1. Nazis are scum.
2. Principles are in a constant struggle with viscera. I want punching Nazis to be acceptable, and find the spectacle of Nazis getting punched to be viscerally satisfying. Jesus Christ and John Donne aside, Nazi suffering does not move me. But I know that sucker-punching someone because their views are evil is wrong.
3. We have social and legal norms, including "don't punch people because their speech is evil, and don't punish them legally." Applying those norms is not a judgment that the speech in question is valuable, or decent, or morally acceptable. We apply the norms out of a recognition of human frailty — because the humanity that will be deciding whom to punch and whom to prosecute is the same humanity that produced the Nazis in the first place, and has a well-established record of making really terrible decisions. You — the bien-pensant reader, confident that sensible punchers and prosecutors can sort out Nazis from the not-Nazis — will likely not be doing the punching or prosecuting. The punching and prosecuting will be done by a rogue's gallery of vicious idiots, including people who think that Black Lives Matter should be indicted under RICO and that it's funny to send women death threats if they write a column you don't like.
4. In embracing a norm that sucker-punching Nazis is acceptable, remember that you live in a nation of imbeciles that loves calling people Nazis. Also bear in mind that certain aspects of our culture — modern academic culture, for instance — encourages people to think that you're a Nazi if you eat veal or disagree with them about the minimum wage.
5. By the way, right now there are tons of people right now who would welcome an emerging social norm that it's acceptable to punch, say, Black Lives Matter protesters. I know Nazis aren't remotely comparable. You do too. They disagree. And you've handed them the rhetorical tools to defend themselves, and handed the broader populace an excuse to look away. Well done.
6. In embracing a norm that punching Nazis is acceptable, also consider that the new administration's White House web page has a law enforcement section that characterizes protests as dangerous and violent and promises robust police action in response, and that Trump and his supporters have decreed that the Department of Justice will no longer persecute poor hapless police departments. Protest-related violence delivers grossly disproportionate increases in police violence and in public acceptance for police violence. The people who will face that violence the most are not the ones laughing on their Yale alumni Facebook page about a Nazi getting punched. They are mostly poor and mostly non-white. If you're okay with emboldening increased violence against poor people because you enjoy looped gifs of Nazis getting punched, you're a douche.
7. Applying social and legal norms about punching or prosecuting people based on speech shouldn't be confused for treating all speech as equivalent. All speech isn't equivalent. Nazis are scum. They don't support the social or legal norms in question and in fact support killing people based on skin color, religion, or disagreement. Saying they are scum, and that their speech is qualitatively different than other speech, and that they ought to be shunned and reviled, is not the same as punching or prosecuting them. It is a good thing to identify Nazis as scum and treat them – socially and rhetorically — accordingly.
8. Challenging a Nazi to a fight is brave. Maybe. Given that many modern American Nazis are greasy, Boo Radley pale, pock-marked mamma's boys, bravery will vary with individual circumstances. Same with charging into a crowd of Nazis. Informing a Nazi through traditional means that you are about to fight him, so he has time to assume a defensive stance, may be brave. Arguably it's even brave to surprise-attack a Nazi and then stand around to get your ass kicked or get arrested and face the legal consequences of your actions, like a real protester. However, if you sucker-punch a Nazi with a nerve-stapled haircut and a cashmere coat while he gives an interview about the froggy pin on his lapel and then run away, you're just a pussy.
9. America has a certain number of people who are "not Nazis" but enjoy pretending to be Nazis, particularly online, for entertainment or attention. I do not concede that someone who helps normalize Nazism by pretending to be a Nazi for laughs is morally distinguishable from someone who sincerely promotes Nazism. That said, even if you think these people are to be punched, it would probably be better to leave it to their older brothers, linesmen on their high school's football team, or the first girl they try to roofie. Also, bear in mind that you cannot deliver any beating as cruel as the one life is scheduled to administer them as a result of their social inadequacies and assorted personal failures.
10. A Nazi getting punched is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst or most important thing that happened yesterday. Talking about it does not imply otherwise. If you're here to express outrage that I'm not writing about the much more important imminent extinction of the Orlando Purple-Crested Taintsnorter or something, kindly go be you someplace else.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Now Posting At Substack - August 27th, 2020
- The Fourth of July [rerun] - July 4th, 2020
- All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
- Over At Crime Story, A Post About the College Bribery Scandal - September 13th, 2019
- All The President's Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019
We should just bring back dueling. If it were good enough for our Founding Fathers, it should be good enough for us.
I hate it when reasonable nuance gets in the way of emotionally satisfying bloodlust.
you're hear to express (*here)
I noticed that the pro-Nazi punching crowd kept noting that Captain America punched Hitler, making it an all American activity.
Nobody seemed to remember that Cap was punching back.
I wonder how many of the people laughing over the Nazi getting punched would laugh if Bill Ayres got sucker-punched. He not only dreams of killing innocent people by the millions, he actually helped kill a few, got away scot-free, and has never apologized. He is, by any measure, far worse than that Spencer guy. I don't approve of punching either one, though I would feel a surge of low enjoyment if Ayres were punched out, as I did with Spencer. How many others can say the same?
How about the Puerto Rican terrorist Obama just pardoned? Can anyone punch him out? Or just the relatives of his victims? Or Bradley/Chelsea Manning? Is s/he fair game for being punched? If so, by whom? I'd like some criteria a little more even-handed than 'anyone the left really hates is fair game, but no one else', which is obviously wrong.
What's your position on punching grammar Nazis?
@Jim Tyre, you could, but they'd be hard to hurt since their participles don't dangle.
I'm all for punching protesters blocking my entrance to a public building, but they would see it coming.
copied from a friend elsewhere:
—
Dude: it's not okay to punch people you disagree with.
Me: 'Cept for Nazis (pronounced "gnaatzees")
Dude: where do you draw the line?
Me: most typically at Nazis.
Dude: well, they said Obama was a Nazi.
Me: they said he was a commie Muslim (pronounced "mooslem") too, but he weren't.
Dude: how can you tell the difference?
Me: y'all's inability to tell Nazis from not-a-Nazis is largely how we got to this here sorry-ass situation.
—
everybody's got their own opinion, but i pretty much go with this.
edit: then there's this nifty faq. (http://thoughtsonthedead.com/on-the-propriety-of-punching-nazis-an-faq/)
While I do agree with a lot of what you say here, I also think it's important to note that the police and other individuals who respond with disproportionate force to Black Lives Matter and other protestors don't necessarily need a "legitimate" excuse to do so. Peaceful protestors at Trump rallies were frequently attacked during his campaign, and the Ferguson PD turned out with riot gear and teargas long before any of those protests turned violent. People like that will always come up with an excuse to treat dissidents as violent because that is their pre-conceived perception of such people. And pointing out that these groups are, by and large, non-violent does very little to affect that regardless of whether there are violent actors among them or not.
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. I agree that punching people indiscriminately should be against the law. I even agree that punching Nazis should be against the law. I'm not sure that's an argument against doing it, however. Sometimes, in the name of doing what's right, you have to break the law.
4. Sure, but we're not talking about punching "nazis," we're talking about punching actual Nazis, or Alt-Right or white supremacists or white nationalists or what have you.
5. There are people out there who are already assaulting BLM protesters. They will use any excuse. People want to assault them for blocking traffic or making noise. In the grand scheme, one more excuse makes little difference.
6. That the new administration or the cops will come down hard on you for punching Nazis is not a reason to not punch Nazis. It is, perhaps, even a better reason to punch Nazis, to show that you won't be cowed.
7. Agreed. I'm not sure this is an argument against punching Nazis, though. They should be verbally reviled and shunned, etc. And perhaps punched as well.
8. Eh. Punch a Nazi and run away, live to punch a Nazi another day. I don't think it demeans the act that avoiding the prosecution for this act might be rough, for all the reasons you've already listed. The Boston Tea Party wasn't less meaningful because the Sons of Liberty didn't stick around to get caught.
9. This is an argument about who should punch the wannabe Nazis, but not necessarily about whether or not they should be punched.
10. Agreed.
In all seriousness, I agree that in a perfect, reasonable world, we would all talk and protest, and the people in charge would actually listen to this talk and protest and maybe change their policies. But we know that isn't going to happen with this administration. There are thousands of women out non-violently protesting today, and at the end of the day, all of their pleas and their anger will be ignored.
Instead of punching the Nazi, I wish the crowd had interfered with the interview and made it impossible. Stand between the Nazi and the reporter (who is complicit in this normalization), make enough noise where the interview can't take place, and if you attack the guy, do it with a silly string or Cheez Whiz or turn a fire extinguisher on him or something. Get arrested for assault, rather than assault and battery. The punch is not the most ideal approach.
And yet, I'm not going to disparage it too much. These people need to be disrupted at every opportunity. White nationalism isn't a "political belief" to be considered, it was the building blocks of mass genocide, a scourge that took over an entire country and led to a global conflict because nobody did enough to stop it. In my opinion, you can't do enough to stop it.
Sometimes peaceful protest is enough, and sometimes it isn't. And anyone who says that violence has never resolved anything has never picked up a history book.
I'm just going to call this one preemptive self-defense. While I too abhor violence, some faces are just need of punching. Sometimes there's a higher principle at play, and the fact that a black man punched a Nazi in the face, a Nazi who has been calling for a genocide of black people, who believes the world would be a better place, whites a better race, without black people, punched this Nazi while he was perpetuating his message on camera, that a coopted cartoon frog could somehow should be taken seriously, well, even if wrong, I smiled. That video will forever be the rational world's reaction to racism. Whenever I see Pepe the frog from here on out I will picture a Nazi getting punched in the face and be just a tiny bit happier. I owe this man a debt of gratitude. Previously when I saw this symbol all I felt was sorrow and disgust.
Yes, I'm generally on the side that isn't using violence, and I would like to think I would have stopped the guy from throwing the punch, telling him it's not worth it, but sometimes, I'm not sure it's not worth it. The US joined a war to stop the Nazis. The least we can do is allow someone who is being threatened by their rhetoric to retaliate.
Ken, you're losing your touch: not a single Illinois Nazi reference?
Dr. Weevil,
Are you under the impression that Bill Ayers is wildly popular or something?
He wasn't alone.
To all of y'all who are (at least mildly) disagreeing with Ken primary point, is it all right if we punch you? After all, by your own definition, if person A says something that person B doesn't like then person B is free to beat them at will. Make the rules, live by the rules.
Also, is Spencer actually a Nazi? According to his Wikipedia page – yeah, I know, but it's as far as I'm willing to go to research the guy – he more or less disavows capital 'N' Nazism. And calls for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing, whatever the hell that is.
My daughter goes to school on a campus where Spencer recently spoke. She had a night lab during the time period when he'd be speaking and was a little freaked out about the guy and what might happen on campus while she had to be on it. I told her that she should basically ignore the guy but she might enjoy watching the freak show. So she mostly did the former but went by to do a little of the latter. So I'll be consistent in my advice, mostly ignore the guy but enjoy the freak show a little. Punching just lowers you to his level.
Clinton supporters and "antifa" are tools of the globalist plutocrats. They both want a "one world" govt (i.e., no borders) which everyone knows would be rule by the banksters. Meaning the same thing as now-except worse. So everyone should feel free to punch a Clinton supporter/"antifa" at any time.
Excluding old ladies.
Plus Communism (i.e., "antifa") killed 100 million in the 20th Century.
William the stout,
I'm not disagreeing with Ken, but your question only makes sense if you assume everyone adheres to some extreme form of moral relativism. It does not follow from the proposition that punching adherents of a specified evil ideology is okay that punching anyone you disagree with is okay.
That's like trying to reductio the position that it's okay to outlaw theft to saying that outlawing anything you don't like is good policy. Or like trying to say that if someone thinks people with cancer should get chemotherapy then any hypochondriac who baselessly believes they have cancer should get chemotherapy.
Would you concede that Twitterers who make white genocide jokes or tweet #killallmen are morally distinguishable from the handful of nutbars who earnestly endorse those beliefs? I do. What makes Nazis different?
This is one of the straight up dumbest, most relativistic, hand-wringing, equivilizing softboy posts I've seen yet in 2017.
@ YoSup – As specified evil ideologies go, "I Can Punch People at Random If I And I Alone Decide That Their Philosophy Is Evil" is not as bad an ideology as "Peaceful Ethnic Cleansing", but it's bad enough. You're barely half a step removed from the "Hate Speech is Illegal" crowd, the difference being that instead of saying that the government should punish it you're saying that anybody who wants to can use violence to stop it.
Friendly reminder, NSDAP and their cousins/predecessors the Freikorps spent >10 years up to their elbows in streetfighting and paramilitary violence prior to 1933. Said violence helped destabilize the Weimar Republic and harden the methods and ideology of the participants.
The increasing common endorsement by some individuals of violence as the answer is dangerous beyond comprehension.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I was not saying it was okay to punch Spencer. My personal feelings on the incident and the subsequent reaction to it are decidedly mixed (and as I said, I do agree with most of Ken's statements here). I was specifically speaking to his claim that incidents like this will be used as an excuse to escalate a situation by the police or Trump supporters.
@Snap Wilson
"4. Sure, but we're not talking about punching "nazis," we're talking about punching actual Nazis, or Alt-Right or white supremacists or white nationalists or what have you."
Do you realize that by equivocating all of these groups / ideologies, you are an exemplar of the word-meaning mission-creep that Ken is talking about in his point 4? Those concepts aren't the same – nor are the people – nor are their actions. (Heck, even Ken is falling victim here by virtue of his capital-N labeling of Spencer, but maybe that is for literary purposes.)
I'm pretty sure that it was all the people punching Brownshirts in German beer halls that kept the world from breaking out into a second World War. Brownshirt were constantly in beerhall brawls (look it up). That's obviously what kept the Nazis from ever getting power.
Tough. You're not going to get it.
At least not here.
@William the stout
"I can punch Nazis" is not the same as "I Can Punch People at Random If I And I Alone Decide That Their Philosophy Is Evil", the latter isn't even the same as "I can punch people with evil ideologies"
Maybe this example will help you see the difference: most people believe that it's wrong to vote for Nazis, this belief does not compel them to accept that it's morally right for you to vote for Nazis as long as you think non-Nazis are evil.
I get what you're saying, I really do. The thing is, these people are *actual neo-Nazis*, modern-day ideological descendants of people who advocated for, and later acted upon, the murder of ~6 million Jews (and ~5 million others, including PoWs, liberals, communists, LGBT, the mentally ill, Roma, etc.) simply because of who they were. You'll forgive me if I don't feel much sympathy for the Nazi that got his face punched yesterday.
0. What proof is there that this man is a member of a political party from 1930s Germany??
I think we skipped this step.
Petition for an official Popehat line of "Save the Orlando Purple-Crested Taintsnorter" line of merchandise, please?
@YoSup – What am I missing? Who gets to decide that somebody is or isn't ok to punch? "Most people"? That's not going to end well………
@william the stout
Who says anybody gets to decide? Many people don't believe that whether an action is evil depends on whether an appointed adjudicator deems it to be evil. For example, if one person says "child molestation is wrong" and somebody else says "why do you get to decide what is and isn't wrong?" the first person might respond that they don't, that their saying "child molestation is wrong" is true by virtue of external facts, not by their belief in it, just as somebody might say that "Nothing can move faster than the speed of light" is true because of facts that don't depend on their "decision" that it's true.
Or to make it more directly related to ethics, If I say "you can use violence in self-defense" and somebody characterizes that as saying "oh so you think you can use violence whenever you and you alone deem it justified", I would not regard that as a fair characterization of my position.
If someone insults you or says something shitty to you, you don't get to punch them. Insult them back all you want, but you don't get to cross that line. If someone physically attacks your friend, you don't get to punch the attacker, you call the police who do the punching for you. This is how we've structured our society to be the most fair, ANY modification of this system is inherently LESS FAIR, and you are a bad person for wanting things to be unfair in your favor.
Physical violence against a person is only ok in response to physical violence from that specific person towards you specifically, and only as long as it takes them to stop attacking you. If you break this one simple rule, you WILL deal with the consequences and punishment meted out for doing something immoral, wrong, and against the precepts of our society.
While I too abhor violence, some faces are just need of punching.
