Support NeoGAF

[cyclonekruse]

what the hell?! very simple, nazi bad, hitting nazi good, period. you wanna be a nazi than keep it to yourself. don't let that manifest physically. will not be tolerated, you will be punched. get back to your nazi closet

If violence is warranted, why stop at a punch? Why not shoot them in the face? I mean, a punch already has the potential to permanently injure or kill someone, so why limit it to simple assault? After all, I think if you're willing to punch someone, you're implying that you're okay with that person dying, since death is certainly a possible outcome given the right circumstances (like their head snapping back into a wall which cracks their skull open and causes them to bleed out).

And so to me, any argument against using lethal force against Nazis will likely apply just as well against using "nonlethal" violence too, since there really isn't a truly "nonlethal" form of violence. And while I'm not inherently opposed to the use of violence (I wouldn't have any qualms about being violent in self-defense), I don't think we should be blasé about it either.

For my part, I prefer that Nazis are open about their bigotry. Better to know who the enemy is than have them hide in the closet. If they're exposed, then their ideas can be combated. If they're hidden, they can quietly gather like-minded individuals to themselves and their influence can fester.

 

[Wrestlemania]

If violence is warranted, why stop at a punch? Why not shoot them in the face? I mean, a punch already has the potential to permanently injure or kill someone, so why limit it to simple assault? After all, I think if you're willing to punch someone, you're implying that you're okay with that person dying, since death is certainly a possible outcome given the right circumstances (like their head snapping back into a wall which cracks their skull open and causes them to bleed out).

And so to me, any argument against using lethal force against Nazis will likely apply just as well against using "nonlethal" violence too, since there really isn't a truly "nonlethal" form of violence. And while I'm not inherently opposed to the use of violence (I wouldn't have any qualms about being violent in self-defense), I don't think we should be blasé about it either.

For my part, I prefer that Nazis are open about their bigotry. Better to know who the enemy is than have them hide in the closet. If they're exposed, then their ideas can be combated. If they're hidden, they can quietly gather like-minded individuals to themselves and their influence can fester.

What if you try to debate a Nazi and the argument is so intense he dies of a heart attack? WHAT THEN?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

If violence is warranted, why stop at a punch? Why not shoot them in the face? I mean, a punch already has the potential to permanently injure or kill someone, so why limit it to simple assault? After all, I think if you're willing to punch someone, you're implying that you're okay with that person dying, since death is certainly a possible outcome given the right circumstances (like their head snapping back into a wall which cracks their skull open and causes them to bleed out).

And so to me, any argument against using lethal force against Nazis will likely apply just as well against using "nonlethal" violence too, since there really isn't a truly "nonlethal" form of violence. And while I'm not inherently opposed to the use of violence (I wouldn't have any qualms about being violent in self-defense), I don't think we should be blasé about it either.

For my part, I prefer that Nazis are open about their bigotry. Better to know who the enemy is than have them hide in the closet. If they're exposed, then their ideas can be combated. If they're hidden, they can quietly gather like-minded individuals to themselves and their influence can fester.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

 

[cyclonekruse]

What if you try to debate a Nazi and the argument is so intense he dies of a heart attack? WHAT THEN?

Assuming you aren't being facetious and/or disingenuous, sure, there is a minute possibility that a heated verbal exchange results in the death of a person. But I think that no reasonable neutral observer would assign any moral blame to the person who was in the argument. In the case of someone cold-cocking a Nazi who dies as a result of the wound, it's pretty clear that the person doing the punching is at least partly to blame for the death. It's a different circumstance.

To give a different example, going to a hospital and accidentally startling someone who is struggling with a weak heart which results in his/her death is not blameworthy. Going there while they're sleeping and then blowing an airhorn in the room is, even though physical violence doesn't factor in. One action shows negligent disregard for another person's life while the other does not.

 

[cyclonekruse]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

Perhaps you could explain why you think the continuum fallacy applies here.

 

[bob_arctor]

what the hell?! very simple, nazi bad, hitting nazi good, period. you wanna be a nazi than keep it to yourself. don't let that manifest physically. will not be tolerated, you will be punched. get back to your nazi closet

Bingo.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Perhaps you could explain why you think the continuum fallacy applies here.

Because you're the one pushing this "b-b-b-but a punch could kill them so you should be okay with just killing them" bullshit

 

[cyclonekruse]

Because you're the one pushing this "b-b-b-but a punch could kill them so you should be okay with just killing them" bullshit

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

Interestingly enough, none of the articles you linked actually has Nazis being punched to death and attempting to paint them in a sympathetic light. I wonder why?

 

[bob_arctor]

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

My man. Nazis will always be punched in the face. Always. Just like Nazis will always be pieces of shit. It's a cosmic law.

 

[mcarlie]

Both the Nazi organisations and Antifa are organisations for people prone to violence. People who consider the ability to beat some one up as an admirable property. People who are too stupid to do anything without their fists.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Both the Nazi organisations and Antifa are organisations for people prone to violence. People who consider the ability to beat some one up as an admirable property. People who are too stupid to do anything without their fists.

If someone wants to erroneously hang you because of their beliefs, then would you not agree that self-defense is justifiable?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

Someone else showed you the continuum fallacy, you were like "show me how that's me," they did, and now you're doing it again.

Try this: when arguing for a position, use real life and moments that have actually happened instead of asking others to validate bizarre hypotheticals you can't stop talking about.

 

[Valhelm]

Both the Nazi organisations and Antifa are organisations for people prone to violence. People who consider the ability to beat some one up as an admirable property. People who are too stupid to do anything without their fists.

Your avatar is John Brown.

Sometimes violence is okay. Sometimes violence is necessary. Blanket pacifism is a really bad idea because those who want to hurt or exploit people will always be violence.

 

[Abstrusity]

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

I don't seem to follow your argument. Are you saying that we should suffer the Nazi to live, or that we should go all the way and just kill them?

I mean, it would certainly make things a lot easier if we just started killing them. This is what you want, right?

Especially since they've been killing people first. "We go high" is just going to get us shot, stabbed, run over, or victimized, suppressed, and oppressed for generations.

Surely you couldn't rationally be making the argument that we should let them run roughshod over us because "The free market of ideas" would work, as if that's ever fucking worked ever, or that hitting them to dissuade them from the violence inherent in their ideology is tantamount to killing them?

Because I don't think things have ever worked out that way.

Violence then, has always been the great effector of change. If only to say "You deal with them, or you deal with us."

And when that deal breaks down, and when the "them" we are backing with violence turns upon us instead, Nazi Germany happens Mao's China happens. Stalin's USSR happens. And Neo-nazis walk our streets and kill our people chanting "Jews will not replace us," or advocating for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" while they "peacefully" cleanse the streets with their cars.

I have mentioned this before elsewhere, if not also here, but there is only one way to think about this.

You are either anti-fascist or you are pro-fascist. You cannot be neither.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Every time you guys talk about Nazis recently, no one brings up Jeremy Christian.

This is the guy who was involved in alt-right, racist rallies and protests in the Seattle/Portland area last year. He was a known Nazi with photos of him goosestepping and audio of him yelling about n-words in public.

Earlier this year, you may remember him as the Nazi who murdered two men on a Portland light rail train after those men defended two Muslim women Christian was yelling at:

Suspect in Portland Hate Crime Murders is a Known White Supremacist
www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/20...te-crime-murders-is-a-known-white-supremacist

The man accused of the brutal hate crime slayings of two people at the Hollywood Transit Center on Friday afternoon is a known local white supremacist.

Jeremy Christian, 35, was booked early Saturday morning on two aggravated murder charges, an attempted murder charge, two intimidation (hate crime) charges, and a felon in possession of a restricted weapon charge.

The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) reported that the man "was on the MAX train yelling various remarks that would be best characterized as hate speech toward a variety of ethnicities and religions. At least two of the victims attempted to intervene with the suspect and calm him down. The suspect attacked the men, stabbing three, before leaving the train."

