The argument itself is dumb because it assumes Nazism is just a normal political ideology and not the call for a mass genocide of everyone that isn't a Nazi. There's an inherent violence in the ideology itself that one must subscribe to in order to follow it. That's what I was getting at, not attacking you. I didn't mean to do that and I apologize if you took any offence.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Tom Morello re: punching Nazis (on Bill Maher)
- Thread starter legacyzero
- Start date
The argument itself is dumb because it assumes Nazism is just a normal political ideology and not the call for a mass genocide of everyone that isn't a Nazi. There's an inherent violence in the ideology itself that one must subscribe to in order to follow it. That's what I was getting at, not attacking you. I didn't mean to do that and I apologize if you took any offence.
And by nature these people are morons and losers, meaning when it comes to a game of escalation they've got far less to lose and so I think are going to be more likely to take it further than an average person.
joeyjoejoeshabadoo
Member
When you believe that you are superior to your fellow man simply because you were born a certain color and they werent, you are a shitty human being. Period. Also Naziism itself is inherently violent. Just because if you are a nazi but havent punched anyone, you believe in an ideology that thinks its A-OK to eradicate any race that isnt yours.
Personally where I draw the line, is internet vigilantism. After Charlottesville when people were trying to get information on these people to out them felt fucking gross to me. It reminded me of that poor kid during the Boston bombing that was outed as the bomber and it turned out not to even be the guys who did it.
But do you think the solution to get rid of them is to punch them all? Is that more effective than shaming them/discrediting their ideas?
Shaming and discrediting is a given, but not enough. I say it should be illegal, but the state of law enforcement in the US is not up to the task.
The White Roses tried debating them before they took power. Guess who the first ones in the gas chambers were? Well, probably second ones, but you get the idea.
Debate doesn't work with Nazis because they don't want to debate. Their ideas are a virus and if they aren't contained then they spread until we all die bloody.
Opposing that doesn't necessarily mean punching them, but limiting their access to a platform from which to spread their toxic ideology. Their ideas should be treated like ebola and them like the infected. Would you want someone with ebola puking up blood in Grand Central Station? Hell no! So why would you want a Nazi on a debate stage? You're just giving them what they want.
No worries. I agree, I just think the arguments used for punching Nazis is weak, and we can do better than just claiming it's the right thing to do because it is, which is the rhetoric I see most of all.
Bill has a decent point, that I'm not really behind, but he's not going to be swayed by emotional platitudes, which is all Morello does in the video. And neither is anyone else who agree with him for the same reason.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You cant shame or discredit them. They know that everything they say and think is nonsense and just want to hurt people who arent white. They have no shame.
Any adult with access to information who is not opposed to this shit is beyond reach, and if you have to invent a non-violent Nazi (barf) as a foil to antifa or similar groups, its too late
MHWilliams
Member
This is largely not the point of those who espouse the belief. The point is to lower the idea of relative safety and normalization of those viewpoints as valid and worthwhile.
Neither of the arguments address the fact that countering with speech only works when both parties are operating in good faith and conversion away from the Nazi viewpoint usually requires intense 1-on-1 effort. Which is to say, debating Nazis does nothing but provide a larger platform for their words.
It's not an opinion. It is a dangerous ideology that should be treated as such and part of the problem here, is that it is treated as just another "opinion", something I feel many of you don't acknowledge. That is a treacherous road to be on, equating order (allowing Nazi speech to gain a larger foothold and equal bearing as other non-violent viewpoints) with some sort of moral success.
I wouldn't go this far, though I understand the point. The endgoal and stated aims of the Nazi ideology is genocide. Straight up. There's no "nice" and "civil" version of that, and folks who attempt to side-step this in order to be "intellectual" perplex me.
---
On the area of punching, I continue to offer that it's a civil and local matter. If someone punches someone, it should be handled by law enforcement.
I'm more worried about the rise and spread of Nazism, given to full scope of what the ideology has done in the past, than one person punching another.
What is a Nazi's goal? Genocide.
