Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 16:17:05 GMT -5
Punching armed Nazis coming at you (or someone else) committing or threatening violence, I'm not going to get all worked up over. e.g., Charlottesville. That's why I had no time at all for Trump's "both sides were to blame" rhetoric.
But hunting down neo-Nazis who are not committing or threatening violence in order to inflict unlawful violence on them, I can't support. It's not because I think Nazis are cool. They utterly suck. But there are better ways to respond. If they already did something illegal, report it and let the law kick their ass. If they were simply jackasses but in a legal way, that's what social media shaming was made for. Get your video of them being jackasses and make it go viral.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Sept 20, 2017 19:06:00 GMT -5
There's a big difference between defending the rule of law, and turning a blind eye toward Nazism. I think it would be disingenuous to conflate the two. I look at Duterte's plan to wipe out drugs in the Philippines by killing suspects, without due process ( link, link) - and I shudder: Where the hell does it end? Civil war?
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 20, 2017 20:47:37 GMT -5
I'm quite hard-line when it comes to Nazis.
Nazism explicitly and implicitly rejects the rule of law. Oh they'll put on a great show of law when they haul someone in for a show trial that's completely stacked against the accused, but they advocate that there is one law for you (and it's horrible) and another for them (they can do anything).
Nazism explicitly want to murder people to save the purity of the Aryan race. They aren't only about "oh we don't like foreigners and other races". They are "let's kill all the inferior races and create living space for the Aryan race". Note that it's not the white race, but specifically Aryan. Irish, Poles, other Slavic peoples, the Samis, and of course Jews are all inferior even if white.
When someone puts on an arm-band or some kind of symbol linking them to Nazism, they reject the rule of law and they embrace murdering the people they don't like. They won the last time because people like Von Papen thought they could be controlled, and that there were laws against being beastly.
If people embrace this ideology, they become an enemy of mankind. They willingly become a traitor who will use extreme violence to achieve their ends. They will build, once more, a machine for murder and misery. Don't say "they have freedom of speech". They do and they are free to swear allegiance to murder, but when they do open their mouths to do that, they should face the consequences.
The consequence that says "You are anathema. You are rejected. Shut your mouth, or I'll shut it for you".
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Sept 20, 2017 20:53:03 GMT -5
(written before Max's post -- I was trying to write something similar, about how Nazis reject law that isn't theirs, and that in that regard they really should be illegal and punishable on face value.)
On the other hand, supporting the rule of law doesn't just involve not taking it into your own hands.
It depends upon the law actually being enforced firmly and fairly. There's significant doubt that's happening now.
If what people or organizations are doing is illegal, or a threat to people or the government, the threats should be stamped out, as a function of the law. If the government declines to do its duty in that regard - and, indeed, these people claim the government as championing their cause - then the citizens can't rely on protection under the law.
What then? There's the Second Amendment, and you're on your own - good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2017 21:21:58 GMT -5
I'm quite hard-line when it comes to Nazis. Nazism explicitly and implicitly rejects the rule of law. Oh they'll put on a great show of law when they haul someone in for a show trial that's completely stacked against the accused, but they advocate that there is one law for you (and it's horrible) and another for them (they can do anything). Nazism explicitly want to murder people to save the purity of the Aryan race. They aren't only about "oh we don't like foreigners and other races". They are "let's kill all the inferior races and create living space for the Aryan race". Note that it's not the white race, but specifically Aryan. Irish, Poles, other Slavic peoples, the Samis, and of course Jews are all inferior even if white. When someone puts on an arm-band or some kind of symbol linking them to Nazism, they reject the rule of law and they embrace murdering the people they don't like. They won the last time because people like Von Papen thought they could be controlled, and that there were laws against being beastly. If people embrace this ideology, they become an enemy of mankind. They willingly become a traitor who will use extreme violence to achieve their ends. They will build, once more, a machine for murder and misery. Don't say "they have freedom of speech". They do and they are free to swear allegiance to murder, but when they do open their mouths to do that, they should face the consequences. The consequence that says "You are anathema. You are rejected. Shut your mouth, or I'll shut it for you". So, are you actually advocating that it should be legal to kill anyone who identifies as a Nazi? Because if you really believe all of that, then that's the inescapable conclusion. You are arguing that Nazis - anyone who calls themselves Nazis - are some sort of special, exceptionally dangerous evil unique in the human experience, requiring that we suspend laws and civil liberties to deal with them. Either that, or I have to ask why, say, NAMBLA members, or unreconstructed Stalinists or Maoists (of whom a few still exist) do not merit similar treatment? How about pro-ISIS jihadists? How about the KKK? Should we stop counter-protesting them and just start gunning them down on sight? Or is the KKK a critical few degrees less evil than the Nazis on your scale?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 20, 2017 22:25:47 GMT -5
I'm quite hard-line when it comes to Nazis. Nazism explicitly and implicitly rejects the rule of law. Oh they'll put on a great show of law when they haul someone in for a show trial that's completely stacked against the accused, but they advocate that there is one law for you (and it's horrible) and another for them (they can do anything). Nazism explicitly want to murder people to save the purity of the Aryan race. They aren't only about "oh we don't like foreigners and other races". They are "let's kill all the inferior races and create living space for the Aryan race". Note that it's not the white race, but specifically Aryan. Irish, Poles, other Slavic peoples, the Samis, and of course Jews are all inferior even if white. When someone puts on an arm-band or some kind of symbol linking them to Nazism, they reject the rule of law and they embrace murdering the people they don't like. They won the last time because people like Von Papen thought they could be controlled, and that there were laws against being beastly. If people embrace this ideology, they become an enemy of mankind. They willingly become a traitor who will use extreme violence to achieve their ends. They will build, once more, a machine for murder and misery. Don't say "they have freedom of speech". They do and they are free to swear allegiance to murder, but when they do open their mouths to do that, they should face the consequences. The consequence that says "You are anathema. You are rejected. Shut your mouth, or I'll shut it for you". So, are you actually advocating that it should be legal to kill anyone who identifies as a Nazi? Because if you really believe all of that, then that's the inescapable conclusion. You are arguing that Nazis - anyone who calls themselves Nazis - are some sort of special, exceptionally dangerous evil unique in the human experience, requiring that we suspend laws and civil liberties to deal with them. Wow. There really is NO limit to how completely you'll mangle, mislead and distort someone's post to feed your narcissistic need to assert your moral superiority, is there? Nowhere in maxinquaye's post is it advocated or indicated it should be legal to kill anyone who identifies as a Nazi. It is simply is not there, but only you saw something nobody else did. Great. Now why don't you actually provide the actual quote where maxinquaye says "kill Nazis?" That should be fun. Or do you get your ho-ho's deliberately misquoting others and twisting beyond recogniton what they actually said in order to reach your own bent "inescapable conclusions" based on terrible reasoning and remedial reading comprehension. "Kill Nazis." Please. That's a propaganda spin Joe Goebbels would be envious of. Here's another "inescapable conclusion." You totally made that shit up.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2017 22:44:50 GMT -5
Damn, son, you angry. I reckon Max can speak for himself, but and all that stuff about how the reject the rule of law and therefore the law doesn't apply to them means... what? Maybe not killing them, just beating them until they shut up? And if they don't? Now do rage some more. All this projecting is very illustrative. Or, let the people capable of reasoned discourse converse, since your contributions are clearly not meant as dialog, but an attempt to escalate every interaction into bellicose histrionics.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Sept 20, 2017 22:45:36 GMT -5
That's kind of what I was trying to say (re: nighttimer's post), but I took too long.
What I got is that Nazis represent a direct threat to people and to the government, and they don't care for anybody's freedom but their own - so they must be opposed: directly and explicitly, and completely. They're not a rival gang; they are a threat to existence for the rest of the world.
