Other Punching Nazis and Other Things

[Bone2pick]

You don’t think believing something causes people to act on it?

A belief can cause someone to act in accordance with it, but it doesn't remotely guarantee that they will. Otherwise everyone would practice what they preach, but we know that isn't true.

Non-violent nazis still agree with violence, and a system that causes it.

Agreeing with something awful isn't a crime and it isn't immoral. Hell, they may not even agree with it the following day.

They would still cause violence through their support.

No, that doesn't follow. Thoughts are thoughts. Behaviors are behaviors. The initiation of violence is a behavior. Agreeing with something is a thought.

 

[The Gunrunner]

A belief can cause someone to act in accordance with it, but it doesn't remotely guarantee that they will. Otherwise everyone would practice what they preach, but we know that isn't true.

Okay. So nazis that don’t talk about it, or show it, or outwardly support it are ok? Sure, don’t punch those ones then. That’s a pretty specific case though

Agreeing with something awful isn't a crime and it isn't immoral. Hell, they may not even agree with it the following day.

Yes, but supporting it can cause something immoral.

No, that doesn't follow. Thoughts are thoughts. Behaviors are behaviors. The initiation of violence is a behavior. Agreeing with something is a thought.

You mentioned speech before, now you are not. We were talking about the idea spreading and whether or not that is a reason to use violence to stop it. This talk hasn’t been about thought alone for either of us.

 

[Lina Inverse]

The sole argument for why we shouldn't punch nazi's that makes any sense to me is that kicking them hurts more.

But then again, I might be slightly biased since I'm part of one of the groups of people who got put in concentration camps but whatever.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

If you punch a supporter of nazism and you are the instigator of the conflict, you are wrong both morally and legally. It is that simple. The reason we have things such as ‘reasonable debates’ is to sway one’s ideas and opinions without having to resort to violence to force them to change how they are. Beating someone to a pulp is only going to reinforce their ideas and provide the movement with momentum.

If you honestly resort to violence after you encounter the slightest obstacle against someone you disagree with, then the planet called ‘Earth’ isn’t for you.

 

[Bone2pick]

Okay. So nazis that don’t talk about it, or show it, or outwardly support it are ok? Sure, don’t punch those ones then. That’s a pretty specific case though

Don't punch anyone for thinking or saying anything. To do so makes you an initiator of violence and immoral. It's not a special case, it's a universal principle.

Yes, but supporting it can cause something immoral.

The belief might cause them to commit a crime and it might not. We can't predict the future, so we aren't justified in hurting those who haven't proved to be violent.

You mentioned speech before, now you are not. We were talking about the idea spreading and whether or not that is a reason to use violence to stop it. This talk hasn’t been about thought alone for either of us.

Speech is a universal right. Differing thought is a universal right. The two are not to be divorced. And the focus of the discussion isn't "are bad ideas allowed to spread" because the answer is they are. It's undesirable when they do, but not immoral. The focus of our disagreement is whether or not it is moral to initiate violence against someone for communicating what most judge to be destructive beliefs, and the logically consistent conclusion is it isn't.

 

[fancries1]

Shit, I would've been sent to a concentration camp by the Nazis and I still think you shouldn't hit them. Don't get me wrong, I hate their guts and everything they stand for. Their social, cultural and political ideas shouldn't be taken into account in any government. But physically hurting them, while I'm sure it's satisfying for a lot of people, doesn't solve anything. For the ones saying that debate won't help either and fascist are incapable of discussion and turning away from their beliefs, just look at the outspoken former neo Nazis. Granted, the ones that agreed to speak to the media are very few (since the others either don't want anything to do with politics anymore or are afraid Nazis will come after them) but they still exist. Not all Nazis are open to change their beliefs or would be willing to have a discussion, but the thought of there being Nazis who actually are is enough to try to solve problems with words rather than with violence. This is coming from someone whose country went through 50 years of war and only started ending it a few years ago because they learned to listen to the other side and come to an agreement.

 

[Daisie]

I'm not 100% sure what makes someone a "Modern Nazi", but I agree that thinking a certain way shouldn't be a crime. Actions should be responded to by actions, and words responded to by words. If you don't like someone else's words, reply to them with your own words or suck it up and deal with it. Talking is certainly is not a crime punishable by physical violence, no matter how rude or condescending the person is, or what they're saying. If someone decides that all Nazis should be spat upon, kicked, ect, when the "Nazi" isn't preforming a morally wrong action such as actively hurting other people, that Nazi is being punished for what they believe in and not their actions upon those beliefs. It would be equally as easy for the same person that has the power to say says Nazis are wrong and should be punished to also say very easily that Mormonism or Hinduism or Buddhism is wrong, too. Once you paint one group (The Nazis) as inherently bad because of what they believe in, everything else becomes fair game, too, and you have another situation on your hands where you're discriminating and punishing one or more groups because of what they believe in. Sound familiar?

