The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[pErvinalia]

Pervin dropped out of school at 12. Am I wrong?

Demonstrably.

[Animavore]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

[pErvinalia]

[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.

That's avoiding the question. Is it o.k. to punch Communists, who often assert a right or desire to restrict rights and freedoms, and Communists have often advocated violence. Is it o.k. to punch the ones who advocate restricting rights, and using violence? Thus, do you apply the same test to alleged Nazis - i.e., is it only o.k. that the alleged white nationalist Spencer got punched, if he actually expressed a desire to restrict freedoms and use violence? Or, are alleged Nazis automatically in that category?

Also, what of SJWs and progressive who do both of those things: (a) many of them express a desire to restrict freedoms and rights (limit free speech, for example, to exclude the messages of people they think are hateful and dangerous), and (b) many expressly advocate violence where they claim that punching Nazis is a good idea. Thus, of those Progressives/SJWs who both desire to restrict the individual liberty of freedom of speech, and desire to use violence against some folks, are they in the punchable category? Are they among those we should "resist?"

Also, I point out an inherent vagueness in your post there. Resist. What do you mean by that? Everyone can "resist" ideas they don't like, by peaceably protesting, marching, writing, publishing, blogging, vlogging, talking, singing songs, carrying signs, saying hooray for their side, that kind of thing....but, does "resist" in your comment mean or include something more than that?

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not avoiding the question, just the dichotomy. I'm saying I think it should be resisted no matter who is advocating limiting others rights and freedoms by force - and here I mean 'resist' in it's usual sense of withstanding, combating the effects of, etc, and that the form which that resistance takes is best determined in light of the context and the circumstances. You're asking if it is OK to punch Nazis or Communists, because they're Nazis and Communists, and I'm saying it depends, that is; no outright condemnation but no outright endorsement either. I'd also point out that my political views are not grounded in a commitment to an ideological position or by the affiliatory politics of identity but but by the application of certain ethical and meta-ethical considerations arrived at on a case-by-case basis. That I end up on the left-hand side of the divide is a happen-stance, not an ideal, and certainly not an imperative.

Interesting - what does it depend on? (referring to your statement that whether it's o.k. to punch Nazis or communists "depends?" What are the "meta-ethical considerations" -- i.e. what ethical principles do you bring to bear on each case to determine who is punch-worthy?

How tiresome.

I'm rather bored by this apparent and continuing requirement for me to somehow prove to your satisfaction that I do not condone the use political violence from any quarter, despite the qualifications I have already given - such as here, here, or here for example.

Nonetheless your implicit assumptions highlight your apparent confusion about my position in this respect, one error being an assumption that undertaking an evaluation "to determine who is punch-worthy" is somehow necessary in the first place--which pre-supposes that violence is a component of politics and/or that one needs only cast around the panoply of political viewpoints before one will find somebody deserving of a punch up the bracket--and another that a justification for political violence can reside in the self-reinforcing declaration of 'they deserve it because they oppose everything I'm in favour of'. This fits with your basic schtick I guess - that lefties are just itching for a scrap and that righties are unduly victimised and subjected to the violent impulses of inherent lefty brutishness.

Undertaking a detailed explanation of ethics in action is not required here beyond drawing attention to the notions of reciprocity and empathy implicit in basic ethical principles like the golden rule. However, let me state again that political violence is not justified on the basis of holding or opposing particular political ideals - just being a Nazi or a Commie, or not, is not enough to warrant a kicking - but defending oneself and one's community against the political violence of others can be a justified means of achieving political change.

