Current Events > Do Richard Spencer and other Neo-Nazis deserve to be punched?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Balrog0 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Real life actions are superior to mental thoughts.

I agree with that.

Do you think there's no difference between:

Person A, who has racist thoughts

and

Person B, who has racist thoughts, and then acts on them to create an entire ecosystem of organizations and institutions to support advocacy for a US ethnostate

?

If you say so.

You still don't get to attack people for thinking differently to you
---

They deserve worse than a punch.
---

honestly it's better to ridicule and ignore them even if punching them is satisfying. it's like a don't-feed-the-trolls situation where if no one pays attention to them they'll go away
---

Deserve? Sure. They deserve worse than punching even.

But is it helpful? No. In fact I think it's very much a huge distraction and a massive detriment to fighting against nazism.
---

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.
---

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Actually he's considerably more visible and arguably more empowered than ever before, so I think it made things a lot worse.
---

pinky0926 posted...

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Actually he's considerably more visible and arguably more empowered than ever before, so I think it made things a lot worse.

Richard Spencer never mattered.

The fact is that there are alt righters like Steve Miller in the white house. And Fox News has Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, who can make blatant white nationalist comments and still have millions of viewers is the real problem.

Can't Cuck the Tuck.
---

Alphamon posted...

pinky0926 posted...

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Actually he's considerably more visible and arguably more empowered than ever before, so I think it made things a lot worse.

Richard Spencer never mattered.

The fact is that there are alt righters like Steve Miller in the white house. And Fox News has Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, who can make blatant white nationalist comments and still have millions of viewers is the real problem.

Yep of course that's a massive issue, but not really the one we're discussing here
---

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Richard Spencer has a harder time existing in public now because people know who he is and think its great when he gets his ass kicked. If theyre going to do it anyway, kick their fucking asses for it.
---

You're unamerican if you wouldn't punch a nazi
---

pinky0926 posted...

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Actually he's considerably more visible and arguably more empowered than ever before, so I think it made things a lot worse.

he was literally telling nazis not to go to the nazi rally because of fear of being punched
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you say so.

What is this even referring to? I asked you a question.

UnfairRepresent posted...

You still don't get to attack people for thinking differently to you

I don't think you can do that, either.

What I'm worried about is the unspoken but strongly implied sentiment that all nazis are doing is thinking differently when they organize and advocate for policies and politicians who have enormous influence over peoples everyday lives.

It seems intellectually dishonest, but not in a malicious way, just in an incredibly lazy way that probably comes from a place of privilege (e.g., never having to worry about these policies because they don't impact you personally)
---

Balrog0 posted...

It seems intellectually dishonest, but not in a malicious way

I disagree.
---

No. I do not think it's right to punch anyone unprovoked.
---

Alphamon posted...

The fact is that there are alt righters like Steve Miller in the white house. And Fox News has Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, who can make blatant white nationalist comments and still have millions of viewers is the real problem.

Take care not to get garden variety Paleocons mixed up with White Nationalists.

Their talking points are eerily similar in some ways, and they're fellow travelers with respect to preservation of Western heritage, but Paleocons are usually focused on the culture and values individuals are raised with rather than the genetics they're born with.

Caveat: Both are more sensitive than usual about perceived discrimination towards white people, and there's some overlap between the two groups on the role of government, so the major shibboleth distinguishing them is the question of whether racial segregation should make a comeback.
---

Balrog0 posted...

What is this even referring to? I asked you a question.

your implication was obvious

as you led too below

Balrog0 posted...

What I'm worried about is the unspoken but strongly implied sentiment that all nazis are doing is thinking differently when they organize and advocate for policies and politicians who have enormous influence over peoples everyday lives.

still gives you no right to attack them.

Even if they organize a rally or debate people in public. you still don't get to escalate to violence
---

Sure, why not?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

your implication was obvious

as you led too below

So why is it that you had to jump to a conclusion instead of just engaging me in a conversation? Seems to me you're not actually going into this with an open mind.

UnfairRepresent posted...

still gives you no right to attack them.

Again, I never said it has. I said that the way you're thinking and talking about this issue is showing a lack of thought, and even less care for the topic you're engaging. The way you're going about it seems more like you want to be right than anything.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Even if they organize a rally or debate people in public. you still don't get to escalate to violence

Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler? To be fair, there is the beer hall putsch. But what happens when he loses that, stops engaging in violence, goes through the appropriate channels to power, and then we get nazi germany?

