The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[L'Emmerdeur]

L'Emmerdeur suggested I had a problem with him being called a Nazi and asked "no problem with Yiannopoulus' own rhetoric?" - so, my question is "what rhetoric?" - in terms of what rhetoric would justify calling him a Nazi?

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

My question to you was regarding whether you personally have a problem with his rhetoric. You've gone as far as saying that you "may" have disagreements with it. Bully for you, I guess.

I have never suggested that there was any "problem" (other than my disagreement with the assertion) with calling him a Nazi. Call him whatever you want.

I appreciate the clarification.

[Forty Two]

L'Emmerdeur suggested I had a problem with him being called a Nazi and asked "no problem with Yiannopoulus' own rhetoric?" - so, my question is "what rhetoric?" - in terms of what rhetoric would justify calling him a Nazi?

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

Some folks seem to find it helpful if they want to justify punching someone for what they say.

My question to you was regarding whether you personally have a problem with his rhetoric. You've gone as far as saying that you "may" have disagreements with it. Bully for you, I guess.

I guess it depends on what you mean by having a "problem" with it. When it comes to rhetoric, I disagree with some of everyone's rhetoric. I don't know what you mean by having a problem with it, beyond disagreement. When I said I "may" disagree with him - that's because you'd have to highlight something he actually said - not some asshat's description of what they say he said -- and evaluate it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

Some folks seem to find it helpful if they want to justify punching someone for what they say.

Milo Yiannopoulus has not been punched by anyone, as far as I'm aware.

[laklak]

Can I punch Rosie O'Donnell? She really irritates me. And that Lena Dunham twat, can I punch her too?

What's sauce for the Nazi is sauce for the 3rd wave Intersectional Feminist.

[Svartalf]

Can I punch Rosie O'Donnell? She really irritates me. And that Lena Dunham twat, can I punch her too?

What's sauce for the Nazi is sauce for the 3rd wave Intersectional Feminist.

No, but you may french kiss them unbidden if you want

[Forty Two]

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

Some folks seem to find it helpful if they want to justify punching someone for what they say.

Milo Yiannopoulus has not been punched by anyone, as far as I'm aware.

Granted, although he has been microaggressed against, and macroaggressed against in public by folks disrupting his presentation, commandeering his microphone, getting in his face, and ultimately shutting down his presentation. Remember, many of these same SJWs think it is an "aggression" to merely ask someone where they are from, or to suggest that they look exotic.

But, my point was that when a person says it's good to punch Nazis, they are assuming what is almost always a disputed issue - whether the person is/was a Nazi in the first place. I've seen fuckwits like that asshat Steve Shives on Youtube suggest that people who "carry water" for Nazis or white supremacists are just as bad, and deserve the same treatment. So, it's very convenient for such people to label someone a Nazi and then declare the greater good served by assault and battery of said alleged Nazi.

[Forty Two]

Can I punch Rosie O'Donnell? She really irritates me. And that Lena Dunham twat, can I punch her too?

No no...when directed at progressives or leftists, such talk is considered unacceptable lack of civility, remember? Martial rhetoric, etc., and everyone having the right to dissent and whatnot.

What's sauce for the Nazi is sauce for the 3rd wave Intersectional Feminist.

No no. that' s a false equivalency. Not all ideas are equal, you're talking about marginalized and traditionally oppressed people, so you can't treat them the same way. Unless you treat them differently, it's not equal. Don't you know that?

[pErvinalia]

What are you blathering about? Rhetoric is any speech which is intended to persuade - rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Anything he says that is an argument or intended to make a point is his rhetoric. Are you unsure what rhetoric is?

Again, I was asking L'Emmerdeur to explain what of his rhetoric she was referring to.

And I'm asking you to explain what part of his rhetoric you were referring to.

[pErvinalia]

[rainbow]

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

Some folks seem to find it helpful if they want to justify punching someone for what they say.

Milo Yiannopoulus has not been punched by anyone, as far as I'm aware.

Granted, although he has been microaggressed against, and macroaggressed against in public by folks disrupting his presentation, commandeering his microphone, getting in his face, and ultimately shutting down his presentation.

So-called "microagression" is a social construct.

Grow a pair.

[Brian Peacock]

[Forty Two]

What are you blathering about? Rhetoric is any speech which is intended to persuade - rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Anything he says that is an argument or intended to make a point is his rhetoric. Are you unsure what rhetoric is?

Again, I was asking L'Emmerdeur to explain what of his rhetoric she was referring to.

And I'm asking you to explain what part of his rhetoric you were referring to.

I wasn't referring to part of it. I was asking L'Emmerdeur to explain what part of his rhetoric she was referring to. The only thing I said about his rhetoric was that there was probably some of it that I disagreed with, as that is pretty much the norm for anyone. It is the rare person, indeed, with whom I would agree 100%.

[Forty Two]

16387257_379105775793247_2126349402104326508_n.jpg

I can't think of a single instance where anyone has defended police assaults on citizens because the citizens "back talked" to them. Are there any examples of this happening?

Of the major incidents cited in this regard, what I've heard sometimes is that folks will argue that the citizen assaulted the police first, or some such allegation.

[laklak]

I think you should be able to punch anyone you want to punch. I also believe I should be able to shoot your ass dead if you punch me.

[Forty Two]

In terms of calling Milo Yiannopoulus a Nazi, I agree that his rhetoric does not warrant that name, except possibly for those who find such hyperbole rhetorically useful.

Some folks seem to find it helpful if they want to justify punching someone for what they say.

Milo Yiannopoulus has not been punched by anyone, as far as I'm aware.

Granted, although he has been microaggressed against, and macroaggressed against in public by folks disrupting his presentation, commandeering his microphone, getting in his face, and ultimately shutting down his presentation.

So-called "microagression" is a social construct.

Grow a pair.

Someone said he was well-spoken, for a gay man, and he fell into a deep depression and it triggered is PTSD. You don't get to tell him, a marginalized person, how to feel about these things. They build up over time and do real, consequential damage that you, as a privileged person, could not possibly understand.