Slippery slope in practice: Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians

[BellicoseAxe]

About time someone put libtards in their place, tired of all those wasted votes.

[Everwake]

Unless you're actively engaged in genocide, you're not a Nazi, because that's what separates Nazis from other regimes. If it's okay to punch Richard Spencer for having nationalist views, then it's okay to punch anyone in any cpuntry who also have nationalist views. That's a lot of people to punch. Instead, in this age of hysterical labelimg, maybe we shouldn't punch anyone that doesn't punch first.

[6k MMR Lolicon]

Libertarianism is literally half of the entire political spectrum. Fuck off SJWs.

[Jessicka]

Wow, it's as if punching people who are supposedly Nazis counts for the bolded part. How curious.

Not really, the law doesn't permit for punching Nazis. I'm saying how the laws around Freedom of Speech are enshrined in the EU according to the European Courts. There are other Fundamental Freedoms as well as Speech, don't forget that. Nazis keep hounding the Media, and Freedom of the Press is another one of those. They also seek to opress others' Freedom of Expression; again, this goes against those freedoms. Also important is the Independence of the Judiciary; Nazis attack that too.

[Underverse]

Why is it okay to punch anyone who isn't an immediate threat?

[DSRilk]

I think in the end the main reason why so many white libertarians, liberals and conservatives are so eager to defend Nazis and think hugging them is the right thing to do, is because they have never experienced racial violence. They don't understand how speech can contribute to oppression and hate. They are not in danger. They think you can contain the Nazis. They will become less radical and see the error of their ways.

I have been a victim of racially motivated violence. I have also been a victim of religious intolerance. I can't speak for all liberals obviously, but I can say that I don't support punching someone in response to them using words is because I think there's a far, far greater risk of sinking into jailing the opposition than there is of ethnic cleansing - at least here in the US. Obviously there is value in looking at the history of Germany. However, we also have a history here in the US of things like McCarthyism; and if you look back even farther, our entire history as a nation was built on the premise that shutting people up is always worse than the alternative. Unfortunately, neither of us can see the future. And it's not like I can't see how you come to feel the way you do. There's risk with either path, especially as it pertains to the potentials in the US (which I suspect is also very different than what is more likely an issue in Europe). I hope you can at least see that.

[Deleted]

Not really, the law doesn't permit for punching Nazis. I'm saying how the laws around Freedom of Speech are enshrined in the EU according to the European Courts. There are other Fundamental Freedoms as well as Speech, don't forget that. Nazis keep hounding the Media, and Freedom of the Press is another one of those. They also seek to opress others' Freedom of Expression; again, this goes against those freedoms. Also important is the Independence of the Judiciary; Nazis attack that too.

Sure, and people who are saying that all Jews/arabs/blacks/etc. must die or other similar nonsense can be charged with hate speech. Punching people who are supposedly Nazis only makes the side that supports it look childish and hypocritical.

[Deleted]

Why is it okay to punch anyone who isn't an immediate threat?

Because Regressives are losing the Political fight to moderates, so they need to resort to browbeating, It starts with the Opposite extreme, Marxists vs Facists, And it'll devolve into more lashing out as their political ideal slowly tears itself apart.

We see it right now with the Anarcho-Communists rioting and destroying innocent shops simply because they are the tools of corporations.

[DSRilk]

Should be easy enough for you to prove you didn't.

Why is he being asked to prove he DIDN'T say something? That seems... backwards.

[Deleted]

Why is he being asked to prove he DIDN'T say something? That seems... backwards.

It's a double negative and a logical fallacy.

[unbound]

Thoughts on this?
I mean, obviously, it is a good thing to attack nazis on all fronts - but it should be on legal grounds.

Thoughts? More skewed nonsense trolling through extremists and trying to portray them as the mainstream portions of movements. Black Bloc Anarchists are not part of any of the liberal movements, and the BS they pull has actually been panned by the vast majority of liberal groups. (This is actually one of the more notable differences between leftist groups and rightist groups...leftist groups almost always condemn bad behavior including violence within their groups, whereas rightist groups almost always rationalize bad behavior as acceptable for various vapid reasons...one of the reasons that, despite being an independent, you'll find me condemning rightist groups more often than the leftist groups)

Mike Monteiro is not a leader of any liberal / left group that I'm aware of...he's just one of many people who has opinions. Shockingly, there are literally millions of people left, right, and center that have opinions. So what?