Again, reply to actions with action, and words with your own words. If you replied to words with action, you could easily just say "I don't agree with you, Daisie!" and kick me in the gut, and have me arrested or something.

 

[Black Sun]

Let's have a look at what the official NSDAP program says, at least parts of it, written by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler in 1920 (National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, Programme of the NSDAP, 24 February 1920). I've underlined some interesting parts.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

9. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

21. The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

23. ....Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications or any influence on them and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.

So, yeah, there isn't much about direct violence in there, but is there ever in official political programs?

 

[The Gunrunner]

Don't punch anyone for thinking or saying anything. To do so makes you an initiator of violence and immoral. It's not a special case, it's a universal principle.

I don't agree with you.

The belief might cause them to commit a crime and it might not. We can't predict the future, so we aren't justified in hurting those who haven't proved to be violent.

Nazis believe that there is an international jewish government that is responsible for ww2 and is trying to conquer the world, that it is the inherent law of nature that superior races should subjugate others, that jews can not be integrated into society, and that all conflicts are a result of racial tension - That is, that the aryans were under attack from the jews. They believe that Nazi Germany tried and failed to solve the issue peacefully, thus resulting in the 'final solution to the jewish question' (there's a reason it's called that.) They believe that they need to impliment a totalitarian, militaristic state that cares only about its own goals - Goals that must be racial. They believe that survival inherently extends to race, and that nature demands and inevitably results in a struggle for purity in the race and for territory.
Yes, I can predict that this idea will result in violence if it catches on.
The best bone I could give you is a nazi who doesn't believe the holocaust happened, that it was a lie, and we should restart nazi germany all over again. I don't think we're unaware of the idea history can repeat itself.

Speech is a universal right. Differing thought is a universal right. The two are not to be divorced. And the focus of the discussion isn't "are bad ideas allowed to spread" because the answer is they are. It's undesirable when they do, but not immoral. The focus of our disagreement is whether or not it is moral to initiate violence against someone for communicating what most judge to be destructive beliefs, and the logically consistent conclusion is it isn't.

I don't care about differing thought, I care about violent thought. And, despite your insistence, you don't have a right to say destructive things;
It's illegal for you to tell lies that will hurt a person's reputation (libel/defamation,) it's illegal for you to encourage imminent crimes (incitement,) and it's illegal for you to plot a future crime (conspiracy.) These three laws use speech as its evidence that you committed a crime or were going to commit a crime, though the last one differs depending on the country. Your right to free speech is not universal. There are limits.
Also this: Federal Lawsuit Against Daily Stormer Publisher Andrew Anglin Moves Forward

 

[Hige]

I've no sympathy for a group of people comfortable to snuggle with a brand or ideology that is rooted in the suffering of others for their differences.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The Gunrunner

The universal right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean it’s left unrestricted, it means that everyone is entitled to such a right regardless of who they are or what opinions they hold, whether you like it or not. To deny a group of people this is a violation of their rights as humans.

Though I’m quite sure many will argue that Nazis ceased being humans when they committed wrong thought.

 

[Black Sun]

The Hollywood villain of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis isn't real. Anyone who is rational and who has some kind of intellect can see it.

Nazis believe that there is an international jewish government that is responsible for ww2 and is trying to conquer the world, that it is the inherent law of nature that superior races should subjugate others, that jews can not be integrated into society, and that all conflicts are a result of racial tension - That is, that the aryans were under attack from the jews. They believe that Nazi Germany tried and failed to solve the issue peacefully, thus resulting in the 'final solution to the jewish question' (there's a reason it's called that.) They believe that they need to impliment a totalitarian, militaristic state that cares only about its own goals - Goals that must be racial. They believe that survival inherently extends to race, and that nature demands and inevitably results in a struggle for purity in the race and for territory.
Yes, I can predict that this idea will result in violence if it catches on.
The best bone I could give you is a nazi who doesn't believe the holocaust happened, that it was a lie, and we should restart nazi germany all over again. I don't think we're unaware of the idea history can repeat itself.

Adolf Hitler abolished Jewish banking. That's what started the war, and the German civilians that the Polish refused to return to Germany. Jews think they're God's chosen people, and they reject all immigration to Israel—they employ National Socialism just as much as Hitler did. The 'final solution' was the Madagascar Plan, which was to provide safe passage of all Jews to Madagascar and establish a Jewish state there, but all of this was blocked by the British. As for the 'holocaust', how do you explain the witnesses that deny the gas story? Those who had heard the rumors of gas, and were afraid that they would die when they went into the showers, but were met with water instead. Are you calling those Jews liars?

 

[The Gunrunner]

The Gunrunner

The universal right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean it’s left unrestricted, it means that everyone is entitled to such a right regardless of who they are or what opinions they hold, whether you like it or not. To deny a group of people this is a violation of their rights as humans.

