R10Neymarfan said:

These people lost their right when they ran over protestors.

Click to expand...

Chmpocalypse said:

Did a NeoGAF mod really just associate Naziism with a legitimate political position?

Edit: I swear the poster was red when I went to post the above. My mistake!

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

D i Z said:

Does the same hold true for the nazi's and racists that are violent to other people then? That stuff happens on the daily and nobody seems to bat an eye to it. In fact, eyes usually can't waste time to turn away fast enough. But lets knock out a few Nazi's and all of a sudden our Democratic state is in jeopardy.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

Never going to condone this shit. If you think that violently assaulting someone solely for their political views - however reprehensible they might be - is okay, then you are not one of the good guys. Even the person who may or may not have been responsible for this happening is refusing to identify himself - because he believes that exactly the same will happen to him, at the hands of someone who thinks his political position is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

BronsonLee said:

This is going to end with Evilore just lighting the theater on fire isn't it

Click to expand...

Raguel said:

You just gonna keep digging that grave with Nazism as a political position huh?

Click to expand...

BronsonLee said:

This is going to end with Evilore just lighting the theater on fire isn't it

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

snip.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

Duane Cunningham said:

Play Nazi games, win Nazi prizes!

Click to expand...

plagiarize said:

So you have zero perspective from this non violent action against you, and furthermore our words have failed to make any difference to your viewpoint.

But we can totes just talk down Nazis right?

Click to expand...

Gordon Shumway said:

That was one intolerant right..

Click to expand...

plagiarize said:

So you have zero perspective from this non violent action against you, and furthermore our words have failed to make any difference to your viewpoint.

But we can totes just talk down Nazis right?

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

Feep said:

I don't technically disagree with the point that Nazism is a political position...but the concept that "you can't punch people for political differences" is nonsense. Any set of beliefs regarding how the rule of law should work can be classified as a political position. If you'd like to kill all Jews, and have that be in any way enshrined into the government or law, that's a political position.

And I will punch anyone who rolls on *those* politics.

Click to expand...

Raguel said:

You just gonna keep digging that grave with Nazism as a political position huh?

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

I was - I have been demodded as a knee-jerk reaction to someone not understanding my point, or not being able to tolerate it. That's fine with me. Anyone who knows me or has read anything I've posted in the past knows that I am not in any way a Nazi sympathiser or apologist. I am, however, a big believer in justice, and that means that I'm going to be against vigilante violence, whether it's against Nazis or not, and whether it's by police, random bystanders or Batman himself.

I thought long and hard before using those words (and before posting in this thread at all), and I did it because what matters isn't necessarily what you or I think about the legitimacy of their position. What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor in this case. And whether they're right or not is irrelevant. Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

This isn't moral relativism. I'm not saying at any level that these positions are equivalent. What I believe doesn't matter in any of this - what matters is the belief of the people throwing the punch, or swinging the axe, or pulling the trigger, or whatever action they believe is justified.

In fact the way you get rid of moral relativism from the equation is by saying that no, the decision is not one to be taken by individuals; it's to be taken by a firmly established law. Yes, I understand a lot of why this doesn't always happen in the US. That doesn't mean that the 'right' approach is to turn to vigilante violence, though. I can see why it's tempting, and I can understand why people do it and support it (and even why there's a mob reaction against everyone who rejects it). But I can't condone it.

And for everyone criticising me for using the phrase 'political position' to describe Nazism, would you not describe it as an extreme right-wing ideology? Because that's the language of politics. Placing it outside that sometimes is a dangerous move, because it treats it like it's some kind of special case, and it isn't. It's an example of the worst one of the most unpleasant extremes in politics has to offer, and treating it as something separate makes it more difficult to say that other positions in the same part of the political spectrum have many aspects that are just as bad.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

Because if they can set themselves up in that way, even for a righteous cause, other people with differing viewpoints can and will as well. You hate Nazis, right? Of course you do. All right-thinking people do. But there are people who believe that other positions are just as bad. And while it's easy to say that these people are wrong, that doesn't take away from the fact that they believe they're not, with just as much fervour as you believe that Nazis are wrong. And if this punch is justified, then they can feel justified in taking the same approach.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

What matters is that someone has set themselves up as judge, jury and potentially executor

Click to expand...

jabuseika said:

A lot of people died to bury that flag.

If you wear it, no one is interested in anything you have to say.

If you want to wear it in public, deal with the consequences.

Click to expand...

BronsonLee said:

This is going to end with Evilore just lighting the theater on fire isn't it

Click to expand...

Abstrusity said:

Yeah, it happened. I thought I was seeing things, too.

Click to expand...

Arkanius said:

One doesn't involve mob justice.
We either live in a democratic state or we don't.

Click to expand...

Vigilant Walrus said:

But here is the thing. Nazis want that. They wear it because they welcome the confrontation.

Click to expand...

Bobby Roberts said:

Executioner.

And what they did was hit a nazi being a nazi in public.

Whether they're Nazis is absolutely relevant.

You're doing the same thing the other guy was trying to do, which is (whether you consciously recognize it or just outright refuse to acknowledge your actions) normalizing Nazi beliefs by using bullshit hypotheticals to draw parallels to other ideologies. Like, the non-genocidal ones.

Consistently saying "what I believe doesn't matter" and "whether they're right or not is irrelevant" doesn't even make any sense. Of course what you believe matters. Of course whether they're right or not is relevant. Why wouldn't it be? Why shouldn't it be? You can't say you're not advocating for moral relativism while specifically pushing a hypothetical narrative that relies on it.

You keep missing that the justification for applauding this move is 100% tied up in that relevance. You can't divorce "what you believe" from this scenario, nor should you be asked to because someone somewhere might apply the same action to a lesser cause and try (and fail at) blaming the positive reaction to this as their reasoning.

You get what I'm saying here? You're worried more about what might happen down the line if intolerance towards genocidal figures "goes mainstream."

It gets no more mainstream than World War II, yunno?

History means something. That symbol means something. And the response to the people willingly parading in public espousing the inhumane, genocidal ideas that symbol represents means something.

Trying to work up a scenario where it doesn't seems pointless, to me, beyond whatever mild utility as a sci-fi thought exercise it might have.

Click to expand...

iapetus said:

Are you going to answer the question? Is Nazism a far-right ideology? I mean, it's the dictionary fucking definition of the word.

Click to expand...

Conciliator said:

well at least when they get asked on twitter if they're ever actually punched a nazi, they can say yes now.

Click to expand...

cdyhybrid said:

1) If you want to have the guy arrested for punching someone, fine. I'll still buy him a beer when he gets out.

2) If you trust law enforcement to actually hold white supremacists accountable you're very trusting.

Click to expand...