -- not a free speech chant.

The Alt-Reich has no interest in protecting free speech.

Then challenge them. Talk to them. Talk to your local community groups, talk to your congressman (do you even know who he/she is?) get involved.

But don't go out into the street and attack people. That's something your parents should have taught you when you were 3 years old.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

"Blood and SOIL" is a Nazi chant -- not a free speech chant.

The Alt-Reich has no interest in protecting free speech.

I'll hold myself to a higher standard than Nazis and other leftists who oppose free speech, thanks.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Then challenge them. Talk to them. Talk to your local community groups, talk to your congressman (do you even know who he/she is?) get involved.

But don't go out into the street and attack people. That's something your parents should have taught you when you were 3 years old.

99.9999% of liberals are peaceful.

99.9% of anti-fascist ppl are peaceful.

You're literally whining about 500 ppl // out of 100,000 or so anti-fascist protesters // out of 25 million liberal counterprotesters (in just the past 2 years) worldwide.
---

wait you're expecting liberals to use logic instead of emotion?
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

99.9999% of liberals do that.

No they very much don't.

Most people don't know who their congressmen is and millions of people, liberals especially do not get involved in politics or their local community at all.

These are the same people who think attacking people who disagree with you and refusing to talk to them is an answer.

These are the same people you've seen in these topic who refuse to look at Wade Watts and the KKK because it's harder to challenge yourself and be a good person than it is to enjoy hurting people.
---

At a certain point if we're supposed to be a nation of laws, how do we go about this legally?

Should we allow people to legally assault anyone wearing nazi imagery? If yes, we're opening up a dangerous situation, what if someone gets killed by an ill-placed punch (this is easily possible, especially if someone falls on their head)? Should the aggressor be let off the hook in that case too?

Like I think they're as much scum as the Westboro Baptist Church, but I honestly side with the Supreme Court that we can't legally assault them, if they haven't struck first.

However I'd be lying if I said I lost any sleep at any Neo-Nazi who are actually harmed.

yeah, why hasn't anyone just tried talking to the nazi's, I'm sure that'd work.
---

Link43130 posted...

yeah, why hasn't anyone just tried talking to the nazi's, I'm sure that'd work.

Historically yes it has done wonders.

Meanwhile I can't find anything about any extremeist group or person who has changed their views because people beat them up in the streets.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

lilORANG posted...

The most recent Nazi rally ended with a Nazi running a woman over. Opposing violence is opposing nazis.

Remember when that Berniebro shot at Republicans playing a baseball game and almost killed one of them?

Opposing violence is opposing Bernie Sanders.

Remember when Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords while at a meet and greet at her local supermarket, hitting 19 people and killing 6?

Yea, I've never trusted Independants either. We should punch them along with Berniebros and Nazis.

So you're in favor of Nazis punching? About time!!!

BTW, he may have been a "Independent", but as the Guardian said


The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack were described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement"
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

No they very much don't.

Yes, they very fucking do.

25 million liberal protesters over the past two years. Only 500 ppl have committed any assaults or vandalism.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Depends on who they were and what it said but it still would not be physical aggression.

I never said it was. But it can be an aggressive act. If some group of bullies who you saw every day came to school wearing shirts that personally insulted you and your family of course that's going to mean something more than an AC/DC shirt. That's the point.

This isn't just about disagreements. It's a hate symbol. It's a symbol that represents a genocide that occurred less than a century ago. Something that everyone knows about. It has no other meaning outside of white supremacy.

I don't condone hitting people no matter how confronting they are. I'm also someone who only advocates violence in self-defense. But I am absolutely baffled that Nazis of all things is where people are drawing the line. Where have all these debates been when there were viral videos of kids standing up to bullies and body slamming them?

We have a society that glorifies being macho and standing up to people who antagonize, intimidate and bully and then we wonder why Nazis are getting punched in the face?
---

Punching a nonviolent "nazi" is seen as heroic and righteous to the left.

Meanwhile, they demand all criticism of a certain barbaric ideology be silenced because racism/phobia.

Only one of the above two groups is killing people like it's going out of style.
---

Wouldn't most people not see a Nazi as a "good guy" even if he speaks calmly and rationally?

