The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[Seabass]

Which is why political racists are vague, non-specific, and use rhetoric euphamistically and with plausible deniability built in - so we hear talk of 'defending Western Civilisation' rather that 'White power', and of 'protecting our communities' instead of 'excluding them darkies', or even the catchall 'Alt-right', which as a term stands in for anything from conservatism, to nationalism, to out and out fascism which is predicated on and built around so-called 'White identity politics.'

"unwelcome demographic changes"
"real Americans"
"traditional Americans"
"welfare queens"
"moochers"

[Joe]

Yeah, it's really hard to stop ideas from spreading. People find a way to communicate, even in totalitarian societies.

Open societies, such as the Western democracies, seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage.

[Cunt]

The law generally concerns itself with action rather than opinions or viewpoints, for good and sound reasons. If I say that my friends and I, in accordance with our shared opinions and viewpoint, are going to run you out of town, then that becomes an action doesn't it, whether we actually put on the brown shirts and mob up, or not? Freedom of expression is an assured human right under the UNUDHR, but exercising that right is an action, and so those who speak freely carry responsibility for their words and the consequences.

So what are we to do when someone says that they're going to run someone out of town? Should we simply accept that people have a right to say that sort of thing and ignore it, and then just content ourselves to wait until the synagogues and baptist churches are on fire before we either allow the law to step in or begin to think about taking defensive action ourselves?

That's a good one, too, but I was asking about that really important question...

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker?

Personally, I am arrogant enough to think that I have the right to read or listen to any idea I want to. Do you think differently for yourself?

[Forty Two]

Maybe you shouldn't take every emoji so seriously, you stupid tit.

[Joe]

[JimC]

This thread has gone tits up...

[pErvinalia]

It has now that you've flown in.

[Forty Two]

Yeah, it's really hard to stop ideas from spreading. People find a way to communicate, even in totalitarian societies.

Open societies, such as the Western democracies, seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage.

...some would see it as an advantage...

The ability to tolerate bad ideas is a strength, not a weakness. The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.

[Cunt]

The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.

I wonder if that kind of wisdom will suffer, in a world where many can't talk to anyone who doesn't share their political ideas about borders, gender or nazis?

It wouldn't be so bad, if the left wasn't drifting further and further to the left...

[Forty Two]

The law generally concerns itself with action rather than opinions or viewpoints, for good and sound reasons. If I say that my friends and I, in accordance with our shared opinions and viewpoint, are going to run you out of town, then that becomes an action doesn't it, whether we actually put on the brown shirts and mob up, or not?

That is an excellent question.

There is a lot of talk about running undesirables out of town.

A United States Senator -- You push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome! They're going to protest "they're going to absolutely harass them" -- is that "action?"

In my view, no.



Here is someone who said she was going to get the man fired and run out of every club he belongs to, and to run him out of Palo Alto.

How many videos have we talked about here on Rationalia where Antifa folks are "in accordance with shared opinions and viewpoints, are going to run people out of town..." Did that become action? Illegal action? Does it matter if they wear masks and black, not brown?

Freedom of expression is an assured human right under the UNUDHR, but exercising that right is an action, and so those who speak freely carry responsibility for their words and the consequences.

Exercising speech - purely words - is not an action, in my view. However, more importantly, saying "those who speak freely carry responsibility for their words and consequences" amounts to a platitude or a cliche'. Words have consequences, sure. But, what are the extent of those consequences? Under what circumstances?

When does truthful (or opinion) statements constitute unlawful speech/action?

So what are we to do when someone says that they're going to run someone out of town?

I hear that a lot lately. Are you sure you want ALL people who want to run other people out of town to be silenced by the State? What if it's a progressive leftist who thinks a MAGA hat wearing (in her opinion) white supremacist should be run out of town? Fired? Harassed out of the area?

What's the rule? Nobody can say that someone else should be "run out of town?" Is it just towns? What about counties? Precincts? Blocks? Restaurants? University Campuses? What would you suggest would be the geographical vicinity that one can declare others to be "run out of"? And, does it matter who is to be run out of town?

If punching an alleged Nazi is a moral imperative, then certainly running him out of town would be a moral imperative, too. So, while I don't think you ever supported the "punch people I think are nazis" rule - think about that as an example.

It's the words/actions distinction that causes me to reject the "punch people I think are Nazis or other equally repugnant ideologues" idea. It's also the words/actions distinction that causes me to reach the conclusion that expressing the OPINION that Nazis SHOULD be run out of town is perfectly within the right of free speech, BUT taking an overt act TOWARD running them out of town becomes action and would, therefore, be rightfully subject to being criminalized.

