@Vilageidiotx My one problem with the whole 'punching a nazi is now ok!' was because of the fucking hypocrisy. Advocates of equal rights suddenly running out to punch people purely for disagreeing with them.

I wouldn't even have a problem with that if the guy that punched him was a real tough guy like he tried to be and a) didn't wrap his face to hide it and b) didn't run away like a fucking pussy.

@Vilageidiotx My one problem with the whole 'punching a nazi is now ok!' was because of the fucking hypocrisy. Advocates of equal rights suddenly running out to punch people purely for disagreeing with them.

I wouldn't even have a problem with that if the guy that punched him was a real tough guy like he tried to be and a) didn't wrap his face to hide it and b) didn't run away like a fucking pussy.

Eh, I agree it's hypocrisy when you see people defending one person calling for mass murder but punching the other. And I would be appalled if we starting calling for state round-ups, not for a love of Nazi's so much as from a fear of precedent. But I do think calling for mass murder is an indefensible thing beyond simple political debate.

I can see what you mean about the guy running off though. Running off is pretty weak.

@Vilageidiotx "The fascists of the future will be called an anti-fascists." Using violence to keep down non-acceptable opinions was something we saw in another era too. One side has been compared to fascists (wrongly so) but it goes for the other side too, I find.

You call me hyperbolic and tell me to calm down, then follow it up by swearing, insulting me and using hyperbolic rhetoric yourself. I'm not being hyperbolic, though, and your rhetoric makes me think you already realize that. I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith, however, because otherwise I might as well not reply at all.

You think someone is evil, so now violence against them is okay. What happens when someone else thinks you are evil? Such as when you attack someone in the street for insulting you? If your answer is that most people would agree with you, there's the mob rule issue again - what happens when you're in a crowd that doesn't agree with you, or just around a couple of people who disagree and are stronger than you? Even the law tends to permit a certain amount of violence in defence of yours or another's safety, so odds are good even the police wouldn't be on your side, if they're doing their job.

There's also, again, the issue that someone you are too pussy to attack gets to have a lot more freedom of speech than someone you do.

At least you don't directly oppose the law, I suppose. I have no personal feelings on whatshisname being punched, but I am never going to endorse physical violence as a response to insults. Lastly, if you want your violence to make a "positive difference" other than giving you the warm fuzzies, the only way you're actually going to silence anybody is to kill them. Punching one of these people in the jaw is only going to give them a bunch of press.

@Vilageidiotx "The fascists of the future will be called an anti-fascists." Using violence to keep down non-acceptable opinions was something we saw in another era too. One side has been compared to fascists (wrongly so) but it goes for the other side too, I find.

We're using fascism a little broadly here, aren't were? The problem people have with Mussolini isn't simply that, under his rule, civilians sometimes punched Communists. A little more went on there.

I think calls for mass murder are more than just "Unacceptable opinions." That's where I pretty much stand on this. I agree a government deciding which opinions are acceptable and which ones aren't is alarming, and I've stated that before, but at the same time I don't think that civilians should be expected to treat something like genocide with the same civility they treat, say, healthcare. Or shit, even with the same civility we treat freedom.

Also, I'm not even broadening the subject to fascism, I am treating Fascism and Nazism as separate entities here. I disagree heavily with fascists, but I don't think authoritarian nationalist opinions within themselves demand punching. But with Nazis, we're moving past simple dictatorship and on to mass murder. That's where the problem is. I simply can not reconcile political differences with genocide.

You call me hyperbolic and tell me to calm down, then follow it up by swearing, insulting me and using hyperbolic rhetoric yourself. I'm not being hyperbolic, though, and your rhetoric makes me think you already realize that. I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith, however, because otherwise I might as well not reply at all.

I feel that comparing a punch in the face with a gang-land beat down is hyperbolic. I don't know that I was hyperbolic, but yes, I do swear, and I do poke at people. Internet arguments aren't super serious to me.

You think someone is evil, so now violence against them is okay. What happens when someone else thinks you are evil? Such as when you attack someone in the street for insulting you? If your answer is that most people would agree with you, there's the mob rule issue again - what happens when you're in a crowd that doesn't agree with you, or just around a couple of people who disagree and are stronger than you? Even the law tends to permit a certain amount of violence in defence of yours or another's safety, so odds are good even the police wouldn't be on your side, if they're doing their job.