So, some like to tout Nazism as merely one of a number of competing political viewpoint, but while this is indeed true it is also rather simplistic - it's not as if the implicit normatives of any and every political viewpoint are somehow equal or equivalent is it(?) The political, social, and economic ideals of Nazis are the issue, not the fact that they have some ideals. Nazi's are political bigots and their views encompasses such familiar fascist ideals as enforcing racial superiority and purity, the imposition of authoritarian control and the removal of citizen rights to political self-determination, command economics, and the idealisation of exclusionary nationalism, etc. If someone is advocating taking away your rights and freedoms by force how are you supposed to resist them, particular when saying "No" marks you out as a degenerate enemy of the party, and by extension an enemy of the state? So yeah, when it comes to the ethics of forcefully resisting a set of political ideals, I will only say that 'it depends' on the nature, scope, necessities, and consequences of those ideals.

[Forty Two]

I told my grandfather about this thread. He said, "In my days we talked about killing Nazis, and we did it too." Then he said something about "...pussy generation..." before the glass tumbler slid off the board.

Sure, during a war with Nazi germany. However, talking about killing Nazis now is about the same as talking about killing Islamists who preach the glories of jihad and Sha'ria. Shall we punch an Islamist today too? Do we get to determine which Muslims are the hateful, totalitarian ones, and then beat the shit out of them? Is that moral?

[pErvinalia]

I'd gladly punch a religious fundamentalist. Particularly of the IS or Phelps variety. Of course, I'd want to be totally non-identifiable for purposes of not having my head chopped off at some later point...

[Forty Two]

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.

That's avoiding the question. Is it o.k. to punch Communists, who often assert a right or desire to restrict rights and freedoms, and Communists have often advocated violence. Is it o.k. to punch the ones who advocate restricting rights, and using violence? Thus, do you apply the same test to alleged Nazis - i.e., is it only o.k. that the alleged white nationalist Spencer got punched, if he actually expressed a desire to restrict freedoms and use violence? Or, are alleged Nazis automatically in that category?

Also, what of SJWs and progressive who do both of those things: (a) many of them express a desire to restrict freedoms and rights (limit free speech, for example, to exclude the messages of people they think are hateful and dangerous), and (b) many expressly advocate violence where they claim that punching Nazis is a good idea. Thus, of those Progressives/SJWs who both desire to restrict the individual liberty of freedom of speech, and desire to use violence against some folks, are they in the punchable category? Are they among those we should "resist?"

Also, I point out an inherent vagueness in your post there. Resist. What do you mean by that? Everyone can "resist" ideas they don't like, by peaceably protesting, marching, writing, publishing, blogging, vlogging, talking, singing songs, carrying signs, saying hooray for their side, that kind of thing....but, does "resist" in your comment mean or include something more than that?

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not avoiding the question, just the dichotomy. I'm saying I think it should be resisted no matter who is advocating limiting others rights and freedoms by force - and here I mean 'resist' in it's usual sense of withstanding, combating the effects of, etc, and that the form which that resistance takes is best determined in light of the context and the circumstances. You're asking if it is OK to punch Nazis or Communists, because they're Nazis and Communists, and I'm saying it depends, that is; no outright condemnation but no outright endorsement either. I'd also point out that my political views are not grounded in a commitment to an ideological position or by the affiliatory politics of identity but but by the application of certain ethical and meta-ethical considerations arrived at on a case-by-case basis. That I end up on the left-hand side of the divide is a happen-stance, not an ideal, and certainly not an imperative.

Interesting - what does it depend on? (referring to your statement that whether it's o.k. to punch Nazis or communists "depends?" What are the "meta-ethical considerations" -- i.e. what ethical principles do you bring to bear on each case to determine who is punch-worthy?

How tiresome.

I'm rather bored by this apparent and continuing requirement for me to somehow prove to your satisfaction that I do not condone the use political violence from any quarter, despite the qualifications I have already given - such as here, here, or here for example.

Nonetheless your implicit assumptions highlight your apparent confusion about my position in this respect, one error being an assumption that undertaking an evaluation "to determine who is punch-worthy" is somehow necessary in the first place--which pre-supposes that violence is a component of politics and/or that one needs only cast around the panoply of political viewpoints before one will find somebody deserving of a punch up the bracket--and another that a justification for political violence can reside in the self-reinforcing declaration of 'they deserve it because they oppose everything I'm in favour of'. This fits with your basic schtick I guess - that lefties are just itching for a scrap and that righties are unduly victimised and subjected to the violent impulses of inherent lefty brutishness.

I'll just state, again, that I have never said that all lefties are just itching for a scrap. The lefties I'm referring to are the ones that are espousing the moral imperative or propriety of punching nazis, white supremacists and other "hate speakers." There is a leftist movement in that regard, which I think you will acknowledge exists.

Also, I am not suggesting that you hold that view. When I asked for what it "depended on" and what your "meta" analysis was, I was asking only for clarification of your view on the topic. I clicked the three links you posted and I did not see anything that helps clarify your position on it. One point I needed clarification on was your comment using the term "resist" above. I wanted to clarify what action you felt would be included in that term. I think you've clarified it for me.

Based on your posts, I'm gathering that you do not think anyone should be punching anyone (except presumably if they are acting self-defense or other generally lawful circumstance that allows punching). So, if you agree there, then I think we are in agreement. However, if there are circumstances where punching is justified, in your view, by the political opinions held or espoused by a given individual, then I would ask that those circumstances be specified, so I can try to understand your view of it.

Undertaking a detailed explanation of ethics in action is not required here beyond drawing attention to the notions of reciprocity and empathy implicit in basic ethical principles like the golden rule. However, let me state again that political violence is not justified on the basis of holding or opposing particular political ideals - just being a Nazi or a Commie, or not, is not enough to warrant a kicking - but defending oneself and one's community against the political violence of others can be a justified means of achieving political change.

Certainly, I agree with that statement. Defending oneself from violence is certainly justified. Also, defense of others from violence is also justified. Where this might raise some issues is in the definition of "political violence." Is the term "political violence" the same as violence, except that the motive is political? Or, is political violence more expansive, going beyond literal violence? I ask this, because there is a trend among certain groups to include non-violent things in the term "violence." Like, I have heard some trans advocates say that refusing to use their preferred pronouns amounts to violence against them. I think that's an uncommon view to hold, but that would be my only caveat. If we're using violence in the common English usage sense, then I agree. But, if we are using violence in a sense that includes words, then I think we need to clarify what's being said.

So, some like to tout Nazism as merely one of a number of competing political viewpoint, but while this is indeed true it is also rather simplistic - it's not as if the implicit normatives of any and every political viewpoint are somehow equal or equivalent is it(?)

They are all equally expressed in words, and they are all equally ideas (meaning thoughts in peoples' heads). However, not all ideas are "equal" in that intellectual, logical, rational and moral judgments can be brought to bear, such that different people have different views on the relative merits of given ideas and political viewpoints. In that sense, no political viewpoints are equal, as all political viewpoints are viewed by different people differently.

The political, social, and economic ideals of Nazis are the issue, not the fact that they have some ideals. Nazi's are political bigots and their views encompasses such familiar fascist ideals as enforcing racial superiority and purity, the imposition of authoritarian control and the removal of citizen rights to political self-determination, command economics, and the idealisation of exclusionary nationalism, etc. If someone is advocating taking away your rights and freedoms by force how are you supposed to resist them, particular when saying "No" marks you out as a degenerate enemy of the party, and by extension an enemy of the state?

Well, lots of people and lots of political viewpoints want to take away other people's rights. Some political viewpoints want to take away the right of free speech, such that it would be unlawful to make "Islamophobic" comments, or to refuse to use preferred pronouns for trans people. There are those who want to take away my right to private property, or my right to freely associate with others, my right to freedom to enter into private contracts, etc. Some people want to take away my right to a trial by jury, or my right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or many other rights - the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, if someone is advocating taking away those rights and freedoms, how am I supposed to resist them?

