Support NeoGAF

[Sulik2]

Violence is one of the few things that consistently brings about change in the history of the world. It absolutely is the answer at times. For hate speech, its not time for violence yet when it is not even banned. The USA has far too wide a view of free speech and needs to outlaw hate speech. People should be fighting for that first, before jumping to violence.

If hate speech continues to grow and gain momentum in say a populist movement, violence absolutely can be the answer. I'm sure there were a lot of Germans who in hindsight wish they had responded to the rise of Nazism in the 1930s with violence. A bullet in Hitler's head would have saved tens of millions of lives.

 

[Omegasquash]

I do believe that people spouting shit like that ought to be punched square on the nose and knocked flat on their butts.

They'll recover. The people they want to persecute...probably not.

Won't shed a tear for a racist shit heel that gets their ass whooped. They have it coming.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm mostly joking, although I believe people should stop saying "violence is not the answer" when clearly it gets people talking more than peaceful protest.

In an ideal world, I would like things to be solved with marches and handshakes, unfortunately, the world isn't ideal. Violence is sometimes the answer.

I got that. You were being cheeky about it, but I had to let out a dejected sigh when I see people are contused by that. Most nobody thinks violence is an ideal solution. In fact for most it doesn't even become an option until they've exhausted all other means. Which means it's super easy for white people to say that violence is never an option because we've never had those other options systematically taken from us. But I can guarantee they would change their tune had they been put under an oppressive thumb for generations.

 

[Frozenprince]

I mean, advocating genocide isn't exactly a "differing viewpoint" but hey.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Talk to me about debating a Nazi over your right to exist yourself. Otherwise you're just peddling unrealistic solutions to a problem that has existed far longer than anyone in this thread.

Not peddling anything friend. Just think it's weak to safely sit behind a keyboard advocating for others to carry out violence on your behalf. Less talk, more action.

 

[CountAntonius]

If we are talking about how history has made positive changes through violence yes of course on a large scale with violent protests or riots they sometimes open people's eyes to real issues many want to ignore. But being one guy going around punching people for talking shit won't do anything but give you a rap sheet. I absolutely understand the desire to do so but that's more due to anger than wanting to make the world a better place.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Hate speech inherently promotes and incites violence.

No it doesn't. This is one of those stretches people try to use and it falls completely short. There is no law saying we have to like one another.

It's entirely possible to not like "X" and want nothing to do with "X" and yet not advocate physically harming "X".

I mean, advocating genocide isn't exactly a "differing viewpoint" but hey.

I mean when it gets to that point, yea, lol. Now that's advocating violence.

 

[capitalCORN]

Talk to me about nazi punching after you've done it yourself. Otherwise you're just being another e-tough guy.

Not Nazis, but I've pushed in the shit of plenty of racists stupid enough to get fresh with me. How many of you peaceniks would allow the same lenience to an Al-Qaeda, or ISIS member? Receipts please.

 

[Ran rp]

I absolutely understand the desire to do so but that's more due to anger than wanting to make the world a better place.

This is about people wanting your entire race exterminated, not renewable energy.

 

[ZealousD]

You, uh, remember WW2, right?

I'm sure these circumstances are exactly the same.

One of the common themes I hear from former white supremacists is that they change their views whenever they receive undeserved compassion from people they hate. I've heard this from Christian Picciolini and I've heard this from Arno Michaelis.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

If we are talking about how history has made positive changes through violence yes of course on a large scale with violent protests or riots they sometimes open people's eyes to real issues many want to ignore. But being one guy going around punching people for talking shit won't do anything but give you a rap sheet. I absolutely understand the desire to do so but that's more due to anger than wanting to make the world a better place.

...but what if we have 1,000 guys going around punching Nazis?

 

[Derwind]

Not peddling anything friend. Just think it's weak to safely sit behind a keyboard advocating for others to carry out violence on your behalf. Less talk, more action.

Whose "carrying out" violence? Whose advocating anyone to search out those who promote genocide and hate and exterminate them?

Saying that hypothetically speaking if someone directs hate speech at myself, they'll probably eat my fist is a reality. People have fought over less and I'd think someone telling me that I'm subhuman and telling me I & all my family should not exist will warrant a smack in the mouth.

 

[Cipherr]

I don't think we can say this without evidence that an actual dialogue attempting to challenge/convince ever occurred. In particular this past year there's been a rise of rhetoric that there should be no discussion with those we oppose, so as not to legitimize their position or give a platform for them to speak, and/or simply because it's not a subject that should be up for debate in the first place.

Case in point, the post immediately following yours:



I'm not claiming that this viewpoint is wrong, just that I'm not sure we have a basis to say discussion doesn't work when discussion is no longer really taking place.

Oh give me a fucking BREAK. Jesus Fucking christ its as if racism was invented yesteryear for some of you people. Theres fucking DECADES OF EVIDENCE that trying to talk this shit away reasonably doesn't work.

DECADES. FOH with the "Well let's try it first" crap.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

No it doesn't. This is one of those stretches people try to use and it falls completely short. There is no law saying we have to like one another.

