Should it be legal for other people to assault you if they disagree with you? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | 183 | 49.06% | |
No | 190 | 50.94% | |
Total: | 328 votes |
|
enki42 posted:Cool, why don't you show me an example of Nazis cowering in fear as a result of this punch, because last time I checked Richard Spencer was still posting / giving interviews / etc. Sure
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 13:34 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:33 |
|
enki42 posted:Cool, why don't you show me an example of Nazis cowering in fear as a result of this punch, because last time I checked Richard Spencer was still posting / giving interviews / etc. https://twitter.com/jonnywaistcoat/status/825521837828403200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 13:58 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:World War 2. Now you can explain to me your preferred way of dealing with nazis and why it's effective. Two militaries at war isn't even vaguely comparable to people sucker punching non-state actor Nazis. It's not just scale, it's different in kind. Liquid Communism posted:https://twitter.com/jonnywaistcoat/status/825521837828403200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw I think this is a misinterpretation of what this video is about and the effect the punch had. Quote from the video: quote:I didn't take them seriously. Well, I take them seriously now. Needless to say, I'm not giving up (...) I need to take this a lot more seriously and the alt-right needs to take this more seriously. This is not fun and games anymore. Truly the words of a man cowering in fear. SSNeoman posted:Sure This I can kind of see though, obviously punching Richard Spencer did diminish the alt-right in the eyes of the public. I still think it's a bit isolated, and this punch was more effective due to his leadership position, and because it's pretty obviously black and white, but yeah, good point.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 14:56 |
|
I said this before, but you'd think real nazis would carry at least a knife in the event of encountering antifa. He's a nazi cosplaying loser internet troll, not a nazi. Dont give him the noteriety.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:02 |
|
enki42 posted:Two militaries at war isn't even vaguely comparable to people sucker punching non-state actor Nazis. It's not just scale, it's different in kind. You asked for an example and you got one. Now you're desperately moving the goalposts. So to repeat myself, describe your preferred method for handling nazis and explain why it's effective.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:09 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You asked for an example and you got one. Now you're desperately moving the goalposts. I've been over this in the thread countless times, but again for good measure - there's countless ways to conduct non-violent, direct action in protest. I'm going to an event to shut down access to a U.S. consulate today. On Saturday I'm attending a rally against Isamophobia and calling on the Canadian government to modify laws to allow all the people you're turning back to come here instead. Both are non-violent, but direct action is accepted (in the first case it's the entire point). For more examples, open the web page of literally any news organization and see how their total and complete focus is highlighting the (almost entirely?) non-violent protests that are erupting across your country over the weekend and today. To be fair, all of these are examples of protesting the Trump administration and not Richard Spencer or the alt-right specifically. Personally, I think focusing on people with actual power who are currently enacting racist policies is more important than punching the guy who makes racist frog pictures, but that's just me.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:22 |
|
enki42 posted:I've been over this in the thread countless times, but again for good measure - there's countless ways to conduct non-violent, direct action in protest. I'm going to an event to shut down access to a U.S. consulate today. On Saturday I'm attending a rally against Isamophobia and calling on the Canadian government to modify laws to allow all the people you're turning back to come here instead. Both are non-violent, but direct action is accepted (in the first case it's the entire point). Now you're shifting your own goalposts. We're not talking about Trump right now, we're talking about nazis. Explain exactly how your actions would be effective when it comes to resisting nazis.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:28 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Now you're shifting your own goalposts. We're not talking about Trump right now, we're talking about nazis. Explain exactly how your actions would be effective when it comes to resisting nazis. Wait I thought the reason this was so serious and it's so important to punch Nazis is because they're gaining / have power. I do think Bannon is a white supremacist (if you want to use the word nazi, whatever, fine, the point is he is one), and protesting what he's doing is more important than protesting Nazis that currently do not have power. Why do you think that resisting policies that ban / deport a group of people based on their ethnicity is not about resisting Nazis?