What I got was that if they use free speech for their heinous purposes, they get the consequences. But I didn't see a call for vigilante mobs.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2017 22:52:14 GMT -5
That's kind of what I was trying to say (re: nighttimer's post), but I took too long. What I got is that Nazis represent a direct threat to people and to the government, and they don't care for anybody's freedom but their own - so they must be opposed: directly and explicitly, and completely. They're not a rival gang; they are a threat to existence for the rest of the world. What I got was that if they use free speech for their heinous purposes, they get the consequences. But I didn't see a call for vigilante mobs. Well, the thread started with vigilante mobs and the question of whether or not it it's okay to go around punching Nazis or mustering vigilante mobs to go after them. And if they are a literal existential threat, then what exactly are you proposing? If it's just "being a Nazi should be illegal," okay, I still disagree with you, but that sounds a lot milder than what you and Max have been proposing. I reiterate my point that there are other groups with ideologies just as inimical to people and the government, and some of them are much more numerous and active than Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Sept 20, 2017 23:04:23 GMT -5
What have I proposed? From the start of this thread (see post 2), I think I've been clear about where I stand.
What, again, has Max proposed that is extreme?
You're extrapolating - and I understand - but you're putting words in people's mouths.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 21, 2017 3:52:35 GMT -5
Well, the thread started with vigilante mobs and the question of whether or not it it's okay to go around punching Nazis or mustering vigilante mobs to go after them. And if they are a literal existential threat, then what exactly are you proposing? If it's just "being a Nazi should be illegal," okay, I still disagree with you, but that sounds a lot milder than what you and Max have been proposing. I reiterate my point that there are other groups with ideologies just as inimical to people and the government, and some of them are much more numerous and active than Nazis. What you are engaging in here is reduction ad absurdum. You reduce something to the absurd to try to make a point. But that's a logical fallacy, and you don't want to do that, do you? I can play that game too. You're arguing that there should be no consequences for speech. You want to go up to Nighttimer and call him the N-word to his face and tell him that he should know his place in the cotton fields, and then expect him to just sit there without reacting. YIn fact, you will expend your energy being outraged by the fact that Nighttimer reacted, and use that against him. You, presumably a white person, wants freedom from consequences to do that. You want to come into my house and start to call me a dirty faggot, and I'm supposed to just sit there and say "Oh, that's so rude. More tea?" You don't want there to be any consequences to speech. See? I can play that game too. So, for your benefit: I'm not advocating murdering anyone. That's the province of the Nazis, and I'm not a Nazi. I'm just not fussed if someone who stands up to be counted as a Nazi gets a bloody nose for proclaiming themselves as one. And you're quite wrong. Nazism IS a unique evil. There is no other ideology out there predicated on murdering everyone that the ideology finds objectionable. There are other ideologies out there who would lead to bad results, suffering, and many deaths. But they're not predicated on causing those deaths. Nazism is. It's the whole point of Nazism. So, therefore, when someone speaks and say "I support Nazism", then I don't have any sympathy if someone out there goes "you murderous scum, get the fuck out, or I'll punch you out". In fact, I think it's self-defence, because by their record, their ideals, and their ambition, they want to put people like me into a camp where I can be exploited as a slave until I die of suffering and starvation. They'll do this, rather than kill me right away, to gain resources to invade other countries to get their hands on the undesirables who live there. Or, they just send me to the gas chamber or the firing squad right away to get rid of me if I'm not deemed useful for the murder machine's operation. The last time they got into power they blew up my continent. They invaded everyone in order to get their hands on as many of the people they saw as undesirable as possible, so that they could kill them all. They set the world on fire so that they could kill Jews. So yeah, they're a unique evil all right.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 21, 2017 5:43:46 GMT -5