Where in that chain of events do you think it becomes okay to use violence?

The problem with you insisting on talking about this in terms of ideas and thoughts is that that isn't what people are worried about, nor is that why they are using violence. Many people are concerned that we are on the path to something like nazi germany. Unless you want to talk about it on those terms (either to dismiss the idea that we could become nazi germany, or to be exact about when you think it is okay to use force to stop nazi germany) then you're just not having the right conversation.

This is especially true because the only standard for when its okay to use violence that has been explicated at all so far in this topic is the idea of 'clear and present danger.' But as that court ruling notes, what counts as a clear and present danger is based on context, and the specific context they cite is being at war. So we can punch nazis for engaging in nazi-ism, but only after they're enough a problem that we need to have officially declared some kind of war on them first? That's the only standard anyone who is against punching nazis has attempted to defend so far.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler?

You realize Hitler and his brownshirts used violence early and often right?
Everyone partaking in the night of broken glass would be an acceptable target for lethal force resistance.

When Richard Spencer violates your rights, whether through criminal action or Constitutional violations, respond with immediate threat ending violence. Until then, he gets to speak his mind.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler?

You realize Hitler and his brownshirts used violence early and often right?
Everyone partaking in the night of broken glass would be an acceptable target for lethal force resistance.

When Richard Spencer violates your rights, whether through criminal action or Constitutional violations, respond with immediate threat ending violence. Until then, he gets to speak his mind.

It's not that simple. Hitler started his power grab by speaking his mind first and cultivating a base.
---

Meh if they approached me I would punch them, do they deserve it no, but they're sure as hell asking for it.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

You realize Hitler and his brownshirts used violence early and often right?

yeah, I mentioned the beer hall putsch, but that failed

and subsequently, brownshirts themselves would argue that they mostly used violence to protect nazis during their public demonstrations and rallies

my point is that these things are easy in hindsight but not so easy when they happen in real time
---

I mean, also, if you're literally saying we need to wait until a U.S. Kristallnacht to retaliate then you are probably not making a winning argument
---

averagejoel posted...

pinky0926 posted...

ScaredKitty posted...

What does it solve other than creating a viral video? They're just going to come back and keep doing what they do. Richard Spencer is no less visible than he was before he got punched. A punch is nothing.

Actually he's considerably more visible and arguably more empowered than ever before, so I think it made things a lot worse.

he was literally telling nazis not to go to the nazi rally because of fear of being punched

Who was he before any of this? Now he's apparently the go-to martyr and organiser for the modern nazi movement? Should I drag up the google trends chart over the past two years to show how much this boosted his digital footprint?

This is the digital age. Nazis don't need to go to rallies to organise anymore.
---

creativerealms posted...

No. I do not think it's right to punch anyone unprovoked.

Unprovoked
---

Balrog0 posted...

So why is it that you had to jump to a conclusion instead of just engaging me in a conversation

don't insult our intelligence

Balrog0 posted...

thinking and talking about this issue is showing a lack of thought, and even less care for the topic you're engaging. The way you're going about it seems more like you want to be right than anything.

it's wrong to respond to thought and opinions with violence and threats.

I am right about that.

Balrog0 posted...

Okay. So at what point do you stop Hitler?

WW1 when he's firing at you in a trench

To be fair, there is the beer hall putsch. But what happens when he loses that, stops engaging in violence, goes through the appropriate channels to power, and then we get nazi germany?

Will never happen and not only that, the best way to oppose it is to not respond with violence and In doing so give bad ideas credence

Where in that chain of events do you think it becomes okay to use violence?

When they are doing likewise as a measure of self defense

The problem with you insisting on talking about this in terms of ideas and thoughts is that that isn't what people are worried about, nor is that why they are using violence. Many people are concerned that we are on the path to something like nazi germany. Unless you want to talk about it on those terms (either to dismiss the idea that we could become nazi germany, or to be exact about when you think it is okay to use force to stop nazi germany) then you're just not having the right conversation.