Who is Jeremy Christian? Facebook shows a man with nebulous political affiliations who hated circumcision and Hillary Clinton
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/who_is_jeremy_christian_facebo.html

So now we have cyclonekruse bringing up the same fucking argument as Nazi defenders in every other Nazi thread here, asking us about hypotheticals and what if's regarding if a punch can kill a yelling Nazi, but never talking about hypotheticals regarding what we should have done about a yelling Nazi who actually fucking murdered people just months ago.

 

[Haly]

If we accept that a punch that can kill is no different from hypothetical murder, then the reverse is also true, so evidently cyclonekruse believes Jeremy Christian merely punched those two men.

And punching is bad.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Interestingly enough, none of the articles you linked actually has Nazis being punched to death and attempting to paint them in a sympathetic light. I wonder why?

That's neither interesting nor relevant to my post. A single punch can kill a person in a very real, documented (as shown by the links), and non-negligible way. A Nazi, as despicable as s/he is, is a person. Therefore, a single punch could kill a Nazi. Or a rock thrown at them. Or shoving them into a solid object. Or any number of things. If that's acceptable to you, then I'd argue that you're displaying disregard toward the Nazi's life. That is, you don't care if a violent act results in a Nazi dying. Or, at least, you're not concerned enough to oppose the violent act happening in the first place.

A related idea: if you're okay with a punch but not killing someone, at what point does the violent act become unacceptable?

Someone else showed you the continuum fallacy, you were like "show me how that's me," they did, and now you're doing it again.

Try this: when arguing for a position, use real life and moments that have actually happened instead of asking others to validate bizarre hypotheticals you can't stop talking about.

I'm confused. The links I provided were examples of the very thing you asked for. Documented cases in "real life" that show one punch can kill a person. They're not "hypotheticals."

 

[Pantaghana]

Both the Nazi organisations and Antifa are organisations for people prone to violence. People who consider the ability to beat some one up as an admirable property. People who are too stupid to do anything without their fists.

Antifa are not an organization, there are no chapters or leaders, they are people that gather to protest fascists and afterwards they move on with their lives.

Yes, you will get some nasty people in there, but that's just the nature of such loose coalitions of individuals.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Imagine arguing so stubbornly about respecting the danger of one punch as a potential killer as a literal argument against respecting the danger of Nazis threatening ethnic cleansing and genocide like they did to 6 million Jews including 1.5 million children during the fucking Holocaust, dude what the fuck.

What books and documentaries have you absorbed about World War 2 recently, cyclonekruse? I want to believe you have a lucid, sober perspective on Nazis from recent edification instead of being callous and specious enough to think examples of people punching Nazis when you weren't even fucking there matters more than what Nazis have done to millions of families.

 

[Tye The Czar]

Here's an earlier article that goes into detail on the problem with punching them:
The Creepy Neo Nazi PR Strategy They Don't Want You To Know
Personally, I don't believe punching them will make them stop believing in their cause.

A lot of us on GAF are talking about whether we should beat facists, but not about better alternatives.

Here's what I advocate for:
We pressure businesses and organizations to refuse to support, serve or cater to nazis and bigots.
Taking away their platforms to spew their vile will be far, far more effective in the long run than acting like you're already in an all-out war. And remember, these private groups aren't government, so they literally aren't violating anyone's First Amendment privileges.

Don't believe me? Remember this post:
White supremacist forum site Stormfront seized by domain hosts
That's right. One of the most notorious hate sites simply disappeared.

And we can help make it happen again. We could do the same for Breitbart.
Imagine convincing Reddit to kick out their worst communities, or getting Twitter to throw out their worst people.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

That's neither interesting nor relevant to my post. A single punch can kill a person in a very real, documented (as shown by the links), and non-negligible way. A Nazi, as despicable as s/he is, is a person. Therefore, a single punch could kill a Nazi. Or a rock thrown at them. Or shoving them into a solid object. Or any number of things. If that's acceptable to you, then I'd argue that you're displaying disregard toward the Nazi's life. That is, you don't care if a violent act results in a Nazi dying. Or, at least, you're not concerned enough to oppose the violent act happening in the first place.

