Is Punching A Nazi OK?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Feb 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    It's called the Republican Party.

    Or do only the ineffectual gangs hiding behind public protests,

    and the fictional ones cobbled together in wingnut media out of deceptions and agents provacateur,

    count?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    In the US, increasingly, it's someone clearly identifiable as advocating fascist ideology, whose agenda and political nature that faction wants to hide by misrepresentation of the identification and the identifiers.

    Like this:
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,552
    Isn't that the problem? In otherwise perfectly peaceful, civilized circumstances, the question is moot because there are no Nazis.

    The bottom line is that we don't punch the Nazi. The only reason we have to punch the Nazi in the course of otherwise perfectly peaceful civilized discourse is if the discourse is not perfectly peaceful and civilized; that is to say, if the discourse must necessarily be handicapped to empower Nazis, then the question of punching a Nazi becomes viable according to a question of lacking other recourse.

    The Trump administration just disrupted over a hundred thousand people illegally, and deliberately lied to Americans about the scale of their actions. We know their anti-Constitutional intent. Thus, at what point do the actions become sinister and dangerous in the context of leaving no other recourse? Will the Trump administration, or the identifying Nazis who called for supporters to take action against suspected Jews, and other such groups need to start openly killing people―in an organized or quasi-organized fashion, not simply the uptick in spectacular attacks against minorities―before whoever will call them out? And if they do start killing people that way, will that whoever keep scrambling to make excuses?

    Americans are alarmed because we are now gathered and pressing at a rhetorical precipice. A tremendous amount of our purported, self-asserted civility depends on two ideas: (1) You don't punch a Nazi for the hell of it because (2) this is America and we have some weirdos to be certain but there aren't any real Nazis, and even the separatists in Idaho call themselves neo-Nazis, because they don't want to be the originals. Or, you know, something like that.

    The result, of course, is the dangerous mess we have now, in which the question of stomping Nazis into the pavement becomes a viable question because the harm is already occurring. I'm of the opinion that you don't sucker-punch a Nazi out of costume who happens to be answering questions on camera, but I'm also of the opinion that simply identifying as a Nazi, as this particular Nazi does, is inherently a threat to others. And if one's purpose is to communicate danger to others, he has considerably less cause for complaint―this according to various traditions including the general American societal code―than otherwise.

    But we are now essentially wrestling with a question of when we have no recourse versus how much human damage we will allow before accepting we have crossed that threshold. One of the most dangerous propositions we have is that the proverbial "rest of us" will put up the good fight until we cross a tacit mortality threshold, and then we will throw down and simply start butchering supremacists―entire families gunned and sliced in their homes, churches burned or blown to hell with congregations still inside―because if we're going to go through it again, we will at least murder evil. We are the United States of America; it is our eternal obligation to absolutely never descend to such outcomes.

    Yet there are some who simply won't be satisified until we do.

    And the thing is that compared to the history that precedes us, the history describing such an atrocity would have better chance of justifying itself according to the basic societal realities of the human endeavor. It won't be about "Jew" or "Christian" or "white" or "black", but about an ideology; those who are determined to have their suicide pact will find some way to have their suicide pact, and the proverbial rest of us simply aren't interested in going out that way.

    It's a difficult juxtaposition, but when all is said and done, people will tell of a dear friend of mine how it was inevitable. Before she was ever an addict, or a derelict parent, or even just the wrong partner in the wrong relationship with the wrong other person―which she would probably say is the story of her life, even including her parents―there seems to have been a simple question not so much of entitlement, but trust: If you love me, the proposition goes, how will you prove it to me?

    This is, of course, hardly a unique phenomenon. And that's actually my point in raising the consideration.

    There are myriad forms, but we all know the phenomenon; we all probably have our own versions buried somewhere in our consciences. It's a constant demand, as if you cannot avoid conflicts with certain people in which your role is not to fight back against their abuse, but reassure them and lovingly prove to them why they are wrong by accommodating impossible needs. If they ask you to die for them, and you do, tomorrow they will denounce you for abandoning them.

    In our society we set lofty ideals, and then spend the rest of our lives making excuses for why fulfilling those aspirations is the last thing in the world we should be trying to do because, damn it, there are just so many more things that are just that much more important going on. It seems almost inevitable that we would experience existential doubt. Having gone three generations without resolving the problem―furthermore, not only refusing to address it but actively disdaining and assailing efforts to seek solutions―it seems almost inevitable that the fundamental tension between our own idea of virtue and the fact of our wallowing in sin would demonstrate some observable effect.

    And this is what has come of our determination to torture ourselves and each other. Americans have long believed ourselves so fucking virtuous, yet our heritage is filthy with violence and exploitation and hatred. Over time we have learned we can't lower our standards enough to alleviate the neurotic tension because we all know we're lowering our damn standards.

    And now approximately half the country―not just some few bad seeds―appear to be at the very least nigh on full neurotic rupture. As much as a third, it seems, are already tumbling battered about in the chaotic winds of the breach; and, yes, that is a shocking possibility, but we just got another one-third result exhibiting identity supremacism, and it would seem the real clash of cultures with absurd mortal potential is verging inside these United States of America.

    It is entirely possible that we are in the process of identifying and recognizing an American bloc that would see the Republic collapse in order to accommodate them. I mean, I'm sorry, but we just cannot give them certain policies, and that's the way it goes, and if everything comes apart because they won't let things keep going unless they get every last thing they want, the rest is entirely up to them.

    And a big part of this is overlap. To wit, if my argument that certain blocs of voters have, historically, cut their own throats in leading to this outpouring of feeling, and in many cases actually being, left out or left behind is as reasonably accurate as I seem to think it is, there still remains a question of what that means going forward. Because part of this feeling left behind really is the decline of certain supremacism, a horror at the prospect of mere equality. And this part is what drives the worst of what we hear and see that invokes the question of punching Nazis.

    †​

    It's an obscure line, but I think I get it now; I think I get what Noish-Pa meant when Vladimir asked. Many Americans can feel certain profound choices swirling around the edges of their daily experiences; we tend to prefer not facing these questions, and, in truth, the world is better off if circumstance fails to demand such address.

    I'll have to dig up that reference. (I just don't know where my copy of Teckla is, right now.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,174
    I think punching as a media stunt is pointless.
     
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,174
    I'm not talking about simple fascists, lots of Americans are fascists. I'm talking about people with swastika tattoos.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    One way to spot a "nazi" (self-concealing fascist) is by noticing whether that assessment is used to curb the police and the authoritarian right along with everyone else, or against libertarian left civilians and other pre-marginalized demographic groups only.

    If, for example, the use of agents provocateur by the police - as in the Seattle WTO demonstrations, the Twin Cities Republican Convention, et al - is assumed and included among the serious violations of law and order, an example of extreme and crackdown-justifiying incivility, by the self-described advocate of civilization, they are not a "nazi". Otherwise - - - -

    Likewise with preventive and abusive detention, tear gas and pepper spray and rubber bullet abuse, preemptive riot gear and military tactical equipment deployments, and so forth. If these are recognized violations of law and order, recognized extremes of incivility, by the advocate, they probably aren't a "nazi".
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    That's not what the OP is about.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    When did we start talking about media stunts?
    Why don't you just state your view unequivocally?
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No, it's immoral.


    But, for those entertaining the notion I'd ask: What next? Hit someone who is part of BLM just because they're racist (if they happen to be)? Punch a Jew because he doesn't let you join his conservative synagogue (racism?)? Beat up Muslims who teach their children non-Muslims are sinful and Buddhism is a false religion (theism)?

    and etc....

    Nope, ideas are to be attacked with ideas.
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    A combination of strawman, faulty premise and slippery slope.

    Again, it's immoral to punch someone who is not attacking you.

    As for membership into (so-called) race-based organizations (see: Conservative Judaism, White Nationalists, Black Panthers, KKK, Black Live Matters, Native American Tribes, etc....) assuming they are not harming people, then this becomes a question of aesthetics. Is it aesthetically displeasing or pleasing to you, that some people want to be a part of organizations that revolve around 'race'?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    Of course not. None of those examples are threats of harm or fighting words.