Oh? And when the last law was cut down, and then the front page of /r/punchablefaces is all Ellen Pao, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?
Ken gravely intoned to you that, next time, you and your friends aren't going to be the ones deciding whose face needs punched.
Can someone help me understand what the protests were intended to accomplish? I thought at one time it was due to the media not paying attention to certain issues and this would force people to talk about it. But the media does little but talk about this, so that's out. Perhaps it might change voters minds? But we already voted.
What does that leave? To threaten people? To smash some random limo? Steal a hat? Set trash on fire? To smash up the windows at a Bank of America and a Starbucks, both of whom donated to the other candidate? That doesn't appear to benefit anyone.
Please correct me if I've been suckered by fake news, but my understanding is that rioting in DC can lead to felony charges. So some 200+ rioters could lose the right to vote, no? Okay, I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea. No matter how I review this, I'm not seeing what gets accomplished here, other than to give an outlet to pent up rage.
In my view, protests like this are obsolete and what really matters is voting. The energy would be better spent on making Nov 8 a federal holiday or something useful that re-enfranchises more voters.
YoSup:
Bill Ayres (not "Ayers") is not "wildly popular" but he's more popular than any unrepentant terrorist should be. I believe he's been an honored guest at the Obama White House, and I've gotten tweets from the Seminary Co-Op Bookstore inviting me to his book-signings as if hosting him were something to be proud of. I'm pretty sure if someone punched him out, tens of thousands of people who gleefully retweeted the film of Spencer being punched would be offended. Would you? Is there anyone else besides Nazis who deserves a sucker punch? Still waiting for some guidance from you or anyone else on where to draw the line, and who besides reputed Nazis is fair game.
Here's something that few people seem to want to talk about: there were two "Nazis" in that video, but only one of them got punched.
Of course, the other Nazi doesn't identify even slightly as a Nazi, but I consider him (her? it's hard to tell from the video) a Nazi (well, the moral equivalent of one) all the same. I'm talking about the "White Lives Matter Too Much" protester, of course. Can anyone tell me that's not a distinctly Nazi-like sentiment? (albeit pointed at a different target than usual, of course)
(Aside: I wonder if the protester sees himself as 'white'. He certainly looks it. Or is 'white' just code for those other whites, a.k.a. quote-racists-unquote, a.k.a. Trump voters?)
In protesting against police violence against blacks, asserting that blacks lives should be treated with the same gravity as white ones, and fighting for police accountability, is the correct response. Asserting that white lives should be treated as more disposable in response is, well, awful. To put it directly: (a) is the protester saying police (or whoever, really) should shoot/beat up more white people? and (b) is he including himself and other fine "progressives" in that, or just the backwards benighted denizens of, say, West Virginia?
To my untrained ears: (a) seems like it, and (b) dunno (I suspect he's not too keen to be roughed up though), but it's an evil sentiment either way.
And what would the media's reaction have been if that guy had been slammed in the face? Somehow I doubt it would be amusement. Political violence is how the Nazis built their power base, and they got away with it because people looked the other way. Granted, this is a very minor incident, but all the same: who's getting away with it now?
Oops, Ayers, not Ayres. How did that happen? I've seen Ayres so many times I thought it was right.
An:
One thing the rioters accomplished was blocking some of the access routes to the Inauguration, which presumably lowered total attendance, and therefore helped all the people sneering today about the low turnout compared to Obama's inaugurations and today's women's march, neither of which anyone has tried to block.
Dr. Weevil
I'm not sure exactly what level of emotional reaction you consider to be "offended", I doubt I would have any strong emotional reaction to most people being sucker-punched for most reasons. My "intellectual" reaction would be the same – obviously it's assault and should be punished as such, but I have no sympathy for either of them and am not disturbed by the fact that it happened, any more than I am disturbed by the fact that bar fights happen.
I was unable on a brief Google to find any source saying that he was a guest at the White House.
It seems very doubtful to me that a significant fraction of the people who enjoyed Spencer getting punched would be so moved by Bill Ayers getting punched that they would, for example, complain about it on social media.
Point 4 bears repeating.
When I learned that a member of the DNC had publicly suggested that Bernie Sanders might be a white supremacist, that is the last moment I took that phrase seriously. But he was so called; does that mean we can punch Bernie Sanders for being a Nazi?
I would also like to add a point. Punching the Nazi who hasn't punched first makes the Nazi a victim of your real-live violence. The last thing anyone should ever want to do in an ideological fight is give a man with repugnant views a chance to show they are the better person by initiating violence before they do anything but talk.
I looked the video up, not knowing anything about this guy other than he's apparently an honest-to-goodness white nationalist, not the Bernie Sanders kind. Congratulations, random asshole, you made me briefly sympathize with the Nazi. I hope you're proud of yourself.
When punches are being thrown, someone must have decided.
@Frank Ch. Eigler, Yes, I noticed the conflation in the post too, but choose to believe it was for literary purposes. I used the same literary conflation; if our host had not, I could never do it. The guy in question isn't a Nazi, and trying to pin all Nazi horror on him as an excuse to punch him because, yo, dude's a Nazi, they started it…yeah, that doesn't fly.
@Careless
"When punches are being thrown, someone must have decided."
You're relying on an equivocation of two meanings of "decide". I'm pretty sure you don't mean to say that when somebody thinks their punches are justified, that means that their punches actually are justified, but that's what your statement would have to mean for it to be responsive to what I said.
Dr. Weevil:
I still can't believe that people even care about turnout. There were those crazy rumors of people planning to damage trains and attack people with acid beforehand. Afterwards, we find that 217 people arrested for rioting, many windows were smashed, some fires were started, etc.
You couldn't have paid me to go near the thing, regardless of any of the items above, though. Simply the fact that two sides who thought of each other as Nazis were about to clash on a stressful day told me to stay far, far, away. I'm surprised it wasn't worse. Everyone is just so tense. The rubber bands were going to snap eventually.
11. Also, just hypocrisy. The people cheering at a Nazi getting punch are the same people who would flip if they saw a radical Imam getting punched, despite an Islamist's lack of different psychology with a Nazi.
"Douche" is now an insulting term? "Pussy" is an insulting term? Those who acquiesce in the putrefaction of the language should be sucker-punched.
@Michaela Tonis:
That's not what the law says, at least in my state. You can defend someone else with the same force you could use to defend yourself.
This comment thread should have been shut down after @SnapWilson dropped his mic.
TheAngryPhilosopher
"Of course, the other Nazi doesn't identify even slightly as a Nazi, but I consider him (her? it's hard to tell from the video) a Nazi (well, the moral equivalent of one) all the same. I'm talking about the "White Lives Matter Too Much" protester, of course. Can anyone tell me that's not a distinctly Nazi-like sentiment? (albeit pointed at a different target than usual, of course)"
well let's see.
is that person toting mein kampf around? are they 1488ing like spencer does? do they follow the principles of the nsdap while disavowing that they actually do? engage in talk about how we need to engage in some ethnic cleansing and reduce the usa to its pre-1965 racial quotas? talk about how we need to oven jews?
when this shit was a big problem with punks, i didn't care if you were a punk. i cared if you were a nazi punk. nazi punks are nazis. they believe the nazi creed. they heil hitler. they use the codewords.
so the only question i care about is, does this guy/girl/whatev you're pointing out share spencer's beliefs, which are nazi beliefs? if yes, then nazi. if no, then not nazi.
you want me to go after someone else, you'll have to wait. nazis first.
also, still amused that people can't tell the difference between nazis and not-a-nazi. like my friend said, that's how we got here.
The fact that it was an assault (and yes, if on a jury I'd vote to convict) does not lessen my schadenfreude one jot.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, and if one so chooses to spew at the mouth, and generally speaking, be a pathetic and hateful flyspeck on a moldy dogturd, one may be faced with consequences such as somebody who either missed "keep your hands to yourself" day at kindergarten and/or has limited self-control.
(The only thing that I'm sad about is that it wasn't Buzz Aldrin delivering the slobberknock.)
Threatened by rhetoric? What is that supposed to mean? Has reality been suspended to the point where rhetoric is now the same thing as action? So a threat to your feels is now the same as a threat to your body and that justifies a like response?
Violence is a bad idea, unless you're really good at it. Most people aren't; so let's not give the few who are (or think they are) another excuse to use it.
People sometimes forget that what makes fascists fascists are not the uniforms or the slogans, but their acts and policies.
One of the most important of those was punching people for their political opinions.
You punch a nazi? Congratulations, you became a nazi: you can get your uniform.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein
No one ever made the world a better place by punching people. Except for maybe Muhammad Ali.
THANK you. I was starting to think I was the crazy one.
@ exiledv2
A swing-and-a-miss from you! Note that I said this protester is the moral equivalent of a Nazi, and that "White Lives Matter Too Much" is a Nazi-like sentiment.
To be Nazi-like, you don't need to carry Mein Kampf around (does even Spencer do that?) or scream 'Heil Hitler'. What makes someone Nazi-like is the opinion that the lives of some people, likely defined by ethnicity, are worth less – and that this group should be subjected to violence. And "White Lives Matter Too Much" fits that glass slipper quite nicely. The fact that the targets are 'white' and not 'black' or 'Jewish' doesn't make it any better.
Addendum: I'm now a little suspicious that the protesters in the video might be stooges. I really hope so anyhow, because I'd hate for that to be a real thing. It still worries me how few people are remarking on that slogan, which, in its own way, smacks not a little of organized racial violence.
Where to begin?
@snap wilson: that was just about exactly where I stand on this. @Christopher Jorgensen too.
The act of violence is essential on people like Spencer, and I'll explain why.
He hasn't, so far as I know, punched anyone, so he hasn't "initiated violence" has he? Actually, yes, he has.
For years, he has espoused Nazi philosophy. He has stated Jews & blacks are not people. He has brought others to his cause, and they most certainly have hurt others. He has raised funds for his organization to hurt others. He has enabled violence.
We could argue Osama Bin Laden wasn't on a plane in 2001, so would you argue he was innocent? He didn't deserve to be punched because all he did was inspire? Hell no.
Hitler didn't personally gas Jews. No, he just enabled it & eventually, was in a position to order it. Would you punch Hitler?
Maybe a few blows to the head would've slowed his rise to power? Maybe not. But, & excuse the pun, I'd like to take the shot at preventing those who emulate him rising again to positions where they can order genocide.
@matagalpa "Communism (i.e., "antifa")" . Stop right there. No. Just no. I'm antifa and I'm definitely no Communist. I'm also largely non violent. I've never broken a window or punched a Nazi.
While some of the people who participate in antifa(scism) are communists, many are also anarchists, liberals and other people from the left including you know, Jewish people. Here is a link to an wiki about one of the most famous antifascist demonstrations and, as you can see, they were a coalition that managed to work together. On the other hand, in Germany, they could not work together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street
The German Nazis started out just pushing Jewish people out of their jobs & homes before they resorted to pushing them into an oven. That doesn't make Spencer a "better" nazi.
Punching a Nazi is not the same as punching someone that you have a philosophical or political disagreement with. Punching a Nazi is self defense against someone who wants to see you evicted from your country or pushed into an oven.
Who is Bill Ayers?
@TheAngryPhilosopher
Do you understand the sign to be expressing the viewpoint that white lives should be valued below black lives? I didn't get that impression in your first comment but your latest one seems to suggest it.
It's true that there's a difference between it being okay to punch Nazis, and it being okay to punch anyone you think is wrong. There are people who are objectively wrong, and people who are objectively right.
That said, I'll add that while saying "We should be able to punch nazis" doesn't mean you can punch anyone you like, it does by necessity create a situation where that's what's going to happen. And supporting a situation where that's what happens isn't that different from supporting people doing that.
Because we don't have God coming down and shining a light on someone's head while intoning "Punch That One!" then suggesting violence against Nazis is going to mean suggesting violence against anyone someone thinks is a Nazi. The violence needs to be enacted by SOMEONE. That person may and may not have the best judgement on who is or isn't a Nazi. If we said "We should allow people to punch Nazis," then gays will be punched by the evangelicals who think homosexuality = Nazism. Every liberal will be punched by the people convinced that Nazism was super leftist, justl ike where we are now. Obama will be punched by the people who think he's a Nazi.
A Nazi was punched and that's not something I'm overly concerned about. What I am concerned about is what sort of society we create. I'm concerned about what the consequences of our response and reaction are. And like it or not, advocating violence against Nazis IS advocating violence against anyone who disagrees with any given person. Whether you want that violence to occur is irrelevant. You are advocating the creation of a situation where that violence DOES occur.
If someone physically attacks your friend, you don't get to punch the attacker,
No, but you get to shoot him. 2nd Amendment, baby!
One more thing. "White Lives Matter Too much" is in direct response to "White LIves Matter" which is a fascist response to "Black Lives Matter", along with appropriation of a slogan belonging to a movement concerned with black people being gunned down in the street and people not giving a shit.
It does not mean that White Lives Don't Matter At All Kill All Whiteys.
@Nigel, im'a let you finish, but:
"For years, he has espoused Nazi philosophy. He has stated Jews & blacks are not people."
These kind of need a big [citation needed]. Slurs of this intensity surely have quotations behind them.
"He has brought others to his cause, and they most certainly have hurt others. "
Likewise, for this "and" to be in the conspiratorially liable sense.
Any and all gist aside –
(1) Nazis are indeed scum, no matter the era.
(2) Roofie is NOT a verb.
(3) Way to eviscerate systemic place-putting, thereby chastising whatever defense many of us may have left while our Constitutional rights are being ripped to fucking shreds given our already hogtied state of affairs.
That being said…
(4) Expect more proverbial (and very likely actual) Nazi-punching going forward.
Dr. Weevil:
Perhaps you're thinking of Lew Ayres?
And I agree with Adam's comment from 2:49AM today. Some forms of totalitarianism seem for whatever reason more acceptable than others.
Leftist protests are always just group therapy and nothing more.
TheAngryPhilosopher
"A swing-and-a-miss from you! Note that I said this protester is the moral equivalent of a Nazi, and that "White Lives Matter Too Much" is a Nazi-like sentiment."
nah. i disagree. the protestor is not a moral equivalent of a nazi because i do not recognize equivalents of a nazi in any degree. the statement is not nazi-like because things are either nazi or not-a-nazi. as my friend said, people seem to have forgotten the difference and like to attribute nazis to not-a-nazi things. you are nazi or not-a-nazi. if you can't figure it out, i'll figure it for you.
"The fact that the targets are 'white' and not 'black' or 'Jewish' doesn't make it any better."
you obviously didn't understand me so i'll be more clear. i don't care who the targets are. all i care about is whether they adhere to the tenets of actual nazism. spencer, despite his protests, verifiably does. he is a nazi. his beliefs are indistinguishable from the nsdap party line, down to line and verse. prove to me the other guy does the same and i'll care about that one. otherwise, don't give a shit. if this is not clear, go listen to 'nazi punks fuck off' six or eight times to get it down.
you want to go punch blm or commies or whatever is cranking your tractor, that's on you bro. i only care about nazis.
"It still worries me how few people are remarking on that slogan, which, in its own way, smacks not a little of organized racial violence."
being white and male i don't see any organized racial violence in the statement, just a statement on what the protestor thinks american society values more. think you're just looking for a fight, bro, but that's on you.
Frank Ch. Eigler
"These kind of need a big [citation needed]. Slurs of this intensity surely have quotations behind them."
go read the shit he wrote at 'the american conservative', 'taki's magazine', 'vdare', and 'radix journal'. you'll find him posing questions such as 'are jews really people?' and 'what would be the best way to genocide the black race' and you will probably find his answers riveting. enjoy!
Christopher Jorgenson: "Pre-emptive self defense"? What the Fuck?
About 2003, that became called The Bush Doctrine.
Pass.
YoSup: So, it's OK if, five years from now, I sucker-punch you for sucker-punching someone else?
That's called Hatfields and McCoys.
Pass.
Hypothetical:
You're walking along in the woods, near a populated area. You happen upon a rhumba of nazis. The main one is giving an interview to what appear to be two non-nazis. They don't notice you, but as you get closer you realize that the leader is in fact reciting something ritualistic. Scanning the group, you make the following individuals:
The tall one – darkening skies. He's the tallest in the group. He looks back at the "reporter" and from his eyes you figure he's basically the chief mook. Which is to say he's the first mook through the door because he's 6'6". He's got tats everywhere.