A related idea: if you're okay with a punch but not killing someone, at what point does the violent act become unacceptable?



I'm confused. The links I provided were examples of the very thing you asked for. Documented cases in "real life" that show one punch can kill a person. They're not "hypotheticals."

You're readily assuming that I care enough about a Nazi's life to begin with. Moreover, my point is an incredibly salient response to yours because the gross hypotheticals you are illustrating are equivocating people that aren't open Nazis that were unfortunately killed over petty bar fights to actual practitioniers of Nazism. If a Nazis were exterminated from this Earth today or tomorrow or next month, then I wouldn't shed a tear over people that are willing to poison the rights of other people with their toxic beliefs by endangering them.

Since you seem to want to steer the conversations fowards hypotheticals, then let me respond with my own guiding question: If you're fine with blind pacifism towards other belief systems, no matter how deadly they are, then would you condemn a potential victim of sex trafficking fighting back against their would-be perpetrators because they've been threatened with noncensual prostitution?

This is similar to those fighting back agains the current revival of Nazism in the public discourse. You're nipping the bud before it even begins to victimize other people.

If you want supplementary reading material, then look no further than Liu Kang Baking A Pie's post with something that actually occured because a Nazi threatened a woman on public transit. I would provide further examples for you, but I'm on mobile. Do better.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Here's an earlier article that goes into detail on the problem with punching them:
The Creepy Neo Nazi PR Strategy They Don't Want You To Know Personally, I don't believe punching them will make them stop believing in their cause.

A lot of us on GAF are talking about whether we should beat facists, but not about better alternatives.

Here's what I advocate for:
We pressure businesses and organizations to refuse to support, serve or cater to nazis and bigots.
Taking away their platforms to spew their vile will be far, far more effective in the long run than acting like you're already in an all-out war. And remember, these private groups aren't government, so they literally aren't violating anyone's First Amendment privileges.

Don't believe me? Remember this post:
White supremacist forum site Stormfront seized by domain hosts
That's right. One of the most notorious hate sites simply disappeared.

And we can help make it happen again. We could do the same for Breitbart.
Imagine convincing Reddit to kick out their worst communities, or getting Twitter to throw out their worst people.

This is good! I agree with this strategy, for anyone deeply opposed to punching Nazis.

Though I remember a GAF thread where people were too lazy to even write to Hannity's advertisers while he was being a shit one week, so I don't hold out hope.

 

[Haly]

Yeah about that.

Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a ‘Crazy Idea'

Recently

Mark Zuckerberg: I regret ridiculing fears over Facebook's effect on election

But even then...

Addressing the president's latest tweet, Zuckerberg wrote: "Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don't like. That's what running a platform for all ideas looks like."

And I wager Reddit and Twitter are the same. They won't budge unless their bottom line is hit.

By the way, guess what motivated GoDaddy to action?

The site's removal comes less than two weeks after the domain host GoDaddy told the supremacist commentary site The Daily Stormer that it had 24 hours to find a new web host after the site published a post praising the death of Heather Heyer, who was killed at a violent supremacist rally in Charlottseville that the site referred to as "The Battle of Charlottesville." Google pulled its support for the site soon after.

http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/...ite-stormfront-seized-domain-hosts/604902001/

So I guess for a site the size of Reddit we need a small massacre, and then they can shut down the_Donald.

 

[cyclonekruse]

So now we have cyclonekruse bringing up the same fucking argument as Nazi defenders in every other Nazi thread here, asking us about hypotheticals and what if's regarding if a punch can kill a yelling Nazi, but never talking about hypotheticals regarding what we should have done about a yelling Nazi who actually fucking murdered people just months ago.

Is the implication here that by opposing sucker punching Nazis on the street, I'm somehow tacitly accepting violence perpetrated by Nazis? That's a pretty weak argument.

