|
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 | ||
|
rudatron posted:All lives are precious, please do not attack others unless you've run out of other options! I solve this problem by just never thinking of other options in the first place.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'll be concerned when they punch someone who isn't a literal Nazi. 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. Like, I don't think we should encode "randomly punching Nazis is legal" into our legal system because that could make things confusing, but I also see no problem with the morality of the act itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:So where do you draw the line then? Why not escalate them if making your opponents feel fear is good? First start with punching them in the street, then you can set fire to their homes and property, then you can threaten their kids and family. Hell, why not bomb and assassinate them too? It is exactly the ideology that terrorists use, remember, they truly believe they are doing the right thing for a righteous cause for an ultimately better world. So it seems the problem in this situation is that they burned the limo of a Muslim immigrant, not that they burned a limo? This just means it's important to actually target property damage correctly (and IMO there's nothing wrong with targeting the property of a bad rich person, as long as you're not endangering anyone in the process).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
So does anyone actually have an example where people were violent towards either terrible people (like Nazis) or their property and this somehow triggered an escalation into widespread violence that also affected normal non-Nazi people and made the situation worse? Some people in this thread keep acting like it's common sense that violence against Nazis will escalate into a bunch of violence that would also affect good people, but I can't think of any examples where this has actually happened. It seems like it's just based on some gut feeling or "common sense." edit: Like, I don't even really think that punching Nazis will accomplish much, but I also don't see any rational reason to think it will somehow open a Pandora's Box of indiscriminate violence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:Same reasoning is used by Al-Qaeda and the like when they attack the west, "they are genociding and destroying the Muslims". Funny how I don't see anyone defending them using this logic, it is exactly the same reasoning. Well, if Al Qaeda specifically attacked just people who openly called for the genocide of Muslims you might have a point. Also, most people in this thread are not advocating for killing Nazis, but rather just punching them. I wouldn't have a problem if Al Qaeda's terrorism consisted of just punching people who wanted to genocide Muslims. (And Muslims are also not remotely comparable to Nazis, what the gently caress)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I just think that, for my part, it's remarkably unaware and short-sighted for socialists in particular to argue that it's OK to commit violence on someone whose political system has violently killed tens of millions of their own citizens. The difference is that Nazis explicitly make wanting to kill millions part of their ideology. Capitalism has also resulted in millions of deaths, but it isn't an explicit part of the ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I didn't say anything about letting people, particularly other people in other countries, die being unusual for any system with humans in it historically, capitalism included. I said violently killing tens of millions of your own citizens in camps or intentional famine makes you stand out. That'd be socialists and Nazis. It is not an explicit part of communist (for example) ideology and policy, though. Nazis, on the other hand, explicitly have "want to ethnically cleanse _____ people" as part of their agenda. As bad as the early USSR was, starving millions of people is not encoded into communist ideology. Keeshhound posted:I don't actually buy this argument. Do we have any examples of this really working in history? ...and do you have any examples of punching Nazis somehow causing some terrible escalation of violence? There are two angles to make the anti-Nazi punching argument from: 1. The belief that it will lead to bad results and isn't pragmatic as a result, and 2. the belief that punching Nazis itself is immoral. Most people seem to be arguing from the perspective of 1, but I have yet to see any persuasive argument that some people punching Nazis will be a slippery slope to...whatever terrible thing you think is going to happen. Keeshhound posted:"Ugh. Punch Nazi. Nazi run away, find other nazis. Nazis not like puncher. Hide from puncher. Nazis look for kid. Steal kid. Teach kid to be Nazi. No Punch Nazi. It no help. Find kid. Protect kid from Nazis. Teach kid to be good person. No New Nazis. Nazis die off." You seem to just be assuming this would happen based upon faith though. Nazis are going to try to convince other people to be Nazis whether or not they get punched. If anything, the punching might at least force them to not recruit people openly. You're also for some reason assuming that punching Nazis and educating children to not be Nazis/immoral are mutually exclusive, which is really bizarre. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/27/violent-clashes-erupt-sacramento-between-white-nationalists-and-antifascists The whole point of the "punching Nazis is okay" argument is that it will help to suppress Nazis/fascists, so anti-fascists being violent with white nationalists is not inherently a bad thing unless it somehow leads to the white nationalists becoming stronger and increasing/perpetrating their own violence. In this particular incident no one was seemingly hurt but antifascists (who went into the situation knowing that might be an outcome) and white nationalists (and who gives a poo poo about them, that's the risk they take being white nationalists). Also, I do not consider white nationalists experiencing violent push-back to be a bad thing at all! Maybe next time they'll be a little more hesitant to appear in public. What you need to show me to support your argument is some sort of historical situation where anti-fascists being violent against fascists somehow helped said fascists rise to power (or made society fall into anarchy or some similarly terrible result). Of course, you also have the option of arguing this from a moral perspective. If you believe that punching Nazis is immoral, that's a completely different argument, and you can try to make that argument regardless of whether Nazi-punching is a slippery slope to something bad. Most of the people in this thread consider punching Nazis to be, at worst, a morally neutral action (and at best a good thing), and I have a strong feeling that you and others arguing against them actually disagree with this moral assertion and are just choosing to make a pragmatic argument because you think it'll be more effective. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that punching Nazis will suppress them or have any significant pragmatic use (other than just a Nazi being punched) either. But I'm even less convinced that it will be a slippery slope to something terrible, so, for me, it boils down to a moral argument. And I do not consider Nazis being punched to be an inherently immoral action. I actually do consider killing (or causing some more serious harm to) Nazis who haven't yet acted violently themselves to be immoral, but punching is usually not going to result in any permanent harm. I also do not believe that the law should be changed to allow Nazis to be punched. I just think that, on a personal level, it's okay and I would look the other way if I saw it happen. But I understand that creating legal exceptions to violence is probably a bad idea. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:We fundamentally disagree on this point. So I dunno, we're at an impasse. To be fair, I think Nazis actually are a political group, but I also think that some political groups are uniquely and fundamentally different than others and should not be tolerated. So just because Nazism is also a set of political beliefs does not mean that it can be compared with other political views. edit: Also lol at Pittsburgh Lambic's post referring to "raving idiots punching random people in the streets." Last I checked Nazis are not just random people (and I think most people here would support arresting someone actually punching random non-Nazis). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:If people start getting in their heads that physically fighting their opponents is ok, it will only make things worse and lead to the collapse faster. Yeah just like all those other times throughout history that people attacking fascists has lead to either societal collapse or the fascists taking power faster (though I guess you could argue societal collapse is sometimes better than fascists taking power)! You seem to be operating off of an assumption you're making entirely based upon faith. Like, I see no rational reason to believe that punching Nazis will somehow spiral out of control into violence against non-evil groups. Like, if you could give some examples of this actually happening I'd like to see it and would even change my mind. Generally speaking, people who are willing to hurt non-Nazis/fascists are going to do so regardless; people punching Nazis isn't going to somehow make them worse than they were before.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:I also remember when I first read the logical fallacies page on Wikipedia, couldn't wait to copy paste them against my debate opponents to show them how smart I am. I asked my politics professor how can I tell when a slippery slope is an example of a logical fallacy and when is it legitimate, and I remember his answer very well. He said "use your judgement", a very wise suggestion, unlike what I am seeing here in this thread, where people can't wait to jump on you with "You just used this fallacy, your argument is invalid Well, "if you punch Nazis next thing you know everyone will be getting punched" is actually a really good example of a slippery slope fallacy, absent some sort of historical precedent. By the way, I find it really funny how Pittsburgh Lambic is somehow optimistic that people will never become fascist again, but simultaneously believes that society will devolve into uncontrolled violence if some Nazis are punched. Like, it's totally unrealistic that fascism could become popular again (despite there being clear historical precedent), but totally realistic that punching some Nazis will result in everyone violently attacking each other for their political beliefs (despite there not really being any historical precedent for this happening).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 05:29
|
|
", not realizing that sometimes it is valid reasoning.