I note, of course, that you added the term "advocating taking away rights and freedoms" the words "by force," which, of course, radically changes the analysis. So, I would say that Communists, for example, traditionally have advocated taking away rights by force. They advocated and still advocate violent revolution as the only means to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, and thereby allow them to eliminate private property rights, for example. So, that's what "advocating" the use of force looks like. And, in that kind of case, where someone or some group is advocating the overall necessity of violence or the benefits of violence, etc., that the defense to that is advocacy the other way. Public discourse.

However, if "advocating taking away rights and freedoms by force" rises to the level of actually using force, then the persons using force should be resisted by force. If the advocacy rises to the level of advocating immediate unlawful violent acts -- like "there's the Nazi! go and beat his ass! Let's get him!" Then that would be an issue of inciting immediate violence. Of course, advocating the general benefits of punching Nazis is fine. And, clearly, that's what a lot of people these days are doing. You even see university professors telling cops they should be beating the shit out of alleged Nazis.

So yeah, when it comes to the ethics of forcefully resisting a set of political ideals, I will only say that 'it depends' on the nature, scope, necessities, and consequences of those ideals.

So, that's why I asked for clarification -- maybe you can give an example of an ideal which, if held by a person and expressed by that person, would be of the nature and scope, and have the necessary resulting consequences, such that it would warrant punching them (under circumstances that would not normally justify punching anyone)? You set forth a host of beliefs you find are part of Nazism above - does that mean that you felt forcibly resisting a person holding those ideals (but not themselves engaging in violence) was morally warranted?

[pErvinalia]

You just couldn't help a "yebbut commies!"... I'm imagining Brian's exasperation right now..

[laklak]

I'd gladly punch a religious fundamentalist. Particularly of the IS or Phelps variety. Of course, I'd want to be totally non-identifiable for purposes of not having my head chopped off at some later point...

You could wear some sort of disguise so they can't tell who you are. This might work...

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

You just couldn't help a "yebbut commies!"... I'm imagining Brian's exasperation right now..

It's not "yebbut commies!"

Discussions of issues like this require examples. That's an example of a group which espouses and advocates the use of violence. I was using them as an example of where it is generally permitted for a group to advocate violence, and it would not normally be thought morally acceptable to go and punch out an avowed communist, because they advocate using violence to achieve communist ends. It's also an example of a group that advocates taking away people's rights. So, the example is given to try to get at when Brian is suggesting it is moral to use force against them because of their views.

One might say, as you have, that there is no real threat of Commies achieving their ends these days. But, of course, lots of people say that there is no real way for the Nazis to achieve their ends either. There are people who disagree and can articulate a case for and against both of those positions.

So, what I'm trying to get at is the moral analysis being used here. I'm not just saying "yebbut commies!"

I don't see why Brian would be exasperated. I seriously addressed his post, and explained where I was looking for clarification. Your problem, pErvin, is that you don't want these kinds of discussions to go beyond the surface, and into the meat and potatoes of the issues. You just like surface arguments, based mainly on an in-group, out-group, labeling system, and your own perceived superior empathy. I'm sure Brian can see that I've taken his argument seriously and I did not dismiss it with a hand-wave, as you have attempted to allege here. If he wants to discuss the issues, I find it enjoyable and I would be happy to keep talking about it with him.

[Hermit]

I would say that Communists, for example, traditionally have advocated taking away rights by force. They advocated and still advocate violent revolution as the only means to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, and thereby allow them to eliminate private property rights, for example.

And if you'd say that you'd be doing nothing more than parading your ignorance. Rude words? Wait. Hear me out.

Firstly, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the difference between revolutionary communists and reformist communists. The split began at the second congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903 and completed the following year. The revolutionaries became known as Bosheviks (meaning majority) and the reformists as Mensheviks (minority). The majority status of the Bolshies did not last long. In 1906 the Mensheviks became the majority and retained it ever since.