The second in command – the smallest member of the group watches the leader intently. He stands nonchalantly however his eyes betray a shrewd intelligence. Strangely, he's dressed entirely in denim. Also, his left breast is adorned with the sort of pins that were popular in the 80s, although you cannot make out anything on them beyond an obvious swastika, and what appears to be a smiley face with a bloody bullet hole in the forehead. There are no visible tattoos on this one outside of another swastika that is partially covered by the popped collar on his jeans jacket.
Someone important's younger brother – he's average height, average number of tattoos, and an outfit that suggests "I carefully crafted this to blend in amongst my nazi friends". It doesn't look like he really wants to be there. He's more of a couch commando, you suspect. He's holding a book at his side. You think maybe it's some form of stretched leather, but as you get closer you realize it might be something. . .else. There is a ghastly face on the cover.
Muscle #2 – he's #2 because he's not the 6'6" dude. He otherwise resembles the other mook. I mean they have very different facial features but who cares. They're both nazi mooks. They don't really have much of a purpose in life. He's holding a bat and menacing at the guy working the camera.
I want to stress again that I ask this hypothetically, but is it ok to sucker punch the guy who is chanting in this scenario? By sucker punch, It needs to be understood that I mean "use superior stealth abilities to get within range and then hurl a sizable rock at the main guy and disrupt the ritual".
Asking for a friend.
Nigel: Spencer hasn't been a position of legal authority to order another person to commit violence, nor has it been proven that any particular comment of his has been a direct incitement to a particular case of violence.
First Amendment.
Pass.
@SocraticGadfly
"YoSup: So, it's OK if, five years from now, I sucker-punch you for sucker-punching someone else?"
I can't tell which of my comments you are replying to or why you got that impression. I thought my comments would have made clear that I think you shouldn't be sucker-punching people.
You're talking about how we should behave in a civilized country that is trying to work out its differences.
Have you considered that it might be too late for that? That we are living through the beginnings of a civil war?
YoSup: Per your dialogue with Careless, and lack of direct responsiveness on the "somebody decided," I think my spinoff is quite logical from your position.
@YoSup I wonder if perhaps they meant to reply to Nigel instead of you?
Antifa are calling people who didnt think punching RS was a good idea "nazis" and they're the ones who do the punching? What now.
You redefined why we say "all speech should be tolerated" away from epistemological humility towards something about being against "harming people". They'll just redefine it again.
@ YoSup:
First and foremost, my answer is that it doesn't really matter, because the assertion that there should be less value attached to certain lives and more violence is awful. Whether or not it states that "white life < black life" is a secondary concern at best.
Now that we've covered that, to answer your question I'd say… kinda?
It doesn't directly state "white life < black life", so, literally, no (it still promotes violence against an ethnic group, and hence is still Nazi-like). But I'd be very surprised if the protester (supposing they're real and not a false-flag stooge) would have the same reaction to (a) a black guy being roughed up by white guys, and (b) a white guy being roughed up by black guys. (Yes, yes, when I 'assume', I make an… but really, what are the chances that this is not true? Speaking as someone whose social circle is up to its eyeballs in rather extreme 'progressive' ideology, and where jokes about 'inbred hicks' never fail to get laughs, I think I have some basis for this prediction) There's some sophistry available to defend this – "this attitude helps balance out the racism of society" etc. etc. – but at bottom it's still encourages racial violence and is thus evil.
@ exiledv2:
Frankly your categorizations are incredibly narrow. Your 'Nazi vs not-a-Nazi' distinction is silly because it completely ignores what makes Nazism so contemptible (no, 'Nazism is bad' is not an axiom, it's a consequence of Nazi values). Unless, of course, you want to assert that whites are more deserving of violence than blacks or Jews, in which case you're the racist.
What makes Nazism contemptible – I'm just a tad surprised you're not getting this – is its encouragement of racial violence. "White Lives Matter Too Much" is also a call to racial violence (I don't even have to say 'thinly-disguised' like I usually do). It's not "a statement of what the protester thinks society values more". It says: white lives should matter less than they do now. What practical action reflects this statement? Hint: it rhymes with 'spatial silence'.
PS. I don't want to "go punch blm or commies or whatever is cranking [my] tractor" [cranking my tractor? is this meant to be an insult or something?] – I don't want to punch anyone, I think it's clear that my position is that nobody should be punched, and I even expressed tacit support for BLM in my first post – but thanks for playing.
I've heard word that there were actual conspiracy charges filed in the butyric acid thing. Does anyone know of docs that confirm or disconfirm this? It's getting passed around a lot, but I haven't seen an actual complaint or anything like that.
So if what you're saying is true:
"However, if you sucker-punch a Nazi with a nerve-stapled haircut and a cashmere coat while he gives an interview about the froggy pin on his lapel and then run away, you're just a pussy."
then it means President Trump would want to grab you and brag about it?
Have you considered that you're espousing the same predicative thought that abortion clinic bombers/shooters (among others) do?
Seriously, if you had even a passing familiarity with the people and movements you're comndeming, you'd know that imminent civil war is a neo-nazi cliche used to justify all kinds of shit.
@SocraticGadfly
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my comments, though I am not sure in what way.
I do understand that, at least, you seem to have taken my saying that "it's okay to punch Nazis" is not the same as "it's okay to punch anyone you disagree with" as supporting the position that "it's okay to punch Nazis", even though I expressly disavowed that position. (It's possible to distinguish between two positions without supporting either of them).
Even with that misunderstanding, though, I don't understand what point you think I was making that your comment is trying to respond to. I also don't think I evaded anything on "somebody decided".
Maybe if I rephrase you will understand what I was saying to Careless better: If somebody sucker-punches you that might be because they "decided" it was justified, but that doesn't mean they get to "decide" who's allowed to punch who and under what circumstances. These are two different senses of "decide".
The (well, at least one of many) sad irony about this proposition that it's ok to use violence to shut down evil speech (eg Nazis) is that Nazis used violence to shut down evil speech (eg Nazis). No, that wasn't a typo. In 1934, Hitler's wing of the Nazi party assassinated the leaders of the more violent and extreme SA ( the real life Brown Shirts) and Strasser wings of the Nazi party because of their violence and extremism.
Disclaimer: This is not a defense of Hitler or Nazism.
YoSup … very good.
El Suerte, well put.
While I agree with a lot of your points, I have to much more strongly agree with exiledv2, Mitchell Hundred, Snap Wilson, Christopher Jorgensen, and anyone else that said basically what they're saying.
Waiting until nazis who proclaim to desire genocide to actually commit the genocide is in no way, shape, or form acceptable.
I agree that punching nazis should still be illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong. Lots of aspects of "civil disobedience" are also illegal, and while I can't pretend that punching nazis is "civil", I also can't think of any inherent reason that it is actually bad.
And BLM protestors are already assaulted and the assaulting nazis have no trouble defending themselves from the public and police because THIS COUNTRY IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TAKEN OVER BY NAZIS, SO IT IS TIME TO VERY LITERALLY FIGHT BACK.
These are things that other people have already said, but they were the points I felt most worth reiterating.
Am I the first person to notice that, at the end of his screed, @snap wilson seems to hate at least the spirit of the freedom of the press portion of the First Amendment?
Snap: Interviewing people is what reporters do. It's not up to you to say which interviews should or should not be done.
In today's world, if you don't like that, you're free to find an alternative news source, or create your own blog or website.
@exiledv2
Telling people what magazines to read is not a citation. Give a citation, or STFU.
If punching Nazi's become an acceptable act don't be surprised when they start punching back or start arming themselves for self-defence.
That's not a road I want to go down!
Hell, I do; but I don't. As much satisfaction as it may bring, I'm not sure what else it accomplishes. Anyone here think Thpenther is going to rethink his worldview 'cause he got (ineffectually) clocked?* Or even stop spouting off? Anyone think he won't cite this incident as anecdotal support for his worldview?
*I'll concede that sometimes an "attitude adjustment" can have the desired effect. For example, he did stop talking to whomever was recording him.
@ codetaku – "THIS COUNTRY IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING TAKEN OVER BY NAZIS, SO IT IS TIME TO VERY LITERALLY FIGHT BACK."
Oh, please. Spencer is a guy whose message resonates with something like 0.25% of the country. The hyperventilation in the media over the guy is probably creating the chance for him to make some serious coin, though.
Bet you a Coke that within a year he'll have disappeared from the public realm.
I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Spencer get punched.
I want to punch Nazis.
But….I'm not *going* to punch Nazis–unless its self-defense, in which case them being a Nazi isn't the salient point–the fact they attacked is (and no fair baiting them into attack, either). Because it's wrong to just act on vicious impulses and because (as you argue eloquently above) violence doesn't improve the condition of the world.
I must admit, the lack of damage, the setting (given that the theme Spencer's interview was that the left is 'becoming violent'), the timing (after he fondled his Pepe pin, which could be a signal), and the convenience of it being caught so clearly on camera, all make me wonder if this isn't a situation manufactured to provide his base more 'evidence' of their oppression. The fist of his attacker is white.
And….given that Spencer was already punched and the tape already exists–and that he suffered no apparent physical damage–I'm gonna loop that f*er in all its meme-driven glory until it is no longer funny to me. It's like watching fake subtitles on "Downfall".
I've felt so weird the past few days, this is the most excited I've seen wide swaths of the left – from the #ImWithHer people to the Jacobin types – in like 3 months. And while I'm a Bernie supporting social democrat who thinks Spencer is human dogshit, I basically agree with everything in this article.
It seems to me the claim to toss our own values aside is always the same, you just madlib: "it's true that we've been high-minded about [whatever], but look where it's gotten us! And look at the absolute horror that [they] present – these are people who don't [whatever], and we think we can handle this by holding ourselves to [whatever]? We're going to have to get much more serious and actually get things done."
Trump used the exact same logic at most of his rallies in terms of Islamic terrorism and waterboarding.
I do believe there is a reasonable discussion to be had about when and where violence is an acceptable response to odious political beliefs. Ken has stated that he does not believe it to be now, and he has stated why eloquently.
Before I take him up on this point, though, I would have to know when, exactly, he thinks violence is called for. Without that knowledge, the argument is incomplete. Richard Spencer has actively called for genocide. He is the heir to a political belief that gained power through legal means, and thusly committed genocide against millions of people. The president has installed a white supremacist has his chief strategist. I need to know how bad, exactly, it has to get before violence is justified in his view, before I can evaluate your belief that that time is not now.
> Waiting until nazis who proclaim to desire genocide to actually commit the genocide is in no way, shape, or form acceptable.
Well, if you want to go back to Popper, saying we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, then you should worry about the people resorting to "fists or pistols" instead of ideas to make their case.
Of course, that standard might not end up suppressing the ideology you want suppressed in this example…
#BLdon'tM.
If that makes anyone believe I am a Nazi, well fuck them.
I won't be punched without a corresponding lethal counteraction.
Otherwise I'm peaceable.
Thru superior firepower.
@nidefatt
> Have you considered that it might be too late for that? That we are living through the beginnings of a civil war?
If that was the case, then it's far too late. One side has most of the guns and the military on their side. The other side is concentrated in relatively small areas of land.
It shouldn't be difficult to see how this plays out.
@Christopher Jorgensen:
Are you sure about that?
My short online research of the guy just now, revealed that he apparently campaigns for a voluntary separation of the races, and not for anyone's murder. His long-term dream is that white people would found a country specifically for white people, somewhere sometime in the future. In that sense, his movement is reminiscent of the Zionism of the late 19th century, but for white people instead of Jews.
I think those views/dreams are idiotic, but the fact that he holds them (without any power or social acceptance to advance them) is rather harmless, especially compared to what you accused him of.
And I think that matters. As a conservative, I've been called a "Nazi" plenty of times by members of the "progressive" left when they were out of arguments. Have misgivings about the oversized welfare state, or the power of unions? Nazi. Argue that we should cherish controlled & legal immigration, but enforce the existing laws against illegal immigration? Nazi. Point out that scientific research on gender and childhood development doesn't exactly corroborate the dogmas of the trans activism movement? Nazi.
You lefties are basically playing a "tag and hit" game with labels like 'Nazi'. Anyone who tears down leftists dogmas or scratches leftist holy cows, gets frivolously tagged with such a label, and then other leftists come along and feel justified in being hateful and violent towards you, because after all someone tagged with such a label must literally be advancing genocide and pure evil. It's basically a way to evade moral responsibility… When confronted about their actions, the tagger can always say they were just using heated rhetoric and didn't hurt anyone, and the hitter can claim that it was a "fair assumption" based on the label that the violence would be justified, and victim-blame his target for not doing enough to "prove" that the label was false.
Again, Are you sure about that?
During last few years I've seen a lot of actual violence and hate come from the left, often in the name of fighting imaginary of fringe-to-the-point-of-irrelevancy violence and hate.
—
@not a good look:
Indeed, it's spooky how closely today's Antifa mirrors Hitler's street thugs of the 1920's / early 1930's. Their violent tactics and attacks on democratic political parties, their uniforms and logos, their hatred of liberal democracy and its law enforcement, their hard-on for socialist rhetoric.
They're not "anti" in the sense of an antithesis, they're "anti" in the sense of a mirror image.
Luckily, today's democracies in North America and Europe are much more stable than the Weimar Republic, and thus we won't get the chance to observe if the similarities would continue to play out after the seizure of power (when the NSDAP dialed back the socialist parts of its platform).
Burr, that's cold.
On one hand, I agree with Ken. Violence is bad and we don't want people punching other people in public (or in private, even.)
On the other hand, I don't think most people in the alt-right* get just how ugly and horrible the endgame of the fascist right might be for Jews, Blacks, or anyone else who's not White. To the alt-right it's a game they play to piss off the SJW-females (since they're creepy man-boys who are never getting laid, much less ever fulfilling their cuck fantasies…) and they don't have the foggiest clue how the history of real Nazis motivates people to despise them, and they don't have any idea how far most people are willing to go to make sure that no version of the Nazi vision ever advances so much as an inch.
Maybe repeatedly watching one of their "leading lights" get sucker-punched will wake some of them up to just how hard the road ahead is for them. That's my fantasy anyway.
* Alt-right: the wanking over pictures of Hitler in their underground bunker/Mom's basement kind of nazis, as opposed to March-In-Skokie Nazis.
@Daniel Weber: Yup. Was going for that one as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rjGTOA2NA
@Encinal: "Telling people what magazines to read is not a citation."
There's enough basic fact there for you to check it out if you want to. If you're willing to spend this much time arguing you could spend a little time being informed about the subject you're arguing over.
The only way to deal with fucked up characters who promote nazism, racism or any other abhorrent narrative is to simply ignore them. Ignore, ignore ignore. It'll drive them insane. Back in the day, the KKK decided they really needed to have a parade in downtown Austin. My Hispanic ex, furious that the city would grant them a permit, wanted to go down there and protest. This is exactly what the KKK wanted, newspaper pictures (no Interwebs back then) of thousands of screaming protesters lining their parade rout. Woulda given them legitimacy, yes? Legitimacy in their fuzzy heads, anyway. Did the protesters think they'd actually change the minds of these ignorant morons? Did the Nazi puncher think that? Seriously? It'll never happen, it's like trying to reason with an infant. Laugh at them, turn your back on them, but don't give them what they want, which is publicity of any kind. Far better to have newspaper pics of completely empty streets when the KKK walked through. Far better that there be no public acknowledgement of these types of people. It's what they want. I don't want to give them what they want.
Ken took care of the legal arguments…I'm not qualified to add or detract from those, except to say "duh". Punching someone and running away, however much they may deserve punching, is childish, not to mention a crime. Let's behave like the adults we presumably are, shall we? Don't give these guys any excuse to say "I'm the victim here".
@M B: "There's enough basic fact there for you to check it out if you want to."
The whole topic is filled with #fakenews (like that CNN chyron kerfuffle in November), you know that. And yet you and @exiledv2 can't be bothered to give an actual reference or two? Give me a break.
Christopher Jorgensen says "preemptive self-defense."
That is what the Nazis are doing to you.
As for Nigel, if he did all that you claim, you should be able to prove it. Aiding and abetting is a crime, too. Just prove it in an impartial court before you punch.