The two situations aren't exactly similar. One was a guy wearing a swastika and probably saying inflammatory stuff. Christian here was definitely saying inflammatory stuff and he pulled out a weapon. Of course it's fine to defend yourself.

If you're suggesting that punching Christian before he pulled out the knife would have prevented those deaths, I think A) you'd be the one guilty of pushing a hypothetical rather than "real life" at that point and, more importantly, B) a real possibility would be that Christian could have taken the punch, pulled out his knife, killed those people anyway, and gotten off on self-defense. Rather than being vilified and jailed for quite a long time (as appears likely right now, I believe), he very well could have been a free man.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Is the implication here that by opposing sucker punching Nazis on the street, I'm somehow tacitly accepting violence perpetrated by Nazis? That's a pretty weak argument.

Yes.

The original sucker punch was by Nazis who dragged their trusting neighbors and friends out of their houses to be gassed, raped, incinerated, shot, and various other forms of grisly murder and slavery. This is why we don't tolerate Nazis, dude. What books have you read about Nazis lately?

 

[BajiBoxer]

As far as Nazis are concerned, they're a murderous terrorist organization, and a continuation of... well... Nazis. You know, those guys that murdered millions in horrific fashion? When our government refuses to do anything about them, and they've infiltrated our government at multiple levels, some people are naturally going to turn to vigilantism.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Conceptually, eradicating platforms where the alt-right can congregate sounds plausible, I agree. If anything, I think this is the better option in a perfect world. But, we don't live in one, and I don't like to align myself and give all my faith towards corporations that care more for their net profitability over actual moral obligations that they should have for the public at large.

Is the implication here that by opposing sucker punching Nazis on the street, I'm somehow tacitly accepting violence perpetrated by Nazis? That's a pretty weak argument.

The two situations aren't exactly similar. One was a guy wearing a swastika and probably saying inflammatory stuff. Christian here was definitely saying inflammatory stuff and he pulled out a weapon. Of course it's fine to defend yourself.

If you're suggesting that punching Christian before he pulled out the knife would have prevented those deaths, I think A) you'd be the one guilty of pushing a hypothetical rather than "real life" at that point and, more importantly, B) a real possibility would be that Christian could have taken the punch, pulled out his knife, killed those people anyway, and gotten off on self-defense. Rather than being vilified and jailed for quite a long time (as appears likely right now, I believe), he very well could have been a free man.

You're operating on the pretense that people should be victimized prior to indictment. But, with how our judicial system works, it's primary goal is to prevent crime rather than react towards a crime that has already been committed. Also, you're, again, assuming that Nazis have "levels" of hate that they operate in. All Nazis have one sole goal: to eradicate those that they deem unfit for their world. Their levels of participation is moot; if you align yourself with that particular belief, then you're complicit whether you like it or not.

 

[CazTGG]

Is the implication here that by opposing sucker punching Nazis on the street, I'm somehow tacitly accepting violence perpetrated by Nazis? That's a pretty weak argument.

The two situations aren't exactly similar. One was a guy wearing a swastika and probably saying inflammatory stuff. Christian here was definitely saying inflammatory stuff and he pulled out a weapon. Of course it's fine to defend yourself.

If you're suggesting that punching Christian before he pulled out the knife would have prevented those deaths, I think A) you'd be the one guilty of pushing a hypothetical rather than "real life" at that point and, more importantly, B) a real possibility would be that Christian could have taken the punch, pulled out his knife, killed those people anyway, and gotten off on self-defense. Rather than being vilified and jailed for quite a long time (as appears likely right now, I believe), he very well could have been a free man.

.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't know if cyclonekruse remembers a time before 2017, but we used to never see Nazi imagery or promotion unless there was a skinhead on the bus with shitty tattoos. There's a reason for this, and it isn't because we respected Nazi's rights despite their ideology literally calling for ethnic genocide.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

What books and documentaries have you absorbed about World War 2 recently, cyclonekruse? I want to believe you have a lucid, sober perspective on Nazis from recent edification instead of being callous and specious enough to think examples of people punching Nazis when you weren't even fucking there matters more than what Nazis have done to millions of families.