History gets too complicated between 1906 and the October Revolution to go into detail, but the upshot is that the revolutionary communists became the only organisation committed to disengage from the great War. Given the unspeakable disaster that war was for the vast majority of Russians, this numerically tiny organisation attracted the support of almost everybody, not on ideological grounds but on purely bread and butter issues. The provisional government under Kerensky consisted of a coalition in which the reformist communists had a plurality. They had deposed the Tsar in February, but by insisting on continuing the war they had sealed their own fate. Under Trotsky's leadership it took little more than sabre-rattling to liquidate the Duma. The storming of the Winter Palace is a myth. The casualty tally for that night was one dead, two injured. The small number of revolutionary communists succeeded mainly because practically nobody cared to support the government.

In the rest of Europe revolutionary communists never got a realistic chance to emulate Lenin's coup. Yes, there were plenty of other communists, intent on nationalising the means of production et cetera, but they were reformists. That is to say, they thought it is possible to create a communist society via parliamentary reforms and eschewed an actual shooting type struggle with real bullets and stuff. And they too were in favour of war when the chips were down, especially so the members of Germany's SPD. Over the next several decades their socialism became even more watered down. The expectation of nationalising the means of production shrank to plans for nationalising the banking sector, and that in turn was replaced by a desire to regulate the finance sector. I am not knowledgeable about post 1950s developments, but I can tell you that what used to be reformist communists have turned into social democrats whose main claim is that they can run capitalist systems better than liberals and reactionaries. In Australia the metamorphosis has gone to the extreme of the same party that proposed to nationalise banks in 1948 actually selling the only remaining federally owned bank off to the private sector. The leader of that particular government also proposed to sell the post office and the telephone company.

So, yeah, so much for "Communists ... advocated and still advocate violent revolution as the only means to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, and thereby allow them to eliminate private property rights." Clearly, most communists are not even communists any more, and most of the few that do remain are clearly ignoring Marx's exhortation to overthrow the ruling class by means of a violent revolution. If you are worried about a few hundred unorganised lunatics spread across the colleges and universities of your great nation, you really have a kangaroo loose in the top paddock.

Secondly, and I'll keep this really brief because I spent more time on this post than I intended already, you got the communist concept of private property all wrong. Proudhon did write that property is theft, but when Marx wrote about abolishing private property, he was not thinking of your dinner plate, bedsheets or even the roof over your head. He wrote about the means of production when he used the term "private property". And as far as political movements in the real world go, while there certainly were Marxist communist ones among them, be they of the revolutionary or the reformist variety, there equally certainly never was a real world political movement that might be called Proudhonist communist.

[Brian Peacock]

...
You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not avoiding the question, just the dichotomy. I'm saying I think it should be resisted no matter who is advocating limiting others rights and freedoms by force - and here I mean 'resist' in it's usual sense of withstanding, combating the effects of, etc, and that the form which that resistance takes is best determined in light of the context and the circumstances. You're asking if it is OK to punch Nazis or Communists, because they're Nazis and Communists, and I'm saying it depends, that is; no outright condemnation but no outright endorsement either. I'd also point out that my political views are not grounded in a commitment to an ideological position or by the affiliatory politics of identity but but by the application of certain ethical and meta-ethical considerations arrived at on a case-by-case basis. That I end up on the left-hand side of the divide is a happen-stance, not an ideal, and certainly not an imperative.

Interesting - what does it depend on? (referring to your statement that whether it's o.k. to punch Nazis or communists "depends?" What are the "meta-ethical considerations" -- i.e. what ethical principles do you bring to bear on each case to determine who is punch-worthy?

How tiresome.

I'm rather bored by this apparent and continuing requirement for me to somehow prove to your satisfaction that I do not condone the use political violence from any quarter, despite the qualifications I have already given - such as here, here, or here for example.