Only a complete moron would willfully misunderstand the fact that "white lives matter too much" is a direct response to stupid rhetoric from anti-BLM people.
Just wanted to point out that all this serious debate is obscuring a very nice Alpha Centauri reference.
It might be helpful to focus on the particular Nazi who got punched here:
(1) Spencer is a crusading racist who has argued for the extermination of black people. Nazi is not being used here as a term of abuse, he is the real deal.
(2) He's been there for years, he is a leading light of the fascist movement in the US, he goes on college speaking tours spreading Naziism, he's not going away if you ignore him .
(3) The particular kind of eliminationist racism he embodies already gets people killed. (Though not white US liberals, by and large).
European experience is that the only good Nazi is a dead one so at a minimum keep punching Nazis.
https://twitter.com/BlackAutonomist/status/822818627523117056
TheAngryPhilosopher
"Your 'Nazi vs not-a-Nazi' distinction is silly because it completely ignores what makes Nazism so contemptible"
nah it just means i hate fucking nazis.
reading too much into it bro.
"What makes Nazism contemptible – I'm just a tad surprised you're not getting this – is its encouragement of racial violence."
nah that ain't why i hate nazis. racial violence is an endemic problem of the human race throughout history, will always happen, never go away.
i specifically hate fucking nazis. that's what you don't get.
"White Lives Matter Too Much" is also a call to racial violence"
disagree. if it said 'kill all whitey' i'd agree with you. 'white lives matter too much' is just an opinion, doesn't call to any violence to me.
starting to think if i said 'i don't like your shirt' that you would say that's a call for me to stab you several times and eat your liver or something.
"It says: white lives should matter less than they do now. What practical action reflects this statement?"
don't fucking care. i just hate nazis.
i'm what you would call 'single-issue' on this bro.
"cranking my tractor? is this meant to be an insult or something?"
slang bro. crank your tractor? get your wheels spinning? what gets you going?
you ain't american are you bro.
"I don't want to punch anyone, I think it's clear that my position is that nobody should be punched"
pacifist hippy gotcha. don't think much of those.
well, go wave flowers at people or whatever. me, i'm punchin' nazis. i hate fuckin' nazis.
Encinal
"Telling people what magazines to read is not a citation. Give a citation, or STFU."
nah bro. i'll point but i don't do people's research for them. if people can't rtfm themselves, that ain't my problem. i don't care if you believe me or not, it won't make any difference to me. so there's the signpost and if you don't want to go read that's on you. i'm no academic i don't do cites.
Eric Atkinson
"#BLdon'tM.
If that makes anyone believe I am a Nazi, well fuck them."
do your beliefs and political stances align with that of the nsdap and successor neo-nazi groups?
if yes, then nazi.
if no, then not-a-nazi.
easy peasy bro.
Frank Ch. Eigler
"nd yet you and @exiledv2 can't be bothered to give an actual reference or two? "
not my job bro. i don't care what you believe, ain't going to make no difference as to what i think or do. hold spencer up as mama theresa if you want. still going to punch him for being a nazi.
The problem with being OK with punching, prosecuting, or penalizing Nazis is that the game then becomes getting the people you don't like identified as Nazis.
You know what else was the building block of genocide?
DEMOCRACY
https://espressostalinist.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/
Whoops, I guess we shouldn't care about that as a political belief either. Well, I'm ahead of the curve on that already, but now everyone else can catch up! And then we can all proceed to punching them, thank goodness they're so identifiable lately. I'd have to have to put all those stars on by myself! Oh wait, it was hats? Yes, hats. Good thing the enemies of political freedom and human progress have made themselves so easily identifiable! And clustered so closely together! Time to get the snow plows!
http://foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-Honduran-Shipwreck-Hillary-Clintons-Coup-Turns-7-20160627-0034.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/04/15/the-media-the-cia-and-the-coup/
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
and so it continues even to this day, actually. I guess they feel bad that communists beat them in half the time and want to make up for it on the sly. But on the other hand, communists never cared much about profit, while this is just as much about squeezing the blood from stones of the poor and destitute. You'll all have to remind me here, is that better, or worse? Because apparently people die much more lethally when it's for a cause over pure profit, or so I've been told the past 25 straight years to today.
Also PA specifically brings me to mind of this past year. I tried quite hard to ignore them, but it appears to only make them screech harder. And apparently if you ignore them for too long, they'll take away all your rights on a whim. Something that nasty should have a term, shouldn't it? Some way to easily separate those violent miscreants from the reasonable parts of humanity? I propose we shall call them the Alt-Left, and their adherents are hereby termed The Deportables. And best yet, it seems a token minority already agrees with me, so we're safe from criticism!
https://i1.wp.com/fusion.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/5L6A8237.jpg
I feel somewhat hypocritical because I (A) enjoyed watching the 'Nazi' get punched, because I feel he probably earned it at some point. However, I (B) think the person who did it should be arrested for assault, and to be fair, probably with a hate crime adder (I do hate those, as they make thoughts illegal). I also think he should be allowed to (C) plead down to a slap on the wrist felony assault with suspended sentence.
And yes, I put Nazi in quotes because too many people like to demonize their opponents with that term, from both sides, and to me it's lost any meaning other than 'German Soldier during World War II'.
Pardon me if I don't look to a continent which enthusiastically embraces blasphemy laws for moral guidance.
Oh, and I notice that the Golden Dawn is still around.
An offal dilemma, indeed.
Um, yah. Anyway, is it just me, or does the D.C. Code fail to define "mayhem"?
Okay! I won't be surprised.
Kevin Harpham bombed an MLK parade.
Frazier Miller Jr. shot up a Jewish community center.
Wade Page shot up a Sikh temple.
Keith Luke raped a woman.
James von Brunn killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum.
Members of The Order assassinated Alan Berg, talk radio host.
And there was some kid in a church in Charleston recently…
There are worthwhile lines of argument that you shouldn't punch Nazis, but "you shouldn't do it because it might provoke violence" isn't one of them.
How do we know this wasn't a false flag punch, set up in advance, and these guys aren't laughing together at us right now, savoring the sympathy for their cause that their theater has engendered?
I may very well be a douche, I enjoyed watching some fool get clobbered because it amused me, but I don't see how it translates to putting poor people at any greater risk of police violence than they are now, and I also don't see this as a seminal point in the evolution of punch culture, given that most of us already have guns.
In this world, sometimes bad things happen to people just because they were stupid, and other people reviewing the events are allowed to make judgments about the relative degree of stupidity in support of how little or much the victim deserved the comepuppance. The inauguration is a dicey proposition to begin with; Trumpalos and protestors in close proximity, and if you're going to stand in one place on the sidewalk espousing white supremacy in an interview, you need to maintain a close eye on your surroundings…
[There is a marvelous imperative from Aboriginal Australian about this: "Wollemi!"]
…because it is eminently foreseeable that someone on the periphery might take umbrage at your remarks. I would have taken umbrage myself, but I probably wouldn't have slugged him, maybe just joined the interview. He didn't get slugged because he was a Nazi, he got slugged because he was an idiot, and he deserved it.
Is 'white genocide' the counterpart to 'black genocide'? I've heard both thrown around lately, but I don't care to hang out with anyone using either term, so I can't claim familiarity. All I know is that people have argued that they don't mean what they seem they mean, which just makes me think the people using them are none too bright.
Anyhow, looks like the protesters are going to be in trouble:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp
I'd love to know how may of those attempting to split hairs over what exactly constitutes a nazi were originally brought here by racist former blogger of this parish and all round fuckwit Clark.
White genocide means doing away with meth chemists. legal bloggers., and Urkel
Seriously? It's a fantasy that if the world were run the right way (no abortion or birth control, women at home where they belong, no interracial relationships) there would be more white babies. Wikipedia has a good explanation.
HandOfGod137
"I'd love to know how may of those attempting to split hairs over what exactly constitutes a nazi were originally brought here by racist former blogger of this parish and all round fuckwit Clark."
still out on whether that dude is a secret nazi or just an anarchist punk. prolly the latter. seems kind of a bitch for a punk tho. does like to hang with the nazis.
As awful as 2016 was, it never made me defend freaking Nazis. Good job, 2017.
"Black genocide" is a term meaning a lot of abortions have been from African-Americans. "White genocide" is a term meaning immigration and miscegenation are bad, and will lead to no whites in the future.
Both are really stupid.
Nothing prevents there from being two bad guys in a story. Personally, I'll go with "you shall know them by their works." But for anyone who wants to defend violence as a means of advancing a political agenda, perhaps you should remember that we have a word for that?
Thanks, Popehat comment section, for making me even more depressed than I was over the citizenry's lack of basic understanding of fundamental rights, and just general lack of moral principles. It was bad enough when so-called conservatives flipped their wigs and wanted to abolish most of the Bill of Rights over some domestic "terrorism", but now so-called liberals want to reserve the right to pre-emptively beat up people just because those people say disagreeable things and/or identify with reprehensible ideologies?
I'm as atheist as they come, but somehow the words attributed to the likely mythical Jesus come to mind: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." And in a secular vein, "fuck you and the pony you rode in on" seems appropriate too.
@ Sarah:
Yes, I get that it's a response to the anti-BLM people. That is entirely beside the point. The point is whether it's a response which encourages racial violence. And it is, ergo it's evil. Imagine that.
After all, a lot of people (including many Nazis) understood Nazi ideology to be a direct response to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (which Hitler blamed on the Jews, predictably). This is a matter of historical fact. Are you going to claim that this somehow justifies Nazism, or detracts from the evil of Nazism? Do explain.
Only a complete moron would willfully misunderstand this.
@ exiledv2
So, you genuinely believe that Nazis are the only bad people in history? You only care about 'Nazis', not racial violence? Basically, you're vigilantly protecting us against a movement that died long ago, a few idiots like Spencer notwithstanding (no, there is no impending Nazi takeover of the USA) and completely ignoring all the other violence. So you're a moron then, good to know.
And stop making stuff up about me, by the way. No, I don't want to punch BLM; no I don't hang out with Nazis; no I don't have any sympathy for the morons who believe in 'white genocide'; etc. Making up all this nonsense only proves what a cunt you are.
Now go back in time and tell George Washington killing redcoats won't free the colonies.
Also make sure to tell Lincoln that going to war with the south won't end slavery.
And while you're at it tell Eisenhower than bombing Berlin won't end the Holocaust.
"[C]onsider that the new administration's White House web page has a law enforcement section that characterizes protests as dangerous and violent and promises robust police action in response, and that Trump and his supporters have decreed that the Department of Justice will no longer persecute poor hapless police departments."
Nothing on the White House web page says anything resembling this. It's a complete misrepresentation. The hypocrisy here is staggering – you were just lecturing readers about the importance of accurate reporting in the post you wrote immediately before this one.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Just to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Nazis? The whole strong military, our nation first attitude is pretty consistent with the current Republican position, and don't tell me a bunch of Democrats wouldn't mind a move in the direction of Hitler's nationalization of healthcare and certain other industries. The racial superiority thing is–while not perhaps "mainstream acceptable," is at least becoming tolerable to the extent that political correctness demands that we call them "the alt-right" or "white nationalists," rather than "asshole racists," while the more race-neutral aspects of Nazi eugenics (that certain traits are undesirable and should be removed from the population) were explicitly endorsed in opinions by judges and justices who we still look to favorably in law school.
The main reason "Nazis" are such an acceptable target is that the original Nazi party engaged in a concerted program of genocide and launched a war of conquest against the rest of the world. The guys with the shaved heads and a hard-on for Hitler might be assholes for glorifying this history, but they did not participate in it, nor were they responsible for it. And many would argue that they're not proud of the Holocaust, but rather the "good parts" the history of the Third Reich.
This reasoning may sound a bit tortured, but we basically apply it to every other group of people who celebrate a somewhat blemished genealogical or ideological lineage. Slavery was a substantial part of the history of the Confederacy. Even if you want to retcon the Civil War to say that slavery had nothing to do with WHY they seceded, you can't deny that the South engaged in a system of slavery based on institutional racism. And yet a majority of Americans (or close to it) are generally okay with Confederate flags, with celebrating Southern heritage. People pride themselves on their ancestors who fought in the Civil War–for both sides. Robert E. Lee is probably the most celebrated person ever to lead a war against the United States. We accept that there are a lot of laudable aspects of Southern heritage, and we accept that good people can celebrate those good aspects without embracing the baggage of the whole racist atrocity bit.
And it's not just flag-waving Southerners. Our whole country is built on broken treaties and genocide. People can celebrate Chinese heritage without being accused of endorsing the Cultural revolution or the millions who died under Mao. We respect people of the Catholic faith and we don't assume they condone child rape. We* don't assume that simply belonging to the Muslim faith means that you endorse Islamic terrorism. Hell, we don't even need to stray far from WWII: the Emperor of Japan was the titular head of state responsible for all of their war crimes, and people don't hate the Imperial family the way they hate Nazis.
*Well, for certain values of the word "we."
Ken, you should pay attention to how much Nazi support you've been garnering with this. The alt-right is literally and objectively a neo-Nazi movement who directly condone literal genocide of nonwhite people, and you should probably clear that up before you get too many excited sociopaths making the world think you're one of them.
@TheAngryPhilosopher:
Respectfully, it's hard for most people to imagine that because your logic isn't sound. A black man and a white woman making out in certain parts of the country encourages racial violence. By your logic, it's thus evil. A free market economy in which people will be unequally prosperous, in which it is possible to believe that the inequality exists along racial lines encourages racial violence. Hell, any kind of poverty correlates with higher levels of violence, including violence directed against out-group scapegoats. Thus, free market economy = evil. Hell, every time somebody files a news story about white cops killing an unarmed black man, or Islamic suicide bombers killing a bunch of innocent people, or some black man raping and killing some white girl, that encourages racial violence. So I guess that journalism is also evil. Hell, John Brown leading that violent slave revolt was a direct result of the time he spent living in a heavily abolitionist town, so I guess the abolitionist movement was pretty evil, too.
Hell, if you read some of the tweets by the anti-BLM crowd, the whole BLM hashtag is apparently some sort of trigger word that drives completely non-racist folks, who even have black friends, to fantasize about engaging in racial violence.
To paraphrase Kellyanne Conway, I think I understand that your heart is in the right place, even if it doesn't make sense to interpret the words coming out of your mouth literally. I think it's important to consider the distinction between what is legally incitement, and what's just saying stuff that might cause people to get riled up. If you're crafting a expressive response to deliberately get people to engage in racial violence (or any kind of violence), I would agree that it's both evil and illegal. But your choices of wording and the examples you single out as "evil" seem to follow the over-expansive, bad law version of incitement that Ken's addressed repeatedly over the years. It's not incitement to merely say or do something that might make someone mad enough to attack someone–particularly if most people wouldn't consider it reasonable to get mad over it. It's not incitement to academically explore some theory that might justify violence under some circumstances.
TheAngryPhilosopher
"So, you genuinely believe that Nazis are the only bad people in history?"
nope. never said that.
"You only care about 'Nazis', not racial violence?"
i just fucking hate nazis. like i said bro i'm single-issue on the subject. its personal with me.
"Basically, you're vigilantly protecting us against a movement that died long ago, a few idiots like Spencer notwithstanding (no, there is no impending Nazi takeover of the USA) and completely ignoring all the other violence."
plenty of nazi skins where i live bro. come around if you want to punch some.
"And stop making stuff up about me, by the way."
didn't say you did any of those things or believed it. you're reading way too much into things bro. seem kind of sensitive, but you did say you were a pacifist so that makes sense. hippy pacifists are pretty sensitive.
IForgetMyName
"Just to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Nazis?"
nah let's not do that bro. there's no point to that.
You know what? Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose every time someone expressed an opinion, one person who didn't like it were permitted to punch the speaker in the head. No repercussions. First come, first serve. Would that result in a better quality of ideas being brought to the marketplace? Historically, people have continued to say some things after being punched quite a bit more than once, but in those cases the punching was generally rather one-sided. They really believed what they were saying. Would their opponents have been as adamant if they had faced the same sort of opposition?
@ IForgotMyName
That's a lot of verbiage for a point which could have been made in about two sentences, and can be refuted with about the same. Nevertheless, thanks at least for not being rude.