Punching them absolutely is appropriate. This isn't any shit if "Oh he doesn't like universal healthcare, or doesn't think weed should be legalized" or whatever, this is literally him saying "Hey genocide of non-white people is a pretty cool thing" even if he hasn't committed any violent acts himself. It's really that simple. Fuck Nazis, punch them.
not psycho
Member
I don't think it is wrong to consider a slippery slope. Look up "fighting words": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words. The famous case regarding this was someone calling a town marshal "a damned fascist." That's the speech the court said was not protected. Calling someone a fascist. From what I've read this decision has basically zero power these days, but it still happened. It is reasonable to be wary of giving the government more leeway to choose what speech is restricted.
But at the same time, the "slippery slope" argument is not the only thing to consider. I said this in another Nazi-punching thread, but the truth is free speech is not necessarily self-sustaining. That's a fiction that serves a laudable purpose, and under normal conditions it's probably best to believe it, because free speech is so valuable. But history shows that it isn't true.
Among the many terrifying things about the rise of naked white supremacy and Trump, one of the most alarming is that he uses speech in exactly the way described above. He "delights in acting in bad faith, seeking not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." This degradation of speech is a classic way to set the table for all-out fascism. The focus on Nazism as the type of speech to protect, and how many of them are fine people, is part of that degradation. And it is dangerous, and being normalized every day.
Meanwhile, when Nazis are murdering people, and then another Nazi goes out into that mileu harassing people and calling for murder on a wide scale, and the president is demonstrating the degradation of the power of speech to stop people like that... punching the Nazi who is terrorizing people is one of the better options. It's time to stop being complacent, assuming that free speech will always win out, because it doesn't have to.
But at the same time, the "slippery slope" argument is not the only thing to consider. I said this in another Nazi-punching thread, but the truth is free speech is not necessarily self-sustaining. That's a fiction that serves a laudable purpose, and under normal conditions it's probably best to believe it, because free speech is so valuable. But history shows that it isn't true.
Among the many terrifying things about the rise of naked white supremacy and Trump, one of the most alarming is that he uses speech in exactly the way described above. He "delights in acting in bad faith, seeking not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." This degradation of speech is a classic way to set the table for all-out fascism. The focus on Nazism as the type of speech to protect, and how many of them are fine people, is part of that degradation. And it is dangerous, and being normalized every day.
Meanwhile, when Nazis are murdering people, and then another Nazi goes out into that mileu harassing people and calling for murder on a wide scale, and the president is demonstrating the degradation of the power of speech to stop people like that... punching the Nazi who is terrorizing people is one of the better options. It's time to stop being complacent, assuming that free speech will always win out, because it doesn't have to.
Which government officials are specifically neo-Nazis and/or specifically have Nazis as a special interest group and advocate for them?
Note: please don't say Trump or else I will have to laugh at you.
It's the Nazi....
Whether he has done anything violent, he supports an ideaology that wants to commit genocide against whole populations. Whether he will do it himself or just wants others to do it on his behalf doesn't really matter.
Contrast that with someone who is committing fairly mild violence to protect people from the tenets of National Socialism (
although say what you will at least it's an ethos
Violence isn't always wrong, we just have to be extremely careful and responsible about it's use. Nazism is always wrong.
theCalamity
Member
This completely benign Nazi is a rare subject. He completely agrees with genocide, but he is peaceful about it.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
And several paramilitary groups got into street fights with them during the Weimar republic. Guess how it turned out for the Roter Frontkämpferbund , Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold and the Iron Front? They were banned then hunted down in the 1930's.
Took less than a minute to find this on the front page of a google search for "steve bannon nazi support" :
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-nationalists-neo-nazis-losers-clowns-2017-8
Demoskinos
Member
This shit is pretty simple. When your "free speech" turns into "tolerate our intolerance" then nah at that point you've lost your right to speak without getting punched in the face.
If everyone who is out there saying "Well I hate nazis too but..." actually HATES nazis then quit giving them fucking platforms to spew their ideology from.
I'm sure we drove the Nazis out of France in WW2 by being nice to them and taking the high road right?