This is where I'm confused.

We didn't win World War 2 with peaceful conversation, yeah. But we also didn't win World War 2 with punches, or even with militias willing to clash with Brownshirts in the streets (There were plenty mid-century equivalents of Antifa trying to punch their way out of fascism in Spain, Germany, Italy, and everywhere else that went fascist). We won World War 2 with bombs and guns.

But Antifa isn't doing that - to the best of my knowledge, they've never killed anyone, and I have no reason to expect they would. People generally don't come out and say what level of violence they're willing to inflict, but the standard picture to post in such circumstances is Captain America decking Hitler, not Nazis freezing on the Russian steppes. There's plenty of public fantasizing about decking a Nazi, but not putting a bullet in their brain, generally. And again, even the furthest left organizations don't seem to want to start bringing weapons to protests or attempt to assassinate prominent American Nazi leaders.

So I'm just really confused. Antifa rhetoric would justify everything up to and including civil war, but not even the most extreme actors are actually pushing us in that direction, and if I even ask the question as to whether they want to inflict the violence their rhetoric suggests Antifa and their allies are offended, genuinely as far as I can tell.

So I suppose I'll ask: does anyone in this thread think that lethal violence is justified in the current circumstances? If it isn't, what distinguishes a situation where punching is okay and one where shooting is okay?

 

[Haly]

I don't know if cyclonekruse remembers a time before 2017, but we used to never see Nazi imagery or promotion unless there was a skinhead on the bus with shitty tattoos. There's a reason for this, and it isn't because we respected Nazi's rights despite their ideology literally calling for ethnic genocide.

Some would argue that the situation changed because of antifa... drawing the lime light to Nazis through their protests and counter protests? I believe this is the general chain of logic centrists employ.

 

[Magwik]

Well, let me ask you then. If the guy in Seattle who was sporting a swastika had been killed instead of just knocked out, how would you have responded? "He was a Nazi....fuck him"? or "He was a Nazi but he didn't deserve to die"?

If it's the former, then clearly you aren't differentiating much yourself between a punch and homicide. If it's the latter, then why are you differentiating between the two when it comes to acceptable acts? Especially when they can definitely be the same thing in some cases.

How would you react if someone wearing a KKK hood in Detroit was shot and killed?

 

[cyclonekruse]

You're readily assuming that I care enough about a Nazi's life to begin with.

I really wasn't. I was offering two options. 1. You're okay with Nazis being out-and-out killed or 2. You're not, in which case you ought to explain why you're okay with them being punched.

Going off the rest of your post, you're in Camp #1...

I'm not sure I'd be down with the "extermination" (your word) of a group on an ideological basis (no matter how messed up the ideology is), but you do you I guess.

 

[cyclonekruse]

How would you react if someone wearing a KKK hood in Detroit was shot and killed?

If their only crime was wearing a white hood, then while I wouldn't lose any sleep at night, I would hope that the person who shot him/her was punished for murder. I'm not "OK" with killing people for being idiots, even provocative ones. Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which the KKK member walking in Detroit could be unlawfully intimidating or harassing or threatening people but based solely on the scenario you gave, I don't see any valid reason for killing him/her.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Replace Nazi with ISIS member. Does that change anything?

Because if it does then you’re a fucking hypocrite at best and a Nazi sympathizer at worst.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If their only crime was wearing a white hood, then while I wouldn't lose any sleep at night, I would hope that the person who shot him/her was punished for murder. I'm not "OK" with killing people for being idiots, even provocative ones. Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which the KKK member walking in Detroit could be unlawfully intimidating or harassing or threatening people but based solely on the scenario you gave, I don't see any valid reason for killing him/her.

Man, you are putting in a LOT of effort to say you don’t give a fuck about bigotry lol.

 

[Phrynobatrachus]

Your avatar is John Brown.

