Are you arguing that it’s legal to punch fascists/authoritarians/white supremacists in the US?
If not, is your point that it’s ok to conduct illegal behaviour as long as you find the target undesirable?
Homophobic killings are acceptable (but illegal) in Russia because homosexuals are viewed as being undesirable, and that accurately reflects the views of their society.
Also, law generally does roll out the same rules for different sides. Including violence, hate speech, discrimination. If it didn’t, I don’t think civil rights or women’s rights would have gained much traction. There’s a reason the ACLU takes on controversial cases on behalf of decidedly illiberal entities because it understands rights cut both ways.
removed my being an idiot
I like how he’s arguing that his group isn’t violent and then vaguely threatening violence. Really makes for a good point. Which side of the argument it actually agrees with though, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
I’m actually replying to this:
What?
I was responding to the comic that was posted in the post I quoted.
Sorry, I took that completely wrongly. I didn’t see the reply was for JonRowe and as it followed mine replying to you. It wouldn’t be the fourth or fifth time I’ve been called a Nazi defender on this forum for arguing that vigilante violence isn’t an answer. Totally my bad.
Fair enough. I withdraw my comment :) And I will cut out my back seat modding nonsense. Its been a long day is my only excuse.
Bwahah fair enough :)
I wouldn’t blame you, but again, that just validates their fear and gives power to their leaders. Go read that ex-KKK AMA.
Ok that made me feel like a jerk for posting Carly Simon so I removed that link.
Nah, it was deserved. As I said to Tom, I can be an argumentative arsehole.
I firmly don’t believe there is an equivalence between the subsets I listed for many reasons (you can choose your political beliefs, you don’t get to choose any of what I listed / the former group have only ever argued for equal & more rights, while the latter argues for less rights for others), but my point was that social attitudes change and using undesirability and unacceptability as the litmus test for condoning or conducting violence can, has, and usually does lead to very bad things.
Fascism, white supremacy and authoritarianism simply don’t exist here, yet our Supreme Court in 1983 affirmed the constitutionality of criminalising same-sex relationships while the former weren’t criminalised. Yet somehow we legalised same-sex marriage several years ago, and were the fourth country to ever have a LGBT head of state.
Using the ‘logic’ that it’s ok to punch Nazis cannot be reconciled with anything other than an implicit agreement that it’s ok to commit violence on Indian untouchables, infidels and women in many muslim countries, or homosexuals in much of Eastern Europe because those attitudes accurately reflect their societal values just as punching Nazis does, given such behaviour is illegal but somewhat acceptable in all those examples.
I remain unsure how a group that advocates vigilante justice on a gaming forum and that is inherently hostile to outside views, is not an example of what the NYT article talks about in how toxic culture can agglomerate around gaming despite not really being related to videogames.
Nope just Nazis. They self-select. No one has to accuse someone of being a Nazis. They’re proud of it and flaunt it. Keep fighting the good fight though for the, umm, Nazis.
Thanks pwk, that was very astute.
Yea, this is pretty much spot on. Punching Nazis is on the same level as attacking women, gays, and the poor. Remember that next time you punch a Nazi, you’re essentially punching an untouchable gay woman and be ashamed of yourself.
Maybe we should consider making Nazis a protected class, like women and gays etc. It would be unfair not to.
I don’t actually enjoy my argument flying that far above someones head. I’m not particularly smart and it’s just vaguely disappointing
Punching Nazis is on the same level as attacking women, gays, and the poor.
Illegally punching people because you dislike them is the same as someone else illegally punching people because they dislike them.
Hate speech is banned over here with imprisonment of up to 2 years. I have never so much as implied that I am ok with what they are allowed say in public or agree with their views.
You got this man, keep it up.
Not really. The kind of people who think vigilante justice is the solution and talk about punching people in the face on the internet aren’t likely to be the sort of people capable of particularly complex thoughts, are they?
After all, violence does have a strong negative correlation to IQ (even in prisons!) - as does criminal behaviour. Perhaps you should ponder the company you keep and consider how that reflects you.
Nope, dullards, the lot of them. That’s why Batman is fictional, because there’s no way a real life vigilante could possibly be that smart. He’s a wish-fulfillment fantasy character for morons.
Your erudite nature is inspirational and refreshing.
You probably shouldn’t reply to a post about the link between IQ and violent tendencies, by using a word you clearly only know by looking up a dictionary. I am too hostile to be erudite, and this topic doesn’t really relate to anything that someone could be erudite in.
Go you though for pushing your boundaries!
Here’s some light reading on links between IQ and violent behaviour:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000116