First (to counter what you said in your last paragraph), I have not made any claims about whether the sign was incitement by any legal definition. I leave that to Ken and others who know the law better than I do. I was making a moral point.
In the end, our disagreement is because we are using the word "encouragement" in two completely different ways, and I think your use fails to make a very important distinction. None of the examples you gave are "encouragement" in my book, because "encouragement" involves a willful message being sent. Any action can be "encouragement" by your definition because there can always be people with some sort of irrational response to it.
To give a concrete example, consider the following:
(a) A woman walks into a bar wearing a short, tight skirt and low-cut top.
(b) A frat boy tells another frat boy, "You took her out and she still didn't put out? Stupid bitch, doesn't she know she owes you?"
According to your criteria, both of these "encourage" rape. That's incredibly silly for example (a), as your entire post was spent explaining. But it's not so silly at all for (b). The difference is that a message is being sent by the speaker: "it is morally okay for you to commit this heinous act".
(In case (a), the potential rapist in the bar might read this in the woman's dress, but this is only because he is the scum of the Earth – nobody is sending him this message)
In a similar vein, I'd contrast (i) "Black Lives Matter" with (ii) "White Lives Matter Too Much". Saying "Black Lives Matter" encourages refraining from violence against black people by asserting their lives are morally undervalued. If there are some who read it as a provocation, that's on them. "White Lives Matter Too Much", on the other hand, encourages engaging in violence against white people by asserting their lives are morally overvalued. Is this distinction not clear?
@ exiledv2
And I never said I was a pacifist either. Guess making shit up is just what you do. Try harder, bro.
(And you definitely made all those false claims)
Basically, it's clear by now that talking to you is pointless.
@TheAngryPhilosopher
By my reading, "White Lives Matter Too Much" is not an explicit call for additional violence but rather a claim that violence is not distributed equitably. I strongly suspect the protestor would be perfectly satisfied in a reduction in violence, provided that reduction were directed mainly at black suspects, especially those who are unarmed.
@ BadRoad
No, it's not an explicit call to violence – but neither is "that bitch owes you" an explicit call to rape.
And yes, "Black Lives Matter" and "White Lives Matter Too Much" are both about the inequitable distribution of violence. But BLM suggests fixing this disparity by increasing the value of black life; WLMTM suggests decreasing the value of white life (that's the literal interpretation of those words).
What does it mean to decrease the value of a particular life? Maybe my imagination is not as strong as yours, but to me the only thing it can possibly mean is an increase in violence against that life, or at the very least encouragement to look the other way when that violence occurs (which is almost the same thing).
Certainly "Black Lives Matter" is a call to reduce the violence against black people. If someone had a sign saying "Black Lives Matter Too Much", wouldn't you read it as a call to increase violence against black people? I would. That's the logical result derived from the meaning of "Black Lives Matter".
As for what the protester would be satisfied with, no doubt you're right that they'd be happy with a reduction in anti-black violence. But they also suggest that an alternate solution is to increase violence against whites. Would this "solve" anything?
PS. Still suspicious that of all the protesters which could have been at this interview, it was this one (and the "Socialism Over Barbarism" one). Was this all a setup by Spencer to get publicity and sympathy? Wish we could have seen more footage – what did the protesters do after the punch?
You people are losing your fucking minds if you think street violence is going to help or make anything better. And you barely even have any actual nazis worth punching*.
LOSING.
YOUR.
FUCKING.
MINDS.
It's public, it scares people, makes earning a living harder, it creates chaos, it plays into the hands of police state.
And if they don't keep a lid on it, and the right starts to organize it's own 'punching commies in the face' groups, then you get a re-roll of 1930's with paramilitary groups punching other people in the face and more chaos. Which will be of course exploited by someone possibly even worse than Trump to get more power.
This guy shows an inkling of what might happen:
https://storify.com/sphenoid/days-of-rage-pt-5-finale-what-does-it-portend
*the proper protocol to deal with actual nazis is S-S-S. Shoot, shovel, shut the fuck up. Not punching them in the face. That's just going to weed out the LARP-ers and leave the actual nazis who can take a punch and who are willing to punch back sympathetic to all the randoms who dislike people getting punched in the street..
"[…] Was this all a setup by Spencer […]?"
Reading the comment stream here, unless all the "antifa" sympathizers here are also fake, and so are all the peeps on twitter & NYT etc.,, I can't imagine Spencer needing to set such a thing up. There are enough loonies who admit to thinking that way.
Throughout the comment thread on this article to date, I've seen a broad spectrum of political and moral views, from a great variety of different people. Now, I'm a rather old-fashioned conservative of the Buckleyite variety. I voted HRC under duress, but hold many political views that wouldn't be out of place at most conservative think tanks from 1970 onward.
This is my point: Referring you to Ken's #4, I have zero faith that to at least one or two of the posters above, I'm NOT their idea of a nazi. If punching nazis becomes as de facto acceptable as many posters above would prefer, then in the sort of street-protest context where these things generally happen, I have zero faith that some random Bane-wannabe will be above deciding that I'm his idea of a nazi. Even leaving my own self-interest out of it, I do not trust your competence in distinguishing nazi (or Nazi) from non-n/Nazi, and am not okay with entrusting the safety of individual citizens to your discretion.
You think normalizing this shit will be limited to cases like Richard Spencer? It never is. IT NEVER FREAKING IS. Read that, re-read it, print it out, commission a cross-stitch that says that, and hang it somewhere prominent.
Deleted for obviousness, on consideration, except to say:.
Do not punch Nazis or anyone else for expressing their political views. Punch not, lest you be punched, is why. That's what I say.
Seriously, we're already there. When did people forget that white supremacists in this country are carrying out political assassinations? Not all the time, I'm not saying it's common, but Dylann Roof was literally convicted less than a month ago.
Richard Spencer does podcasts with the guy who runs the Daily Stormer. He's used Neo-Nazis for security. He does interviews with David Duke. He is part of a movement which is already violent.
We should be concerned about him using violence as an excuse to ramp up, but the correct response is to point out that it's an excuse because Neo-Nazis already shoot people they don't like.
@TheAngryPhilosopher
I never said you did. I just thought it was illustrative to look at it as an example. My personal philosophy of "evil vs. not evil" doesn't line up precisely with the legal concept of incitement either. However, my definition of evil is probably closer to a more narrowly tailored incitement definition to the broader "could encourage racial violence" definition. For example, falsely claiming that I saw someone raping a preteen boy, with the unspoken intent to bait someone into taking a shot at him is at best on the outer fringes of legal incitement, but it's firmly evil in my view.
"It could encourage racial violence" is just too broad for me to condemn categorically. The Second Amendment and the implied doctrine of "use violence against tyranny" can and does encourage (non-racial) violence. Some guys we see as terrorists see themselves as patriots with a super low threshold for what's tyranny, and strictly speaking, without those ideas legitimizing violent resistance, some of those guys probably wouldn't have acted. But I'd call those ideas good, not evil. For the most part, it contributes to keeping the government honest and reminds people that liberty sometimes requires a price. And I can't really blame these ideas for any unjustified violence. If someone is planting bombs or shooting judges because they think that the draft is tyranny, they're not doing so because of the Second Amendment and all it implies–they're doing so because of all the other baggage they brought with them.
Honestly, I don't even see how "let's kill some white people" logically follows from "white lives matter too much." If I said "iPads are overvalued," nobody is going to go around smashing iPads, as if that would accomplish something based on that new information. If I said "white people have negative value; as long as they exist, they're a detriment to society," THAT would logically imply that we should kill some white people, and THAT would arguably be an evil statement to make.
After you thanked me for not being rude, I feel terrible because I know what I'm about to say might come off as being rather rude. It's absolutely terrifying to me that the only conclusion you can draw is "let's increase violence against these guys."
In my professional experience, human life is (economically) overvalued. The intrinsic value of human life is unmeasured, and that makes it hard to make logical choices when you're forced to put a dollar value on a life. We award absurdly high judgments in wrongful death suits, we revile companies who are unwilling to spend billions of dollars on safeguards that might save one or two lives a year, we spend the GDP of several small countries in order to rescue Matt Damon from whatever mess he's gotten himself into, when that same money spent less glamorously might save millions from starvation or preventable diseases.
My admonition that human life is overvalued is arguably sociopathic–it encourages us to look dispassionately at people, reduce them to a number, without consideration for their value to the people who know them. I wouldn't call it a good thing to say, but I wouldn't call it evil either. Your "only conclusion," on the other hand, is less sociopathic and more psychopathic. Even if humans are worth less than we think they are, they still have positive value, and I have no clue how you think it logically follows that we should erase some of that positive value, simply because it's not as high as we thought.
Another thing that troubles me a bit–it was written into our Constitution that (black) slaves were worth 3/5th of a free (mostly white) man. Most non-lawyers, expressing the exact same sentiment against that fact, probably wouldn't see much difference between "White freedmen matter too much" and "Black slaves matter too little." But in your eyes, the guys who say the former are evil, while the guys who say the latter are evil. I just don't think it's a particularly compelling system of morality where the difference between good and evil turns on a rhetorical distinction that I probably wouldn't even notice if I weren't a trained lawyer and a huge pedant myself.
@Frank
There's thinking that way, then there's having the balls, the ability, and the stupidity to actually do it. People talk a good game on the internet. Tons of people are willing to gather around cheering on a fight. Comparatively few are willing to throw that first punch. Plus, many are cynical enough to realize that the sympathy/publicity value they'll give the target far outweighs the momentary satisfaction.
Remember, Hitler used a false flag operation to justify his invasion of Poland. Were there Poles in uniform who absolutely wanted to strike first against the Germans? Most likely. But there was no guarantee that any of them would ever act on those impulses and attack Germany, let alone do so on a moment convenient to Hitler's timetable.
@Ken,
As a former prosecutor, what's your opinion on how prosecutorial discretion jives with the government's duties when it comes to unpopular speakers? To me, if the DOJ stated that they wouldn't prosecute anyone for crimes against Nazis, it would be no less coercive than Germany's blanket Nazi ban. At the same time, prosecutors have discretion to file their cases without having their motives questioned, and even an honest prosecutor (who isn't playing favorites because they hate Nazis) might decide to avoid prosecuting crimes against Nazis precisely because they know it would be a tremendous uphill battle to win a case for such an unpopular victim.
@Bryant
Roof was a lone nut with mental health issues and history of psychoactive drug use. Assassination means targeted killing of an important individual. What Roof did was either the typical pointless killing spree, or 'propaganda-of-the-deed' type of nonsense. Can't tell, don't care tbh. Spree killers
I've yet to hear of any actual nazi or fascist assassination. I'm sure there were some, but probably related to the Aryan nation prison gang, who, while nazis, seem more like criminals using ideology as glue than a genuine movement aiming at social change.
Once pundits, radicals, student leaders, etc start ending up dead and actual nazis get arrested as assassins, then I'll say you have a nazi assassin problem. However, there is probably far more anti-communist no-fucks-given angry white men than there is actual nazis, and what has been going on in the US seems to be a concerted campaign of subversion, funded by foreign powers.
The people behind the 'disruptJ20" movement have fairly clear ties to foreign groups, to the point that there are videos of them, speaking in Moscow, about how the oppressive FBI raided them – mere 'peace activists'. (see the "civil war 2017" youtube video, 801 second)
If people like Taryn Fivek (check her twitter, it's hillarious) end up with acute lead poisoning, the smart money will be on one of tens of thousands of ex-soldiers with a marked dislike for left-wing subversion. Just go to any soldier blog on Che Guevara's death date.
After all, if you're fit, pushing sixty, divorced, nothing the gov't can do to you really matters. And after the first one, all the others are free. You can't get executed twice for 2 murders.
@ IForgetMyName
First, three relatively unimportant points: (1) None of what you said is rude. (2) You said "But your choices of wording and the examples you single out as "evil" seem to follow the over-expansive, bad law version of incitement that Ken's addressed repeatedly over the years", which seems to suggest I was making a legal claim, so I responded. If you say you weren't suggesting that, that's fine then, though it makes what you said rather irrelevant. (3) I agree with your response to Frank.
On to the real point. You're "terrified" that I interpret "White Lives Matter Too Much" as a call to violence, or at the very least a call to turn a blind eye to violence (which amounts to much the same thing in effect). We have already established that it means we should decrease our subjective valuation of white lives, so let's go into detail on what that entails (tbh, I think it obvious that it implies violence).
First, I do not agree at all that the sign was making a point about economic value, as in "iPads are overvalued" or "GOOG is overvalued". Suppose you had a vase you really liked in your house, and got really nervous anytime somebody even went close to it. A friend suggests that you value that vase too much.
Your friend is not saying that you would require too high a price for it. What your friend is saying is, in effect, "if that vase were to be smashed, it would bother you too much". True, he's not saying "go ahead and smash it", and he's not inciting anyone else to smash it. And in the case of this hypothetical vase, which nobody actively wants to smash, it wouldn't make so much difference. But let's apply this analogy, which I think is pretty accurate, to the example of white lives.
"White Lives Matter Too Much" can thus be translated to, "if a white life is harmed or taken, it should be treated more lightly". Recall that a key point of BLM is that society often looks the other way when a black life is taken – and in particular, black lives often don't have effective protection of the law (or of society in general). WLMTM is in effect saying that this should also be the case for whites. In an atmosphere of heightened racial tension, and with "black power" a very active ideology, don't you think that decreasing social and legal protection for white victims of violence would exacerbate, or encourage, racial violence?
To see this more clearly, consider the following sentence: "She's just some goddamned slut, and a fucking tease too". To make it concrete, let's give all the actors names here. Evan said this to Chad (I know, aren't I just the most creative with names?), about Karen.
It is not explicit like "rape her, bro" would be. Nevertheless it carries the message that, as a "slut", Karen's sexual free will is not to be valued. Worse, this is paired with the suggestion that she's been taking advantage of Chad. Don't you think – even a little – that this is a toxic combination? That Evan might be suggesting people would turn a blind eye to a sexual assault, should Chad decide to go for it? That Evan might even have been prodding Chad to act more aggressive and entitled?
Of course, Evan has not committed a crime, only made a (disgusting) moral judgment on Karen. As much as a healthy smack across the gob might do him some good, I don't condone random street violence against Evan either. But that statement is despicable all the same.
"White Lives Matter Too Much" comes across – to me, but I don't think my reading is unreasonable – much the same way. "One shouldn't be so concerned by violence against those people".
Again, what would your reaction be to a sign saying "Black Lives Matter Too Much"? Lots of people (though I'll give you personally the benefit of the doubt on this) are already offended by "Blue Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter" – to the extent that people have been physically attacked for making these statements. If they saw "Black Lives Matter Too Much", they'd go ballistic. I'd be at the very least extremely angry with our hypothetical picketer. Would you really be unable to understand it as a call to commit or ignore violence?
Forgive me for making an assumption – though as far as assumptions go, I figure this one is pretty safe – but if someone had been carrying a sign that said "Black Lives Matter Too Much" in the background of, say, a Louis Farrakhan interview (Louis Farrakhan being the closest mirror to Richard Spencer I can think of), I imagine the media might have something to say about it.
Nevermind. My page just refreshed from 8 comments to 145.
@TheAngryPhilosopher
You're ignoring context. "White lives matter too much" is a rebuttal to "White lives matter" which was a rebuttal to "Black lives matter" by people who read it as "Only black lives matter". An equivalent slogan you might find more precise and acceptable might be "Black lives don't appear to matter as much", but that lacks the rhetorical punch of "White lives matter too much". That protester is not there to make you his friend; he is there to express dissatisfaction with the institutions that exist ostensibly to serve him.
Indirectly, yes, it could solve something. Currently, some white people don't care about the disproportionate use of force by police against black suspects because it doesn't affect them. If police started employing that elevated level of force against all suspects regardless of race, some of those white people would probably become outraged and join the protest against excessive police violence. The increased pressure may accelerate the criminal justice reform that BLM appears to have set in motion.
I don't think that's an optimal course of action, but the optimal course of action (reducing police violence in general) seems to be slow in being implemented.
An:
Yeah, where would that be from? Alex Jones, 20 minutes before the start when he realised it was half empty? I call BS – it was literally the highest security event in years. Security outnumbered the visitors in many photos.
