The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[JimC]

pErvin wrote:

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

The fact that there are no large-scale examples strongly suggests that any and every attempt to put full-on Marxist theory into action on a national level automatically leads to authoritarian government. This is in contrast to some of the unquenchable optimists of the left who assert that it is somehow possible, if one avoids nasty opportunists like Stalin et al.

I suppose it is not directly applicable to the thread, but it does illuminate the tendency for a variety of political systems to devolve into authoritarian rule.

[pErvinalia]

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.

"Cultural Marxism" as a term is little more than empty rhetoric. It's actually a dumb conspiracy theory - a point made to you before that you conveniently ignored. The concepts behind it have very little to do with actual Marxism.

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,

This is just absolute nonsense. Neoliberalism has been the dominant and growing ideology since the late 70's, and has seen capitalism absolutely dominate our societies. Actual Marxism is about the destruction of capitalism and the capitalist state. In no way could the dominance of capitalism since the 80's be seen as synonymous with "[incremental] socialism". That's fucking ridiculous.

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.

Are you becoming Seth? Socialism isn't synonymous with Marxism. Marxism is only one form of socialism. There are plenty of socialist ideologies that are about goodness and compassion. Marxism is definitely offensive and dangerous at large scale. But there is no marxist threat to our societies. Governments have been moving steadily to the right since the 80's. That is, they are moving towards fascism (greater entanglement of corporations and the state, greater surveillance, reduced worker rights, more legal restrictions on protests, reduced press freedoms, etc, etc).

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.

This is all irrelevant to the question of punching Nazis (or anyone).

[pErvinalia]

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"?

Correct.

[pErvinalia]

pErvin wrote:

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

The fact that there are no large-scale examples strongly suggests that any and every attempt to put full-on Marxist theory into action on a national level automatically leads to authoritarian government. This is in contrast to some of the unquenchable optimists of the left who assert that it is somehow possible, if one avoids nasty opportunists like Stalin et al.

I suppose it is not directly applicable to the thread, but it does illuminate the tendency for a variety of political systems to devolve into authoritarian rule.

It's no surprise that Marxism leads to authoritarianism. But it's not the only proposed path to get to communism. Punching a hippy who believes we can all live in a utopia is a totally different proposition to punching a Leninist (i.e. probably most Marxists).

[laklak]

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.

Yeah, it's one thing to take a swing at Joseph Goebbles but something else entirely to fuck with Otto Skorzeny.

[Hermit]

I'd definitely punch Lenin if given the chance.

He was only implementing what Marx wrote, which was "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." Both, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the terror, were of course meant to be transitional states on the way to the paradise of a classless society. To date it has never panned out that way.

Is there a term for a Godwin from the left?

Simply replace "Hitler" with "Stalin", "Pol Pot" or equivalent. Keep in mind that Godwin's quip was twisted out of all recognition by arseholes and taken up by blithering idiots. I would not use it anywhere.

[Brian Peacock]

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.

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.

Come off it, you do it all the time...

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...

... using Communism/Marxism/Socialism/Totalitarianism to degrade 'the left' in general by association. Its a classic discursive technique: define a degenerate group, place X in the group, criticise X on the basis of their membership of the group.

Saying that 'the left' grant Communism a right of free speech while denying it to Fascism, which is a charge that 'the left' apply a double standard, clearly lumps 'the left' together with Communism and implies that 'the left' favours, protects, enables, and/or endorses Communism - which is in turn further degraded by the implication that it is not a 'legitimate' political viewpoint - and we all know what Communism's like, eh?

Before you simply assert that this isn't the case, again, I think you should ask yourself from where and from whom you've picked up this lazy terminology, and what the notion of 'the left', as a category, represents to you and those whose politics you favour. Because all the time you're lambasting the left for being 'the left' you're often committing a basic category error and dismissing points of view/arguments without examination on that basis alone.

[Forty Two]

"Cultural Marxism" as a term is little more than empty rhetoric. It's actually a dumb conspiracy theory - a point made to you before that you conveniently ignored. The concepts behind it have very little to do with actual Marxism.

You often confuse, as you've done here, a point being expressed with a point being established. I haven't "ignored" anything, and you've not established that cultural Marxism as a concept is merely empty rhetoric or a dumb conspiracy theory. You may have said so, but your usual belief that you saying so means a point has been "made" as in established, is something you need to understand is not the case.