Nonetheless your implicit assumptions highlight your apparent confusion about my position in this respect, one error being an assumption that undertaking an evaluation "to determine who is punch-worthy" is somehow necessary in the first place--which pre-supposes that violence is a component of politics and/or that one needs only cast around the panoply of political viewpoints before one will find somebody deserving of a punch up the bracket--and another that a justification for political violence can reside in the self-reinforcing declaration of 'they deserve it because they oppose everything I'm in favour of'. This fits with your basic schtick I guess - that lefties are just itching for a scrap and that righties are unduly victimised and subjected to the violent impulses of inherent lefty brutishness.

I'll just state, again, that I have never said that all lefties are just itching for a scrap. The lefties I'm referring to are the ones that are espousing the moral imperative or propriety of punching nazis, white supremacists and other "hate speakers." There is a leftist movement in that regard, which I think you will acknowledge exists.

Also, I am not suggesting that you hold that view. When I asked for what it "depended on" and what your "meta" analysis was, I was asking only for clarification of your view on the topic. I clicked the three links you posted and I did not see anything that helps clarify your position on it. One point I needed clarification on was your comment using the term "resist" above. I wanted to clarify what action you felt would be included in that term. I think you've clarified it for me.

Based on your posts, I'm gathering that you do not think anyone should be punching anyone (except presumably if they are acting self-defense or other generally lawful circumstance that allows punching). So, if you agree there, then I think we are in agreement. However, if there are circumstances where punching is justified, in your view, by the political opinions held or espoused by a given individual, then I would ask that those circumstances be specified, so I can try to understand your view of it.

Why do you continue to ask me which group/s I'm prepared to punch based on their political opinions? Eh? Seriously, why?

Undertaking a detailed explanation of ethics in action is not required here beyond drawing attention to the notions of reciprocity and empathy implicit in basic ethical principles like the golden rule. However, let me state again that political violence is not justified on the basis of holding or opposing particular political ideals - just being a Nazi or a Commie, or not, is not enough to warrant a kicking - but defending oneself and one's community against the political violence of others can be a justified means of achieving political change.

Certainly, I agree with that statement. Defending oneself from violence is certainly justified. Also, defense of others from violence is also justified. Where this might raise some issues is in the definition of "political violence." Is the term "political violence" the same as violence, except that the motive is political? Or, is political violence more expansive, going beyond literal violence? I ask this, because there is a trend among certain groups to include non-violent things in the term "violence." Like, I have heard some trans advocates say that refusing to use their preferred pronouns amounts to violence against them. I think that's an uncommon view to hold, but that would be my only caveat. If we're using violence in the common English usage sense, then I agree. But, if we are using violence in a sense that includes words, then I think we need to clarify what's being said.

Is what I mean by 'political violence' really in any doubt here? Do you really think I maintain that it's a special subset of 'violence' in general? Certainly violence plays a part and/or is manifest in the wars, acts of terror, the effects of global poverty, crime, as well the fascisms of sexism and racism we hear about on the news, but do all these things need their own defined category of 'violence'? Whether violence is brought to bear to establish a set of political values or systems, in the name of a utopian ideal, to assert dominion over others, to control or punish others, or just for shits-and-gigs, violence is violence - look it up in a dictionary.

So, some like to tout Nazism as merely one of a number of competing political viewpoint, but while this is indeed true it is also rather simplistic - it's not as if the implicit normatives of any and every political viewpoint are somehow equal or equivalent is it(?)

They are all equally expressed in words, and they are all equally ideas (meaning thoughts in peoples' heads). However, not all ideas are "equal" in that intellectual, logical, rational and moral judgments can be brought to bear, such that different people have different views on the relative merits of given ideas and political viewpoints. In that sense, no political viewpoints are equal, as all political viewpoints are viewed by different people differently.

Neither are they all equal in consequence - as I'm sure you'll acknowledge - so I don't think you can have it both ways here; on one hand saying they are not equal in content and context, but on the other say they are all equal politically.