Frank Ch. Eigler:
Well, your side started it, and is continuing with it.
But seriously, if you're too lazy or too stupid or too troll to Google the guy and read the first 5 articles that come up, his own interviews and words likely won't convince you either, but here they are, for the other, more logical people.
Google it
You really don't have to go further than his twitter, either.
This is a man who said "Are They People At All, Or Instead Soulless Gollem?" about, depending who you believe, Jews or journalists. Naturally, he was "ambiguous".
Bryant:
Well said.
And it isn't like he's "just" wanting people punched or shot. No, he and his sicko ilk want entire peoples stuffed in mass killing machines, or sterilised, or, as a softer option, just forced into/onto a camp on an island far away. (Because, yes, we totally believe that would be the end of it. /s)
They need stopping. And the news that Spencer is scared to go out and push his hate on the street? That right there is a good thing.
And then I read the comments…
and realized we are doomed to pee on ourselves. No Russian hookers needed.
I looked up the term "nerve-stapled haircut" and I believe that Ken may very well be the originator, after "nerve-stapling", a fictional technology from the video game Alpha Centauri whereby a ruler can completely eliminate subversive tendencies in a subjugated population. Quite poetic, really.
The proper way to react to Nazis:
https://www.indy100.com/article/man-racist-announcement-protester-perfect-response-noo-7478896
I'm going to support Ken's position partly because of how spectacularly easy it appears to be to get classified as a nazi.
A while back I was chatting with a few people face to face, some claim came up about Trump that I'd seen on snopes and I do the whole "he's a nutjob but I don't think that claim is factually true" at which point a few people round on me and accuse me of being "alt-right" while on reddit some of the top post recently have been expressing positions along the line of "alt-right" being utterly equivalent to nazi while also catagorizing basically anyone even vaguely right wing as "alt-right".
@Grandy:
I think you might get in trouble for assaulting the Call of Cthulhu LARPers. You might be justified in asking "someone's little brother" WTF he's doing out in the woods with an "old enough to be collectible" issue of Unspeakable Oath[*], where it might get damp or damaged.
—
[*] I can't remember the issue that had "THAT cover" (as it was infamously known), but it was from about 20 years ago. Now if what he really has is one of the D&D 3rd edition rule books, meh.
I'm on board with most of this piece, but disagree that we really have a blanket social norm against punching people whose speech we find reprehensible. I can think of several situations in which the average American would probably view a well-placed punch as justified (regardless of whether the law would recognize it as such)—a man overhears another man making a vulgar remark about his wife, a kid sees his friend getting picked on, a group of lunatics pickets your child's funeral, etc. And I think the danger of getting punched in the nose is one of the things that generally keeps people more civil in real life than, e.g., on Twitter.
Whether this is a good thing or not I leave as an exercise to the reader. I just don't think the social norm is really all that clear cut, as the reaction the Spencer thing has illustrated.
Murphy:
While I'm all for us getting facts correct, and would never call someone a nazi for defending The Truth (TM) as you apparently did, it seems you need to be educated on some other facts:
Axiom/Fact 1: The alt-right is a specification of neo-nazis. Spencer literally admits that the difference between the alt-right and nazis is labelling: he doesn't want to be called a nazi because the term itself is unpopular and "historical"; he acknowledges that the entire alt-right movement, which he arguably made the label for himself, is fully in agreement with nazi principles. There are no meaningful differences.
Axiom/Fact 2: Trump is subservient to the alt-right. Bannon is his chief fucking strategist, who has been known as a key player in the alt-right movement for many years, long before he aligned with Trump. As soon as Trump nominated Bannon to this position, it was obvious that the nazis were not merely aligning with Trump out of convenience of minor shared principles. He isn't just pushing a couple fascist things that the nazis like; his policies are literally being strategized by a nazi. Bannon even wrote his fucking inauguration speech.
Conclusion: Anyone who claims their "conservatism" forces them to align with the GOP president, Trump, who made it abundantly clear that he owes nothing to the party he got nominated in, is choosing to align with the alt-right, and therefore nazis. There are, in fact, plenty of true conservatives who denounce Trump and are therefore not nazis. But aligning with Trump, at this point, is clearly the act of a nazi forwarding nazi policies and propaganda, whether unwittingly or intentionally. (unwitting nazis are still nazis, though perhaps less deserving of punching. And I acknowledge that because most of this country is collectively fucking braindead, there are probably many more unwitting nazis that intentional nazis)
Even if you think that Nazis are uniquely evil and dangerous and thus exempt from the protections of civil society, that doesn't justify punching a nazi if you are trying to produce some sort of anti-nazi outcome. Killing a high-profile nazi might do that, but it might make things worse as well. With small, inconsequential groups like American nazis, the most productive strategy is probably ignoring them. Spend your time worrying about the state.
I can't understand why people insist on putting the cart before the horse:
You get to punch someone after they take Nazi-like actions, not because of their views or their words.
After Spencer attains a position of governmental power, rounds up some ethnic group, then starts trying to exterminate/expel them, fine, use violence.
Before that? You might want to look in the mirror and adjust your armband.
TheAngryPhilosopher
"And I never said I was a pacifist either."
really bro?
"I don't want to punch anyone, I think it's clear that my position is that nobody should be punched"
that sounds pacifist to me. you think nobody should be punched. since you didn't add conditionals, i have to assume by logic that you mean your position is nobody should be punched, period. if you don't mean that, you should clarify.
"(And you definitely made all those false claims)"
nah you're reading too much into things with your pseudointellectual crap. you need to ratchet it down bro, instead of getting all cranked up.
Dictatortot
"Referring you to Ken's #4, I have zero faith that to at least one or two of the posters above, I'm NOT their idea of a nazi."
do you adhere to the principles and beliefs of the nsdap?
agree with stormfront and the daily stormer?
if yes, then nazi. if no, then not-a-nazi.
easy peasy bro.
DragonessEclectic
" can't remember the issue that had "THAT cover" (as it was infamously known), but it was from about 20 years ago."
http://www.johncoulthart.com/images/rnrr.jpg
Codetaku:
I appreciate your helping to reinforce Ken's #4 point. That's a LOT of arguable nazis, witting or otherwise–"material" nazis, if you will. That's an impressively large number of people who are theoretically fair game for a public beatdown. That's a lot of de facto exceptions to the rule of law–enough, I'd say, to make the relevant laws close to a dead letter.
Even if certain trollbros fancy themselves principled enough to easily distinguish between individuals who should/shouldn't be punched with impunity, you help show that many will see a lot of grey areas instead. And where there are grey areas, the most hot-headed, the most impatient of contradiction, the most inclined to violence/anarchy will make the judgment calls one would expect.
I do not want to be assaulted for my political speech. I my self interest the law against assaulting someone for political speech should be maintained even if that includes protection for Nazis.
Others have made this point. So let me add to it. Currently most of the assaults are minor little engagements where peoples emotions have gotten out of hand. Someone throws a sucker punch, lights someones hair on fire, etc and then runs away. One of these times there will be a real injury and suddenly it is violence as speech. I seriously doubt left leaning politics in this country come out on top in such a situation.
And this is why we don't punch Nazis. Point 4 in the original post holds true, someone is going to find a way to label everyone they don't like Nazis.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) praised President Trump Monday for pulling out of a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal, offering to work with him on the issue in the future.
Indeed. Violence is almost never justified. And it's almost never a good response to an issue. The Ven diagram of justified violence that's also a good idea has even fewer samples.
And that being said: we support free speech, even for Nazis, because we don't always run things. Eventually we get someone like, say, Tonald Drump, who becomes president, and wants to make it illegal to, say, speak negatively about him. And we need really fierce speech protections in place to protect against that.
Does the rest of the civilized world have weaker speech protections? Yup. Do they still seem to enjoy what the majority of sensible people consider reasonable speech? Yup. But then – Americans are notoriously stupid, and unable to leave things that aren't broken unfixed. The MOMENT we make an exception to a law, 27 million new exceptions are proposed.
It's really just easier and saner to say 'you can say what you want and the government can't stop you. And anybody who doesn't want to hear it can walk away or hit the mute button'.
I've often wondered which comments section would finally convince Ken to *Nope* right off and close the blog.
This might be it.
@TheAngryPhilosopher:
I disagree. Like I stated, law doesn't track with morality perfectly, but what the guys in charge make illegally (and conversely, the things the specifically enshrine in the law as things that should never be made illegal) are often informed by morality.
This is not a true statement. I am terrified that you have stated that "the only interpretation" is a call to violence. It's prudent to always consider the unintended consequences of what we say or do. It's useful to be able to imagine the reaction of a violent psychopath. It is worrisome when that reaction is all you can see.
I'm not overly concerned that you see the call to violence as a possible interpretation. I generally disagree that you see it as a reasonable interpretation. I worry that you see it as the only possible interpretation.
I don't agree that we've established that. Your statement presupposes that there's some sort of absolute subjective value that can be increased or decreased in a vacuum, and that this interpretation is the only way to look at things. I disagree. If we're not doing an economic valuation, then it is nearly impossible to consider the value of a life except relative to the value of other lives, or principles, or other things. Even if you want to consider a nihilistic belief in which we devalue all human lives, it is only meaningful in that we're implicitly decreasing their value relative to something else (i.e., our own individual lives, our desire to act on impulses at the expense of other, our enjoyment of violence for its own sake.)
"White Lives Matter Too Much Compared to the Lives to Non-White Lives and Civil Liberties, But Matter Just The Right Amount Compared to Most Other Things, and Probably Don't Matter Enough Compared to Some Superficial Things That Are Beyond the Scope of This Placard" is probably more accurate, more measured, and more politically correct, but in sacrificing brevity it loses its punch.
Good, because I never asserted that the sign was about economic value, so I guess this statement is irrelevant. I was using a similar statement couched specifically in economic terms so that we could examine an analogous statement that might be less emotionally charged for you.
Even if we use this interpretation of the statement, I don't believe that a reasonable person would see that the only possible interpretation of that statement is a call to violence (against art), nor that the only possible inference to draw from that statement is that we should increase the smashing of vases.
I know this is your hypothetical and all, but I don't think that's a reasonable parameter. Even if nobody in your life wants to smash your particular vase, I'm sure there's some anti-capitalist leftist nut job out there who wants to destroy the trappings of your decadent bourgeois lifestyle, or some Maoist who wants to destroy all cultural links to the past, or some kid who just like breaking stuff.
Also, if I'm reading you right, the difference between good and evil here turns on whether or not someone out there might use your statement as an excuse to smash my particular vase. Also, if you say "People in general overvalue vases in general," then the statement is becomes more unambiguously evil, because it's almost certain that someone out there wants to smash some vase.
I understand the point you're trying to make (it seems you're taking context into account now, which I appreciate.) I just think your definition of evil is a bit too broad, because the world is too big, with too many diverse people with different and often unreasonable attitudes. If good people will only say things that nobody out there will use as a justification for something they were itching for an excuse to do anyway, then good people will pretty much have to shut up, because that guy is out there.
How is this relevant? The media has a lot to say about things that they think will attract attention, whether or not it's reasonable that people would give it attention, and things that may induce outrage, whether or not that outrage is reasonable. Your assertion wasn't that "statements like X would produce a lot of outrage among young liberal media consumers"; it was "statements like X are evil because the cause violence, because the only possible interpretation is that they're a call to violence."
Also, if we're making assumptions, there would be a tremendous number of people–and perhaps even two major media outlets that love to self-identify as "non-mainstream," despite having readership/viewership that rival "mainstream" outlets–who would gladly speak in support of the "Black Lives Matter Too Much" guy in your hypothetical, as they should.
Context matters. If you believe that Farrakhan is taking black advocacy to the point that he's advocating black supremacy–regardless of whether or not that belief is true, or shared by others–then Black Lives Matter Too Much is clearly a rhetorical response to a guy who is overvaluing black lives. Whether or not you agree with the response, or the underlying facts that motivate it, I have a hard time calling it evil, or a call to violence. Now, if you were chanting BLMTM at the funeral of that guy who got choked to death while engaging in the slowest, most leisurely fleeing from law enforcement I've ever seen, or at some sort of town hall to determine whether or not to use lethal force to remove all those black Congressmen who were having their sit-in, then in that context I would be inclined to see it as a deliberate call to violence, and maybe evil.
Asked and answered above. As I said, when it comes to good and evil, context tends to matter. Even taking a human life is not universally good, or universally evil.
And they're as unreasonable as the guys offended by "Black Lives Matter."
There is two groups of people I find offensive. The first is the hypocrites: I have encountered some specific, individual people who at some times put out statements that "Blue Lives Matter," and at other times have stated essentially "I'm offended at the Black Lives Matter movement, because All Lives Matter." Their criticism, as you might say, the only interpretation of Black Lives Matter is that other lives don't, and that's evil, and yet they don't apply that same reasoning or criticism to saying Blue Lives Matter. The second is the horribly tactless, basically guys who say those things in a context that make their actions, if not evil, than horribly dickish. And in those cases, the statements you reference contribute tangentially at most to my objections. If you want to chant Black Lives Matter during the funeral of a non-black police officer, a reasonable person would interpret that as a call to violence or condoning the violence against that officer; even in my most charitable interpretation, you'd still be a dick for picking the most inappropriate time to make a political statement.
Also, (and I'm not implying you're one of these people), a lot of people tend to conflate "I am offended by your statement" with "I disagree strenuously with your position" or "[I am ridiculing your statement.]" Yes, they're some people who find Blue Lives Matter offensive, but there are also a ton of people who will cite any example of someone disagreeing with Blue Lives Matter as "look at all these SJWs being all offended."
We accept that it's okay to execute no-knock arrest warrants against suspected non-violent offenders in the dead, without announcing you're police, wearing BDUs and masks with no identifying insignia, knowing that you live in a state where it's legal for civilians to use lethal force against unidentified men breaking into their house at night, because the safety of the arresting officers requires it. We accept laws baring the filming of police on the flimsy reasoning that if an officer knows he's being filmed, he might be distracted or second-guess his own decisions and thus endanger himself. Our military is often ordered never to engage civilians until they see that they're armed and bringing that weapon to bear, but we accept that police should shoot people who reach for their wallets too quickly because their safety requires that they neutralize a possible threat long before it becomes a certain threat.
I think we value blue lives too much, not because I want more violence against police, but because I think that we have become too willing to purchase a tiny increase in the safety of police at the cost of a tremendous increase in danger to everyone else and a huge sacrifice of our civil liberties. When it comes to foreign civilians–possibly citizens of a country we're at war with–our military is expected to show restraint and good judgment, to deescalate when possible, to make allowances for the fact that those folks weren't trained in the right way to deal with being stopped at a check point or searched. But when it comes to our own citizens, we expect everyone to just learn certain things by osmosis–keep your hands on the wheel, don't get out unless asked, don't reach for ID or registration unless asked, let the officer know immediately if you keep a gun in the car or have a carry permit–and if someone doesn't follow the script, then they're a danger because they're either doing it deliberately in order to prepare to resist in some way, or they're doing it out of fear or ignorance of norms, and thus unpredictable, and thus potentially dangerous.
By your logic, I suppose I am evil because the changes I advocate will certainly increase the danger to police, but I would like to that I am an efficient evil, because those changes would drastically reduce the danger to everyone else (plus the Constitution.) I don't expect police to endanger themselves in order to capture a clearly violent suspect alive, but I think society would benefit from a dispassionate, quantitative analysis of procedures for dealing with people who aren't clearly threats and their historical effects.
So as a Jew, my 2 cents are that a) it is illegal and probably not a good idea to sucker-punch a Nazi on the street corner while he's being interviewed and b) I really enjoyed watching it happen anyway. And as for Spencer, the man is an honest-to-god American Nazi, no matter how much he protests otherwise. No, not all alt-right folks necessarily are, although it is by and large a movement of white nationalists and white supremacists, but Spencer is definitely a Nazi, and I derive a visceral pleasure from seeing him get hit, regardless of the morality, legality, or wisdom of hitting him in the first place.
I like how people are reference point 4 instead of having the capacity to contradict in any way that supporting trump is, at present, literally being a literal nazi.
To clarify, it is specifically because the country is being taken over by nazis as we speak that punching nazis has become so important. The fact that the overprivileged devil's advocate douchebags don't see that we are literally entering a nazi regime that must be physically resisted at all costs is exactly the problem. When genocide starts it's going to be all of your faults.
