2735

Well, it also depends on context, whether their buddies are around, saving face, a million things.

I imagine bar fights are common enough that we are getting into issues not just of law but of that endlessly moving target called ‘human nature,’ but I am not psychologist enough to expound on it in a useful way.

Edit: I’m reminded of an anecdote my brother told me about how he was once harassed by some individuals of Micronesian descent in Honolulu (the not very polite term for them was ‘local boys’) and how they were giving him shit, calling him ‘dumb Haole’ etc. He just looked at the main guy and said ‘why are you doing this?’ or something like that. Apparently it took the wind out of their sails.

2736

When cops let a violent neo-Nazi walk after he assaults someone, that dude isn’t going to be prosecuted unless someone filmed it.
And even then, odds are he wont. Hell, odds are the cops know him and welcome him with open arms.

And Prosecutors are cops at the end of the day, but that’s a whole other discussion.

Always. If you punch a Nazi, you accept that it might result in jail time or other legal ramifications.
My initial point is that for a lot of people that calculus is going to end on punching someone, especially a number of Vietnam vets in a scenario where you say that 'Nam was faked (assuming the original context and not the revised one as we learned more).

2737

And I guess I was just saying that I wish we lived in a society where this was considered a wholly unacceptable way of defending your honor. It’s not an option available to many (and really, since most Vietnam vets are in their late 60’s/early 70’s not for many of them either.) Most people, when impugned by someone else’s nonsense, just ignore it. That’s the advice I give my kids.

2738

The “Vietnam War was a hoax” statement to a vet goes right in the same bucket as saying “that school shooting was a false flag op” to the parent of a child that died in a school shooting or yelling “one percenters ain’t shit” in a biker bar. It’s legal to say and you’re protected against assault under the law, but you’re the dumbass for doing it and if you get punched you’re not going to get much sympathy from most folks.

2739

Pretty much this.

Generally speaking, it is. But if someone calls a black guy the n-word and gets punched in the face by said black guy, I’m hard-pressed to not say he had it coming at the end of the day.

2740

Exactly. And there’s a difference between “He had it coming” and “It should be completely legal”, which I find often gets overlooked by those wanting to clutch their pearls. The guy who punched the Nazi totally committed assault but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t Jeremiah Johnsoning while watching the clip.

2741

It’s not about sympathy for idiots. It’s about disapprobation for those who resort to violence over perceived slights. This is very clearly (as evidenced by attitudes here) a pervasive cultural problem.

This is a deliberately pejorative way to describe someone who wants to live in a society where violence isn’t how we resolve issues. Aside from the problem of misapplication (if it’s ok to punch a Nazi in Portland, it’s hard to justify why it’s not ok to punch an atheist in Dallas) there’s another problem with condoning violence. It’s always “guys” who punch Nazi’s and not young women or children or elderly people or handicapped people. Physical violence is generally mostly an option only for men, and so men become the literal enforcers of cultural disdain through intimidation. And that’s seriously backwards-looking shit I want no part of. Might-makes-right is the biggest threat to progressivism and the cultural tendency I most fear.

2742

There’s a third side, my side, where when you hear something so outlandish rather than lean in with repercussions and violence and whatever, you step back and ask, “Wait a second, did they really say that? Because there are other options that might explain it.” I fully acknowledge and respect that it’s hard to be anything but a pool of cynicism for our fellow citizens these days, but hope springs eternal.

Then of course if it turns out they were actually that fucked up, you pursue either psychological intervention, social intervention, state (police) intervention, etc.

2743

Well, drop the sympathy then. I don’t think you’ll get many folks losing any sleep over the moral quandary of violence as a solution vs violence as a silencing tactic vs other course of action when it comes to Nazis.

2744

One of these espouses views that everyone different is lesser and should be killed, and it isn’t the atheist.

2745

Probably also worth mentioning that at no point was the original thought about Nazism, it was about a teacher saying something outlandish but overall not hateful, just potentially woo-woo conspiracy theory, which was later shown to not be the case. You want to punch a Nazi, go find an actual Nazi, and I’ll applaud from the sidelines.

2746

I think Matt’s (rather obvious) point is that in both examples, the puncher thinks the punching is justified, so you can punch if it is justified doesn’t really work out well as a standard. So you need some other standard, and none is really being offered.

I mean, what the actual fuck?

Who else here thinks that Matt is expressing his deep sympathy for Nazis? I don’t.

2747

Exactly. There’s a huge difference between “I like Nazis” and “I think we shouldn’t use violence to solve our differences.”

I’m okay with using violence only if the other party has shown a disregard for laws and norms to the point where there’s a legitimate fear that the other party will escalate to violence if not checked. This is a somewhat convoluted way of saying “self defense” but I wanted to spell it out since this thread.

2748

If it isn’t obvious enough, the argument being offered here — that you can use violence against people who you know really deserve it — is the one used to justify the murder of doctors who perform abortions. So, maybe it isn’t a particularly good standard?

2749

Exactly. While it might be nice for someone to perfectly punch a Nazi with absolute proof of their Nazism and proof of their absolute danger of doing Nazi things, that’s as slippery a slope as you can ask.

2750

I don’t either. I think he’s trying to say that being okay with punching a Nazi is the terminus to the general idea that we seem to approve of violence towards perceived slights if we agree with the person slighted.

I’m saying - shrug. I don’t think there’s a persuasive link. Being okay with someone punching a Nazi is not the same as being okay with violence in general.

Edit: As for the slippery slope argument… Nah.

2751

The broad idea is, “Doing something abhorrent to someone because you perceive them as abhorrent.” Perception can’t be controlled or regulated or even judged for the most part. The idea that somehow you can define and justify something abhorrent in Just This One Case! is foolish. Edit: Or, I guess, something not left up to the individual to decide. We do define those things, such as how libel laws work and police violence works and military violence works, but those are determined by the collective, not the individual, and they are put in the trust of the state. Anything else is some form of a lynch mob.

2752

To be clear, I’m a guy who can get some joy out of a Nazi getting a good punching. The point is, absent a genuine and immediate need for self-defense: it is conceptually wrong for reasons stated above, it is against the law, and it ought to be against the law.

Yes, this.

2753

I think everyone has been in agreement on this point every time this discussion comes up.

There’s a big difference between being personally okay with a specific action and basing a legal framework around it.

2754

No argument there. I’ll just repeat that while I wouldn’t do it and I don’t encourage it, I ain’t getting in the way of someone punching a Nazi.