I'm a bit confused about the scenario you've drawn up. Is the question "What happens if I found myself surrounded by a bunch of Nazis who disagree with me?" or "What happens if you go out on your own and punch a random Nazi in a crowd full of Nazis"? In the former, they'll kick my ass or they won't. Remember, we are talking about political extremists, and Nazis besides, whether or not they do extreme shit isn't affected by popular opinion. I would hope the law would intervene. I also said, if you recall, that I find it perfectly just when the law intervenes against the punching of a Nazi. That's what the law is for, to prevent the scenarios you are drawing up. If I punch a Nazi in a group of Nazis... well, lets be honest, I'd be pretty dumb if I didn't know what was going to happen next. It might be weird for someone as far to the left as me to say, but I do believe that personal responsibility has a place, and I think the left overuses the concept of victim blaming. If I roll up into a large group of Nazi's and just start swinging, my stupid ass earned a beat down.

There's also, again, the issue that someone you are too pussy to attack gets to have a lot more freedom of speech than someone you do.

Only if the law doesn't intervene. Again, I'm not stating that the United States government should make it legal to punch Nazis.

At least you don't directly oppose the law, I suppose. I have no personal feelings on whatshisname being punched, but I am never going to endorse physical violence as a response to insults. Lastly, if you want your violence to make a "positive difference" other than giving you the warm fuzzies, the only way you're actually going to silence anybody is to kill them. Punching one of these people in the jaw is only going to give them a bunch of press.

Yeh, pretty much. Punching whatshisname didn't change anything. I'm not arguing that we should all go out and punch a Nazi to make the world a better place. I'm just saying that I don't feel it's morally wrong to punch a guy for saying he considers a better world to be one where you, your friends, and/or your family are dead.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

We're using fascism a little broadly here, aren't were? The problem people have with Mussolini isn't simply that, under his rule, civilians sometimes punched Communists. A little more went on there.

I think calls for mass murder are more than just "Unacceptable opinions." That's where I pretty much stand on this. I agree a government deciding which opinions are acceptable and which ones aren't is alarming, and I've stated that before, but at the same time I don't think that civilians should be expected to treat something like genocide with the same civility they treat, say, healthcare. Or shit, even with the same civility we treat freedom.

Also, I'm not even broadening the subject to fascism, I am treating Fascism and Nazism as separate entities here. I disagree heavily with fascists, but I don't think authoritarian nationalist opinions within themselves demand punching. But with Nazis, we're moving past simple dictatorship and on to mass murder. That's where the problem is. I simply can not reconcile political differences with genocide.

Using violence to beat down and scare dissenting opinions is very much a fascist trait. Whether you agree or not that antifa (or anti fascist people) is now also fascist, surely you can agree that they are engaging in fascist behavior at times.

I can reconcile political differences with genocide, mostly because genocide can be rationalized. Maybe not to you, but it can be to these people. Everything is ideology. Even genocide. And politics tend to include ideology. The rationale that a race is weaker and is leeching off of the stronger and therefore they must be cleansed seems brutal and unfair but there's very much a rationale behind it, which can be politically motivated. It's not like there aren't tonnes of (political) books written about the theories of why we should hate certain people, no?

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
Using violence to beat down and scare dissenting opinions is very much a fascist trait. Whether you agree or not that antifa (or anti fascist people) is now also fascist, surely you can agree that they are engaging in fascist behavior at times.

Eh, in the same way that the United States government maintaining a military is fascist; it's a component, but not a big enough one for alarm. Antifa tends to go further than just punching Nazis, so I have mixed feelings about them, but I don't see fascist potential in that movement because it lacks any real political ambition. They don't have enough of an idealogy to form a government.

I can reconcile political differences with genocide, mostly because genocide can be rationalized. Maybe not to you, but it can be to these people. Everything is ideology. Even genocide. And politics tend to include ideology. The rationale that a race is weaker and is leeching off of the stronger and therefore they must be cleansed seems brutal and unfair but there's very much a rationale behind it, which can be politically motivated. It's not like there aren't tonnes of (political) books written about the theories of why we should hate certain people, no?

Anything can be rationalized. Humanity has a gift for rationalization. There is a rationalization behind Antifa's hair-trigger on fascist beating. Shit, most serial murderers have rationalizations for their behavior. For the same reason I will not accept the rationalization of a serial killer as on par with the reasoning of a healthy person, I will not accept the rationalizations of a Nazi as on par with other political opinions. They are, to a man, want-to-be mass murderers, and their rationalizations diseased ranting.