Lol

Personally, I don't believe punching them will make them stop believing in their cause.

cool, nobody thinks that anyways

 

[cyclonekruse]

You're operating on the pretense that people should be victimized prior to indictment. But, with how our judicial system works, it's primary goal is to prevent crime rather than react towards a crime that has already been committed. Also, you're, again, assuming that Nazis have "levels" of hate that they operate in. All Nazis have one sole goal: to eradicate those that they deem unfit for their world. Their levels of participation is moot; if you align yourself with that particular belief, then you're complicit whether you like it or not.

I'd agree that the idea of setting harsh sentences is to deter future acts, but you still don't generally get prosecuted until you do those acts or at least attempt to. So I don't think I'd agree there. It'd be a bit draconian to jail/punish people for crimes they have not actually committed. Conspiracy is probably the notable exception.

And, yes, I do assume there are "levels" of Nazi. I don't equate a 10-year-old who has been indoctrinated by his/her parents but hasn't done any violent acts with a guy who runs over protesters with his car, for example.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Replace Nazi with ISIS member. Does that change anything?

Because if it does then you’re a fucking hypocrite at best and a Nazi sympathizer at worst.

No, not really. In fact, if a declared ISIS militant in the Middle East threw down his gun and surrendered himself, I'd also be against one of our soldiers punching him in the face for good measure or killing him in cold blood. If he then pulled out a knife and charged, by all means light him up. But until then, violence isn't justified once he's become nonviolent.

 

[Tye The Czar]

This is where I'm confused.

We didn't win World War 2 with peaceful conversation, yeah. But we also didn't win World War 2 with punches, or even with militias willing to clash with Brownshirts in the streets (There were plenty mid-century equivalents of Antifa trying to punch their way out of fascism in Spain, Germany, Italy, and everywhere else that went fascist). We won World War 2 with bombs and guns.

But Antifa isn't doing that - to the best of my knowledge, they've never killed anyone, and I have no reason to expect they would. People generally don't come out and say what level of violence they're willing to inflict, but the standard picture to post in such circumstances is Captain America decking Hitler, not Nazis freezing on the Russian steppes. There's plenty of public fantasizing about decking a Nazi, but not putting a bullet in their brain, generally. And again, even the furthest left organizations don't seem to want to start bringing weapons to protests or attempt to assassinate prominent American Nazi leaders.

So I'm just really confused. Antifa rhetoric would justify everything up to and including civil war, but not even the most extreme actors are actually pushing us in that direction, and if I even ask the question as to whether they want to inflict the violence their rhetoric suggests Antifa and their allies are offended, genuinely as far as I can tell.

So I suppose I'll ask: does anyone in this thread think that lethal violence is justified in the current circumstances? If it isn't, what distinguishes a situation where punching is okay and one where shooting is okay?

With the exception of self-defense: No, because:
1. This is technically peacetime.
2. The nazis want to look like martyrs to the more ambivalent public, so some groups are goading antifa into violence.
3. The results of them are only short-term. It won't do much to stop the spread in the long term.

As I previously stated, removing their platforms for propaganda will do the most damage in the long run. We need to pressure Web providers to shut off hate sites like what happened with Stormfront. Boycott businesses and groups that allow hate groups to fester.

 

[sasliquid]

With the exception of self-defense: No, because:
1. This is technically peacetime.
2. The nazis want to look like martyrs to the more ambivalent public, so some groups are goading antifa into violence.
3. The results of them are only short-term. It won't do much to stop the spread in the long term.

As I previously stated, removing their platforms for propaganda will do the most damage in the long run. We need to pressure Web providers to shut off hate sites like what happened with Stormfront. Boycott businesses and groups that allow hate groups to fester.

1. Who determines peacetime? Is everything ok until war is declared?
2. Antifa has been fighting facism for decades. The only reason we hear about it so much now is because facist groups are so prevelant, edit: and facist groups will often position themselves as victims even without violence
3. Most Antifa groups include militant members do engage in more anti-facist activity outside of in person violence, in fact probably a lot more that most people on this forum. They're willing to risk their well being to fight facism, they're not just looking for an excuse to punch a nazi.