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,

This is just absolute nonsense. Neoliberalism has been the dominant and growing ideology since the late 70's, and has seen capitalism absolutely dominate our societies. Actual Marxism is about the destruction of capitalism and the capitalist state. In no way could the dominance of capitalism since the 80's be seen as synonymous with "[incremental] socialism". That's fucking ridiculous.

Read The Fabian Freeway, by Rose Martin. It discusses incrementalism in the US and UK. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/F ... Book_3.pdf While we are not yet socialist in terms of government ownership of the means of production - Both Britain and the United States are heavily regulated and heavily taxed societies with partly socialized economies where government agents exercise vast control over the movement of capital and currency through an enormous bureaucratic apparatus. The incrementalist approach has had great appeal to center lefts and center rights, because over the years bite-sized portions are adopted over time.

In 2016, the US electorate was ready to nominate an avowed socialist as a major party nominee. We are today faced with cocktail of neo-Marxism, multiculturalism and postmodernism which has taken hold of universities and even public primary schools. Today's leftists have absorbed the "debunking" critique of our democratic liberties and are drawn to the hardball tactics of its organizer-activists. This is evident by the level of support for socialism among the under-30 crowd, and the readiness by which that crowd agrees with beating people up who don't toe the leftist line. The current leftist goal is nationalization of the energy sector - you find it in their actions -- http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-they- ... le/2001393 And, you find their aggressive activism in the efforts to shut down Trump rallies, and now Jordan Peterson rallies, and Milo Yiannopoulus rallies, and anyone else who they can silence.

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.

Are you becoming Seth? Socialism isn't synonymous with Marxism. Marxism is only one form of socialism. There are plenty of socialist ideologies that are about goodness and compassion. Marxism is definitely offensive and dangerous at large scale. But there is no marxist threat to our societies. Governments have been moving steadily to the right since the 80's. That is, they are moving towards fascism (greater entanglement of corporations and the state, greater surveillance, reduced worker rights, more legal restrictions on protests, reduced press freedoms, etc, etc).

I didn't say socialism was "synonymous" with Marxism. But, feel free to identify a socialist ideology that is about goodness and compassion. You make my point, though, when you misapprehend what I said there. I said socialism is drawing greater acceptance, whereas capitalism is drawing greater negatives. You then responded by referring to Marxism as being different from the "good" socialism (which you do not identify), and then you compare that to fascism, not capitalism. It's a success of the left to have folks confusing fascism with liberal capitalism.

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.

This is all irrelevant to the question of punching Nazis (or anyone).

No, it is quite relevant. Once you understand that your opinion of Nazis, or alleged Nazis, and their views or alleged views, is not an objective truth, but a matter of your own subjective opinion based on whatever premises and/or philosophical base on which you build your opinions, then you will realize why punching people who you think are Nazis is not any more rationally or logically justifiable than them punching you. Of course, that may be alright with some people, who think a street fight over these issues is the way to go.

However, now that so many folks are approaching things, wittingly or unwittingly, from a postmodernist perspective, the modern and Enlightenment notions of reason and rationality are largely eschewed, like human nature (there is none, it's just a social construct), social progress (social construct), reality (social construct) and morality (social construct), truth (subjective and relative), and reason (a tool of the patriarchy). It's this postmodernist ideology, nested in a bed of Marxist thought.

[Forty Two]

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.

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.

Come off it, you do it all the time...

I've never once done that. That being categorizing everyone on the left as communists. That wasn't me. You must be thinking of someone else.

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...

... using Communism/Marxism/Socialism/Totalitarianism to degrade 'the left' in general by association. Its a classic discursive technique: define a degenerate group, place X in the group, criticise X on the basis of their membership of the group.

Saying that those ideas are leftist is not degrading the left anymore than saying fascism and Nazism are on the right degrades everyone on the right wing. The classic discursive technique that you describe, however, is what the left does when they shout down speakers like Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers and Charles Murray.

Saying that 'the left' grant Communism a right of free speech while denying it to Fascism, which is a charge that 'the left' apply a double standard, clearly lumps 'the left' together with Communism and implies that 'the left' favours, protects, enables, and/or endorses Communism - which is in turn further degraded by the implication that it is not a 'legitimate' political viewpoint - and we all know what Communism's like, eh?