What you are engaging in here is reduction ad absurdum. You reduce something to the absurd to try to make a point. But that's a logical fallacy, and you don't want to do that, do you? Okay, I honestly did think it sounded like you were saying Nazis are fair game - you keep talking about how it's good to kill Nazis and how "hard-line" you are about them. You and poet both describe them as an existential threat akin to what we faced during World War II. If all you really meant was that you think it's fine to punch them, okay, but even if you're not saying "Kill them on sight," arguing that normal laws should be suspended where Nazis are concerned does sound like a call to violence to me. Okay, point taken. But I don't think it's a reductio ad absurdum to say that if you're arguing that certain people are okay to physically assault, that the end result is going to be that certain people are okay to kill. I disagree. Radical jihadists believe in murdering everyone that they find objectionable (unbelievers). So do some fringe Christian Identity sects (who I am pretty sure outnumber Nazis in the U.S.). The KKK doesn't explicitly say they want to kill people nowadays, but then, neither do Nazis (at least not in public). The more extreme strains of Marxism, likewise, have ended up openly advocating for the extermination of all who oppose them. No, Nazis are not unique. They have a higher historical body count, but their "evilness" is not unique. And you keep falling back on "I don't have any sympathy for them" which is not the same thing. I said I don't have any sympathy for Nazis who get punched either. But that's quite different from saying "It's okay (read: should be legal) to punch them." So I don't get accused of misinterpreting you again: are you arguing that preemptive physical violence is legitimate self-defense against anyone who declares that they are a Nazi, or believes in Nazi ideology? There seem to be several different arguments here that keep getting conflated. One is "Nazis are bad and nobody likes them; fuck Nazis." I don't think anyone is in disagreement on this point. One is "Nazis are so bad it's okay to attack them, even if all they're doing is speaking." This is the position you seem to keep dancing up to and then backing away from when pressed. I do not think making it legal to attack people is something any civilized society can put up with, not even under the guise of "Nazis are a physical threat just by existing, therefore attacking them is self-defense." One is "Nazis are so abhorrent that free speech laws and other civil rights should not protect them." I strongly disagree with that idea, but if that is what you are arguing, I can at least understand your point of view. I know open displays of Nazi symbols or espousing Nazi ideology is illegal in Germany. I prefer US-style First Amendment protection, but saying "You can go to jail for being a Nazi" is different from "You can attack Nazis with impunity." It seems to me like you keep starting with #1, implying #2, and then falling back on #3 when I point out that #2 is actually a bad idea. (So is #3, but #2 is a really bad idea.) But if you'd be more clear then maybe we wouldn't be talking past each other.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Sept 21, 2017 6:03:43 GMT -5
No, bad as they are, jihadists aren't as bad as Nazis. If you comply with the jihadist coercion, they'll let you live - albeit without your freedom. Your obedience to whatever non-lethal goal they have is what they want. Nazis don't care for your compliance. They want you dead if you're an Untermensch. Your compliance simply means you agree that you should die to not poison pure Aryans, consume the resources that Aryans should have, or poison the minds of impressionable Aryans with your inferiority.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 21, 2017 7:04:51 GMT -5
No, bad as they are, jihadists aren't as bad as Nazis. If you comply with the jihadist coercion, they'll let you live - albeit without your freedom. Your obedience to whatever non-lethal goal they have is what they want. Nazis don't care for your compliance. They want you dead if you're an Untermensch. Your compliance simply means you agree that you should die to not poison pure Aryans, consume the resources that Aryans should have, or poison the minds of impressionable Aryans with your inferiority. All right, we disagree about who scores higher on the scale of Absolute Evil. You didn't answer my question though: is it your belief that it should be considered legally self defense to physically assault Nazis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 7:25:50 GMT -5
No, bad as they are, jihadists aren't as bad as Nazis. If you comply with the jihadist coercion, they'll let you live - albeit without your freedom. Your obedience to whatever non-lethal goal they have is what they want. Nazis don't care for your compliance. They want you dead if you're an Untermensch. Your compliance simply means you agree that you should die to not poison pure Aryans, consume the resources that Aryans should have, or poison the minds of impressionable Aryans with your inferiority. All right, we disagree about who scores higher on the scale of Absolute Evil. You didn't answer my question though: is it your belief that it should be considered legally self defense to physically assault Nazis? ...Nazis who are not in the act of physically assaulting you or someone else. (In those instances, of course, it already is self defense or a potentially justifiable act under the law). No one here thinks Nazis don't suck. I would also guess that no one here would think defending yourself or someone else against Nazis isn't OK. I for one agree with Max that Nazis and Nazi ideology are especially loathsome, and reject claims that Antifa is on a par. This is all about just seeing the armband and assaulting them (when all they've done is wear an armband) -- or hunting them down vigilante-style rather than reporting their illegal acts to the proper authorities. And that's where I'm with Amadan -- the rest of us sane folks should respect the rule of law in those instances, and limit ourselves to legal acts of social shaming. Nazis don't seem to like having their photos plastered on Twitter.
|
|