The political, social, and economic ideals of Nazis are the issue, not the fact that they have some ideals. Nazi's are political bigots and their views encompasses such familiar fascist ideals as enforcing racial superiority and purity, the imposition of authoritarian control and the removal of citizen rights to political self-determination, command economics, and the idealisation of exclusionary nationalism, etc. If someone is advocating taking away your rights and freedoms by force how are you supposed to resist them, particular when saying "No" marks you out as a degenerate enemy of the party, and by extension an enemy of the state?

Well, lots of people and lots of political viewpoints want to take away other people's rights. Some political viewpoints want to take away the right of free speech, such that it would be unlawful to make "Islamophobic" comments, or to refuse to use preferred pronouns for trans people. There are those who want to take away my right to private property, or my right to freely associate with others, my right to freedom to enter into private contracts, etc. Some people want to take away my right to a trial by jury, or my right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or many other rights - the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, if someone is advocating taking away those rights and freedoms, how am I supposed to resist them?

I note, of course, that you added the term "advocating taking away rights and freedoms" the words "by force," which, of course, radically changes the analysis. So, I would say that Communists, for example, traditionally have advocated taking away rights by force. They advocated and still advocate violent revolution as the only means to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, and thereby allow them to eliminate private property rights, for example. So, that's what "advocating" the use of force looks like. And, in that kind of case, where someone or some group is advocating the overall necessity of violence or the benefits of violence, etc., that the defense to that is advocacy the other way. Public discourse.

However, if "advocating taking away rights and freedoms by force" rises to the level of actually using force, then the persons using force should be resisted by force. If the advocacy rises to the level of advocating immediate unlawful violent acts -- like "there's the Nazi! go and beat his ass! Let's get him!" Then that would be an issue of inciting immediate violence. Of course, advocating the general benefits of punching Nazis is fine. And, clearly, that's what a lot of people these days are doing. You even see university professors telling cops they should be beating the shit out of alleged Nazis.

The thing here is the advocacy of violence, or the urge or impulse to use force and a declaration as to the necessity of that kind of action to achieve declared aims. Whether that happens 'on the spot' as it were, or whether it happens sometime later, it's still incitement in its advocacy of force. Beyond that I'm not here to represent, let alone defend, Communism or angry college professors, so you'll have to figure those out for yourself. I don't think your conclusions on either are in any doubt though.

So yeah, when it comes to the ethics of forcefully resisting a set of political ideals, I will only say that 'it depends' on the nature, scope, necessities, and consequences of those ideals.

So, that's why I asked for clarification -- maybe you can give an example of an ideal which, if held by a person and expressed by that person, would be of the nature and scope, and have the necessary resulting consequences, such that it would warrant punching them (under circumstances that would not normally justify punching anyone)? You set forth a host of beliefs you find are part of Nazism above - does that mean that you felt forcibly resisting a person holding those ideals (but not themselves engaging in violence) was morally warranted?

You know what I'm thinking here? I'm thinking that continuing to charge me with outlining the conditions when punching someone on the basis of their political opinions is warranted is little more that trolling for the sake of it now. If you think there's a ready answer to that one please feel free to let us know what it is.

[Forty Two]

Why do I keep asking which groups? My question was conditional. It was IF there were any persons you'd think it moral to punch due to their views, then specify. The easy answer, if there aren't any, is "none."

You say things like this: "So yeah, when it comes to the ethics of forcefully resisting a set of political ideals, I will only say that 'it depends' on the nature, scope, necessities, and consequences of those ideals." So to me that implies that there may be people you would use force against due to their political ideas. If that's not the case, let me know.

You said something about there not being a ready answer. If you don't know who might fit that scenario, then say so. That's all. The reason I kept reponding tô you is that your posts are hard to get a grasp on your position

[Brian Peacock]

Bollocks. My position is pretty clear, you just don't seem to want to acknowledge it. You are the only one who's forcing the issue here: I've just pointed out that the dichotomous framing of that issue is spurious and that it cannot in all reasonableness be addressed with a definitive, categorical statement - so if you think that there are certain circumstances where punching someone on the basis of their political opinions alone is warranted then out with it man.