|
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 | ||
|
Wild Horses posted:I just don't trust an assortment of anarchists and communists to draw the line for me. And when police straight up refuse to do this?
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:I agree with this, but the thing is cops don't actually do any of that stuff, so... Well not USUALLY.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Are any of the people in this thread who are arguing against punching Nazis not white, cis or otherwise able-bodied?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Higsian posted:And when police straight up refuse to do this? which police, where? pass real laws making it very hard for nazis to use their favorite iconography etc when walking around, meet in large groups etc. this means changing your presumably american constitution i think? so that's kinda hard
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:which police, where? we already have laws to punish cross burners, so i don't think it requires changing the constitution
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we already have laws to punish cross burners, so i don't think it requires changing the constitution https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg Just replace hippies with "violent mobs with bad attitude"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:which police, where? Well the problem in America is the rather nazi-sympathetic government in power right now so nazis are not going to get solved by police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:which police, where? What iconography? They aren't wearing swastikas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Letting the state stick its nose in and tell you what political expression is acceptable is a bad idea because they'll apply that logic as broadly as they possibly can to serve their own interests. Physical and ideological opposition to fascism is the duty of citizens, not state power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
heres a hot take if you punch nazis or support punching nazis you are in fact no better than a nazi 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Streak posted:heres a hot take drat, hope you were wearing oven mitts for that scorcher. e: Here's a counter-point -- if you defend the rights of nazis to organise and proselytize you're a nazi collaborator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:What iconography? They aren't wearing swastikas. Im thinking of the "not-a-swastika" adorned headscarves with old norse stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:As someone who used to be involved in some Antifa poo poo, I feel like I have some authority here. Thanks, this is super helpful. I have zero experience with antifa stuff, so having an actual perspective rather than yuk yuk's nazi punching comedy special that the rest of the thread apparently is is awesome. quote:Generally speaking, Nazis and Antifa seek each other out to beat each other up as a form of catharsis. It's a lot of angry teenage poo poo. I'm unusual in that I'm "Old Money became no money (during the Great Depression)" in terms of my background. Most on both sides were more "Raisin in the Sun" types, where their families had dreams of social mobility that didn't work out. The parents displaced this frustration onto their kids.* And the kids found out that punching their feelings was good therapy To attempt to steer things in a more useful direction, I'd like to know more about Antifa folks in general. Did they tend to be active outside of the punching, or is it more people looking for a fight and finding an excuse for one. Is it all just catharsis in your opinion, is there an aim / goal to the fighting? I know in Greece a lot of the Golden Dawn / antifa stuff was instigated by Golden Dawn beating on / harassing minorities. In this case, it feels like there's less of a link to defending against actual violence, just perceived violence. Do people think about that kinda stuff? I know this is a lot of questions. Basically I'm just saying I want to understand the viewpoint of these folks more, so anything you want to share would be great. quote:The mythology of "maybe someone will be confused with someone else when everyone involved can totally tell each other apart but they all look the same to me because I'm not involved" is the laziest form of concern trolling. Like, be better. Like, how many people do you think sneak into churches of the wrong denomination to "defile" them by violating their rules on eating some bread? Is that a credible threat? I think the lens I was using comes from what I know, which is general black bloc stuff without antifa or actual violence (as opposed to property damage) specifically. With black bloc tactics, the pattern I've seen time and time again has been what was justified and reasoned approaches to when more direct action was necessary used as a jumping board for idiots who just want to smash anything without thought of consequence or justification. And I do genuinely feel that there's a feeling on the left that any tactic in a protest is immune to criticism (until after the fact, when it was obviously provocateurs who were doing the worst things) Sounds like the whole escalation aspect isn't really a thing in this case. enki42 fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Letting the state stick its nose in and tell you what political expression is acceptable is a bad idea because they'll apply that logic as broadly as they possibly can to serve their own interests. Physical and ideological opposition to fascism is the duty of citizens, not state power. Wrong. The state should protect its citizens from violent thugs and unruly mobs who torch cars and the like. The point is that some political expressions are at their base just plain wrong. Wild Horses fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
n... not destruction of property! onii-chan, i'm scared!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Wrong. gently caress your authoritarian bullshit. At this point I have no reason to trust the state to protect anyone except the ruling classes and Nazis, which it has been doing for years and will continue to do for years to come.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Venomous posted:gently caress your authoritarian bullshit. At this point I have no reason to trust the state to protect anyone except the ruling classes and Nazis, which it has been doing for years and if the GOP is in power it will continue to do for years to come. If you legitimately, honestly feel that, your target shouldn't be Richard Spencer, a man who, while horrible, has at best a tangential connection to power. If the *current* state of America is so bad that the state is 100% untrustworthy, shouldn't all of your effort be put towards overthrowing it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If you legitimately, honestly feel that, your target shouldn't be Richard Spencer, a man who, while horrible, has at best a tangential connection to power. If the *current* state of America is so bad that the state is 100% untrustworthy, shouldn't all of your effort be put towards overthrowing it? surely we can do both at the same time
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
botany posted:surely we can do both at the same time Yeah sure, just toss in "stage coup of America" in between your 10:00 nazi punching and 12:00 dentist appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Yeah sure, just toss in "stage coup of America" in between your 10:00 nazi punching and 12:00 dentist appointment. dentistry is counterrevolutionary, please report to your nearest reeducation camp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Venomous posted:gently caress your authoritarian bullshit. At this point I have no reason to trust the state to protect anyone except the ruling classes and Nazis, which it has been doing for years and will continue to do for years to come. I'm not talking about your state right now you dummy. The perfect state would
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Quick question since we're talking about violence against enemies of society - Do I risk getting banned if I call for the hanging of all capitalists with their own guts? No because You-Know-Who owns a lot of capital, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Yeah sure, just toss in "stage coup of America" in between your 10:00 nazi punching and 12:00 dentist appointment. Now you're getting it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Two hours for a coup sounds a bit tight, seems more like a long term commitment that you work on on your days off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Security police are regging their accounts as we speak
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
enki42 posted:If you legitimately, honestly feel that, your target shouldn't be Richard Spencer, a man who, while horrible, has at best a tangential connection to power. If the *current* state of America is so bad that the state is 100% untrustworthy, shouldn't all of your effort be put towards overthrowing it? Putting aside the fact that I don't live in America, this isn't really the case. Yes, Richard Spencer is not the target, but his views are shared by several people in prominent positions of power in Trump's government. Nazis like Richard Spencer are overtly sympathetic to Trump and those around him, and while they're not in the same positions of power, they're not going to be targeted by those in power, and they're able to defend their ideologies. The point of anti-fascist actions, such as punching Nazis, is for marginalised folks to say that we are not going to take this lying down, that we are not about to submit to Nazism. It strikes fear into Nazis, because violence is the only language they know, and if they don't have a monopoly on violence, then their position is weakened. So yes, the US government is ultimately the target in this instance, but if you give fascists outwith the government a platform to openly express their views without the threat of retaliation, that just allows their influence to grow and grow and grow. This is why punching Richard Spencer was a very good thing. Wild Horses posted:I'm not talking about your state right now you dummy. The perfect state would Too bad that the perfect state has never existed, does not currently exist and never will exist. Venomous fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Streak posted:heres a hot take Groovelord Neato posted:[gazing upon aged pictures of cattle cars filled with bodies, mass graves filled with women and children, and black bodies swinging in the summer breeze]
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Communists are not morally equivalent to nazis. Read Red Army soldier accounts of the liberation of the death camps (Treblinka/Auschwitz) to learn why. All of them lived under communism, yet every single one of them regards what they saw in the nazi camps as almost inconceivable, beyond the pale. if we're talking about this, not everyone in the red army was a communist nor necessarily believed in communism nor was necessarily dyed in the wool enough to believe in poo poo like Eat The Kulaks, as far as i know personally if i was in russia during wwii and saw the germans invading and lebensraum-ing every civilian in sight, even if i hated communism i'd say gently caress it and join the red army because that horseshit has got to end, and i suspect that attitude would be shared by anybody who saw the ss systematically depopulating entire geographic areas
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
If you have a problem with punching nazis but are OK with police and military violence, you are a hypocrite and a nazi collaborator and deserve to be punched
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
The red army weren't exactly great guys, they did kind of rape and pillage and rape and loot and rape quite a lot of Germany and Poland in the process of liberating them from fascism, so uh, yeah. That's a whole nother kettle of fish though, cos the relevant thing here is they killed nazis and killing nazis is good, rape is not. Generally people who openly advocate the murder and/or expulsion of you, your family and your entire ethnic group should be physically opposed before a large enough crowd of followers clusters around them to put their plans into action. Because by the time that happens and their enablers finally take them seriously as a threat you're already hosed, the pogrom has started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:what im struggling with is the dilemma that pittberg lamb and others have argued persuasively, that punches intended for nazis may sometimes be received by non-nazis, for whatever reason. this troubles me But that is completely ridiculous on its face. There is no plausible means by which some people punching nazis leads to (more) people openly punching gay people or whatever. If a bunch of people start punching minorities (more than they already do anyways) and society approves of them, it's going to be for some reason more serious than "some leftists once approved of punching Nazis". Like, we'll have much bigger problems to worry about if we reach that point. Also just to be clear, I think most people are talking about this from a moral angle, rather than saying we should change laws to allow people to punch each other like that. Some people approving of Nazi punching is not plausibly a slippery slope to any sort of terrible outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Violence versus trump supporters could be such a thing. 'It's already a "nazi government", they are basically helping nazis right'
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Sounds good to me. The end result would be bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If you have a problem with punching nazis but are OK with police and military violence, you are a hypocrite and a nazi collaborator and deserve to be punched hello, militaries exist to ensure that violence happens when governments decide that violence needs to happen, not when random idiots on the street decide that violence needs to happen it's why i said i'd join an army, not run around my little russian village looking for nazis to punch it's usually a Good Thing for governments to be the ones in charge of the violence, as long as the governments are acting in the best interest of their constituents, which is debatable in our current day and age i guess but simply put i don't think society is quite hosed enough that i have to take the violencing into my own hands
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Violence versus trump supporters could be such a thing. 'It's already a "nazi government", they are basically helping nazis right' If they support the extermination of marginalised people, then yes, a Trump supporter is pretty much a Nazi who is helping a Nazi government Venomous fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
When have governments ever acted in the best interests of their constituents?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:hello, militaries exist to ensure that violence happens when governments decide that violence needs to happen, not when random idiots on the street decide that violence needs to happen hello, governments protect nazis and murder minorities with impunity and have been doing it for a long time you loving tool
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Venomous posted:If they support the extermination of marginalised people, then yes, a Trump supporter is pretty much a fascist Don't know the news but how often does that happen, really. Far likelier is that regular voters are lumped together with nazis and beaten up if the left "rises" in a tide of antifa action
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:hello, governments protect nazis and murder minorities with impunity and have been doing it for a long time you loving tool yeah, i still feel like Those Dirty Gubbamint Men aren't out to get me, i'm optimistic like that and don't wear a tinfoil hat or anything admittedly the question of whether the government should have a monopoly on force came up in an interesting way at the time the constitution was drafted, e.g. the second amendment as a means to ensure that force was in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the government that's kind of lol nowadays though, and the second amendment kinda needs to be looked at
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:26
|
|