Thanks comments, for the convincing argument that talking to the left is pointless, and your time is better spent getting ready to punch back when they inevitably decide you're a nazi.
@ IForgetMyName
First, here's exactly what you said:
Sure, this is technically an example and not an assertion. But it's an example that uses the economic definition of 'value'. And only a highly trivial subset of people are predisposed to iPadoclasm, so for these two reasons this example is noninformative.
As for your previous assertion that I was ignoring context (you've now said I am taking it into consideration, but I want to address this more fully anyway), I think the context is actually precisely what lends "WLMTM" its violent meaning. The context, after all, is a national debate about police tactics, in particular the killings of various unarmed young black men. If the debate were about, say, public education, "WLMTM" would carry a different meaning. In particular, the context lends the word "Lives" a very specific meaning, very close to saying "Deaths" and referring to violence generally.
I also disagree with your various "alternate non-punchy formulations". They simply have a different meaning. "White Lives Matter Too Much In Comparison With Black Lives" is distinct from "White Lives Matter Too Much"; the first might be resolved either by decreasing the value of white lives or increasing the value of black lives, while the second implies only the first solution. The first is definitely not placard-suitable, but "Black Lives Matter" is perfectly suitable and carries no implication of violence.
I understand that you don't see it this way, but I really don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation. The chief difference between "BLM" and "WLMTM" is that the second carries an implicit threat of violence (or of turning a blind eye to violence – which remains terrible). This threat, unlike the 'threat' in the vase example, is credible because there is a nontrivial element in the US which believes that violence against whites is justified – certainly this belief is more widespread (Nation of Islam alone has 20K to 50K core members) than the awful things Mr. Spencer believes. Why would a protester choose WLMTM over BLM? To make use of this implicit meaning, whether it be just for attention or because they really mean it.
Finally, we turn to what is by far your strongest argument: "Blue Lives Matter Too Much". Indeed, while I certainly wouldn't use this as a slogan myself because it still carries some violent meaning, I don't have quite the same reaction to this as I do for "White Lives Matter Too Much". But I think here is where you're ignoring the context. As you said, things like barring filming have been justified by appealing to a ludicrously strict definition of protecting police (personally, I think mandatory body cams would actually protect honest policemen – for example, we might actually know whether Mike Brown assaulted Darren Wilson, which would protect Wilson if he was telling the truth). Ken has written about the over-the-top adulation the Republican party showers on police, which gives cover to abuses of power. There is no comparable trend on behalf of white people, or of black people (anyone who might even suggest it would be deemed racist in the blink of an eye). So "Blue Lives Matter Too Much" can reasonably taken as a criticism of this trend, which is not an interpretation available to "White Lives Matter Too Much" or "Black Lives Matter Too Much".
PS. If you're referring to Fox News as the 'non-mainstream' source, I don't think even they would try to seriously defend "Black Lives Matter Too Much". They might try to deflect attention away from it, but I think directly defending it is beyond them. Breitbart might though.
"It's true that there's a difference between it being okay to punch Nazis, and it being okay to punch anyone you think is wrong. There are people who are objectively wrong, and people who are objectively right."
I defy anyone to demonstrate how any moral philosophy is "objectively" wrong or right, without appealing to subjective standards.
The very nature of moral philosophy is that it is subjective. So any difference amounts to how much you believe the person is wrong.
@chickpea
Some of us have a memory that goes back to the ancient time of less than 80 years ago when Nazis were murdering our relatives. It's not like the end of WWII was some moral reset. If you are a Nazi today, you are owning the crimes of those not-that-long-ago Nazis.
Given that, a punch in the head is a pretty goddamn minor act of violence.
It pisses me off when people tut-tut about small acts of violence while conveniently ignoring a history of violence many many orders of magnitude worse from the other side.
IOW: there was an extremely violent war against an extremely violent form of fascism not that long ago. I doubt you would have been an advocate of pacifism or neutrality in that struggle (correct me if I'm wrong). So, guess what: the struggle isn't over. Don't be shocked if the ongoing echoes of that war are not conducted with full politeness and civilty.
There's the law, there's norms, and then there's "the rules."
The law is rule utilitarian: if every Backpfeifengesicht got punched as a general rule, then unless we subjected ourselves to a collectively agreed upon absolute morality, it would result in chaos, and in any case if the banhammer is to be thrown around it ought to be done by the government, which can at least claim to hold all equal before the law, no matter how despicable. European countries basically do the latter when it comes to hate speech legislation and the like. In the US, we don't do this because we recognize the conditions for this being morally justified don't actually exist.
Norms are the result of an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Saying that we shouldn't violate the ones that keep individuals in a protest peaceful is a valid thing to say. I'm not honestly sure that I agree, because I believe they've already been violated by both sides to this particular argument, and by being too late this argument becomes a paean to an ideal that no longer exists. Legitimacy doesn't enter into it, not anymore. Sporadic violence is already the norm. The implicit slippery slope argument I've seen made here that the next step is organized mob violence makes a category error; we have not yet reached that point, and that line is the one to watch crossing now. One can claim the moral high ground by being nonviolent in this situation – and I happen to agree with that – but that's not quite what this answer is going for.
"The rules" are basically the non-legal judgments of one's peers. Much like when Roosh got violently thrown out of a bar for acting like the worthless piece of human trash he is, no one that I would every willingly pay attention to will shed a tear over this incident.
This was against the law, as it should be. Norms are no longer relevant until we move on to people threatening the next stage of a breakdown in norms – organized violence instead of sporadic violence. This wasn't against "the rules" as most people understand it, because let's be honest, everyone but the most staunch purists are moral relativists when the mood strikes them (pun intended). What probably ought to happen is that the puncher goes to jail, people realize that the time to have protested against sporadic political violence was early last year, and everyone that approves of this action should exercise their right to expressive speech by paying the puncher's legal fees and bail.
Well, the sucker-puncher's immediate result is for Spencer to double down on being himself: http://forward.com/fast-forward/360757/after-being-punched-by-anti-trump-protesters-richard-spencer-demands-alt-ri/
@ mtraven
In a sense, I agree. There are excellent reasons why Nazism will raise the hackles of any reasonable person. But the war you describe is over. Nazism is dead. That Richard Spencer, of all people, is considered its leading light is proof that it is gone and isn't coming back.
(And no, Trump is not a Nazi and not Hitler. Hitler would not have spoken at a black church in Detroit, called blacks "the conscience of our nation", or promised prosperity to minorities. I'm not saying you were going to make the "but, Trump!" argument – this is strictly a 'just in case' defense against the likes of, say, Codetaku. As for everyone who says, "but Spencer and Jared Taylor and David Duke love Trump and Bannon!", remember that Ayers was one of Obama's mentors – the moral is, just because someone despicable expresses support for a politician doesn't mean the politician will reciprocate when in power.)
I lost a whole wing of my family to Nazism, but nevertheless I don't feel particularly threatened by Spencer or the whole Stormfront thing. I care more about preserving the rules of civil political disagreement. If neo-Nazis ever start violently organizing, I'll be out there fighting them with the rest of you, but punching this twit with the stupid froggy pin points us down a dangerous path.
Is punching Nazis the same as punching Stalinists?
Because P Z Myers face is so inviting to my fist.
"the pro-Nazi punching crowd kept noting that Captain America punched Hitler"
America was also *at war* with Nazi Germany then. We were bombarding their cities and killing their young men, too.
Given that many are also big, prison-tattooed skinheads who love violence and have access to firearms, you may want to go easy the keyboard courage. They've already shared mayhem with SJWs who showed up at one of their Calif. rallies, nine stabbed:
http://lat.ms/296DwsH
Thank you.
@Nigel – There was a Project Veritas video that made the rounds. I'm aware of their history, but to be fair, they do have this police report as evidence that the police took the plot seriously enough to make an arrest:
https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/arrest-made-conspiracy-commit-assault
There's also a video of someone having their hair set on fire at the Women's March. And it wasn't very long ago that four ~20-year-olds were arrested for a hate crime against a disabled person where they were ranting about Trump, making him drink toilet water, etc. My point there being that we have every reason to expect a toxic atmosphere when Trump haters & supporters mix.
If people want to punch Nazis. They should punch Nazis.
We're for limiting the punching to Nazis only.
If Nazis feel discriminated against, they can punch Nazis too.
Everybody wins, and everybody's happy!
Eric Atkinson, what on Earth does PZ Myers have to do with Stalin or Stalinism? Last I heard, he's not a tankie.
I have no knowledge of the instance of which you speak, but my opinions are as such:
– Sucker-punching a Nazi is not, in general, brave. It is, occasionally, necessary.
– That is unlikely to be the case if they are being interviewed at the time, though.
– If you wish to preserve the rule of law and civil society, doing things which are illegal or uncivil is sometimes required, but if law and civil society are your objective, you should as a rule also be willing to face the consequences.
False and false. The first was a tongue in cheek thing he said about the media, not jews. The second is probably referring to that screenshot floating around Twitter of an article he didn't write (but was on a site Spencer had worked for), conveniently cropped to exclude the very next paragraph revealing it as satire.
You'd think if someone is so bad that they should be sucker punched, no lies or exaggerations would be necessary.
You're a fucking idiot, Popehat.
I guess when people disagree with you despite they don't mention Hitler stuff, you're gonna call them Nazi and punch them?
How about if I want to fucking punch your face for promoting Stalin and communism in your rhetoric of "ethnic cleansing" of the white race?
Works both ways to me, dipshit.
Anyone who has a fetish of punching Nazis despite they don't exist anymore, are a bunch of bloodthirsty war freak pieces of shit.
And yet you lecture others, "He who fights monsters make sure he doesn't become a monster as well."
Fuck off. Go suck your mama's cock
I think this story is relevant:
Man shoots guy with swastika tattoo at protest; victim turns out to be other antifascist whose tattoo was a swastika in a crossed-out-circle similar to the no-smoking sign; crossed-out-circle apparently less visible than he would have liked.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-release-man-arrested-in-uw-shooting/
I'm less worried about a precedent being directly handed to rhetorical opponents (say, people who would like to punch BLM supporters). But the various putting to music of this event, and more generally its celebration in many circles could lead overenthusiastic opponenents of fascism, who could even mean well, to punch bigots of any stripe, not just nazis, and that is what worries me as the start of a slippery slope. I hope we can make it clear then that this isn't OK.
On the other hand, not being the target of nazis myself, I can't in good conscience criticise others who are for applauding this. Still, might be a good time to note other ways to disrupt such interviews exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxoVis_6yNA (via http://www.gppcomic.com/2012/12/19/all-you-need/ )
Nigel-
You espouse nothing but false equivalencies. Comparing Spencer to Bin Laden is a false equivalency. Spencer is in no way in any power of legal authority to influence such actions, neither can any physical violence be directly attributed to him. Use your defense in a courtroom and you will be laughed at.
Detest all you want but you cannot physically assault somebody for their views. Last year the antifa did that to KKK members who stabbed back in self-defense which was ruled legitimate. In California of all places.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/29/police-kkk-members-acted-in-self-defense-when-they-stabbed-3-counter-protesters-at-meager-rally/
And the attackers were charged:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-anaheim-kkk-protesters-charged-20160630-snap-story.html
Period. You could not assault the WBC for holding up signs no matter how detestable they were – praying for more dead soldiers and "fags." Snyder v. Phelps is one of the many court rulings that protect hate speech.
Your ilk will assault someone one day with views you find abhorrent, and be shot dead in self-defense, which will be ruled legitimate.
WWII casualty figures stand at roughly 85 million. Let's stipulate that Nazism can account for the majority of that number. (this includes the Pacific theater, but no matter)
Communism/socialism casualties across the world (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) are somewhere near 90 million.
(*Both figures are disputed, but roughly comparable no matter who does the counting)
If punching Nazis is acceptable on these grounds, then punching communists/socialists must have equal moral standing. Anyone with socialist leanings is therefore obviously guilty of working toward mass slaughter via the requisite deprivation/starvation, 'reeducation' camps, and purges which accompany socialist movements.
Thus we arrive at: sucker punches for Bernie Bros! Yay!
Because fair is fair.
Shouldn't hafta, but: /sarc
! Not endorsing felony assault for exercising 1st Amendment rights !
I'm not sure if Paige understood the entirety of the post.
Why do you hate subtext, Ken?
Paige, you might not be capable of connecting neurons. Sorry that is the nicest thing I can say.
@FiveHead
Nazi is short for National Socialism. But they weren't real Socialists, even if they did rob the 1%ers (Jews) they blamed for taking advantage of society.
Anyhow, if anyone is going to punch anyone else, do it in self-defense against someone who is harming or about to physically harm you, or when defending another from similar physical violence. Otherwise, don't be surprised when you end up facing assault charges and you find that Godwin's Law has cheapened Nazi comparisons to the point where they're caught in mental spam filters.
I get what you're saying. I appreciate the nuance and articulation here. But I would still punch a nazi (and then take my lumps, legal or otherwise).
Ken, I really appreciate how reasonable you are on this subject. Thank you
@An I think we're in complete agreement. As @TheAngryPhilosopher pointed out earlier, these fools calling themselves Nazis today are nothing of the sort. They're idiot white supremacists and fortunately very few in number. (~500, apparently)
My point earlier was that Stalinism/socialism was every bit as bad in terms of numbers killed as the Nazis of 1939-1945. So if we're going to normalize sucker-punching people based on how many lives have been disrupted due to shared political views, then shouldn't socialists also be on the 'punch list' for the same reasons Nazis are? And we have a LOT more socialists in the USA than these so-called Nazis. Over 12 million voted for Bernie in the Democrat primaries. And again lest anyone mistake this for a call to violence, I am AGAINST punching anyone who is exercising free speech – Nazi, socialist, Fred Phelps, BLM activists, etc.
Simply cautioning those who are 'pro-punch' that it's a damn slippery slope and as Ken carefully enumerated in the original post, one that one started down eventually leads to everyone being labeled and punched.
I'm pretty sure someone was asking for proof that Spencer is a Nazi? Here you go:
https://medium.com/this-political-woman/facts-to-counteract-the-normalization-of-neo-nazis-87466981ff63#.o0adp5h5c
@FiveHead
I think you're conflating Socialism and Communism. Also the 85 million deaths attributed to Nazis occurred over the course of about eight years, while the 90 million deaths attributed to Communists were spread out over decades, so by your logic Nazis are still an order of magnitude more dangerous.
@BadRoad
No, I totally disagree. Communists are far more dangerous than Nazis (though neither are dangerous enough yet to justify street-punching).
First, you're ignoring one important fact: attributing the entirety of the 85 million WWII deaths to Nazism was a simple rhetorical device, intended to steer people away from a largely-irrelevant discussion of 'well how many deaths can we attribute to Nazis etc. etc.'. For example, the Pacific Theatre claimed almost 35 million lives (mostly Chinese civilians), which can be attributed to militarism/hypernationalism but not specifically Nazism.
Second, the vast majority of deaths attributable to Nazism happened in wartime – even if we exclude the deaths that specifically were war-related, e.g. the Battle of Stalingrad. This does not excuse them, but wartime is what one might call extreme circumstances. Certainly the Allies used the "it was war" justification for what happened to Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo (in my book, all of these were justified military actions, but your mileage may vary). By contrast, the repressions and terrors of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were largely done in peacetime. It's up to you to decide how much this matters, of course, but however much it matters, it makes Communism the worse of the two.
Third, and by far the most important, Nazism is dead. D-e-a-d. From time to time, the media likes to give us a jump scare by pulling its rotten corpse out of the ground and making it dance like a marionette, but it's gone. Communism on the other hand, while not exactly alive and well, is still largely respectable. There are many, many Marxist sociologists, "economists", etc. who are active and open about their political leanings – and some of them wield considerable influence in the sphere of "public policy". Hell, I used to have a Soviet flag on my bedroom wall (like Marc Randazza, I was once a 'rebellious' commie teenager) and nobody thought I should be excluded from society because of it. Freakin' ex-terrorist and alleged potential mass-murderer Bill Ayers is still a professor.
So, really, which is more dangerous?
