|
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 | ||
|
Gay panic was a thing until the 90s, Trans panic is still a thing in most of the union, convicting a black man is one of the most trivial things even when the accusation is bullshit, and so on, but it's punching nazis that pollutes the political discourse, okay. Anyone who thinks nazism or fascism is dissent, a difference of opinion or a minority should be forced to watch Shoah on loop. And then probably punched.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
AARO posted:In the USA in the 1950's a man who openly said he was gay could very easily get punched in the face by any white Christian male onlooker. Even it it wasn't legal to punch this man for his mere act of saying he was gay, I'm sure large parts of 1950's America would have said the assault was moral. Unfortunate thing is that authoritarians and nazis and fascists and their ilk don't give a gently caress about precedent so we can't just set an example for them and expect them to follow it. Nazis aren't people who won't think about using violence if you don't use it first. You can't be afraid to use tactics just because it's bad when bad people use those tactics. The violence meted out on homosexuals for being homosexual was and is bad because it's violence meted out on people for being homosexuals. It's not evidence of a universal violence is always bad rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
The US government killed Osama Bin Laden for things he said. I never saw him shoot anyone, did you? There is protected speech and there is conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, which is literally what Spencer and his laughable clique of anime nazis are doing their best to graduate to. They talk endlessly about the black problem, the jewish problem and the boogeyman threat of white genocide. In their minds and in their rhetoric they're combatants in a war, in which we are the declared enemy whether we choose to be or not. He's lucky he's such a ridiculous, ineffectual clown otherwise he'd be lying in the gutter trying to spoon bits of kidney back into his stab wounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Unfortunate thing is that authoritarians and nazis and fascists and their ilk don't give a gently caress about precedent so we can't just set an example for them and expect them to follow it. Nazis aren't people who won't think about using violence if you don't use it first. You can't be afraid to use tactics just because it's bad when bad people use those tactics. The violence meted out on homosexuals for being homosexual was and is bad because it's violence meted out on people for being homosexuals. It's not evidence of a universal violence is always bad rule. Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
well that got weird af, a blog i read is now arguing that punching nazis and laughing about punching nazis will lead to minorities getting violenced by police more it does seem like a bit of a stretch, though
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. Why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. And this is where you would be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Unfortunate thing is that authoritarians and nazis and fascists and their ilk don't give a gently caress about precedent so we can't just set an example for them and expect them to follow it. Nazis aren't people who won't think about using violence if you don't use it first. You can't be afraid to use tactics just because it's bad when bad people use those tactics. The violence meted out on homosexuals for being homosexual was and is bad because it's violence meted out on people for being homosexuals. It's not evidence of a universal violence is always bad rule. yes, but have you considered that maybe you're judging a book by it's cover? what if richard spencer was a really good person deep down 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The US government killed Osama Bin Laden for things he said. I never saw him shoot anyone, did you? Brandenburg said "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"" If it shouldn't be legal for the Government to punish him then it shouldn't be legal for private citizens to punish him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it.  better?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. wrong
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
AARO posted:Brandenburg said "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"" The government breaks its own laws all the drat time, their standards are not an adequate metric of what a good citizen should or shouldn't do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
AARO posted:In the USA in the 1950's a man who openly said he was gay could very easily get punched in the face by any white Christian male onlooker. Even it it wasn't legal to punch this man for his mere act of saying he was gay, I'm sure large parts of 1950's America would have said the assault was moral.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
AARO posted:If it shouldn't be legal for the Government to punish him then it shouldn't be legal for private citizens to punish him. WTH is this government fetishization?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. I would say calls for ethnic cleansing are much more than mere speech especially in a society that's already oppressive to minorities, not sure what's so hard to get about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
AARO posted:Brandenburg said "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"" oddly enough, nazi rhetoric is highly likely to incite or produce the deaths of minorities. therefore, private citizens are just stepping in to cover the government's failure to its duty to punish such horrific rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. hate speech isn't mere speech
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oddly enough, nazi rhetoric is highly likely to incite or produce the deaths of minorities. therefore, private citizens are just stepping in to cover the government's failure to its duty to punish such horrific rhetoric You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? Likely? Give me a break.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
AARO posted:You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? yes http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teen-who-prepped-bomb-terrorist-9638517 people aren't just killed by nazis once nazis have claimed control of a country, nazis kill people to this day based on nothing but their sick, warped worldview. nazi rhetoric is dangerous and incites the muder and death of innocents. worse yet, even if the speaker isn't advocating for killing innocents today or tomorrow, they do fully intend to murder said innocents when they get the chance and make that quite clear
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. Oh no we think he should be punched whether he says it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
AARO posted:You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? You are right, this person calling for ethnic and racial violence probably won't be given a national outlet for his hatred. It's not like the news would ever interview someone like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Why should it be illegal to punch Spencer? Should it be illegal to punch Spencer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes Either way it's irrelevant because punching people who advocate genocide is cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Punching people should be illegal, but if someone decides they are going to break the law for some reason to punch someone, what is the reason? Maybe this would be a helpful rubrick here.AARO posted:You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? Folks like Dylann Roof are probably gobbling this stuff up, yeah. And church arsonists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
yeah i was going to make another post about this but the popehat article about it pretty much summarized my feelings on the issue https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/21/on-punching-nazis/ quote:3. We have social and legal norms, including "don't punch people because their speech is evil, and don't punish them legally." Applying those norms is not a judgment that the speech in question is valuable, or decent, or morally acceptable. We apply the norms out of a recognition of human frailty — because the humanity that will be deciding whom to punch and whom to prosecute is the same humanity that produced the Nazis in the first place, and has a well-established record of making really terrible decisions. You — the bien-pensant reader, confident that sensible punchers and prosecutors can sort out Nazis from the not-Nazis — will likely not be doing the punching or prosecuting. The punching and prosecuting will be done by a rogue's gallery of vicious idiots, including people who think that Black Lives Matter should be indicted under RICO and that it's funny to send women death threats if they write a column you don't like. it goes on and on like this Pittsburgh Lambic fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
hey look, another harmless nazi influence by harmless nazi rhetoric i really hope no-one punches that poor nazi 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
AARO posted:Why should it be illegal to punch Spencer? it should be illegal because congress cannot be trusted to get the laws about when it's morally right to punch people correct, so it's safer to leave it illegal. this also has the benefit that punching people is a transgressive act that signals the immense shitfuckery that was necessary to make people go "that rear end in a top hat deserves to be punched".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:yeah i was going to make another post about this but the popehat article about it pretty much summarized my feelings on the issue if my eyes rolled any harder from that quote they'd fall out of their sockets. quote:5. By the way, right now there are tons of people right now who would welcome an emerging social norm that it's acceptable to punch, say, Black Lives Matter protesters. I know Nazis aren't remotely comparable. You do too. They disagree. And you've handed them the rhetorical tools to defend themselves, and handed the broader populace an excuse to look away. Well done. does this idiot not remember that it's drat near acceptable to shoot a black person in this country and that's why we've got BLM protesters? and he's worried a white guy might punch a black guy and get away with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
AARO posted:You think Spencer's words are likely to incite or produce such action immanently? Yes, and anyone who recruits others into an ideology promoting genocide and racial superiority paves the way for violent hate crimes like church shootings. Maybe you've heard this quote from Abraham loving Lincoln: quote:Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if my eyes rolled any harder from that quote they'd fall out of their sockets. he rails pretty hard and constantly about police brutality and non-accountability, yeah, and his stance on BLM is pretty neutral; my understanding is he was using BLM as one example of unintended consequences to nazipunching
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:he rails pretty hard and constantly about police brutality and non-accountability, yeah, and his stance on BLM is pretty neutral; my understanding is he was using BLM as one example of unintended consequences to nazipunching it's a really lovely example because the slippery slope in his slippery slope argument has already been passed for black people. sure, a nazi could hide behind "they're nazis!" to justify punching a blm protester, or they could take the normal route and describe the protester and friends as hulking demons and say he feared for his life to get off scott-free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
AARO posted:In the USA in the 1950's a man who openly said he was gay could very easily get punched in the face by any white Christian male onlooker. Even it it wasn't legal to punch this man for his mere act of saying he was gay, I'm sure large parts of 1950's America would have said the assault was moral. In your example, the person isn't getting punched for saying he's gay, he's getting punched for being gay. He's not getting punched because of what he said, he's getting punched because of an unchangeable inherent part of who he is. That's completely different from punching a Nazi for holding Nazi opinions. You're comparing apples to rotted disgusting oranges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
I think a fallacy in US society that a lot of people(especially white liberals and conservatives) have bought into is this notion that all acts of violence are equally wrong. This idea is something you often see on TV and in movies. Punching a person because they're gay and punching a person because they're a nazi are not the same thing. The reasons why you're doing something are just as important as the thing you're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In your example, the person isn't getting punched for saying he's gay, he's getting punched for being gay. He's not getting punched because of what he said, he's getting punched because of an unchangeable inherent part of who he is. That's completely different from punching a Nazi for holding Nazi opinions. You're comparing apples to rotted disgusting oranges. Would he be punched if he didn't say he was gay? No. Soooooo.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:yeah i was going to make another post about this but the popehat article about it pretty much summarized my feelings on the issue Just so you know we've seen these exact arguments before during the civil rights movement where it was used to discourage the methods being used by activists because they were considered "too radical". It's a tactic that has historically been used by moderates to shut down pushes towards progress because they fear social unrest and expect marginalized people to wait out their oppression and murder or switch to methods they're more comfortable with even if it's ineffective. This argument supposes that those in power will follow an agreed moral code when they've already demonstrated they have no interest in doing so, if you need any more evidence see how Democrats continue to lose positions and authority despite having far more popular support as they wait for the GOP to suddenly play fair, meanwhile their constituents lose more and more rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
AARO posted:Would he be punched if he didn't say he was gay? No. yes, he could be. for example, if he looked gay in some way. or did something that others interpreted as gay, etc. etc. or someone could out him. plenty of ways for a gay person to get punched for being gay without saying "i'm gay"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, he could be. for example, if he looked gay in some way. or did something that others interpreted as gay, etc. etc. You people make the stupidest arguments. An analogy is obviously not the exact same thing as the situation it is analogous to. Otherwise you would just be repeating the exact same scenario twice. In my analogy the man said he was gay. Don't you understand that the I, by my act of presenting the analogy, get to set up the parameters for this nonexistent situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
AARO posted:Would he be punched if he didn't say he was gay? No. Are you saying that being a Nazi is an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of a person's identity? That they have no choice in the matter and will simply always be Nazis? I'm also OK with silencing Nazi speech. It's the whole "Racist Tree" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i would think in most jurisdictions you are allowed to defend yourself in a fight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat Yea, but there are some garbage ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
AARO posted:You people make the stupidest arguments. He's still being punched for being gay. He's punched for saying that he belongs to an oppressed minority group that it was more or less legal to murder until the 90s. He's saying "I belong to the category of people known as gay." It's not for speech, it's for a state of being. You are a humongous moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:31
|
|