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:35 |
|
enki42 posted:Wait I thought the reason this was so serious and it's so important to punch Nazis is because they're gaining / have power. I do think Bannon is a white supremacist (if you want to use the word nazi, whatever, fine, the point is he is one), and protesting what he's doing is more important than protesting Nazis that currently do not have power. You don't get to ask me questions while you're refusing to answer mine in an honest manner. So once again, please explain exactly how your actions are effective.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 15:38 |
|
if that man is actually owned and a corncob then why does he keep shrieking that he isnt owned??? riddle me that!
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 16:23 |
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I said this before, but you'd think real nazis would carry at least a knife in the event of encountering antifa. If he weren't being covered by the NYT and getting mainstream news interviews then maybe you would have a point, maybe. However, that isn't the world we live in.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 17:36 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You don't get to ask me questions while you're refusing to answer mine in an honest manner. So once again, please explain exactly how your actions are effective. Look at the front page of any major news organization today. Read your social media feeds. A wave of non-violent protest captured the attention of the media and the public at large, and cracks are starting to show in the administration's armor. I'm not saying mission accomplished or anything, but sustained direct action over the coming months has a real chance to turn the public's opinion so far against Trump that even getting him out of the white house is possible. Regular people are posting about the women's march, the protests this weekend, and upcoming protests way more than they posted about Richard Spencer getting punched. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating is tanking (which I get is not wholly due to protest, but I think it does have a significant effect)
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 19:35 |
|
Real tough question. Possibly maybe make one douchebag whine on twitter (and if you don't think his first tweet wasn't a "Arm yourselves" holy gently caress are you naive) then jerk off over it or support things like The ACLU getting the muslim ban overturned or Southern Poverty Law Center trying to keep poor people who can't afford bail out of jail? Tough call over which method has an actual effect. Also love the "You can't ever change their minds" being screamed by a bunch of people who refuse to change their mind.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 20:50 |
|
Toasticle posted:Real tough question. Possibly maybe make one douchebag whine on twitter (and if you don't think his first tweet wasn't a "Arm yourselves" holy gently caress are you naive) then jerk off over it or support things like The ACLU getting the muslim ban overturned or Southern Poverty Law Center trying to keep poor people who can't afford bail out of jail? did you know that human beings are literally only capable of doing one thing at once? -the smart reasonable person who just put on their big kid pants
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 20:54 |
|
Toasticle posted:Also love the "You can't ever change their minds" being screamed by a bunch of people who refuse to change their mind. Whoa you're right, maybe we should give this ethnic cleansing and genocide thing a chance. Who knows it might not actually be bad? ps I agree, it would never have occurred to white power genocide advocates to consider arming themselves ... UNTIL NOW darn it
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 20:57 |
|
Flesh Forge posted:ps I agree, it would never have occurred to white power genocide advocates to consider arming themselves ... UNTIL NOW darn it It's not much better if it serves as a convenient excuse for them to arm themselves.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:00 |
|
Hmm yes I cannot imagine another scenario where highly organized white power dudes who actively work to bring about racial conflict would have touched a gun.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:09 |
|
Flesh Forge posted:Hmm yes I cannot imagine another scenario where highly organized white power dudes who actively work to bring about racial conflict would have touched a gun. Sure but in both scenarios violence didn't help Scenario 1: Nazis are idiots and haven't heard that guns can be used for violence 1. Someone punches a Nazi. 2. Nazi learns about guns and arms himself. Result: Nazis with guns and a plausible case for self defence. Scenario 2: Nazis have heard of guns 1. Someone punches a Nazi 2. Nazi posts video saying "ah bloo bloo mean antifas punched me I need guns now" Result: Nazis with guns and a plausible case for self defence. Scenario 3: Nazis have heard of guns, no punching occurs 1. No one punches a Nazi 2. Nazi arms himself anyway Result: Nazis with guns, but people say "holy gently caress why do you have guns?"
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:13 |
|
Nazis already have guns, who's asking "holy gently caress why do you have guns?"
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:20 |
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Nazis already have guns, who's asking "holy gently caress why do you have guns?" Non-nazi people. Obviously it isn't as black and white as that. My point is, when violence is escalating from both sides, it's normalized, and Nazis showing up armed, brandishing, etc. seems less insane. When violence is met with non-violent direct action, the non-violent side maintains the moral high ground and highlights the extremes of the other side.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:24 |
|
enki42 posted:Non-nazi people. And get stabbed and shot. You realise that right?
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:29 |
|
I'd rather not get killed than have someone say "oh it's terrible what happened to that Zanz guy"
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:30 |
|
enki42 posted:Look at the front page of any major news organization today. Read your social media feeds. A wave of non-violent protest captured the attention of the media and the public at large, and cracks are starting to show in the administration's armor. I'm not saying mission accomplished or anything, but sustained direct action over the coming months has a real chance to turn the public's opinion so far against Trump that even getting him out of the white house is possible. So by your own argument you have, at best, managed to generate headlines, much like the guy who punched the nazi. The rest is speculation. You keep making these assertions of superiority, but the utter lack of even trying to construct an argument as for why your way is superior betrays that you don't even have a well-defined definition of what you mean by efficiency in this case beyond "this is what I like, therefore it must be more efficient". enki42 posted:It's not much better if it serves as a convenient excuse for them to arm themselves. You buncha dumb liberals would probably make a much more convincing case if you didn't pretend that nazis need an excuse to arm themselves or to inflict violence on others.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:44 |
enki42 posted:When violence is met with non-violent direct action, the non-violent side maintains the moral high ground and highlights the extremes of the other side. Stokely Carmichael posted:His (Dr. King) major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.
|
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 21:50 |
|
If Spencer et al. were not fully comfortable with violence I'm pretty sure they would not describe their own goals as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Those aren't descriptions forced on them by some mean old anti-free-speech jerk, those are the words Spencer and his followers use themselves. e: A few people have said they're just roleplaying nazis and it's all a funny joke! Lol hilarious!! Flesh Forge fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 30, 2017 |
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:08 |
|
enki42 posted:Non-nazi people. Why would they say that? You do know that guns are very common here in America, right? Like we even have an amendment about them and everything.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:14 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So by your own argument you have, at best, managed to generate headlines, much like the guy who punched the nazi. The rest is speculation. Fine, I'll make an attempt to lay out my argument completely. I don't think I'm saying anything that I haven't said in this thread before, but to be fair it's a long thread and there's probably not a single post that you can point to summarizing this. What I'm definining effectiveness is reducing the spread of Nazism in a society. I agree with the method of doing that that some people have been calling for violence against Nazis have stated - the best way to combat Nazism is to make their viewpoint completely unacceptable and abhorrent to society. Where we differ is our opinions on how to make those viewpoints abhorrent and unacceptable. I think that the vast majority of Americans - and in fact, the vast majority of people in any society that has ever had problems with white supremacy or Nazism, aren't themselves white supremacists or Nazis. They might have racist or backwards attitudes. But they do have racist attitudes, and right now the Alt-right is trying to sway those people over to their camp, to stir up racial hatred and make them if not encouraging, at least accepting of fascist policies. Right now, the resistance movement against the Trump administration and against Islamophobia and the alt-right is much stronger than the Alt-right itself. When violence is pre-emptively deployed on Nazis, things get muddier. The Alt-Right can paint themselves as victims, and the left as violent overreactionary thugs. Violence almost never has a positive impact on winning people over to your cause, and there's potentially a big downside. And it's likely that the nazis / alt-right are emboldened by the violence committed against them, radicalizing people further. Another thing to consider is that the line between nazi / not-nazi isn't black and white, and not just from a slippery slope, "what if we punch non-nazis" perspective. There's people, a not insigificant number of people who identify with the alt-right, but stop short of supporting genocide. Maybe they're just pissed off with "sjws", or have backwards opinions about muslims. Those people can be convinced. Similarly though, those people can be radicalized. Direct, non-violent protest spreads your message and potentially wins those people over. Violence radicallizes them and pushes them closer to Nazis. Also, for what it's worth, this is 100% in response to pre-emptive violence without a direct or imminent threat. I have zero problems with stuff like antifa actions against the Golden Dawn in Greece, where Nazis were attacking minorities directly. quote:You buncha dumb liberals would probably make a much more convincing case if you didn't pretend that nazis need an excuse to arm themselves or to inflict violence on others. It's not about whether they need an excuse to arm themselves, it's about what people's response to seeing them arm themselves is. If they can legitimately claim that they are under attack, their escalation seems more normal. If they show up to non-violent protest arming themselves, they lose support. noted failure Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:18 |
|
Who What Now posted:Why would they say that? You do know that guns are very common here in America, right? Like we even have an amendment about them and everything. This might be my not being an American showing - but it would be strange to openly brandish or even carry a gun to a protest, wouldn't it?