If everyone who is out there saying "Well I hate nazis too but..." actually HATES nazis then quit giving them fucking platforms to spew their ideology from.
I'm sure we drove the Nazis out of France in WW2 by being nice to them and taking the high road right?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I'm not going to touch too much on your historical reference because I think that's pretty irrelevant in this day and age. The political climate was completely different, as was the degree of the "infection", which is a metaphor you used and I think it's a good one to use here.
You're also right that debate won't really change thier minds (though neither will jailing them/assaulting them). Debating them is a way to bring their ideas to the light and expose them to everyone else. I think you'd be stretching to say that naziism as a particularly effective contagion in this day and age, and taking that metaphor further, id also say that the vast majority of the country is immune to the nazi pathogen, and the stuff that comes with that. To think anything else would have me lose far too much hope in this country and it's future. I think those that become infected were a lost cause to begin with.
I don't believe giving them a platform and debating them/shaming them/discrediting them is ever a bad thing. My argument is like that of killing cockroach--if you bring it into the light as often as possible, is far easier to kill. If you let it fester under the fridge, it's going to reproduce and become a bigger problem.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Maher is fucking garbage
Chie Satonaka
Member
There was no need for World War 2.
If liberals would just follow their own ideals, and allow people to freely participate within the marketplace of ideas, none of it would have ever happened.
I know this is poking fun, but I find it disturbing how we can see todays equivalent of the people who were against fighting the rise of Nazism back then, TODAY. We can literally see the arguments of avoiding conflict and letting that shit rise. This desire for order over whats actually right. And this is coming from grown ass men and women who have the benefit of hindsight for fucks sake.
What the hell.
Do yourself a favor and spend more than 1 minute researching Steve Bannon, or we will return the favor and:
magichans said:
curiouscharles
Member
holy fucking shit, so you're blaming LIBERALS for the outbreak of WW2?
like, we should have just sat idly by as the Nazis committed genocide and tried to reignite an era of proper fucking militaristic imperialism?
tell me i'm misunderstanding something, PLEASE...
[i can wait]
He's being sarcastic.
MHWilliams
Member
And this is largely the part that strikes me as a bit naive. That those who adhere to the Nazi ideology are rational actors who are operating in good faith, thus you can change them in the arena of debate.
That is rarely the case and I'd honestly like to understand why people believe it is.
Those who deprogram Nazis (and other extremist ideologies) know it's an intense process, usually 1-on-=1 and usually from a person that the Nazi can sympathize with. It also misses that the Denazification of certain places, was a legislative and political process, one partially involving-hold onto your heart here-censorship.
To what end? Some have argued that shaming or other penalties are equally bad.
It seems you yourself allow shaming as a tool, but the truth of the matter is, there are a wide variety of tools needed to fix the problem.
curiouscharles
Member
WHEW.
[sorry, blood boiling today what with PR news in particular]
couldn't agree with this sentiment any more than i already do.
we're being naive if we think these people can be reasoned and/or debated with.
if debate was an effective tool against the idiocracy, then Trump wouldn't have made it through the... [wait for it] debates.
I'm not saying we should seek them out and give them platforms. And I don't think that the nazi ideology has a big enough foothold in the US to call for anything other than debate and shame. No need to bring out these other "tools" you're talking about because I'm not trying to change their minds.
Chie Satonaka
Member
We've become a society that rejects both facts and history and replace it with feelings, "deeply held beliefs" and "common sense". Truth has no relevance anymore. The only thing that matters is how you feel, or as Kellyanne Conway termed it, Alternative facts.
It's not that people don't know history, it's that history doesn't line up with their ideology. This is why you can have so-called Liberals wring their hands about how bad violence against nazis are, which plays into the hands of far right wing lunatics who keep shouting about how they should have a seat at the table no matter how vile or, uh, you know, genocidal their platform is.
As far as Maher goes, he's libertarian trash who really doesn't have a dog in the fight. He can seal himself away with other rich people, including the conservative trash he calls friends. Fuck him.
theCalamity
Member
It looks like you need to brush up on you're history. There's this thing called "lying" and if you knew about it, it would blow your mind.
