Legality of assaults

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Legality of assaults

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

fetuses aren't people hth

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 22:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 09:32

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

PantherWill posted:

If you German suplex a Nazi, is it ironic or just appropriate?

things can be ironically appropriate

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 23:30

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

on the left posted:

All right-thinking people acknowledge that murdering millions of children is like another shoah, and that nobody would think twice about assasinating the modern equivalent of Dr. Goebbels in front of his family or using a pipe bomb to catch the collaborators as well.

fetuses aren't children, hope this helps

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 23:50

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

on the left posted:

One simple trick to killing anyone without remorse: make their humanity up for debate

fetuses: more human than human women

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 23:55

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Call Me Charlie posted:

Are you cool with this line of thought if it said communist instead of nazi? If not, that's probably why you shouldn't condone or encourage that type of behavior.

Morally justified violence is a subjective thing and something that could easily be turned against you.

https://twitter.com/csbg/status/822906233225117696

(wait why are we trying to use kids' entertainment as an argument?)
__________________________

And again

communists: well known for killing 12 million Jews, gay people, romani, mentally disabled people

communists: love genocide

communists: white supremacists

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 23:57

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

yellowyams posted:

someone who saves a woman from going through the traumatic experience of childbirth against her will even if she can't afford it or was raped is just like a nazi when u think about it

"that woman is less of a person than a fetus, makes u think

this is why punching nazis is bad"

-not a babyman

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 00:10

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

420 Gank Mid posted:

Why would I punch imaginary nazis while there are still real nazis, unpunched?

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 00:20

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Osama shouldn't have been assassinated, he should have been arrested.

a hot take this punchy should be deemed assault :smug:

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 05:09

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Keeshhound posted:

It's happened as recently as two pages ago. I'm glad that that's not your position, but it's patently disingenuous to pretend that people arguing against the use of political violence haven't been accused of being nazi sympathizers.

I don't actually buy this argument. Do we have any examples of this really working in history? And I don't know how else to say this, but you're strawmanning nazis. They're not Tolkien orcs, most of them aren't even true ideologues. With pretty much any hate group, what you're looking at is a bunch of people who, at a low point in their life, managed to encounter someone who sold them a narrative where they could blame all of their problems on a convenient scapegoat. Punching them is going to, at best, make them scurry back underground, but it's also going to reaffirm that narrative that they're being held back by other people. Even divorced of the risks of escalation, the use of violence against political groups usually strengthens their internal ties and makes them more resilient to external forces. If you really, really want to effect meaningful anti-racist change, your best choice is to volunteer as a mentor for low-income kids at risk of recruitment.

That's literally all it takes to be a political movement. One issue. There are a bunch of articles on the major news sites where people interviewed members of the women's march and found that in the same way, you could ask three different marchers what their political views were and they'd give three different answers. If we go to a DSA meeting, I guarantee you we're going to find a mix of ideological views, all of whom are united only by a specific set of issues that they feel are worth compromising their other stances to achieve. Even ignoring that that, a mix of liberal and conservative values is what's meant to be fascism's appeal, anyway (historically it was sold as a third way, in opposition to capitalism and communism.)

We can argue if their one issue is so immoral that they loose the right to be allowed to express it as freely as other positions, but I'd disagree with that interpretation for a couple of reasons. For one, any time you create exceptions to a rule, you're automatically providing for the possibility of more exceptions. If we say "You can express any view point you like, except for X," we have very little grounds to complain when someone else decides to add "Y" to that exception. The second is that, as I argued earlier, I don't think you're going to see the effect you want by attempting to suppress an ideology, violently or otherwise. When external forces attempt to exert pressure on any subculture, the usual response is for the group to go to ground and engage in clandestine recruitment, rather than disband. Again, if you really want to choke out racist movements in the US, cut off their growth efforts by mentoring youth at risk of recruitment.

so we should have more sympathy for poor widdle nazis than the victims of their hate crimes, got it

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Jan 29, 2017 19:39

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

It's really irritating to see this person stick up more for nazis than for actual minorities who are getting hate crimed.

Punch nazis erryday.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 02:35

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Keeshhound posted:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/27/violent-clashes-erupt-sacramento-between-white-nationalists-and-antifascists

But first, why are we taking it on faith that it won't? Is it really that unreasonable for me to ask that when contemplating engaging in a campaign of targeted assaults, it should be the responsibility of the people advocating for the action to prove that it will have the results they predict without any undesired escalations?

I think most people find it hard to mentor kids when they're serving time on an assault conviction, but maybe I'm wrong. And I wasn't saying that they only recruit while hiding underground, I was saying that violently suppressing them will have no actual effect on the spread of the ideology.

Oh, it's been almost a day, so I was really starting to feel the absence of this one. "Why are you so concerned about the degradation of social norms that should be protecting everyone, why do you love nazis so much?"

Why don't you run me through your logic on why minorities will be so much safer once everyone decides that attacking people they don't like is a good idea? Oh, that's right, somehow only Nazis ever get punched in your fairy stories. But of course, minorities are already getting attacked, which means that they can't be attacked more. Oh, I'm defeated. Did I miss a part?

I've got my own opinions on the morality of the action, but it's already clear that most of the posters in this thread have decided that nothing done to their preferred target can ever be immoral, so I'm not going to bother with that angle.

Minorities are already being attacked dumbass, but I'm glad we live in a perfect world where hate crimes don't exist.

Be careful, your white sheet is showing!

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 03:19

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Pseudo-God posted:

And the Trump supporters will feel like they are being targeted for beatings, and organize into their own gangs for protection. Suddenly all their paranoia about how the liberals are out to get them will be validated, good luck getting the country back to civility once the line is drawn and the fighting starts.

They do already, white supremacist gangs are a thing.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 03:19

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

SSNeoman posted:

We fundamentally disagree on this point. So I dunno, we're at an impasse.

I disagree with the base of your assertion and I disagree with your slippery slopes.

thread tell me, what do? I'm still pro-Nazi punching btw.

keep on punching

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 03:19

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Kilroy posted:

I guess a lot of people ITT watched Inglourious Basterds and felt very differently about it than I did:

"You can't mutilate the Jew Hunter like that! He's your prisoner!"

"You operate a cinema! You can't just murder your customers like that! Some of those people who came to this high-profile gathering of Nazi brass for the debut of a propaganda flick might be totally innocent! You monster!"

Yeah, they read trump's presser for Holocaust Remembrance Day and went "well, if the president says all lives matter, who am I to argue???"

swine gonna swine

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 03:23

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Pseudo-God posted:

I still don't get how those things lead to the conclusion that punching Nazis wherever you find them in the streets is an OK thing to do.

that's because you sympathize more with Nazis than with victims of Nazis, hth

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 03:27

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Naomi Shulman posted: