The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Brian Peacock » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:44 pm

Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?

If your response is that communism is not illegitimate, then you need to think about that a little. What makes an ideology illegitimate? Is one inherently illegitimate? Or, aren't we really just talking about subjective opinion, and depending on one's premises various political ideologies can be thought to be illegitimate?

Oo look. Conflating anyone and everyone nominated into the group 'the left' with Communism again.

One of these gays you'll day what you really mean and explain the conditions which, when met, justify this categorisation.
.


"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT


.
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
 
Posts: 12148
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
Location: Location: Location:
About me: Ablate me:

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Animavore » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:55 pm

I don't know if any of you listened to the link I posted, but one argument they pointed out is that when these SJW types fantasise about punching Nazis they do so as if they are going to be the victor. That they are just going to walk straight up and punch a Nazi and knock them down and be champion.They said this Richard Spencer fellow is the perfect Nazi, he's a bit of a pussy and can get punched quite easily. They never talk about some massively built, bald-headed, tattooed Nazi straight out of jail for aggravated assault.
"I've always liked the irony of people using the word 'sheeple' because they've heard other people using it."

- Anonymous Internet Dude.
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 34105
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:38 pm

I question how much the set of black bloc bozos intersects with that of earnest advocates of social equality. I did listen to the part of the podcast that discussed the "punching Nazis" issue, and they didn't really address this. In my opinion, many of those who participate in black bloc activities don't actually give much of a shit about the concerns of the people whose protests they join crash. They may consider themselves loosely aligned with the protesters, but mostly they're there for the rush of breaking things and dancing with the riot police. Also, unlike the average left wing protester, a fair percentage of them are up for a rumble with white supremacist goons.
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby pErvin » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:43 pm

Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


If it's authoritarian "communism" like we saw in the USSR etc, then my view is the same.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby pErvin » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:48 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


For someone who loathes fascism, you spend an inordinate amount of time advocating for the rights of fascists.
Well, that has something to do with the fact that there are swaths of people -- at universities no less, including students and professors -- who appear to advocate beating the shit out of them for merely expressing their views. I do not see such a swath of people advocating the same thing about Communists. As much as I really loath communism, if someone was advocating "punching commies" I would be just as four-square opposed to them. In reality, nobody really suggests that a communist, as loathsome as his views might be, should be beaten up or have his speech on campus forcibly disrupted because of his awful views.


Authoritarian "communism" isn't a threat to society at the moment. But creeping fascism is.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby DaveDodo007 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:03 am

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


For someone who loathes fascism, you spend an inordinate amount of time advocating for the rights of fascists.
Well, that has something to do with the fact that there are swaths of people -- at universities no less, including students and professors -- who appear to advocate beating the shit out of them for merely expressing their views. I do not see such a swath of people advocating the same thing about Communists. As much as I really loath communism, if someone was advocating "punching commies" I would be just as four-square opposed to them. In reality, nobody really suggests that a communist, as loathsome as his views might be, should be beaten up or have his speech on campus forcibly disrupted because of his awful views.


Authoritarian "communism" isn't a threat to society at the moment. But creeping fascism is.


How is the weather in that bubble of yours.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.
User avatar
DaveDodo007
 
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby pErvin » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:10 am

:fp: When was the last time your mum let you out of her basement?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:26 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?

If your response is that communism is not illegitimate, then you need to think about that a little. What makes an ideology illegitimate? Is one inherently illegitimate? Or, aren't we really just talking about subjective opinion, and depending on one's premises various political ideologies can be thought to be illegitimate?

Oo look. Conflating anyone and everyone nominated into the group 'the left' with Communism again.


I didn't say everyone and anyone on the left is Communist. Communism is a leftist ideology, as is Marxism. So, all communists are leftist, but not all leftists are communist. It's like all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. Or, all nazis are on the right wing, but not all right wingers are Nazis.

Brian Peacock wrote:
One of these gays you'll day what you really mean and explain the conditions which, when met, justify this categorisation.


I don't make that categorization, and never have, so I won't explain those conditions. If you'll point to where I said all leftists are communists, I'd be happy to clarify for you where you're wrong. In the post you responded to, I referred only to communism and I did not say that communism means I'm talking about all leftists. I was comparing communism, a leftist ideology, with naziism, a rightist ideology. I do not suggest that either is coextensive with left or right.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:31 pm

Animavore wrote:I don't know if any of you listened to the link I posted, but one argument they pointed out is that when these SJW types fantasise about punching Nazis they do so as if they are going to be the victor. That they are just going to walk straight up and punch a Nazi and knock them down and be champion.They said this Richard Spencer fellow is the perfect Nazi, he's a bit of a pussy and can get punched quite easily. They never talk about some massively built, bald-headed, tattooed Nazi straight out of jail for aggravated assault.