The mere fact that he holds those views makes people view him as dirt.
---

VectorChaos posted...

Meanwhile, they demand all criticism of a certain barbaric ideology be silenced because racism/phobia.

You mean Christianity?
---

Darmik posted...

I don't condone hitting people no matter how confronting they are. I'm also someone who only advocates violence in self-defense. But I am absolutely baffled that Nazis of all things is where people are drawing the line.

They're not. People are just opposing violence.

The issue is people, especially liberals, are justifying violence in the streets on people who think differently and then are going "Oh it's okay because he disagrees with me." and then paint anyone who challenges that as being a Nazi.

That's the entire point.
---

Nazism is an inherently violent ideology. Them's the breaks. In a just world, threats get threatened.

No, people aren't Nazis because they disagree with me. They're Nazis because they want innocent people to die just for existing.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

modern day Nazis? Not really. There are some who go out and do bad stuff, sure, but they aren't like one big organized group that plans actual violent attacks that they're going to carry out.

The Alt-Reich has committed 75 or so murders in the past 20 years, that doesn't even include the OKC bombing.

The Alt-Left, so far? ZERO deaths.
---

Darmik posted...

I don't condone hitting people no matter how confronting they are. I'm also someone who only advocates violence in self-defense. But I am absolutely baffled that Nazis of all things is where people are drawing the line.

No one's "drawing the line" at Nazi speech. The line for attacking someone is self defense is when someone presents an immediate threat to you, and having a swastika somewhere on your clothes is not an indication of immediate threat.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Historically yes it has done wonders.

well shit, then why did we stop?
---

LightningAce11 posted...

Wouldn't most people not see a Nazi as a "good guy" even if he speaks calmly and rationally?

It's almost a sure thing.

Which is why punching him or her is so stupid. It's clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Making them seem right and reasonable.

When if you use logic you'd win and make a difference almost without trying.

Truly Truly stupid.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

LightningAce11 posted...

Wouldn't most people not see a Nazi as a "good guy" even if he speaks calmly and rationally?

It's almost a sure thing.

Which is why punching him or her is so stupid. It's clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Making them seem right and reasonable.

When if you use logic you'd win and make a difference almost without trying.

Truly Truly stupid.

How does it make them seem right
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darmik posted...

I don't condone hitting people no matter how confronting they are. I'm also someone who only advocates violence in self-defense. But I am absolutely baffled that Nazis of all things is where people are drawing the line.

No one's "drawing the line" at Nazi speech. The line for attacking someone is self defense is when someone presents an immediate threat to you, and having a swastika somewhere on your clothes is not an indication of immediate threat.

Nazism is a threat to many people.

Maybe not to you. But to many others. They're a hate group.
---

You can probably count the amount of Nazis being punched in 2017 on your fingers. Can you count the amount of Jews Nazis killed in World War 2 on your fingers?

"Violence is never the answer" is a stupid retort when the basis of Nazi ideology comes from the notion of violence lol punching some dude sporting a swastika, a known symbol of hatred and violence, is fair game I'd say. If these Nazis were in power it'd be a lot worse than a punch in the face.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

and having a swastika somewhere on your clothes is not an indication of immediate threat.

yes it literally objectively is

why the fuck else would you walk around with that on your clothes

it doesn't even look cool
---

Link43130 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Historically yes it has done wonders.

well shit, then why did we stop?

As I said. I think due to insecurity.

It's hard to look at "Your people" whatever group that is you consider to be yours and see them be violent.

Then look at people who disagree with, and see them being calm and rational.

And then square the circle that the people you like are acting poorly and the people you dislike are not.

It's so much easier to just enjoy watching people suffer and put difficult thoughts to rest.

Like a hollywood movie right? The good guy punches the bad guy and everyone cheers and the day is saved!

No one thinks of the bad guy's mother crying at his funeral or the good guy doing his taxes. That's not fun.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

VectorChaos posted...

Meanwhile, they demand all criticism of a certain barbaric ideology be silenced because racism/phobia.

B-b-but Christians!

That was a fast deflection away from who you know I'm talking about.

Next, you're going to tell me the crusades are relevant in 2017, right?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

gunplagirl posted...

If you are so intent on defending Nazis right to assemble and exist in public spaces where they make it clear they want minorities dead or enslaved, then it's pretty fair to say you're defending them because you are allowing them to exist in public and threaten others. It isn't just a matter of some killing people. It's the fact that they advocate for it, explicitly, and have acted on it. If you are okay with that kind of a danger existing in public then you're putting others in danger who might not be able to fight back. Nazis don't need to control the government to be a risk to innocent lives.

This is such a stupid point as if you OPPOSE Nazi's assembling and their rhetoric growing than the last thing you want to do is attack them in public.

Turning them into the reasonable ones. Turning you into the violent ones. Making the sympathetic and you into the loser of a discussion because you never were willing to discuss.

Again look at Wade Watts and the KKK that you intentionally continue to ignore.

People like me in half of one minute have done more to stop Nazis from gathering in public and their views spreading then every single person who has ever punched one in the street has combined in their entire lives.

Because I've actually prevented some and they've made it grow.

lol

They're afraid to show up now because of being doxxed and hit. If they're in public they recruit and embolden more, not less. And you can go ahead and convince them to abandon it. Minorities such as myself don't have that luxury to risk. And sure you have one black guy who can convince others. But that's not a trait most have or can build. Go ahead and clutch your pearls though and claim nonviolence can stop them.

What's that quote, how the Nazis only could have been stopped if people had understood from the beginning what they were and stopped them with extreme force.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

As I said. I think due to insecurity.

well no wait i mean like, if nazi's have been a problem since at least world war 2 (and maybe ww1 since i didnt pay attention in that class lmao) why isnt it like a thing that people know how to do just be like "listen nazi i don't think we should kill people anymore" and then have them be all "oh yeah, fair play mate"
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

modern day Nazis? Not really. There are some who go out and do bad stuff, sure, but they aren't like one big organized group that plans actual violent attacks that they're going to carry out.

The Alt-Reich has committed 75 or so murders in the past 20 years, that doesn't even include the OKC bombing.

The Alt-Left, so far? ZERO deaths.

You're referring to a study by the ADL that counts literally every shooting committed by Republicans, Independents, and anti-government extremists with no political affiliation regardless if their politics were related to their crime.

By that standard we can say that since most people in prison are Democrats, left-wing crime is the biggest scourge today.
---

YookaLaylee posted...

How does it make them seem right

Because instead of engaging them or ignoring them like a civilized person. You're attacking them like a barbarian and making yourself look inferior to them.

If someone raises a point, regardless of what the point is, and you respond to said point by cowardly attacking them, then they have won that debate, automatically. Regardless of what their point is.

If someone says "I love to eat shit, it's so tasty" and you punch them. They've won that debate. It's done nothing but make shit-eaters look more reasonable and non-shit eaters look less reasonable.

That's the opposite of civilization.

Again where were your parents at? Most intelligent people were told this when they were learning to read.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Link43130 posted...

yeah, why hasn't anyone just tried talking to the nazi's, I'm sure that'd work.

Historically yes it has done wonders.

Meanwhile I can't find anything about any extremeist group or person who has changed their views because people beat them up in the streets.

It really hasn't
---

Mal_Fet posted...

By that standard we can say that since most people in prison are Democrats, left-wing crime is the biggest scourge today.

Were they politically motivated attacks?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You're referring to a study by the ADL that counts literally every shooting committed by Republicans, Independents, and anti-government extremists with no political affiliation regardless if their politics were related to their crime.

False. Their politics were directly related to their crime. Otherwise, the number would be in the hundreds of thousands.
---

gunplagirl posted...

lol

They're afraid to show up now because of being doxxed and hit.

That's not true in the slightest. All the attention they have gotten largely due to the assaults has risen hugely over the past 2/3 years.

As has the alt-right.

And the response of violence and attempts to censor them has done nothing but give them sympathy and supporters.

Why do you think Trump can look at a neo-nazi rally, literally say "There's violence on both sides" and still have a third of US highly approve of him?

Violence isn't the answer bro. Look at Wade Watts
---