This is especially true because the only standard for when its okay to use violence that has been explicated at all so far in this topic is the idea of 'clear and present danger.' But as that court ruling notes, what counts as a clear and present danger is based on context, and the specific context they cite is being at war. So we can punch nazis for engaging in nazi-ism, but only after they're enough a problem that we need to have officially declared some kind of war on them first? That's the only standard anyone who is against punching nazis has attempted to defend so far.

Yes someone had to actually DO something dangerous before you're allowed to attack them.

I'm sorry that this bothers you

"I'm worried his opinion puts us on a path wherein he might create a space for violence to happen later... therefore it's okay to slughim" is not good enough and can be applied to anything.

He'll the nutcase who plowed into crowds could use that logic

The crazies who flew planes into the world trade center can use that logic
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

don't insult our intelligence

What?

UnfairRepresent posted...

it's wrong to respond to thought and opinions with violence and threats.

I am right about that.

Okay.

UnfairRepresent posted...

WW1 when he's firing at you in a trench

yes, this is definitely emblematic of how much you care to think about this topic

UnfairRepresent posted...

When they are doing likewise as a measure of self defense

So you, too, are saying that we need to wait for a literal Kristallnacht before responding with force is justified. Is that correct?

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes someone had to actually DO something dangerous before you're allowed to attack them.

I'm sorry that this bothers you

"I'm worried his opinion puts us on a path wherein he might create a space for violence to happen later... therefore it's okay to slughim" is not good enough and can be applied to anything.

Why are you so hostile? Have I done anything to insult you or tell you what it is that you think? I'm trying to have a conversation. Sure, I do have my opinions, and maybe you can infer them. That isn't an excuse to behave like you can skip past the conversation where you actually find out what my beliefs are, or why they may be wrong.

In fact, I'm not proposing we punch nazis. I am a literal pacifist, actually.

What I'm concerned about here, and I've been explicit about this, is that people like you and anarchy jubilex seem perfectly happy to tell others they need to wait until after the racists control the government and can get away with literally slaughtering people before you are allowed to respond to them with physical force. And you don't seem to care about what that implies for minorities. You're even trying to be a little funny or flippant about it.

I just don't see how you can scold people for being immoral when that is your position. I mean, you've spent a lot more time defending nazis from being punched than explaining why people shouldn't punch nazis. All you've said to that end is that, 'the best way to oppose it is to not respond with violence and In doing so give bad ideas credence,' but there is objective evidence that punching Nazis hurts their public presence, so do you want to elaborate on that?
---

Balrog0 posted...

So you, too, are saying that we need to wait for a literal Kristallnacht before responding with force is justified. Is that correct?

No I think the people would have been justified to shot the fucker who was trying to plow a car into them as he was driving.

But you don't get to shot people because they think something you disagree with.

You're trying to blur a line here that is almost comically clearly defined

Balrog0 posted...

Why are you so hostile?

I'm not

Balrog0 posted...

, is that people like you and anarchy jubilex seem perfectly happy to tell others they need to wait until after the racists control the government and can get away with literally slaughtering people before you are allowed to respond to them with physical force. And you don't seem to care about what that implies for minorities. You're even trying to be a little funny or flippant about it.

"it's wrong to punch people for hving opinions"
"By saying that you're saying it's only okay to punch people if they have concentration camps!"

As I said earlier, you're just insulting our intelligence. No one said that, you're just very lazily trying to justify violence against those who disagree with you.

Which is a poor line to walk

Balrog0 posted...

you've spent a lot more time defending nazis from being punched than explaining why people shouldn't punch nazis. All you've said to that end is that, 'the best way to oppose it is to not respond with violence and In doing so give bad ideas credence,' but there is objective evidence that punching Nazis hurts their public presence, so do you want to elaborate on that?

What evidence is that?

Violence against men like Spencer and Milo catapulted them into the limelight.

The rise of Antifa and violence in Europe and the US led to things like Donald Trump and Brexit.

"hurts their public presence" as in A man is less likely to run around the streets shouting that he is a nazi? Sure.

But in terms of support, idealogy, politics etc. It just empowers it

Just ask how many people cared about David Hog until a man tried to shoot him
---

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.

Is that why you blame Heather Heyer for her death?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

But you don't get to shot people because they think something you disagree with.

You're trying to blur a line here that is almost comically clearly defined

If you say so. Again, it seems to me like you want this to be clearly defined and think you can make it so by saying over and over again that it is.