And, of course, it must be pointed out that the SJWs accuse Spencer of being a Nazi, but he eschews that label and openly disavows any supremacist views. He has said that the Nazis don't like him very much. But, the SJWs don't like to let people speak for themselves. He's a Nazi, case closed. He can be punched, case closed. Spencer is smart enough to know that right now he can't punch back, because if one of these SJW types takes a poke at a person, they can't strike back or it will be reported as violence against the SJW, or at best it will be reduced to the passive voice and reported as "violence broke out" at a given event.

The SJWs are like drunk chicks at a bar. They know they can get in a guy's face and even throw a drink or take a swing, because they can't be hit - "it's never o.k. to hit a woman" is the zeitgeist. Even in self-defense, a man will always be portrayed as the evil-doer, if he hits a woman. We are all required to be Clint Eastwood, standing like an oak tree while Sondra Locke slaps us around. SJWs are like that. They think they are immune. Right now they are, but as they get more aggressive, I suspect it will become generally viewed as more acceptable to punch the biologically male ones in the mouth, if they swing first, especially if it's on video. That's the key. When a normal person decks an SJW, the SJW's provocation should be gotten on video first.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:46 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


If it's authoritarian "communism" like we saw in the USSR etc, then my view is the same.


What's an example of non-authoritarian communism in practice? What if someone thinks that all communism is inherently authoritarian? Is it o.k. to punch communists then, or only if they are of the same opinion on which communism is authoritarian and which isn't as you? Or, is there some objective distinction that tells us which communists are to be punched and which not?

Authoritarian communism in the USSR arose with Marxist-Leninism, Engels, and Trotsky, the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, So, which ideas in the 1890s and first decade or two of the 1900s would be verboten in your opinion? Would it be O.K. for Marx to speak? Lenin? Stalin? Engels? Trotsky? Punch all them motherfuckers!

It's funny, at the time of the Russian Revolution and in the years leading up to it, there was no freedom of speech, and as you should be aware, Peter Stolypin gave dissidents "Stolypin Neckties" for speaking out against the State. So, the non-authoritarians participating in the Russian Revolution already were prohibited from speaking. Do you suspect that such censorship increased their esteem among the public, or decreased it? Do you think the public drew any conclusions from the suppression of these ideas -- i.e. would the people in Australia, for example, draw any conclusions regarding the worth or value of an idea based on how hard one group or another, or the State, is seeking to suppress it? Would there be a significant number of people who might wonder what all the fuss was about, and why someone was trying to decide for them which ideas they could hear about?

Lenin's April Theses were already illegal in Russia, but should they have been?

what about the Bolsheviks? Free speech for them? Would anyone advocating for the dictatorship of the proletariat be censored? Maybe the Mensheviks would be punched, but not the Mensheviks.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:55 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


For someone who loathes fascism, you spend an inordinate amount of time advocating for the rights of fascists.
Well, that has something to do with the fact that there are swaths of people -- at universities no less, including students and professors -- who appear to advocate beating the shit out of them for merely expressing their views. I do not see such a swath of people advocating the same thing about Communists. As much as I really loath communism, if someone was advocating "punching commies" I would be just as four-square opposed to them. In reality, nobody really suggests that a communist, as loathsome as his views might be, should be beaten up or have his speech on campus forcibly disrupted because of his awful views.


Authoritarian "communism" isn't a threat to society at the moment. But creeping fascism is.


That's, obviously, a matter of opinion. There is clearly a creeping Marxism going on in certain parts of western society. That's why we're seeing a lot of these "Progressive" voices (post-modernism nested in Marxism) throughout the intelligentsia and academia in the West. Identity politics uses the concepts of class and oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, but starting in the 1970s, the postmodernists who were steeped in Marxism transferred those concepts into race and sexual identities. We're seeing the fruits of that now, and it's plenty dangerous to our society, given their open authoritarianism. We see it with movements to compel the use of words (pronouns) and to limit the use of words (censorship and advocacy of censorship) on college campuses. These ideas are infecting society.

We've seen the propaganda of the Marxists and communists coming to fruition as they adopted "incrementalism" and incrementally socialism is becoming more and more accepted in western countries, where it used to be anathema. Among young people especially, the absurd notion of communism as a utopian ideal, and socialism as almost synonymous with kindness and goodness and compassion, while capitalism is more and more viewed as evil, is really taking root.

So, while, obviously, which is a danger to you or me or someone else is always a matter of opinion. To some people, democracy and social democracy and the idea of human rights is a danger to society. If you were to look at some fundamentalist religious folks, they think the idea of individual rights and secular government is damaging and dangerous to society. Each person picks his poison in that regard. The tough part seems to be for certain people to understand that one's own concepts of right, morality, goodness, and one's own concepts of what constitutes a danger to society, are not objective truths.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:00 pm

pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


If it's authoritarian "communism" like we saw in the USSR etc, then my view is the same.


Just to clarify your view, also, is that you aren't of the view it should lawful to punch Nazis or authoritarian communists, just that you think it's a moral good to do so, and sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Do I recollect your view on it correctly, or have I misstated"?
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby JimC » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:14 pm

The whole issue revolves around context. If someone is simply going to come up to a person who is known for espousing Nazi-like views, and punches them without warning, then clearly they would be in the wrong.

In the context of the more typical argy-bargy of street fights between militant leftists and right wing groups (often involving demonstration/counter-demonstration), when the fists fly from both sides, then meh...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 52908
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby Forty Two » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:28 pm

JimC wrote:The whole issue revolves around context. If someone is simply going to come up to a person who is known for espousing Nazi-like views, and punches them without warning, then clearly they would be in the wrong.
Which is what happened to that Spencer character, except add to that that he expressly repudiated Nazi views.
JimC wrote:In the context of the more typical argy-bargy of street fights between militant leftists and right wing groups (often involving demonstration/counter-demonstration), when the fists fly from both sides, then meh...


Well, obviously, agreed. Everybody has a right of self defense, so if some right wing asshole takes a swing, then by all means, kick 'im in the nuts, or wherever.

Here is a professor at NYU railing against cops for not taking action against people she says are Nazis. This kind of viewpoint is not uncommon. She wants the police to go out and "kick their ass" -- the people she says are neo-Nazis -- the cops, this professor says, should be beating up peaceful people she says are neo-Nazis...



There is a movement in the SJW crew that it's o.k. for them to aggress, microaggress, harass, etc.... they get free speech and freedom to assault...





If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 6926
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: The Ethics of Punching Nazis

Postby pErvin » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:51 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvin wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, free speech does allow people to hold and express "illegitimate" political ideologies. It's good for the left that it does, since Communism as "illegitimate" as fascism, so if it were not for free speech, those of us who loathe both fascism and communism could shut the fascists and the communists up equally. Replace the word fascism in that cartoon with "communism." What's your view on it then?


If it's authoritarian "communism" like we saw in the USSR etc, then my view is the same.


What's an example of non-authoritarian communism in practice?


There's no large-scale examples that I know of. Not sure what this has to do with the discussion, though.

"Communism" isn't an authoritarian ideology. That authoritarian socialist governments were named "communist", doesn't change what communism actually is. Just the same as how the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea doesn't change the meaning of "democracy".

What if someone thinks that all communism is inherently authoritarian? Is it o.k. to punch communists then, or only if they are of the same opinion on which communism is authoritarian and which isn't as you? Or, is there some objective distinction that tells us which communists are to be punched and which not?


Actual communism and authoritarian communism couldn't be any more different. They are objectively different by their definitions alone, and most notably the authoritarianism.

Authoritarian communism in the USSR arose with Marxist-Leninism, Engels, and Trotsky, the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, So, which ideas in the 1890s and first decade or two of the 1900s would be verboten in your opinion? Would it be O.K. for Marx to speak? Lenin? Stalin? Engels? Trotsky? Punch all them motherfuckers!


I'd definitely punch Lenin if given the chance. Probably Marx too for being a naive idiot. Obviously Stalin deserves an uppercut.

It's funny, at the time of the Russian Revolution and in the years leading up to it, there was no freedom of speech, and as you should be aware, Peter Stolypin gave dissidents "Stolypin Neckties" for speaking out against the State. So, the non-authoritarians participating in the Russian Revolution already were prohibited from speaking. Do you suspect that such censorship increased their esteem among the public, or decreased it? Do you think the public drew any conclusions from the suppression of these ideas -- i.e. would the people in Australia, for example, draw any conclusions regarding the worth or value of an idea based on how hard one group or another, or the State, is seeking to suppress it? Would there be a significant number of people who might wonder what all the fuss was about, and why someone was trying to decide for them which ideas they could hear about?


Is there a term for a Godwin from the left? :ask:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvin
Off his meds
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

PreviousNext

Return to News, Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest