|
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 | ||
|
TomViolence posted:Never mind punching, shoving and shouting at nazis when they interfere with your art installation has now been conclusively proven to be an arrestable offence. Racists needn't worry, the state will always have their back. Totally unsurprising. Labeouf is a rich celebrity so he'll be fine but this should be a warning for anyone that protests nazis. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 26, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
Radish posted:Totally unsurprising. Labeouf is a rich celebrity so he'll be fine but this should be a warning for anyone that protests nazis. Really, if anyone here (regardless of their position on the morality of the subject) honestly thinks the public was going to respond positively to a wave of Nazi punching, they need to google "Knockout game." The public's been primed on stories about hooligans attacking decent white folk for the past several decades. All this would do is make it so that FOX was telling half-truths for once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
I said "protest" not punch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Really, if anyone here (regardless of their position on the morality of the subject) honestly thinks the public was going to respond positively to a wave of Nazi punching, they need to google "Knockout game." It's not about media optics, it's about answering violence and intimidation in kind and deflating the fascists by driving them back underground where they belong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Radish posted:I said "protest" not punch. So you did, my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
If you're worried about what the national media is going to do and planning your strategy around that, you've already lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:It's not about media optics, it's about answering violence and intimidation in kind and deflating the fascists by driving them back underground where they belong. The point is that it's going to massively backfire and will accomplish the exact opposite of what you want. Shockingly enough optics matter and they are essential to any winning campaign or cause. On the other hand we can go through this extensive list of the times in history when your way worked: TomViolence posted:Never mind punching, shoving and shouting at nazis when they interfere with your art installation has now been conclusively proven to be an arrestable offence. Racists needn't worry, the state will always have their back. Whether you like it or not freedom of speech still exists so it's not too surprising the application of the law reflects that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
I'm also going to say that if the public sides with white supremacists and nazis saying "Hitler was right" because a few got punched (while being ok with black people killed by police constantly or non-violent protesters maced while sitting on the ground) then as a society we are too far gone to mend with some sort of "reasonable debate" anyway.Kilroy posted:If you're worried about what the national media is going to do and planning your strategy around that, you've already lost.  Exactly. The media is always going to show leftist protesters (Tea Party types are totally cool) or people fighting against "well dressed" people (even if they are nazis) as hoodlums so basing your strategy around that happening is a losing game. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
The law is blind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:proceeds to go to a progressive charity (any suggestions?). Good idea/bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:If it becomes a Thing, rotating monthly cast - buy in Feb to support BLM, Mar for PP, not thinking that far ahead gently caress it Cool, I spoke to the woman whose idea it originally was and she says it's totally fine for me to do, it's not like that phrase is copy written!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
tsa posted:The point is that it's going to massively backfire and will accomplish the exact opposite of what you want. Shockingly enough optics matter and they are essential to any winning campaign or cause. On the other hand we can go through this extensive list of the times in history when your way worked: Well, poo poo, how about the battle of Cable Street? Anti-fascists turned out to stop the British Union of Fascists from marching, employing physical force, and utterly emasculated them. This was an organisation that had some of Britain's most popular national newspapers on-side, and yet the battle of Cable Street was a decisive turning point that prevented them from gaining the legitimacy and political power they needed. edit: or, hey, what about the Arditi Del Popolo, an anti-fascist militia in Italy that, with even most of the radical left's newspapers dead against them, managed to muster enough support for their 350 man force in Parma to repel a fascist offensive of 20,000. edit the second: tsa posted:Whether you like it or not freedom of speech still exists so it's not too surprising the application of the law reflects that. If you're standing next to a jewish man on a live video feed (which gives you a national, hell, international platform) and you decide pointedly to blurt out "Hitler did nothing wrong" that's hatespeech not free speech. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Like don't you people want to win? It honestly seems like people just want to be violent even if it results in an eventual loss on the issues they care about, which is as frightening as it is stupid. Let them throw the first punch, I mean how much more loving basic can you get in resistance 101. Also people need to stop cosplaying pre-ww2 europe just because they lost an election and instead pick up a history book and do some critical analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Nazis are never going to throw the first punch until they have built up the institutional support in an area to just straight up kill or jail their enemies in one fell swoop. Even if you wait for them to throw the first punch someone like Steve Crowder is just going to cut that out of the video which the majority of America will see anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Radish posted:Nazis are never going to throw the first punch until they have built up the institutional support in an area to just straight up kill or jail their enemies in one fell swoop. Even if you wait for them to throw the first punch someone like Steve Crowder is just going to cut that out of the video which the majority of America will see anyway. I dont think you know how real nazis worked. Hint: it was getting together in big groups and throwing the first punch. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch Also there is some serious "no true scotsman" going on with these punched nazis. No knuckle dusters? No daggers? These arent nazis, they are cosplayers
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I dont think you know how real nazis worked. Fair enough but I'm talking about the current ones like Spencer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:Let them throw the first punch, I mean how much more loving basic can you get in resistance 101. I don't know what resistance movements you studied last time you picked up a history book and did some analysis but any strategy built around getting punched in the face is a bad strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I dont think you know how real nazis worked. *checks post* *checks username* ... well ill be damned
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:edit: or, hey, what about the Arditi Del Popolo, an anti-fascist militia in Italy that, with even most of the radical left's newspapers dead against them, managed to muster enough support for their 350 man force in Parma to repel a fascist offensive of 20,000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I don't know what resistance movements you studied last time you picked up a history book and did some analysis but any strategy built around getting punched in the face is a bad strategy. The sit ins during the civil rights movement was a strategy built around getting punched in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Case in point: im glad of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is basically the key point. It's not like punching Nazis is going to suddenly escalate into widespread indiscriminate violence. The second people start punching non-Nazis we can just say "whoa nope don't do that." And if a bunch of people do start punching non-Nazis, clearly our society has problems that run a lot deeper than just Nazi punching. The problem is that it easily could. Its not as easy as saying "whoa nope don't do that" because whats actually going to happen is a split among the liberal-left over who the real Nazis actually are, with one side calling the other side Nazi sympathizers. For example: There are people itt who have posted that the GOP is fascist and its voters are fascist sympathizers at best. That is obviously not true, and I think we both know how disastrous it would be if some loud portion of the lib-left base started howling for republican blood. But, I suspect that there are people on my facebook who would react to a traditionally conservative spokesperson getting punched the same way they reacted to Spencer getting punched. That sort of thing could be the start of something really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
^^^^^^: I agree that one of the key characteristics of violence is its tendency to escalate and scale out of control rapidly. I found reading about the battle of Cable Street interesting, since it stands in such stark contrast to something like the Skokie march in the states. I find it hard to even imagine what the fallout would be if in today's climate a group of twenty thousand rioted to stop a Trump-affiliated (however loosely) group in a brawl with police that left over a hundred injured, including "police, women, and children" according to Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure the aftermath in this hypothetical would be of the 'violence begets violence' form. In the 1936 British context the authorities were also opposed to the BUF, leading to a law passed after the riot that restricted all political uniforms, which is an interesting example how other nations have grappled with the issue of extremist political speech in ways incompatible with the American conception of the First Amendment. TomViolence posted:Anti-fascists turned out to stop the British Union of Fascists from marching, employing physical force, and utterly emasculated them. This was an organisation that had some of Britain's most popular national newspapers on-side, and yet the battle of Cable Street was a decisive turning point that prevented them from gaining the legitimacy and political power they needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like don't you people want to win? It honestly seems like people just want to be violent even if it results in an eventual loss on the issues they care about, which is as frightening as it is stupid. Let them throw the first punch, I mean how much more loving basic can you get in resistance 101. [Strategy] 101: let your opponent throw the first punch. E: ^^the left needs some sort of organization to sanction what violence is good or not and the DNC is literally the only such organization I can image. It could be a legitimate ideological organization if we throw out the reptiles and replace it with believers. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:There are people itt who have posted that the GOP is fascist and its voters are fascist sympathizers at best. The Kingfish posted:But, I suspect that there are people on my facebook who would react to a traditionally conservative spokesperson getting punched the same way they reacted to Spencer getting punched. That sort of thing could be the start of something really bad. Republicans are anti-democratic, do you not understand this? If you want democracy you have to do whatever you need to do to protect democracy against those who want to destroy it. If you forced to make a choice between democracy and freedom of speech, you choose democracy. We're already at "really bad". As I mentioned, it's true that breaking down these norms is bad news because it's very hard to build them back up. That's why you're not supposed to tolerate Nazis in the first place but it's too late for that and they're on the loose. The right has spent the last 40 years breaking down these norms, and now they've got their wish. You're making a slippery slope argument, and we're just pointing out that we're already sliding headlong down that slope - best to face the fact of it. Meanwhile you want to pretend we're still standing on solid ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It would be the start of Republicans being afraid to say Republican things in mixed company out of fear of being assaulted. That's bad if you're a Republican, and good if you're literally anyone else interested in a healthy civic society. This is the part where we find out how few people are familiar with the history of antifa-fascist conflicts back in the 80s and 90s, isn't it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Unwittingly supporting fascists is not quite the same as being a fascist sympathizer. Its a bit rich for you to accuse me of making a slippery slope argument when the entire premise you are arguing from is that we sliding. Things aren't nearly as bad as fascism yet. Liberals ran a lovely candidate and lost a close election. Norms have been eroding but we still have the same democracy as in October, we still have freedom of speech, we still have separate powers and we still have the constitution and generally independent judiciary. Things are "really bad" but they aren't any NEAR as bad as they would be under actual literal fascism like what Spencer supports. Nothing good would come from people attacking predominant non-Nazi Republicans. All it would do is alienate left-leaning moderates and legitimize political violence against libs and the left. Republicans in liberal cities might have to keep their heads down, but you can bet your rear end that leftists in republican areas would bear the brunt of the violence. You can say I'm biased against it for this reason because I live in the Midwest, but there you have it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
ive been thinking it might be good to compile a list of known nazis, so we know who to punch. along with their home address, habits, strength, martial art skills etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
So you're arguing this on grounds of effectiveness rather than morality? I agree then. I think you underestimate how anti-democratic the Republican party has become, but I don't think it's time to go out and punch Republicans, because Republican != Nazi, yet. Keeshhound posted:This is the part where we find out how few people are familiar with the history of antifa-fascist conflicts back in the 80s and 90s, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How about you enlighten us, then? Well, for starters, who do you think has more guns and a throbbing hardon for any excuse, no matter how minor to use them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Well, for starters, who do you think has more guns and a throbbing hardon for any excuse, no matter how minor to use them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So you're arguing this on grounds of effectiveness rather than morality? I agree then. "Effectiveness" or "considering the effect that my actions will have on others" is morality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It would be the start of Republicans being afraid to say Republican things in mixed company out of fear of being assaulted. That's bad if you're a Republican, and good if you're literally anyone else interested in a healthy civic society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:A healthy civic society in which roughly half of the inhabitants fear to express their political beliefs due to the threat of violence? The party we're talking about here is currently declaring a state of emergency in South Dakota so they can repeal a popular referendum. They tried to restrict the office of the governor in NC after their guy didn't win. They held up the nomination for Justice to the highest court in the land so their guy could get a crack at it instead of the democratically elected sitting President. They are restricting voting rights in every state where they can get away with it, and their President is currently hyping voter fraud in an election he won in order to make the case for them to do more. These people are not friends of democracy they want to destroy it, making them public enemy #1. I'm all for tolerating talking about this kind of undemocratic poo poo during more stable times where fringe ideas like that don't get any traction. We're long past that point and it's time to get serious about protecting our democracy from being snuffed out, before it's too late. If that means the people who want to destroy democracy (who are not half the population, by the way) are afraid to speak out about their anti-democratic views, and are afraid to assemble or organize with other people who share similar view, then not only is that acceptable collateral damage in defense of democracy, it's the entire point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:"Effectiveness" or "considering the effect that my actions will have on others" is morality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:"Effectiveness" or "considering the effect that my actions will have on others" is morality. This isn't a common definition for "effectiveness" much like relocation and segregation are not common definitions for "ethnic cleansing", fyi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:These people are not friends of democracy they want to destroy it, making them public enemy #1. What you described as your goal is a terrorized society. Maybe the tyranny of the mob is preferable to other types of tyranny, but what you're saying is anthetical to an free and open society under any reasonable reading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:The sit ins during the civil rights movement was a strategy built around getting punched in the face. FreeKillB posted:A healthy civic society in which roughly half of the inhabitants fear to express their political beliefs due to the threat of violence? "Black's are subhuman garbage and the white race deserves to rule over them" is not and you should be worried about being punched in the face if you say that poo poo in public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
So the bar for "how noxious must your publically expressed beliefs be for it to be OK to get punched in the face" is now racism? That's a big shift from 'advocating ethnic cleansing/genocide", which is what I've heard from others in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
FreeKillB posted:The Republican Party may not be great friends of democracy, but they're not going around saying that Democrats should be afraid to say Democratic things in mixed company for fear of being assaulted. (e: I'm well aware and disturbed by Trump's calls for violence against protestors at his rallies. As bad as that is, it's not nearly so broad as this.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:54
|
|