Punching people doesn't help anything. Nazis and Libertarians are entitled to their opinions...the fact that those opinions are many times evil and/or stupid in nature doesn't really matter. Depending on their actions, however, then they should be jailed as appropriate.

[DSRilk]

Most of Europe is acutely aware of how dangerous Fascism is. It pretty much destroyed a continent, and wiped out a generation. This is why European countries have checks on Freedom of Speech, where it stops when calling for the oppression of others' Freedom of Expression begins.

So would you also be comfortable punching or jailing people who call for the oppression of gays and women? Should we be allowed to punch Muslims and conservative Christians who don't think gays should be allowed to exist?

[Jessicka]

Sure, and people who are saying that all Jews/arabs/blacks/etc. must die or other similar nonsense can be charged with hate speech. Punching people who are supposedly Nazis only makes the side that supports it look childish and hypocritical.

Does it really? Much of the attraction to Fascism is a will to power, they invariably use language and posturing that belittles its opponents; and they feed off the fact that people are scared to punch them. They have this concept of 'Might makes Right', and they very often use violent means themselves, they're the single biggest terror threat to the US, and have claimed more lives since 2003 than Islamists there. Yet, no one sees them as childish or hypocritical - they scare the shit out of people.

[Deleted]

Punching people doesn't help anything. Nazis and Libertarians are entitled to their opinions...the fact that those opinions are many times evil and/or stupid in nature doesn't really matter. Depending on their actions, however, then they should be jailed as appropriate.

People who claim libertarians are evil really should stop talking politics, they know nothing about it when they make such sweeping statements as these.

[Jessicka]

So would you also be comfortable punching or jailing people who call for the oppression of gays and women? Should we be allowed to punch Muslims and conservative Christians who don't think gays should be allowed to exist?

I'm weak, feeble, and sickly, I won't be punching anyone any time soon; I'd lose, and lose badly. While I wouldn't begrudge someone giving them a good punch in the face though; I wouldn't suggest taking up arms and killing them; nor call for the extermination of their kin. I keep my hatreds personal. Nazism is a choice.

[DSRilk]

Unless you're actively engaged in genocide, you're not a Nazi, because that's what separates Nazis from other regimes. If it's okay to punch Richard Spencer for having nationalist views, then it's okay to punch anyone in any cpuntry who also have nationalist views. That's a lot of people to punch. Instead, in this age of hysterical labelimg, maybe we shouldn't punch anyone that doesn't punch first.

To be fair, Richard Spencer is a blatant racist who has literally said other races are inferior and should be forced to leave. He's not just someone pushing for "our nation first" or even "let's not put whites on a lesser legal footing." He literally wants to remove non-whites from the country. He even went so far as to say doing so "[may] be horribly bloody and terrible." He is far closer to an actual Nazi than he is a "nationalist."

[Rooflesstoofless]

Why is it okay to punch anyone who isn't an immediate threat?

Because....ideologies.

[Machismo]

Some would argue that all Nazis are immediate threats. Simply by being one they are advocating and praising mass murder, and you best believe if they thought they could get away with it they would kill you in a heartbeat.

I don't understand why we treat them any different than we would treat members and supporters of ISIS.

No, being a Nazi is not an immediate threat. Not only that, calling Spencer a Nazi is a bit of hyperbole. Yeah, he's a terrible fucking human being, but that doesn't mean people need to go around punching him. It also doesn't mean we should feel much sadness when he does get punched in the face.

Many people think that someone who burns a flag should be assaulted, I do not. Let the flag burner and the Nazi have their freedom of speech, and point out to the world what kind of people they are. The first person to use violence or threats of violence is the one who could not win with his brain.

[Trassk]

Because....ideologies.

that isn't a valid reason, you loose 200 points.

[Jessicka]

No, being a Nazi is not an immediate threat. Not only that, calling Spencer a Nazi is a bit of hyperbole. Yeah, he's a terrible fucking human being, but that doesn't mean people need to go around punching him. It also doesn't mean we should feel much sadness when he does get punched in the face.

Many people think that someone who burns a flag should be assaulted, I do not. Let the flag burner and the Nazi have their freedom of speech, and point out to the world what kind of people they are. The first person to use violence or threats of violence is the one who could not win with his brain.

Isn't the official means of retiring a US flag, burning?