Should we simply accept that people have a right to say that sort of thing and ignore it,

You don't have to ignore it. But, both you and they have to keep your hands to yourselves. Simple, and fair. If an alleged Nazi says your hypothetical group of friends needs to be run out of town, you and they are also free to say the alleged Nazi and his friends need to be run out of town. Neither of you can actually take steps to run someone out of town, though. Then the police should act.

and then just content ourselves to wait until the synagogues and baptist churches are on fire before we either allow the law to step in or begin to think about taking defensive action ourselves?

Well, you don't have to wait until they are "on fire." But, we don't live in Minority Report where crime is punished before it happens by those we "know" are going commit said crimes.

When I referred to ANTIFA as setting fires and breaking windows and hitting people with bike-locks - I was ridiculed and mocked for that - as if their fire-setting was so minor it hardly bore mentioning. They were, after all, trying to run Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannapoulus and other Jewish and flaming homosexual Nazis out of town!

Should I have to wait until an ANTIFA group does that before the guilty parties are brought to justice? Should the police have to wait? Or should they just arrest ANTIFAs anywhere they find them, because we know they like to set fires and break windows and hit people with bike locks and bottles and start fights and try to run other people out of town....?

[Forty Two]

The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.

I wonder if that kind of wisdom will suffer, in a world where many can't talk to anyone who doesn't share their political ideas about borders, gender or nazis?

It wouldn't be so bad, if the left wasn't drifting further and further to the left...

The zeitgeist has, indeed, shifted somewhat. There always was this streak in various segments of the population. I recall a thought experiment when I was in middle school being offered. First a question was posed "does everyone have the right to free speech in the public square?" And, the picture/cartoon next to it was a person on a "soap box" standing in town and speaking his mind. Then a followup question -- "should a COMMUNIST have the right to free speech in the public square?" - with a picture of a hand waiving person bearing a vague resemblance to Lenin standing on the same soap box....

The interesting thing was that the first question drew almost universal support -- almost 100%, YES! but, then the "this does not computer" malfunction arose in answering question two -- a large percentage of people answered, well, no - not a COMMUNIST! (this was far enough in the past that the idea of the Soviet Union being dismantled was not even a twinkle in anyone's eye - the big danger in the world was still global communism. Democrats and Republicans alike were anti-communist.

At the time, I found that bizarre. I was surprised that people could answer a question "everyone" and then answer the next question in a way that plainly contradicts the first, just because it's the "Devil" (metaphorically) that is the subject of the next question. It was as if people just did not think the first question through. They were answering the free speech question in the way they were taught they were SUPPOSED to answer - and then they answered the second question in the way they were taught they were SUPPOSED to answer -- we don't like communists, so communists aren't among the "everyone" in the first place. That stuck with me for my life, and the same issue crops up all the time, over and over again - free speech! But not hate speech. Free speech! but not communist speech. Free speech! but not racist speech! Free speech! but not Nazi speech.

There is, I think, very large swath of the population who have difficulty with objectivity. And, this is getting worse of late with the rejection of objectivity as even being possible - the postmodernist thought. There is no truth, there is only MY truth - MY lived experience. Whether something is improper depends on subjective belief and feeling. The zeitgeist has moved in that direction. Not completely, but to some degree.

It's part of why we went from nobody even noticing Joe Biden hugging people and rubbing shoulders, to now a massive collective hand-wringing over what it means. A guy hugged people in public who were free to step away, and it was all open and obvious and non-sexual - and yet, we're talking about it in the media as if it's a sexual assault case. As if Joe did something "wrong." I get the jokes, and I even participated in them, because in isolation some of his movements are, in context of the times, funny looking. But, objectively - he hasn't done anything wrong.

[Cunt]

This reminds me of Seabass, or Animavore lol

(I'll leave it to the reader to decide which character reminds me of them)

[Brian Peacock]

Seabass,

This is to REMIND you to try and avoid personal insult, such as referring to other members as 'stupid tits'.

Yer Mods.

[Joe]

Yeah, it's really hard to stop ideas from spreading. People find a way to communicate, even in totalitarian societies.

Open societies, such as the Western democracies, seem to be at a tremendous disadvantage.

...some would see it as an advantage...

The ability to tolerate bad ideas is a strength, not a weakness. The ability to entertain a notion without accepting it is the beginning of wisdom.

Indeed, thus my use of the word "seems." I'm just entertaining a notion I don't agree with.

Seriously, I think it's important to understand the pressures and fears that shape the limits on our rights, and how they might vary by nation. That requires not rejecting prior restraint out of hand, perhaps not even Nazi punching vigilantism, even though I'd rather roast Nazis - in the comedic sense, not the Joan of Arc one.

BTW, I noticed you dodged my question. How do you feel about the rights of Trump critics to free speech and due process?

[Brian Peacock]

Didn't you know that rights are privileges Joe - privileges that are revoked as soon as you endorse a socialist policy. Also, every time you do that an angle loses a feather.