I know. I just used the word as analogue for ‘small group of similar people’.
Lantz
3038
Disagreeing with Nazism apparently is enough to put you left of center to some folks. Which is exactly why there’s a need for society to label and confront extremist views so they can not pretend to be in some bullshit silent majority.
I am waiting for the impassioned defense of serial killers as a minority group equivalent to racial minorities. Charles Manson has a rocking song, why is he in jail and JayZ isn’t?
I was thinking the same thing. When will we start standing up for oppressed minorities like serial killers or child molesters? @MarinusWA, when will we get Sandusky out if prison?
That being said, I understand @Scuzz’s argument. Punching Nazis might be a slippery slope, so I do have worries about what @Timex is espousing, but on the other hands, Nazis. Real ones, with the whole philosophy and everything.
jsnell
3040
So @Timex, have your views on free speech and Nazis evolved over the last few years?
Can we now all accept that it’s indeed OK for there to be laws against certain kinds of speech, such as inciting ethnic violence? Or is your view still that free speech trumps everything? Because, hey, literal Nazis stand no chance in the marketplace of ideas. They should allowed to anything at all, and (judging by this thread) vigilante mobs should then be allowed to assault them.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
Separate in justification. Not in actual effect.
You are correct. I do not understand how you got the impression that I stated otherwise as that is basically my final point.
Again, did you read my entire post? This is pretty much my conclusion, so how am I ‘missing’ it?
And again I agree and again I have to wonder if you understand what my post was about.
I switched to speaking in general at that point (hence my disclaimer attached to the term).
They are the same in that they are all reviled groups, which was how I meant it.
And this exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not advocating standing up for Nazis. If they all ceased to exist tomorrow along with their ideology it would be a great day. Yet that is exactly what readers some to take away from it merely because I’m pointing out that cheering on a nazi being hit is—no matter how you try to spin it—condoning violence against a group of people for their beliefs.
Is hitting Nazis therefore wrong? No it is not. The point I tried—and apparently failed to make—is that the reasons/justifications for condoning such violence are completely separate from the generic ‘violence against minorities/races/religions/people different from me is wrong’. Yet to so many people that generic statement is so ingrained into their moral compass that even suggesting the hypocrisy in it immediately gets people like legowarrior to foam at the mouth and peg you into ‘this guy wants to stand up for [insert group of terrible people here]’.
No. I don’t want to stand up for terrible people. I’m not stating that anyone else should stand up for terrible people. Terrible people should be dealt in a manner that reduces their impact on society as much as possible. But don’t tell me you are doing so because of a reason that’s inherently hypocritical. Just own up to the fact that there are groups of people you despise and that the world would be a better place without them. It’s fine to do so (and no, this is not sarcasm).
Lantz
3042
All these liberal snowflakes want to imprison Ariel Castro for the supposed crime of imprisoning a few women. Classic hypocrites who want to take all rights away from men and give them all to women. Besides, one of them got pregnant which couldn’t have happened if she didn’t want to be there. That’s basic biology.
Oh, he’s not white? Execute him
Doesn’t that fall under the “Free Speech means the government shouldn’t stop you from saying what you want, but it also doesn’t shield you from public reaction” line of thought?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This quote is never more relevant than when talking about fascism, race supremacy and isolationism, all of which are hallmarks of the Alt-Right movement in America today. We’ve seen throughout history, time and time again, how these ideals mix together to create immeasurable tragedy and human suffering. It is our duty, not just as Americans, but as human beings, to insure that such ideology never gains traction in this country, that such malice and evil can never take root and grow. I don’t think anyone here would argue that point.
However, despite everything we’ve done for the past 50+ years to combat that ideology, in the past year or so it’s grown more powerful, here and across the globe, than it has been at any point since World War II. We’ve tried passing laws, we’ve tried protesting, we’ve tried reasoning, we’ve tried every peaceful and logical argument under the sun to convince people that this way of thinking is wrong, that it leads to disaster, that history has shown there is nothing but fear, misery, hate and death at the end of that road, and yet STILL there is a subset of people who insist that it can be done correctly, that it is a right and just way of thinking, that it should be our ONLY way of thinking if we indeed want to Make America Great Again. These people have shown they cannot be deterred by reason, by scorn, by law. They will persist as long as they are allowed to persist until they can convince enough people to start the cycle all over again.