The left tends to be steeped in Marxist thought, so they tend to sympathize with socialism and view communism as that grand utopia that we long to be able to achieve, but for the imperfection of our society or humanity. They don't chant and advocate punching commies, do they? Have you seen that? The Progressive leftists don't rail against those who want to end private property and have the State commandeer the means of production, distribution and exchange, do they? Are they out there, equally shutting down extreme leftist views?

Before you simply assert that this isn't the case, again, I think you should ask yourself from where and from whom you've picked up this lazy terminology, and what the notion of 'the left', as a category, represents to you and those whose politics you favour. Because all the time you're lambasting the left for being 'the left' you're often committing a basic category error and dismissing points of view/arguments without examination on that basis alone.

The left is a category. I've picked it up from political discourse, and reading on the subjects at hand. Nobody here, including you, is bothered by references to other people as right wing or on the right, or conservative, etc., so why in the world would you think that it's not a fair term to categorize belief systems and ideologies as leftist. Nobody seriously argues against categorizing communism and socialism as leftist ideas. That doesn't make everyone on the left a communist. Those on the left can be center left, moderate left, Progressives, whatever - there are lot of different political points on the compass.

[Forty Two]

I'd definitely punch Lenin if given the chance.

He was only implementing what Marx wrote, which was "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." Both, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the terror, were of course meant to be transitional states on the way to the paradise of a classless society. To date it has never panned out that way.

Is there a term for a Godwin from the left?

Simply replace "Hitler" with "Stalin", "Pol Pot" or equivalent. Keep in mind that Godwin's quip was twisted out of all recognition by arseholes and taken up by blithering idiots. I would not use it anywhere.

The issue is, who is punchable and when, and you are correct, Hermit, that Lenin was implementing Marxism.

Another point to look at is Maoism, and the Red Guard generation. They, for sure, thought punching Nazis was fine. They would often turn in their own family members for political reasons. The would attack people and even inform on their own parents for expressing counter-revolutionary ideas. Ideas that were a danger to society.

So, when you are approaching this from a standpoint of "it's o.k. to punch Nazis" we need to understand that it's not necessarily "Nazis" who will get punched, or Nazis alone. When you abandon the notion of a fundamental right to free expression, you don't limit that abandonment to just a small category of extremists. The door is open to "equally" dangerous ideas. One of the bedrock notions of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and even Trotskyism, is the notion of the silencing of political dissent -- that's what the idea of silencing "counter-revolutionaries" is all about. Dissent is silenced, because it is a danger to the Marxist or other socialist ideal. You can't have people presenting a "danger to society" by throwing wrenches in the words with their anti-socialist views.... those are dangerous. Those are harmful.

This has nothing to do with "Godwin's law." Nobody is comparing the other side to Hitler or Stalin, etc. The question we're talking about is when it is appropriate to physically attack people who are advancing viewpoints. Generally the examples to use are the extreme or distasteful viewpoints. One can use Nazi views, or white supremacist, or black supremacist, or separatist, or other such viewpoints, one can use racist viewpoints, sexual viewpoints, or drug/crime related viewpoints to get a handle on the issue. The point is to pick a repulsive and offensive viewpoint, and analyze why someone with those viewpoints is worthy of assault and battery.

I used the example of Communists because they are on the extreme left. They are often viewed by their opponents as dangerous and threat to the very foundations of western Enlightenment society, and a danger to individual rights. Many of the same things we see leveled at people espousing Nazi or other extreme nationalist views. So, the question became "would you punch a Commie?" or "Would it be o.,k. to punch a Commie to the same extent as punching a Nazi?"

Then pErvin said, well, my opinion would be the same if they were the bad commies -- the authoritarian commies - rather than the good commies, the non-authoritarian ones. Assuming there is such a creature, we are left with the problem of identifying which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones, and no real metric to making that determination. And, when the person to be punched is just writing and speaking, when does it rise to the level of punchable? For example ,when Marx was writing his early socialist writings? When he and Engels published the Communist Manifesto?

Would it even be a good idea to have crowds of college students surrouding Marx at a conference at a German University, and screaming at him, blowing horns, cursing him, trying to assault him, and chanting "shut him down!" "shut him down!" and then burning copies of the Communist Manifesto, declaring that it has no place on college campuses? Does that make the dangerous idea go away? Or, isn't it better to engage with the idea, and show its warts to those who might be tempted to adopt it?

[Brian Peacock]

Do you think that the left-leaning are somehow obliged to defend Communism 42?