    If you can't tell the difference between ideas and threats, you shouldn't punch anyone.
    An assumption set aside, by the OP - we're talking about "nazis", not harmless people who have ideas or personal bigotries.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Oh? Did the man who was hit threaten the person who sucker punched him? It looked like he was standing there blah blah blah-ing about nonsensical drivel when he was hit with a noodle arm?
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,552
    Because you're reliable. To wit:

    I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

    That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

    Something about a straw man goes here.

    And, you know, if you can't tell the difference between #BlackLivesMatter and white nationalism, you just aren't reliable.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,099
    Dunno. We're talking about the circumstances under which it's ok to punch a "nazi". You are claiming - without information - that the circumstances of that punching didn't qualify. Ok, so?
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You do not live in a country where you can legally shoot someone to death for being black. You can shoot anyone to death to defend yourself. And you should do so if you are being attacked or someone with a gun has entered your store or home with the intent to harm you.

    I think if you look into the numbers themselves objectively, you'll find a small percent of categorically defined males between the ages 18 - 35 (say, 6%) commit around half the violent crimes in the USA. Which may help explain your erroneous assumption. In reality it's statistically more likely and should be given the data. Thus, AFAICT this is part Type II error probably from poor variable control and part correlation is causation (it can be, not nessessarily is though). Remove the identifying information, refer to the categories as defined: A, B, C, D, etc... and normalize for percent total. You'll get your answer then.

    There's a difference of course. There's also similarities. Racial identification being one of them. My solution to both is pretty easy:

    1. Sound money
    2. Laws that protect property and uphold contract
    3. freedom

    This would end Welfare as well as minimum wages laws, rent-seeking and regulatory capture thus allowing for both "peoples" to become prosperous trading with themselves, and for those who really want to make some money, they'll trade the other group and make a killing. The 'racists' will slowly become poor or change.

    But, who wants to do that when we can chant “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon,” or "What do want? Dead Cops! When do want it? Now!" and other such meaningless drivel. Oh, and as for the White Nationalists wanting their 'homeland' - yeah, they can buy it block by block like everyone else. Good luck with that.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The Nazi's ended with the defeat of Germany. That's not what the OP was questioning. They were specifically referring to some noodly arm kid sucker-slapping another kid in the cheek while he was giving an interview about his asinine beliefs.

    Sorry, but attacking an innocent person who doesn't want to go on a date with you is defined as immoral regardless of how much you wish she thought differently of you. Sorry - immoral. So, there's no debate.

    Next question.


    Note: I've knocked out a few people in my time, with a single punch to the face (upper cut to the nose is the most effective and (relatively) safe, a temple punch can kill someone, so don't do that). It's not that difficult. To come up from behind and 'punch' someone and not even knock him down.... well, maybe such a a weak twerpy-slap isn't really a case of attacking someone. Annoying though.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Incidentally, and off topic, you know that whole 'more people are murdered when ice-cream sales go up' example of correlation vs causation? Well, the correlating factor here is the destruction of the family unit. Eighty years ago, poverty was higher, racism legal, and violent crime was much lower. Then came the 'minimum wage' and disenfranchisement of blacks who could no longer compete on wage against whites. You can thank Progressive Socialists. What next? Well, the Socialists solved the problem of 'poverty' (which, ironically was solving itself) with with generational welfare payments, which they set up to pay progressively more if the father was either (a) missing in action, unknown or (b) even better, a bit more if in prison.

    The utter destruction of the family, has essentially led to the massive violence we see today (see: Chiraq or Detroit).


    Who'd have thought it? That human families tend to thrive when the father is a part of their male children's lives? Huh? Odd one that. Shoving them into GiverMint school didn't solve all the problems in the world? Well, I guess those pesty Conservatives got one right for once in their lives. They still cling to their Sky Daddy! The idiots!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,997
    you are neither old enough nor mature enough to be calling someone of richard spencer's age a kid. arrogant and entitled as ever i see.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,552
    Yeah, you sure as hell know. Remember, I live here.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    It is probable that the only thing I need to know about you is that you think this is a good thing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page