That cannot be allowed to happen…and that is why I am at the point where I, personally, am good with the commencement of the punching. In the face. Repeatedly.
If it were April 15, I’d like this so hard.
Timex
3047
Frankly, yes, I think they have… although perhaps not to the degree you think is required for me to reconcile these two positions.
Make no mistake, I am still going to err on the side of free speech in virtually every single case. Hell, even with Nazis, I wouldn’t advocate the government outlawing their speech. I don’t think that’s the role of government.
However, Nazi speech is different than speech which is merely offensive. Nazis have actually shown their desired end state, with attrocities committed against other humans. That shit actually happened.
It’s wrong to equate Nazism with simply saying stuff that is offensive to some. They transcend mere offense.
Yes, there’s a big difference between people having a right to spout racist bullshit and the rest of us having a moral obligation not to put up with it. Not a conflict there.
Timex
3049
But it’s the justification which matters, because the difference in justification is what determines whether something fits into a consistent system of morality and law.
To take a simple example… I can imprison someone who commits a crime, like murder. I can also imprison you, a totally innocent person. To use your phrase, these are both the same act “in actual effect”, but they are in reality completely different. One is justified, the other is not. One fits within a consistent rule of law, the other does not.
But merely being reviled isn’t what justifies punching nazis. I agree, that if that were indeed the qualifying factor, then it would be problematic… because tons of innocent groups have been reviled over the years. Racial minorities, gays, etc.
Again though, this comes down to the key point which is that being reviled isn’t the justifying factor.
The justifying factor is that Nazis have chosen to abandon the societal rules that require respect for other human beings.[quote=“MarinusWA, post:3041, topic:126885”]
I’m pointing out that cheering on a nazi being hit is—no matter how you try to spin it—condoning violence against a group of people for their beliefs.
[/quote]
No.
Condoning a nazi being hit is condoning violence against a group of people for holding a very specific kind of belief.
It does not transfer to other groups who hold different beliefs, unless those beliefs are based upon the same innate disregard for other human beings.
It’s not hypocritical at all, because the groups who Nazis oppress have not made the same choice that Nazis made. They did not de-legitimize their own claim to human rights by violating the human rights of others, like the Nazis did.
You either condone vigilante form of ‘justice’ and silencing of opponents, or you do not, there is no middle ground. Sure, your target will be limited to “X” at one point, but we all know the number of acceptable targets will grow as people become more conditioned to the fact that “it is ok to do violence against those we disagree with”.
And I’m not even saying it is wrong or just, just that you should be honest about the fact that you think it is OK for party X to do violence against party Y when you disagree with them, and in turn, party Y is allowed to do the same.
Rep Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) got into a tiff with his constituents during a town hall. This resulted in him angrily telling them that the taxpayers do not pay his salary.
[quote]
“You say you pay for me to do this? That’s bullcrap,” Mullin said at the town hall in Jay, Okla., according to a video of the incident.
"I pay for myself. I paid enough taxes before I got here and continue to through my company to pay my own salary. This is a service. No one here pays me to go,” he added.
After constituents pushed back, Mullin reiterated that being a lawmaker is not “how I make my living.”
“I’m just saying … this is a service for me, not a career, and I thank God this is not how I make my living,” he said.[/quote]
First they came for the Nazis, and I was like, “Word, those assholes are evil bastards.”
Timex
3054
But that’s not ok.
Again, the reason you can punch Nazis isn’t “because you disagree with them.”
Man, the Nazis sure are feeling the love on Qt3 right now. They have so many people lookin out for em!
Timex
3056
Well, doesn’t sound like it will be for much longer.