It's entirely possible to not like "X" and want nothing to do with "X" and yet not advocate physically harming "X".

I cannot think of a single time in history where violence against a demographic of people did not involve the promotion of hate speech being a contribution in that incitement. I mean I guess you could say not all hate speech leads to violence, but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to provide an example of violence against a people that did not include hate speech.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Society is more concerned about people punching nazis over dudes traveling miles to start killing black people.

Makes
you
think

 

[MadLaughter]

Free speech should end somewhere before genocide. We've proven that we can't handle this much slack.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

I'm sure these circumstances are exactly the same.

One of the common themes I hear from former white supremacists is that they change their views whenever they receive undeserved compassion from people they hate. I've heard this from Christian Picciolini and I've heard this from Arno Michaelis.

Most people will not go down a humanist viewpoint like that. The self-control required is asking a lot from people.

 

[capitalCORN]

Society is more concerned about people punching nazis over dudes traveling miles to start killing black people.

Makes
you
think

It really does. Quoting this for visibility.


10-80-10. Read up idiots.

 

[CountAntonius]

This is about people wanting your entire race exterminated, not renewable energy.

I'm Mexican I understand. When somebody makes a racist comment to a family member I want to hit these people out anger and disrespect not because I think it will make them better people.


That being said I don't think hate speech should be protected by law.

 

[Khaz]

Punching people is violence.

Hate speech inherently promotes and incites violence. From both sides.

Let's do something about hate speech now, instead of going "oh no, violence!"

 

[D i Z]

Sweet sweet chin music as far as violence goes is tame considering the cost of hate speech and genocide. I say clarity of intent is always a good thing when dealing with cowardly hate speech.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I cannot think of a single time in history where violence against a demographic of people did not involve the promotion of hate speech being a contribution in that incitement. I mean I guess you could say not all hate speech leads to violence, but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to provide an example of violence against a people that did not include hate speech.

Does all hate speech lead to violence? Every instance of it? No? Well ok then.

 

[bobbychalkers]

Society is more concerned about people punching nazis over dudes traveling miles to start killing black people.

Makes
you
think

 

[ZealousD]

Most people will not go down a humanist viewpoint like that. The self-control required is asking a lot from people.

So because it's hard to be compassionate, we should instead do the exact opposite and punch people instead?

Are we punching people to actually change the world, or is this selfish catharsis?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I have ZERO sympathy for these motherfuckers if their faces become a punching bag. I don't recommended it, but the potential for Schadenfreude is very real. (i.e Richard Spencer)

Let's not get too crazy though.

 

[Merc_]

Still upset that folks didn't want to sympathize with a Nazi right along with you, OP?

 

[Eidan]

So because it's hard to be compassionate, we should instead do the exact opposite and punch people instead?

Are we punching people to actually change the world, or is this selfish catharsis?

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B.

 

[Slayven]

Society is more concerned about people punching nazis over dudes traveling miles to start killing black people.

Makes
you
think

 

[Nozem]

How do you discuss this?

Ask this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ck-blues-musician-who-befriended-the-kkk.html

 

[Ran rp]

Society is more concerned about people punching nazis over dudes traveling miles to start killing black people.

Makes
you
think

They punched dude calling for an end of their people. Idk guys let's just slow down and consider both sides 😕

 

[Deepwater]

where I come from, if you talk that cash, you get punched in the mouth.

lots of people elsewhere hide behind decorum to avoid getting punched.

 

[Ogodei]

It's amoral in the strictest sense, in that you could not condone it as a universally applicable action. Kant's rule of the Categorical Imperative says that the only moral action is an action that could be universally applied: "all poor must be helped, all starving must be fed," etc.

"All Nazis must be punched" might sound cool, but it gets into a similar problem as Nazism itself, calling for a whole group of people to have violence enacted upon them because of their belief.

That being said, I would also argue that preventing the spread of genocidal ideals is also universally morally applicable, since those ideals have no positive utility and a lot of potential negative utility (A Nazi handing out leaflets to 100 people could see 99 of them thrown in the trash, but if that hundredth person decides to go shoot up a synagogue, that's one too many), so i would agree with the idea that "all Nazis must be suppressed," but this suppression probably shouldn't include physical harm, unless there is imminent threat of physical harm being inflicted by the Nazis.

 

[UncleSporky]

How do you discuss this?

[I MG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2t6vIRWEAYdt_F.jpg[/IMG]

Since it's clearly insane, by making it clear who was making this statement to anyone who purports to support them, advertisers, those organizing speaking arrangements etc. in order to get them to withdraw support or apply pressure to the speaker. By finding people who say they agree with the things they say, presenting this quote and asking if they really agree with this, and if so, doing the same to them. Primarily getting the word out how unacceptable this is, rather than passing it around in communities where no minds need to be changed.

Get it read aloud on any news station and watch heads spin. Sure, there's a hateful community that loves this rhetoric, but it doesn't actually fly when it's brought to light. That's why they usually prefer to dance around the subject instead of say this outright.

The options aren't "punch them in the face" vs. "have a nice cup of tea and politely express mild disagreement." You can be as loud as they can. Of course don't get caught on video sputtering in incoherent rage, but there are ways to shut this stuff down without violence.