Militant anti facism is not meant to completely cut the cancer out put it is meant to stop its presence on the streets. Take the Berkeley anti-milo protests for example, who are we to say it way counter productive when Antifa activity (after attempting to get the event shut down in plenty of other ways) stopped trans and immigrant students getting outed?

 

[ArchedThunder]

Anyone who thinks violence is never the answer doesn't know shit about history.

 

[Oersted]

If their only crime was wearing a white hood, then while I wouldn't lose any sleep at night, I would hope that the person who shot him/her was punished for murder. I'm not "OK" with killing people for being idiots, even provocative ones. Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which the KKK member walking in Detroit could be unlawfully intimidating or harassing or threatening people but based solely on the scenario you gave, I don't see any valid reason for killing him/her.

Here is your friendly reminder that Nazis and white supremacists keep murdering people

 

[mcarlie]

If someone wants to erroneously hang you because of their beliefs, then would you not agree that self-defense is justifiable?

Sure if they actually have the ability to do so.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Some would argue that the situation changed because of antifa... drawing the lime light to Nazis through their protests and counter protests? I believe this is the general chain of logic centrists employ.

I don't know if that is the case in the US, but in the UK it is absolutely not true. Right wing, white nationalism has been given a lot of limelight by the press. For example, the new leader of UKIP was given a half an hour slot on the BBC promtly after been chosen, even though the party is overall super minor again. In fact, UKIP was built by the attention it got from the media. They are absolutely useless lot when it comes to actually debating their points...they wouldn't have gained much traction if left to their own devices.

Mcarlie: So we wait until they have the ability to do so? Is that your logic? Again, I would study pre-WW2 Britain to understand a little about what where complacency can get you.

 

[Rest]

Using WW2 analogies seems stupid. Would it be OK to punch the people who work at a Kinko's (or whatever they are called now) in the face and then burn it down if neo-nazis had photocopied their leaflets there?

Kinko is a Jew, Nazis wouldn't be printing leaflets at a company he started. Kinko is aparently Arab. Besides that, Nazis (typically) get shunned at respectable businesses. They actually have their own businesses specifically to produce Nazi products. It would be okay to shut those businesses down. If the premises happened to catch fire, well, I wouldn't shed any tears.

 

[itxaka]

While fascists are fucking terrible and probably deserve everything, as they themselves advocate doing terrible things to other groups of people, antifa is a dangerous thing to approve. Not because of the violence or crap like that, mostly because when there is not a clear "enemy" they tend to hijack proper protests and turn them into violence-fests. So after the fascists/nazis/trumpers go away, expect them to be attached to different left movements and to help the media portray whatever cause you think is good into a "violent protest by far-left organizations"

It has happened here in spain with several left organized protests in which antifa has totally taken over and resulted into police charging against peaceful protesters or media painting everyone in the protest as evil because a group of antifa started rioting.

Punching nazis in the face may be a correct answer to their hateful speech, but dont let antifa lead that fight.

 

[Oersted]

While fascists are fucking terrible and probably deserve everything, as they themselves advocate doing terrible things to other groups of people, antifa is a dangerous thing to approve. Not because of the violence or crap like that, mostly because when there is not a clear "enemy" they tend to hijack proper protests and turn them into violence-fests. So after the fascists/nazis/trumpers go away, expect them to be attached to different left movements and to help the media portray whatever cause you think is good into a "violent protest by far-left organizations"

It has happened here in spain with several left organized protests in which antifa has totally taken over and resulted into police charging against peaceful protesters or media painting everyone in the protest as evil because a group of antifa started rioting.

Punching nazis in the face may be a correct answer to their hateful speech, but dont let antifa lead that fight.

Watch the video. And lol that tag

 

[adamsappel]

Your avatar is John Brown.

I don't think he's that enlightened. He just likes Kansas.

I do worry about someone dying from a well-deserved punch in the head. I would prefer they get punched in the stomach, so they can vomit and shit themselves instead.