[Brian Peacock]

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.

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.

Come off it, you do it all the time...

I've never once done that. That being categorizing everyone on the left as communists. That wasn't me. You must be thinking of someone else.

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...

... using Communism/Marxism/Socialism/Totalitarianism to degrade 'the left' in general by association. Its a classic discursive technique: define a degenerate group, place X in the group, criticise X on the basis of their membership of the group.

Saying that those ideas are leftist is not degrading the left anymore than saying fascism and Nazism are on the right degrades everyone on the right wing. The classic discursive technique that you describe, however, is what the left does when they shout down speakers like Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers and Charles Murray.

Saying that 'the left' grant Communism a right of free speech while denying it to Fascism, which is a charge that 'the left' apply a double standard, clearly lumps 'the left' together with Communism and implies that 'the left' favours, protects, enables, and/or endorses Communism - which is in turn further degraded by the implication that it is not a 'legitimate' political viewpoint - and we all know what Communism's like, eh?

The left tends to be steeped in Marxist thought, so they tend to sympathize with socialism and view communism as that grand utopia that we long to be able to achieve, but for the imperfection of our society or humanity. They don't chant and advocate punching commies, do they? Have you seen that? The Progressive leftists don't rail against those who want to end private property and have the State commandeer the means of production, distribution and exchange, do they? Are they out there, equally shutting down extreme leftist views?

Before you simply assert that this isn't the case, again, I think you should ask yourself from where and from whom you've picked up this lazy terminology, and what the notion of 'the left', as a category, represents to you and those whose politics you favour. Because all the time you're lambasting the left for being 'the left' you're often committing a basic category error and dismissing points of view/arguments without examination on that basis alone.

The left is a category. I've picked it up from political discourse, and reading on the subjects at hand. Nobody here, including you, is bothered by references to other people as right wing or on the right, or conservative, etc., so why in the world would you think that it's not a fair term to categorize belief systems and ideologies as leftist. Nobody seriously argues against categorizing communism and socialism as leftist ideas. That doesn't make everyone on the left a communist. Those on the left can be center left, moderate left, Progressives, whatever - there are lot of different political points on the compass.

Perhaps you should be more specific then, rather than simply referencing 'the left' as if "they're all the same anyway."

[Forty Two]

Do you think that the left-leaning are somehow obliged to defend Communism 42?

No.

Are you missing the point, though? The idea is who is appropriate to punch. You might say that yes, indeed, it's o.k. to punch communists or that it isn't. The question is why would it be o.k. to punch Nazis, but not o.k. to punch some other distasteful group's members. The exercise works best when you DON'T defend the extremist group or idea. So, a leftist who thinks that it's o.k. and good to punch Nazis, but also does not "defend" communism, is a great person to ask "is it o.k. and right to punch a communist?""

I'm not asking anyone to defend communism or suggesting they are obliged to do so. The distasteful idea can be anything - maybe someone wants to legalize rape, for example. Is it o.k. to punch him, if he's published a book on why consent is a mere social construct that doesn't really exist and how consent should not be the test of lawful sex? He's punchable? What about a person who writes a book about the legalization of the hardest drugs imaginable, including allowing Coca Cola to put cocaine back in soda. Is it good to punch that guy? What about a guy who really thinks that democracy is the road to disaster and that what we need is Kings and Queens with real power, absolute power. Should we be punching monarchists?

That's the exercise on issues like this. It's easy when we're talking about groups everyobdy, pretty much, hates. Like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church people. If they show up on a street corner, are they ripe for assault and battery? they're scumbags, for sure. They espouse hateful and vile viewpoints, in most people's opinions, but does that mean they should be assaulted?

And, what about women? There are plenty of female Nazis and female members of the Westboro Baptists. Are they punchable, or are they not punchable because as women they are marginalized....?

Or, should we just not think about this too deeply? We hate Nazis, therefore punch them. Leave it at that?

[Brian Peacock]

I think its fundamentally necessary to resist those who would assert a freedom and/or right to restrict your rights and freedoms - particularly those who would employ violence to do so.

I don't think political categories play any part in that.

[Forty Two]

Perhaps you should be more specific then, rather than simply referencing 'the left' as if "they're all the same anyway."

Referring to the left does not imply that everyone on the left is the same. Just like referring to the right doesn't mean they're all the same anyway.