 

[Slayven]

Ask this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ck-blues-musician-who-befriended-the-kkk.html

So every black person should shuck and jive for their humanity. Do a little soft shoe for people that call us apes? Maybe a flowchart showing how we are not lazy? get out with that bullshit

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

I think part of the big problem here is that people who preach stuff like hate speech are just trying to shore up support/normalize their terrible views with the ultimate goal of inflicting violence on those they are speaking out against. Part of the reason they can get to this place is because they prey on the idea that those against them will rely on pacifistic methods to oppose them.

The problem with this is that when push comes to shove, violence will always win out. Someone who's willing to beat someone else over the head with a club will always win over the person professing peace until enough other people are willing to step in to put the violent person down with force. This is a basic truth that I don't see ever really going away as there will always be SOMEONE out there willing to do away with any moral code and resort to brutality to get their way. Fear of reprisal is literally one of the only things keeping that type of person at bay most of the time.

In short, these people are counting on society to roll over in the face of their hatred so they can one day dominate.

 

[John Kowalski]

I refuse to consider that this is an actually valid dichotomy that actually helps the process of improving the lives of the disprivileged.

 

[capitalCORN]

Ask this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ck-blues-musician-who-befriended-the-kkk.html

Exception != Rule. Or are completely unaware of the systemic racism problem?

 

[MUnited83]

Punching people is violence.

Punching Nazis is self defense

No it doesn't. This is one of those stretches people try to use and it falls completely short. There is no law saying we have to like one another.

It's entirely possible to not like "X" and want nothing to do with "X" and yet not advocate physically harming "X".



I mean when it gets to that point, yea, lol. Now that's advocating violence.

Yes, it does. You can't have hate speech without inciting violence. They are interwined at their very root.

 

[Cranster]

Nazi's rights to free sppech should not take precedent over peoples right to live and not deal with their crap.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Ask this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ck-blues-musician-who-befriended-the-kkk.html

This is about as useful as saying we should address obesity by calorie counting. What works sometimes for a small few does nothing to address the systemic problem.

 

[Slayven]

Exception != Rule. Or are completely unaware of the systemic racism problem?

Nope "This Black does it the right way, why can't you?".

 

[ZealousD]

A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B.

I'm not convinced that violence as a response to hate speech is actually effective, so to me it just looks like selfish catharsis.

 

[Derwind]

Ask this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ck-blues-musician-who-befriended-the-kkk.html

Holy shit you can't be real.

Nope "This Black does it the right way, why can't you?".

You one of the good ones?

 

[2Smashed4U]

The flaw with this line of thinking is assuming that the hateful rhetoric isn't directly causing real actual physical harm to other people without consequence, and that if you were to open a dialogue with these hateful people they would be arguing with you in good faith. Usually they aren't, because they just want a reaction. They don't care about anything else.

Not saying physical violence is the answer but "simply challenging their ideas with better ones" has proven to not be nearly as effective over the last year as we would have hoped.

I don't think the counterpoint is necessarily "open a dialogue with these people" as much as it is "prevent the message they're trying to spread from taking hold in the first place." You're not going to convince a Richard Spencer, but you might be able to convince a 15 year old kid from rural-ass middle of nowhere who has no direct exposure to these kinds of views one way or the other.

I don't know if that's the right answer, but I can see the logic.

 

[norm9]

We shouldn't have imported all those Nazis after WWII.

 

[Slayven]

Since it's clearly insane, by making it clear who was making this statement to anyone who purports to support them, advertisers, those organizing speaking arrangements etc. in order to get them to withdraw support or apply pressure to the speaker. By finding people who say they agree with the things they say, presenting this quote and asking if they really agree with this, and if so, doing the same to them. Primarily getting the word out how unacceptable this is, rather than passing it around in communities where no minds need to be changed.

Get it read aloud on any news station and watch heads spin. Sure, there's a hateful community that loves this rhetoric, but it doesn't actually fly when it's brought to light. That's why they usually prefer to dance around the subject instead of say this outright.

The options aren't "punch them in the face" vs. "have a nice cup of tea and politely express mild disagreement." You can be as loud as they can. Of course don't get caught on video sputtering in incoherent rage, but there are ways to shut this stuff down without violence.

Kaep took a knee and they damn near lynched the man

 

[Zoon]

I wonder what makes people think that violence is the solution. Like, are they going to change their views or what? Or do you keep punching them until they do? When do you stop?

 

[Amir0x]

For the record I dont think you or anyone else are sympathizers of people who promote hate speech because you are against punching.

But likewise those of us who find great joy in watching literal Nazis get their fucking teeth knocked out arent necessarily on some slippery slope toward murder.

I just want literal Nazis punched in the goddamn face.

 

[BronsonLee]

Since there was a related story about this over the weekend, I thought I might share something that was said on the matter a month or so ago on the Atheist Experience show

 

[Slayven]

Holy shit you can't be real.



You one of the good ones?

I got my Sage Steel Decoder Ring, and Stacy Dash patch right here