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:19 |
|
enki42 posted:This might be my not being an American showing - but it would be strange to openly brandish or even carry a gun to a protest, wouldn't it? People open carry and brandish in restaurants, my dude.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:20 |
|
enki42 posted:This might be my not being an American showing - but it would be strange to openly brandish or even carry a gun to a protest, wouldn't it? Maybe, if you're non-white.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:20 |
|
OK, I 100% don't know what I'm talking about in respect to guns then. I don't think I've ever even seen a gun that wasn't being held by an official of some kind.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:26 |
|
enki42 posted:
yeah because they already are abhorrent and unacceptable to normal people, however these people are nazis. loving punch them
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:29 |
|
enki42 posted:
so I guess malcolm x and huey newton don't exist anymore
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:30 |
|
stone cold posted:so I guess malcolm x and huey newton don't exist anymore I think it's an argument worth having that the civil rights movement wouldn't have been successful without them, but what I was responding to was implying that MLK didn't accomplish anything.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:34 |
|
esto es malo posted:loving punch them Why though? I thought the point was to punch them so that their opinions are abhorrent and unacceptable in society.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:35 |
|
enki42 posted:I think it's an argument worth having that the civil rights movement wouldn't have been successful without them, but what I was responding to was implying that MLK didn't accomplish anything. quote:And now you're facing a situation where the young Negro's coming up. They don't want to hear that "turn the-other-cheek" stuff, no. In Jacksonville, those were teenagers, they were throwing Molotov cocktails. Negroes have never done that before. But it shows you there's a new deal coming in. There's new thinking coming in. There's new strategy coming in. It'll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. It'll be ballots, or it'll be bullets. It'll be liberty, or it will be death. The only difference about this kind of death -- it'll be reciprocal. You know what is meant by "reciprocal"? That's one of Brother Lomax's words. I stole it from him. I don't usually deal with those big words because I don't usually deal with big people. I deal with small people. I find you can get a whole lot of small people and whip hell out of a whole lot of big people. They haven't got anything to lose, and they've got every thing to gain. And they'll let you know in a minute: "It takes two to tango; when I go, you go."
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:37 |
|
enki42 posted:Why though? I thought the point was to punch them so that their opinions are abhorrent and unacceptable in society. lol if you don't already find nazi opinions abhorrent, swine
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:38 |
|
https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/826174682915287045 Defend your families.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:43 |
|
enki42 posted:I think it's an argument worth having that the civil rights movement wouldn't have been successful without them, but what I was responding to was implying that MLK didn't accomplish anything. It wasn't saying MLK didn't accomplish anything, it was saying MLK was wrong on this specific issue. You don't think he was literally infallible, do you?
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:46 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:33 |
|
stone cold posted:lol if you don't already find nazi opinions abhorrent, swine Don't deflect. Why should people punch Nazis? Why is it effective? In my opinion, it doesn't seem to make them stop (it either has no effect or maybe escalates violence), and I don't think it wins people over to your cause (either normal folk or people affiliated with Nazis). So what does it do? And how is it more effective than non-violent action. Re: your quote. That's very specifically about violence in response to violence, which is not what we're talking about. Speech isn't violence, and saying it is as bullshit as the people who call property damage violence. It's not acceptable, but we should meet speech with speech, and violence with violence.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2017 22:48 |