MHWilliams
Member
Intriguing. Why is tools in quotes?
Because I'm not sure what your wide variety of tools are.
Certainly Nazi adjacent ideas have a rather large foothold in the US up to and including the White House. "Just ignore it and it'll go away" worked...when?
MHWilliams
Member
Any tool used for societal change? Discussion, debate, legislation, oversight, protest, shaming, and in some case political violence. I prefer to lean on the former part of that list, but to say the latter has no part simply ignores history as it stands, especially American history.
theCalamity
Member
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
― Jean Paul-Sartre
Debate is useless against them.
If that's true than we're either casting a very wide nazi net or we're already fucked.
We shouldn't conflate racism with nazism. It makes it harder to focus on dismantling the systemic racism in this country.
Edit:also, I don't think anyone should "ignore" nazis.
Then I don't think we really disagree on anything but the extent of the nazi ideology in the US and what stage of that list we should be on regarding it.
I agree. But debate isn't usually for the people you're debating, but the people watching.
Seriously.
Whoever thought ignoring a problem is a good idea should be punched along with the Nazis.
Like ignoring doesn't deter bullies, creeps, viruses, mold, or infestation. So I don't know how people think ignoring NAZIS is gonna be the exception.
Racism exists on a spectrum like a lot of things. The extreme end is Nazism and then flows from there to racist-joke-Grandpa. Dealing with Nazism is about starting at the far edge and working our way to acceptability.
Nazism and racism are on the same spectrum so we should absolutely realize that they ARE the same thing just one is more advanced along the spectrum. We can deal with the less advanced corruption less aggressively but they ARE the same thing.
theCalamity
Member
But then you'd get this:
Because the debater will get angry, lose their cool, and come off as irrational to the Nazi. Even if the debater remains level headed, any violation of civility on his part will come off as irrational. Even if the debater is perfect in every way, by debating the Nazi, you'd just be legitimizing them.
Ugh, he said wanting to punch a Nazi made you equally as bad. -____-
But anyway, April is right. Trump has restarted something (or at least woke it up). And it's hard to say "they have free speech" when you know that it won't take much for that ugliness to get even more prevalent.
I'm a huge proponent of free speech, but it doesn't hurt to have a little foresight. Additionally, there is nothing valuable with this sort of "speech" anyway.
But anyway, April is right. Trump has restarted something (or at least woke it up). And it's hard to say "they have free speech" when you know that it won't take much for that ugliness to get even more prevalent.
I'm a huge proponent of free speech, but it doesn't hurt to have a little foresight. Additionally, there is nothing valuable with this sort of "speech" anyway.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Racism is at the core of the current, American flavor of nazism in the rise at the moment. If anything, being honest about that would help in tackling systemic racism, but the degree of pushback against even honestly discussing either right now has me less than optimistic.
ChainedMaster
Banned
You clearly aren't aware of libel laws in the UK if you think they're equivalent of US libel laws. For one, in the UK the defendant has to prove their statements are accurate. Again, look up McLibel. You clearly didn't.
And what has the most recent election cycle told us. That debates much like wrestling matches are about working the crowd. That controlling the tone and the direction of the discussion is more important than the substance of the discussion.
Making your opponent look bad is more important than proving that they are bad.
Debate is a tool used to decide between ideas of similar merit. Debating about Nazism (or even "mere" white supremacy) means you've already lost because you're conceding that it has merit.
Then we agree that we should seek out and get rid of racism in our government. But that's a completely different discussion than a small amount of shitty people in our society that subscribe to a nazi ideology.
theCalamity
Member
I wonder if the Nazis are willing to protect our freedom of speech
they wouldn't
You're right, it's not really debate in that sense of the word.
Exactly. When they're in power, they just want to oppress us anyway.
It's not like you'd see Nazis going "Hey, don't punch communists!" or "You know, I may hate Jews, but they have the right to worship freely."
