Is it ok to assault people you disagree with?

[kail]

No, it's never ok.

- - - Updated - - -

most nazis were not evil m8 they were just like most of us a bit lazy about thinkin 4 themselves n tryin 2 keep an unbiased overview of their situation i swear 2 christ few of dem actually guessed were da situation wud ead n by da time they realised da full oror it was 2 l8 4 most people 2 do much about it n even tryin 2 make a difference cud result in their torture n death aint even jokin

www.grammarly.com/

[Lochton]

So if someone is running around with a machete chopping up babies you shouldn't assault them to stop them?

The actual sick fuck are you?

The OP clearly states disagreement, so my comment is directed at what brings disagreements, such as religion, politics and the likes.

You don't 'disagree' with murder, that is too soft. You down right fight it. You don't 'disagree' with bank robbery either.

"Oh, I see you are about to kill us. Well, I disagree with that!"

[ohwell]

I wonder at what point MMO-C became such a fervent hotbed for the alt right?

lol it isn't. If anything it's become a hotbed for the fascist left.

- - - Updated - - -

i think for 1 buck, almost everyone would freely assault people, so 1 buck is kind of saying go ahead we'll erm yeah...naughty boy.

Yeah but do you really think that if someone assaulted a BLM rioter that the fine would be one dollar? Doubtful. Even if said rioter was causing legitimate damage unlike the "nazi" that got hit, you'd get a far harsher punishment.

[Icechaosss]

Uh.. No?

/10chars

[the game]

I only ask because we recently had a thread where a liberal assaulted a white nationalist because they disagreed with them and only had to pay $1 in damages. The liberals on this forum said that's fine because he was a white nationalist

[Deleted]

Is it ok to assault people you disagree with? This includes political alignment

Obviously not.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

I wonder at what point MMO-C became such a fervent hotbed for the alt right?

If you think the Alt-right is the only group of people infesting this website I got some news. As many Alt-right posters I've put on ignore there's an equal number from the opposite side. There's crazy everywhere.

[Azarak]

You'd have to be pretty socially impaired to it's ok.

[Khaza-R]

I only ask because we recently had a thread where a liberal assaulted a white nationalist because they disagreed with them and only had to pay $1 in damages. The liberals on this forum said that's fine because he was a white nationalist

Oh wow. How surprising this was the intent of the thread all along.Who could have foreseen it?

/s

[Deleted]

You just contradicted yourself...

Ill manage to struggle on.

[Endus]

I only ask because we recently had a thread where a liberal assaulted a white nationalist because they disagreed with them and only had to pay $1 in damages. The liberals on this forum said that's fine because he was a white nationalist

And what you're ignoring is the provocation that his views represent. Encouraging genocide and the like. It's not just about "disagreement", like you prefer chocolate ice cream and he prefers vanilla.

Edit: Also, that jury agreed it was wrong. Hence the conviction. Which you're also ignoring.

[kail]

I only ask because we recently had a thread where a liberal assaulted a white nationalist because they disagreed with them and only had to pay $1 in damages. The liberals on this forum said that's fine because he was a white nationalist

Yes, extremists exist everywhere and even some on this thread still love to fantasize about punching "Nazis". That one case sets a dangerous precedent against free speech unless there are other detail we don't know that enticed the assaulter.

[Raptor With a Saber]

This is an incredibly subjective topic. Without more infomation as to what you disagree about it cant be answered without anything else than subjectively

[Deleted]

I only ask because we recently had a thread where a liberal assaulted a white nationalist because they disagreed with them and only had to pay $1 in damages. The liberals on this forum said that's fine because he was a white nationalist

So you somehow didn't get enough of an answer back then, and felt the need to bring it up again?

[kail]

And what you're ignoring is the provocation that his views represent. Encouraging genocide and the like. It's not just about "disagreement", like you prefer chocolate ice cream and he prefers vanilla.

Edit: Also, that jury agreed it was wrong. Hence the conviction. Which you're also ignoring.

Having him only pay a lousy dollar is not exactly agreeing the attack was wrong. It's knowing by law it's wrong but siding with the assaulter still. The $1 fine is a statement.

[Deleted]

lol at people that defend Nazis rights.

[Kraenen]

It's only a matter of interpreting the disagreement as a physical threat, after all. And usually this can be as vague as "encouraging [insert evil]" or "corrupting the children". Then all bets are off, as we've seen violence escalate in youthful political movements.

- - - Updated - - -

lol at people that defend Nazis rights.

Nazis have the same rights as any other citizen.

[Jimusmc]

The left thinks it is

[Endus]

Having him only pay a lousy dollar is not exactly agreeing the attack was wrong. It's knowing by law it's wrong but siding with the assaulter still. The $1 fine is a statement.

His fine was a dollar. He's also a convicted felon, now, and that's not without long-term consequences all by itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, extremists exist everywhere and even some on this thread still love to fantasize about punching "Nazis". That one case sets a dangerous precedent against free speech unless there are other detail we don't know that enticed the assaulter.

The only precedent it sets is against Nazis, not against free speech.

[Freighter]

No, never. If you physically attack people because you don't like what they say or think then you should be locked up.