UnfairRepresent posted...

"it's wrong to punch people for hving opinions"
"By saying that you're saying it's only okay to punch people if they have concentration camps!"

As I said earlier, you're just insulting our intelligence. No one said that, you're just very lazily trying to justify violence against those who disagree with you.

Which is a poor line to walk

I'm not justifying violence, either.

I'm literally asking you question and trying to get your perspective on the broader view of the situation. For many people, especially minorities, Nazis sharing their opinions isn't just an exercise in free speech. Richard Spencer is literally saying he wants to forcibly remove black and brown people from America -- he would prefer it not be violently, but he is okay if ultimately that is what it takes. So I think you are the one who is being intellectually lazy by reducing that to just an opinion. It's a literal threat to minorities, though not one that is necessarily actionable at this time.

Instead, though, you keep trying to make this into a narrowly argued thing where the immediate threat of physical violence in the only justification for responding with violence -- which is an even stricter standard than our actual legal guidelines, by the way

Like I said before, if you're not even going to engage the concerns that people who want to punch Nazis have, why are you even talking about the issue? To prove your morality? Your intellect? You're definitely not trying to have a conversation, so I don't get it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

What evidence is that?

Violence against men like Spencer and Milo catapulted them into the limelight.

The rise of Antifa and violence in Europe and the US led to things like Donald Trump and Brexit.

"hurts their public presence" as in A man is less likely to run around the streets shouting that he is a nazi? Sure.

But in terms of support, idealogy, politics etc. It just empowers it

I think you're getting that exactly backwards. Spencer and Milo are losing material support because of their inability to engage in public discourse. Donald Trump and Brexit certainly predate Antifa, though maybe not President Trump. No one even knew what Antifa was until 2017. Both the votes you're talking about happened in the prior year.
---

I mean, you shouldn't assault anyone, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it
---

They're lucky to only get punched. My Grandfather used to shoot them.
---

a-c-a-b posted...

They're lucky to only get punched. My Grandfather used to shoot them.

Your grandfather ruled.
---

No, people should not get randomly punched no matter how abhorrent their views. If you are not acting in defense of yourself or another, it is reprehensible. There is also the problem that most people who would go punch a nazi are too stupid to actually tell if the person proclaims themselves to be a nazi or if society has erroneously labeled them as such for wrong think. Allowing this to be socially acceptable leads to a real slippery slope.

VipaGTS posted...

if you're standing there shouting about how you advocate for genocide then i won't feel sorry for you if someone punches you. you are a piece of shit.

I suppose I feel this way too, but I would also add that I wouldn't punch someone for it, nor would I advocate for anyone else to do so. In fact I would advocate against it. But I also wouldn't feel particularly bad if it happened. Some views are just plain terrible.
---

Payzmaykr posted...

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.

Karl Popper said it best.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
---

I don't want a society that encourages violence as the default solution to certain language, even hostile language.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.

Karl Popper said it best.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

That's just a fancy way of encouraging violence
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.

Karl Popper said it best.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

That's just a fancy way of encouraging violence

Thats just a lazy way of trolling
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Payzmaykr posted...

No. They deserve to be ignored. There is never any circumstance in which words constitute a violent response. That speaks for the character of the person involved.

If somebody is spouting off hate speech, he looks bad. If you hit him, then you both look bad.

Karl Popper said it best.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

That's just a fancy way of encouraging violence

No it's a way to remind people that tolerance of everything leads to intolerance running the show, i'm not surprised that you aren't smart to understand that.

Here perhaps is something you might actually grasp.
And so, I established in 1919 a programme and tendency that was a conscious slap in the face of the democratic-pacifist world. [We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions.

Only one danger could have jeopardised this development if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Neither was done. The times were such that our adversaries were no longer capable of accomplishing our annihilation, nor did they have the nerve. Arguably, they furthermore lacked the understanding to assume a wholly appropriate attitude. Instead, they began to tyrannise our young movement by bourgeois means, and, by doing so, they assisted the process of natural selection in a very fortunate manner. From there on, it was only a question of time until the leadership of the nation would fall to our hardened human material."

Adolf Hitler: Die Reden Hitlers am Reichsparteitag 1933,
---