One important point about Nazis is that they are are very willing to whine and paint themselves as the victims. (Remember how it was always the Jews oppressing them in their version of the story?) They are always looking for a Horst Wessel type figure and it is important not to make this any easier for them. So I say never to punch a Nazi unless it is clearly an act of self-defence but, if you ever do have to punch a Nazi in self-defence, then make the best job of it you can.
@codetaku
Your system of … "logic" … appears to classify about half the countries voters as nazis.
The alt right is a tiny, tiny group that's probably got less than 100K adherents nationwide.
Bannon's credentials as alt-right-king appear to be that he ran a news website that allowed some alt right authors to publish. His own articles penned by his hand appear to be notable only in how remarkably boring they are and how nobody seems to actually quote them when listing reasons why they think he's alt-right-king.
May I suggest that you've bought into a narrative which may not be entirely 100% in tune with reality. The vast majority of trump voters aren't nazi's of any flavor.
@TheAngryPhilosopher
Minor point, it doesn't use the economic definition of value. I believe that people are far too attached to their personal devices, even beyond the MSRP of the device–I've seen guys doing stupid things to try to resist getting their iPod stolen that I seriously doubt they would do if somebody simply tried to steal that much cash from them, I've seen melodramatic meltdowns when people lost or destroyed an iPad, and I've seen more than a few people who seem to think that owning a shiny new toy somehow increases their worth as a person.
I actually don't think the commercial value of Apple products is as over-inflated as some people like to argue. I own one Macbook and I've owned (and continue to buy and use) plenty of PC laptops. In terms of equal specs the Macbook is substantially pricier, but in terms of construction nothing has been on par with the Macbook, in terms of my slightly careless lifestyle. I still PC laptops because I dislike iOS and I like to upgrade every 12-18 months, so it's okay that it basically takes me that long to wear out one of the hinges or cause some other substantial wear and tear. To me, the better workmanship and other Apple perks aren't worth the premium in price, but I'm not one of those whining anti-hipster hipsters who assume that every Apple user is paying more solely for the sake of conspicuous spending.
Also, per your second criticism, I think the example stands. I'm glad you're looking at context now, but it still seems that whether it's good or evil in your eyes is primarily determined by how you frame the context. Perhaps there is only a "highly trivial" number of people engaged in iPadoclasm. What's highly trivial? At what point do the numbers matter. More importantly, why narrow it down to looking at "iPadoclasm"? There are plenty of other people who might be inclined to more generally destroy a category of stuff that includes iPads. There is what I assume you will acknowledge is a highly non-trivial number of people called "thieves" who might use an assertion that people overvalue certain subsets of their stuff to justify stealing more of that stuff, or alternately our law enforcement agencies might use that argument to justify looking the other way.
No, I'm just paying attention to part of the context that you're ignoring.
I disagree with your reading of the facts. While it may not necessarily be comparable in scope, it's certainly reasonable to see certain trends as providing cover for the wrongdoing of whites or blacks simply because they're whites or black… i.e., OJ SImpson getting off largely because he was able to exploit the "because racism" sentiment.
But even if we assume you're right, you once again err by assuming that this is the only possible context that might justify "White Lives Matter Too Much," namely the context that was specifically cited in the comments here. Remember, it's a response to the "White Lives Matter, Too" criticism. Aside from being a linguistically clever turn of phrase, it's directly rebutting the implied criticism of "White Lives Matter, Too," which seems to be something like "You shouldn't be whining that Black Lives Matter because you're ignoring White Lives"
As for everything else you said, I won't comment much on it, but I read it and enjoyed reading it. I don't agree with every conclusion you've drawn, but you're clearly more concerned about intent and context than one would infer from your original statements.
codetaku
As the overprivileged devil's advocate douchebag in question, let me start by getting this out of the way: Your arguments are much more Nazi-like than anything I've said.
Hitler didn't come to power simply because he was a good speaker and doing a great job working the electoral system–he was great at figuring out precisely how to scare people into looking the other way when laws were broken. The Night of Broken glass, the assaults on political opponents, these were all de facto illegal acts that did more to cement the power of Hitler and the Nazi party than any of HItler's speeches or his previous elections to office, and they happened because the German people were willing to look the other way because they saw the victims as an existential threat, and despite the fact that the victims had done absolutely nothing illegal or threatening, the German people were absolutely certain that the Jews and the Communists would destroy Germany, and that by the time they actually do something illegal, it would be too late to stop them.
Do I worry about Trump? Absolutely. Do I believe that we should use force to resist tyrants? Absolutely. Do I think that Trump has acted in a way that justifies violent resistance? No. Aside from the fact that I respect Trump's Constitutional right to talk and act like a thin-skinned, narcissistic asshole who aspires to be an absolute monarch, there are also practical considerations if you're really worried he's the next Hitler: You are (I assume) not Chuck Norris. You're not Delta, and you probably don't have a team of like-minded individuals who can defeat our military. As good as you might feel about punching (or worse) Trump before everyone else thought it was cool, you will accomplish nothing other than engender sympathy for him, discredit his other critics, and possibly giving the Secret Service some practice at taking out a terrorist. Because that's exactly what you'll be to most people.
The Second Amendment doesn't work the way most people think it does, at least not since the 19th century. The Army is too big, Marines are too well trained, and the bulk of our military might is offshore and out of reach in the form of the Navy. We won't topple tyrants by slugging it out. The Second Amendment only safeguards freedom in that it would allow us to delay the rate at which the government can occupy us and to impose a cost, and during that delay the rest of the country will have time to see what's happening. And if they agree that the government was not only wrong in a few actions, but irrevocably corrupt, then they'll stand with you, and more importantly, large swathes of the military will stand down or stand behind you.
If someone in power does or says something that indicates he might become a tyrant, draw attention to that fact. Make sure people hold him accountable through the many legal means we have. But if you start throwing punches before he's actually done anything that crosses the line, you won't be the hero who started the revolution like you seem to think–you'll be the fool who helped to make sure that the revolution started too late.
codetaku:
You are an emotionally incontinent unserious arm-waver. No matter how many times you compulsively say LITERALLY you won't be more serious. Go outside and play and let the grown-ups talk.
See, this is why rushing to champion violence is bad thing. Same goes for the death penalty; what happens if a misunderstanding or mistake is made and an innocent is hurt?
Also: Paige appears to be illiterate, for which we should all pity them.
@ IForgetMyName
First, I retract my "economic value" point. On second reading of your comment, I can see that you never actually meant economic value. My only defense is that usually it's economic value people refer to when talking about the 'value' of interchangeable goods – iPads, as opposed to lives or vases (depending on what kind of vase, I suppose) – and I simply read that meaning without thinking about it.
Aside from that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Potential violent "activists" are looking for moral cover way more than iPad thieves, and so will respond more when it's granted. Additionally, while there are some trends to let black (or white) people get away with things – OJ Simpson, as you said – these are not generally justified by an extreme concern for black lives ("extreme concern" meaning "ridiculously worried over tiny, possibly imaginary, potential increases in danger"). So "Blue Lives Matter Too Much" – while still very poorly worded in my view, because it retains some inkling of violent intent – has a plausible non-violent meaning that "White Lives Matter Too Much" and "Black Lives Matter Too Much" don't have.
Finally, I understand that it's a 'cleverly-worded' response to "White Lives Matter, Too", but I don't think this is especially relevant. I don't think that "response to WLMT" by itself constitutes an alternate meaning – and if it doesn't, then we are back to the original debate. And I'll point out that you seem perfectly happy to parse the meaning of "White Lives Matter, Too" the way that I parse WLMTM (I happen to agree with you on what WLMT implies – but I think that interpretation is still a little less compelling than the violent interpretation of WLMTM which you reject).
PS. Glad you enjoyed reading what I wrote. I enjoyed debating you – both reading and writing.
Ken–how different would the comments be if you substituted the word "Nazi" for "ponies" in your post. Nobody likes punching ponies. Cows–well, they are different.
The only thing I really feel like engaging with is Point #8: If I were to punch a Nazi, which I'm obviously not saying I would here, but if I were…you damn well better bet I'd sucker-punch him and run. Not because I'm afraid of a Nazi–as has been pointed out, Richard Spencer does not look like a gentleman with any expertise in the sweet science–or even because I'm afraid of the legal consequences of doing so.
Nah, I'd be worried that where there's one Nazi, there's ten, and three of them in any group of ten are the guys that Richard Spencer's type relies upon to get the picture when he says, "I loathe violence and would certainly find it a deeply shameful thing if that man's house were firebombed just because he hit me." Fringe movements always have found it useful to have people on their fringes, who can be guaranteed to do the violence that they can then condemn. Always be aware that a guy like Spencer only follows the rules when he has to, and never give him an even break.
you know, I was going to bring everyone cup cakes, but then after the mess made in this thread I'm not bringing anyone cup cakes. I'll keep them for myself.
1. It's not about whether punching is or isn't okay in certain circumstances by certain people against certain people, &c., &c. It's about the fact that punching is the same as bumper stickers as far as additive value to the national discourse.
2. Every action is a vote. If I want to be a part of society where punching is *socially* acceptable as long as it would make a good 80s freeze-frame movie ending, then I should publicly express my appreciation of punches that fit the criteria. If I don't want that–say, if I think that freeze-frame movie endings only work because it's the only way to ignore the inevitable retaliatory and punitive consequences that come in the seconds and days to follow–then I should recognize when my appreciation of such a punch is ignoble and avoid public expressions in support or seemingly in support.
3. Schadenfreude is a natural reaction, but so is, for instance, pareidolia, and giving in to it is just as lazy and irresponsible.
4. Who punches, and who gets punched? Who decides? Who determines whether it was right or wrong? Is it the court of public opinion? Because that sounds great to me; can't see any way that could turn out bad. Do we get together and decide as a *ahem* group in a more official capacity? Because we just did that, and it looks like we picked Donald Trump. So clearly, we're solid on that front. (Obviously, the answer to "who punches" should be, as was suggested earlier, Buzz Aldrin, followed by Bob Hope in perpetuity.)
5. It's not about whether Nazis are less equal than other people. It's about the fact that punching is blowing your wad. You could have used that righteous anger for speech or sociopolitical action that could have made a difference–and the rest of us could have responded honestly to your opinions, plans, pleas. We might have agreed, or criticized, or even made fun of you. Then someone might have sucker-punched you on tv, and a bunch of people would have Tweeted about how satisfying it was, and we'd be here saying it was a craven, cowardly response to your good faith public outreach. But you didn't, and in this moment, everything you and Spencer have done in the past doesn't discount the fact that he was the one getting his message out (prosocial) and you were the one who stopped him speaking in a painful and humiliating way without warning (antisocial). Cool.
People have been complaining that punching Nazis constitutes "sinking to their level". Well, the fact is that their level works. For as long as anyone I know can remember, racists have been battering and murdering the people they wish to oppress– especially the politically active ones– and largely getting away with it. Why limit the tools of one side but not the other? In particular, why should coercive force be available only to the side that is morally in the wrong?
Well, more generally speaking, coercive force is available for the good guys. Just ask bin Laden.
But assuming you mean more specifically situations where force wouldn't have any justification beyond "his position is morally wrong, and he's arguing his position," the answer is that coercive force is available, but as you use it you rapidly lose the right to call yourself the morally right side, and more importantly, you start to lose support of the more loosely decided people whose allegiance often determine whether its you or the other side who prevails.
(There's an edge case where you violently wipe out the other side, but that seems unlikely given that it requires that the "good guys" beat the "bad guys" at a game they've been playing for a long time.)
The majority of the country (at least publicly) agree that slavery and Jim Crow laws were evil. I think most people would agree in the abstract that stopping evil, particularly evil that is actively hurting innocent people, is one of those situations where violence is justified. But look at the guys who actually directed violence against these evil institutions. John Brown, Newt Knight, Malcom X… these guys remain pretty controversial because they used or advocated violence. The guys who gained more widespread and lasting support are the peaceful protesters who never raise a hand, even to defend themselves from violence, guys like MLK or John Lewis (until last month, anyway.)
You kill a slave owner, the other side loses one guy to death and maybe a few more to fear, but anger might also gain them some new supporters or rally the ones they already had. But if the main appeal of your side was that you're the morally right side, then you're going to lose far more people than the bad guys did.
@IForgetMyName
On the other hand, the behavior of John Brown, Newt Knight, and Malcolm X didn't invalidate the arguments or efforts of King and Lewis. Perhaps a militant arm and a rhetorical arm can coexist as long as they aren't affiliated– or at least don't acknowledge their affiliation.
Violence directed at those with unpleasant or hateful views only serves to make them into martyrs. It's best to deal with those with disagreeable views with logic and understanding. Usually, these people will turn most people off without any help from others.
The hat is correct.
Entertaining cathartic notions is fine/inevitable… but the real fight ahead of everyone is something else entirely.
There needs to be a wide coalition of all non-insane people of the US, where they get over the little differences in order to massively, extensively, protractedly defy the "don't shoot, I'll sign anything" POTUS, and the people who muppet out their horrible ideas through him.
Enabling death rays is not a good way to build that coalition.
"4. In embracing a norm that sucker-punching Nazis is acceptable, remember that you live in a nation …that loves calling people Nazis. "
Exactly my concern. Who decides who is a Nazi?
Are we talking strictly about right-wing authoritarian political movements who believe in violence as a legitimate means to power? Are we expanding that to non-political actors who hold racist views? What about right wingers in general?
Or, do we paint things in a more violent authoritarian bent, leaving aside the ideology? Should we view, for example, anarchists and communists as worthy of state and individual violence, because of Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot?
To expand on that point, The Russian state, and it's media, loves to paint pro-democracy movements in it's periphery as fascist conspiracies. The whole justification for it's military intervention in Georgia, and it's *cough* not military intervention in the Ukraine is that the overthrow of pro-Russian governments was a right-wing conspiracy funded by the CIA.
Ultimately, the arguments that legitimize political violence and punching "My Little Supremacist" bloggers are the same arguments that foreign governments have been using for decades to shut down their critics, and round up left-wing activists into football stadia!
You raise some excellent points, worthy of much thought.
I will still take the opportunity to punch a Nazi, should the opportunity arise. In the face. While we are at it, I will also punch Andrew Wakefield in the face, given the chance.
I will be the one grinning like a loon in his mugshot.
@Jono793
Maybe that's the line. Private citizens can punch all the Nazis they want (whatever they decide a Nazi happens to be) but government should be held to a higher standard of due process.
I don't care who the other person is. I don't care who you are. If I see you trying to sucker punch anyone I will do my best to defend them.
If I am holding a pipe, all the better.
"Axiom/Fact 1: The alt-right is a specification of neo-nazis."
Read Philosophical Investigations. It would do you good.
Disappointing if its just a punch, I want more….
Not just a punch
Would you like to borrow my pipe, JimJason?
Or my razor?
And now UC Berkley is burning.
The morality of punching someone depends entirely on what that person is doing that may provoke, justify, and/or necessitate the action.
If they're merely talking, it would not be justified — unless it was your speaking event (you hired the hall) and they are shutting you down. In that case your right to free speech absolutely trumps theirs. Or unless they're disrupting your peaceful activities, whether you were reading in the library or driving to work. Then you have cause to use force to resume what you were doing. The law ought to recognize that we all have a civil right to go about our daily business without anyone deliberately obstructing it — and that that right trumps free speech.
If they're punching you, by all means fight back, unless the police are willing to do it for you.
If they're smashing or burning your stuff — here is where the present law is most wrong. You (or better yet the law) should be shooting to kill to prevent destruction of property. Property is absolutely more important than the lives of thieves or vandals. And the law should be putting in prison for life those who organize such actions, including BLM's sponsor George Soros.
Most importantly, law enforcement must keep up their side of the social contract by enforcing these rights for us if they expect us to leave the job to them. Because if they don't, they've broken the contract and we can and should fire them.
"you're just a pussy"
Haha, because you think women are cowardly, right? If you do something cowardly it makes you into a woman, which all men should fear because it's a downgrade.
@Carol
Thank you for your addition to the comment section: for a second there I feared that the stupidest thing I'd read today was going to be from either Paige or exiledv2. I'm sure you'll be proud to know that you've taken the cake!
@A self called 'Nowhere'
Going to support that assertion, or are you so excited about necroing a thread with such Wildean wit that you feel that supporting your statement would be superfluous?