|
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 | ||
|
SSNeoman posted:Okay gently caress it this topic is a piece of poo poo anyway so I'll liberals are not true leftists, they're the white moderates MLK complained about.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 13:40
|
|
it up.
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
also bash the fash, thanks & god bless
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html i'm glad of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
poor oppressed nazis :'(
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i think this might be more productive if we do a thought exercise: what would a modern-day organized uprising of neo-nazis in the united states look like, how would that work/get anywhere probably by getting a candidate elected that already has ties to the neo-nazi movement, and then working to make sure that person's cabinet / advisors are all members of the movement. once you have that initial influence you pass laws that suppress dissent and make it harder for political opponents to get elected. slowly, step by step, you then fill elected offices with movement members. then you wait for a catastrophic event or if necessary engineer one and use that to pass state of emergency laws that make sure power is fully in your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:nice one violence against people who think we should genocide the black population is always justified, regardless of the current political situation. but on top of that the scenario i described is also plausible enough to make direct action justified in any case. that it's fun is a bonus, imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:see, whether or not our system is innately white supremacist/controlled by white supremacists is somewhat contested yeah so is global warming
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
AARO posted:What other thoughts justify violence against the thought criminal? that guy openly, repeatedly called for the genocide of black people and you're indignant about him getting socked in the face. edit: jesus christ, let me spell it out for you then since my post was apparently so difficult to understand: i don't give a poo poo about your innermost feelings, i care about actions. openly calling for genocide gets you punched in the face. hope this helps clear up this unavoidable confusion
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
AARO posted:You guys are just making up your own rules. Why should anyone listen to you? You have no principles, you just make up your own morality as you go along. the constitution has nothing to do with it, we're not asking the government to hit him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
AARO posted:There are laws against punching people who said things you don't like. It is not legal to punch people except out of necessary self defense. nobody is claiming that it's legal. we're saying it's moral.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
AARO posted:But your morality is completely useless. You just made it up yourself. richard spencer 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
AARO posted:Can you give me an example of something that should be illegal while it is also moral to break that law? punching nazis
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
AARO posted:Nobody should be punched for mere speech, no matter how much you dislike it. wrong
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
AARO posted:All the arguments I have presented in this thread are iron clad and no one has even made a serious attempt to refute a single thing I've said. laffo
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:it's your fault for assuming people wanted to discuss the issue rather than live out violent fantasies you have been consistently wrong on everything you've posted here, and every time you're gracefully retreated, saying "i don't know enough about this, i haven't read up on that". yet at no point of the discussion you've managed to make the mental connection to realize that, holy poo poo, maybe you should read some loving books before you dump your sophomoric mental ejaculations all over us. and now you actually post some smug "people here just don't think" poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i mean i don't like nazis but i like violence even less 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:sometimes it helps to just chill out hahaha yeah just tell this guy to chill out  look how chill he is, about to get shot by a cop for being black just chill out man!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:because i can't say what people whom i've never met, in an era that has come and gone, should or should not have done and it's kind of weird to lose my head up hypotheticals "i apologize you're all so immature" said the poster literally defending neo-nazis
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
AARO posted:Jesus Christ, thanks for the common sense on this issue Lowtax. hahaha
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Do you think it's cool to punch a communist in the face when you see them in public? Or for someone to punch a known anti-war activist for being a traitor to the country? Is a pro-life bomber justified in bombing an abortion clinic because, in their eyes, a baby holocaust is happening? Is Joseph Paul Franklin a heroic figure for shooting and paralyzing known scumbag and pornographer Larry Flynt for showcasing interracial sex in his magazine? actually yes you can. people acting on stupid opinions doesn't mean that all opinions are now stupid and thus nobody can act.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:You missed a part of my post. no i didn't. of course you can do all those things, that was never under discussion. you can also punch nazis in the face. in fact it is encouraged.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
don't engage "on the left" please, it's pointless (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
yes let's politely ignore the people arguing for genocide until we're personally impacted. what could go wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
enki42 posted:An argument literally no one ever has made.  literally the post above me had a quote with that exact argument
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:I don't think you even need a slippery slope argument to say that that's wrong. The ends don't justify the means. Or, to quote King, "it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends." 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:It's like you people have no sense of nuance or proportion. Like I said, your response to adversity should be proportional to the threat posed. This is why we have BLM protests in the US today, and why it is justified to kill a Nazi when he presents a credible threat to your life. No reasonable person would go and tell the Jews at the Warsaw Uprising that "you guys should just chill, don't you know that killing your enemies is wrong?". yeah, maybe you're right, may we should look at this with some more nuance and see th-  nope, bash the fash
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
enki42 posted:(MLK, Ghandi, 1989 Berlin protests) in all of these cases, the non-violent protesters succeeded because there was a credible threat of widespread violence being the alternative. violence happened in all of these cases, and without it the movements very likely would not have succeeded.* in the civil rights movement, you had the black panthers and allied groups exerting pressure. in india, you had terrorist groups like the samiti or the hindustan socialist republicans bombing and killing british soldiers, then barely being contained by ghandi. as soon as he was in jail, the terrorism continued. in germany, you had the famous monday demonstrations turning into riots, with police cars being burned and police and protesters clashing in the streets. the point is that the choice the establishment was faced with was never "accept the nonviolent resistance's demands or keep the status quo", it was always "accept the demands or prepare for mass radicalization and domestic terrorism". that's why non-violent resistance by itself doesn't work. it can only work if the alternative is much, much worse, and for that you need a credible threat. * i am kind of exempting the fall of the GDR from this, i assume they would have collapsed somewhere along the line anyway, simply because the soviets did and the state was unsustainable without soviet support.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Do you have evidence of this? I always hear this argument, and I acknowledge those groups existed, but I've only seen speculation that the non-violent movement wouldn't have been successful without a violent element. i mean, what kind of evidence are you looking for? it's pretty hard to prove a counterfactual.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
enki42 posted:My point is the actual threat behind these protests is the swaying of the public opinion over to the side of the protest. The civil rights movement was successful because of the general public not supporting violence in the face of non-violent protest, not because of fear of the black population revolting. (also yeah the labor movement is full of riots and killings)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 16:50
|
|