The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[pErvinalia]

peaceful leftist, black bloc, anarchist, or communist, or whatever, left-wing group,

[Forty Two]

Nobody, as far as I've heard, has argued that peaceful leftist, black bloc, anarchist, or communist, or whatever, left-wing group,

[pErvinalia]

FFS. Why in the fuck would you have heard people talk about peaceful black bloc? It doesn't exist. So why the fuck are you even mentioning it?

And regarding the point I was responding to, you DEMONSTRABLY DID talk about peaceful groups.

[Forty Two]

FFS. Why in the fuck would you have heard people talk about peaceful black bloc? It doesn't exist. So why the fuck are you even mentioning it?

And regarding the point I was responding to, you DEMONSTRABLY DID talk about peaceful groups.

Are you ever able to respond to people without being a complete and total....what you usually are? Came the fuck down.

Why would I have heard people talk about peaceful black bloc? Because members of the black bloc are not always rioting, doofus. You could have a member of a black bloc or antifa group standing their talking to a reporter and not attacking anyone. And, presumably, not all black bloc or antifa groups are into beating other people up, and instead may be more into the symbolism.

The point is, you cannot take action against an individual member of a group because of the label you slap on the group - peaceful, not peaceful, whatever. It doesn't MATTER if they're peaceful.

Also, I was responding to L'Emmerdeur's post asking why there wasn't a thread about the ethics of punching black bloc. i was explaining why I created the thread ethics of punching nazis vs. ethics of punching black bloc members. And, the point is, for example, that the prime alleged nazi in question, Richard Spencer, WAS being peaceful, and there was no allegation that his "group" was overall "not peaceful." So, my comment there was that I had not heard of anyone alleging that peaceful black block, commies, or whatever should be punched for their views.

Hopefully you understand that. But, you'll probably get all huffy and puffy like you do and try, once again, to turn this into some fight over a side-issue in your never ending attempt to drive people off threads you don't like and ultimately off the forum if you can achieve it.

I demonstrably talked about groups which you may (or may not) regard as peaceful. I did not suggest that I thought any particular groups were or were not, qua groups, peaceful. I don't view people in group senses. The morality of punching people is on an individual basis, not by association with a group or by reason of a viewpoint held or expressed.

I suggested that I had not heard anyone argue that peaceful groups X, Y or Z should be punched for their views (referring to members of the groups - obviously, since you can't punch a group). At the crux of my point is that it doesn't matter whether a group, as a group, is peaceful or not, and so I'm not going to get into any argument over which groups are or are not peaceful.

[pErvinalia]

Problem is that by the usual use of English you were referring to groups, not individuals. I await further butchering of the English language.

[Forty Two]

Oh for fuck's sake. It can't be explained much simpler. You'll have to tell me what portion you're not understanding. I'll try to explain it again. You do this shit all the time - you take a clause - misconstrue it (probably on purpose) without reference to even the full sentence, let alone the paragraph - and then go on and on grousing and griping.

What is so difficult about it? What's the misuse of the language? This sentence? "Nobody, as far as I've heard, has argued that peaceful leftist, black bloc, anarchist, or communist, or whatever, left-wing group,..." Put on your thinking cap, dumbass. I am saying there that I have not heard SOMEONE ELSE argue that peaceful leftist, black block, anarchist, or communist, whatever left wing groups ought to be punched on sight. Right? Because L'Emmerdeur was asking why there wasn't another motherfucking thread about that.

Now.. see if you can keep up... there ARE people that say it's moral to punch members of Nazi or white supremacist groups because of their views. So, that's why I started the thread - ethics of punching Nazis. Why haven't I started a thread "ethics of punching black bloc"? Because nobody fucking says "it's moral to punch black bloc-ers."

Now, is that so fucking hard to understand? Obviously, for you it is. Or, you are just trolling.

Focus - that part about other people not suggesting black bloc, commies and other groups are punch-worthy is directed at L'Emmerdeur's inquiry about why the thread was not created asking about the ethics of punching black bloc. Right? See that? There ARE people saying punching members of group X is moral -- and there AREN'T people saying that members of group Y is moral - thus, a thread is created about punching group X and not group Y.

God you are insufferably stupid.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, don't make your grammar problems mine. Write more coherently if you want to avoid this sort of thing.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Because L'Emmerdeur was asking why there wasn't another motherfucking thread about that.

. . .

L'Emmerdeur's inquiry . . .

Not so motherfucking much. Note the lack of a fucking question mark; the absence of sentence structure indicating a motherfucking interrogative:

There is no thread here on "The Ethics of Punching Black Bloc" though.

The fact is that there are violent clashes between black bloc "antifa" zealots and white nationalist/supremacist chest-thumpers. In the "violence is justified" sweepstakes neither side has a righteous claim to the prize as far as I'm concerned.

However, for ideological reasons, one might focus on the reprehensible behavior of one group while largely ignoring that of their dance partners. By maintaining a pretense of unfamiliarity with the ideology being promoted by a particular person, one might attempt to cast doubt on the despicable nature of their ideology.

[Forty Two]

Dude, don't make your grammar problems mine. Write more coherently if you want to avoid this sort of thing.

My writing was coherent. Either you have trouble reading, or you're trolling again.

[Forty Two]

Because L'Emmerdeur was asking why there wasn't another motherfucking thread about that.

. . .

L'Emmerdeur's inquiry . . .

Not so motherfucking much. Note the lack of a fucking question mark; the absence of sentence structure indicating a motherfucking interrogative:

There is no thread here on "The Ethics of Punching Black Bloc" though.

The fact is that there are violent clashes between black bloc "antifa" zealots and white nationalist/supremacist chest-thumpers. In the "violence is justified" sweepstakes neither side has a righteous claim to the prize as far as I'm concerned.

However, for ideological reasons, one might focus on the reprehensible behavior of one group while largely ignoring that of their dance partners. By maintaining a pretense of unfamiliarity with the ideology being promoted by a particular person, one might attempt to cast doubt on the despicable nature of their ideology.

[pErvinalia]

Dude, don't make your grammar problems mine. Write more coherently if you want to avoid this sort of thing.

My writing was coherent. .

You were literally talking about groups in the first part of the sentence. That the second part of your sentence can only sensibly refer to individuals is no repudiation of incoherence. It literally proves it.

[pErvinalia]

Here's how you should have written it:

Nobody, as far as I've heard, has argued that peaceful individuals of leftist, black bloc, anarchist, communist, or whatever left-wing group, should be punched for their views.

Even before correcting it for individuals i had to remove an 'or' and a comma to even make it grammatically coherent.

[JimC]

Here's how you should have written it:

Nobody, as far as I've heard, has argued that peaceful individuals of leftist, black bloc, anarchist, communist, or whatever left-wing group, should be punched for their views.

Even before correcting it for individuals i had to remove an 'or' and a comma to even make it grammatically coherent.

[pErvinalia]

New phone. it's got a mind of its own

[JimC]

A semicolon after phone would be the better option...