Though I’m quite sure many will argue that Nazis ceased being humans when they committed wrong thought.

Well he said the right is universal, so I responded to his wording. If you're avoiding a contradiction, all you said is that a nazi can still say some things. Great, I agree. They just can't say the nazi stuff.
Again, if the idea spreads, there's a danger. It's not 'a different opinion,' it's a specific type of different opinion. It's a political belief centered around violence.

Adolf Hitler abolished Jewish banking. That's what started the war, and the German civilians that the Polish refused to return to Germany. Jews think they're God's chosen people, and they reject all immigration to Israel—they employ National Socialism just as much as Hitler did. The 'final solution' was the Madagascar Plan, which was to provide safe passage of all Jews to Madagascar and establish a Jewish state there, but all of this was blocked by the British. As for the 'holocaust', how do you explain the witnesses that deny the gas story? Those who had heard the rumors of gas, and were afraid that they would die when they went into the showers, but were met with water instead. Are you calling those Jews liars?

I don't like listening to conspiracy theories, so I didn't want to give the impression of a discussion.
For real, I'm not expected to respond to this right?

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The Gunrunner

In that essence, we couldn’t talk about punching Nazis. Expressing an opinion about how you want to punch Nazis is violent, or think it’s alright. It’s a political belief centred around violence. It would establish a precedent that is universally applied to everyone.

 

[The Gunrunner]

The Gunrunner

In that essence, we couldn’t talk about punching Nazis. Expressing an opinion about how you want to punch Nazis is violent, or think it’s alright. It’s a political belief centred around violence. It would establish a precedent that is universally applied to everyone.

Except it's a reaction to a violent political belief.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The Gunrunner

That would establish a precedent that would make it alright to attack Antifa supporters. Of course, that is not okay.

 

[The Gunrunner]

The Gunrunner

That would establish a precedent that would make it alright to attack Antifa supporters. Of course, that is not okay.

Antifa falls under the same thing - They're reacting to a violent political belief. A better one would have been 'that would make it alright to attack stalinists/ISIS supporters,' which I actually would have agreed with.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

The Gunrunner

Reacting to a violent political belief with violence makes that political belief a violent one. And no, you shouldn’t attack Stalinists or ISIS supporters. You could be the epitome of scum like these two groups. But guess what? It’s not criminal to have thoughts, no matter how shitty or retarded they are.

 

[The Gunrunner]

The Gunrunner

Reacting to a violent political belief with violence makes that political belief a violent one. And no, you shouldn’t attack Stalinists or ISIS supporters. You could be the epitome of scum like these two groups. But guess what? It’s not criminal to have thoughts, no matter how shitty or retarded they are.

How would you be as bad as those groups? They want to create violence because of conspiracy theories, wherein the reality is the groups they're targeting are trying to mind their own business. The violence is to stop them, and protect the ones that are targeted.
"The jews are controlling the planet and using their deception to misfortune the white race, and they must be stopped." "Nazis are targeting jews." Nazi violence is based on lies and propaganda, the reaction to it is based on a real threat. One has a justification that is at least real, the other is a fabrication. They're not the same thing.
Relying on 'it's a right' and 'it's not illegal to ___' is a fallacy, it's called an 'appeal to the law.'

We're also talking about punching with one, and killing with the other. There's a lot of imbalances here.

 

[Corrosion]

The only Nazis that should exist are Grammar Nazis.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

I've gone ahead cleaned up the thread a bit removing direct attacks. Please stay on topic and try to respect each other for the purposes of this discussion even if your ideologies are different.

Maybe just maybe, if people can handle this, we will do an actual political and world events section again. Maybe. I don't know if I hate myself that much.

Please note that if you have an issue with another member, please report them and set them to ignore.

 

[MikaboshiEinst]

The only Nazis that should exist are Grammar Nazis.

Nah this types of Nazi also should exist..



A Heidi Hidey Ho ,Heil Myself!

On the serious not though any group that utilizes the antiwuated beliefa of "White superiority science" and Purity are considered as antiquated.

 

[The Mechanist]

Nah this types of Nazi also should exist..



A Heidi Hidey Ho ,Heil Myself!

On the serious not though any group that utilizes the antiwuated beliefa of "White superiority science" and Purity are considered as antiquated.

Genetically speaking they aren’t superior though, different races excel at different things. For example, Russians and other Caucasian races excel at being in the cold. I as a Latino on the other hand would just die. But we Hispanics/Latinos excel at being in the heat, and i mean 100+ Fahrenheit (that’s the normal temperature here in south Texas) while other races would just suffer in such an extreme heat.

 

[MikaboshiEinst]

Genetically speaking they aren’t superior though, different races excel at different things. For example, Russians and other Caucasian races excel at being in the cold. I as a Latino on the other hand would just die. But we Hispanics/Latinos excel at being in the heat, and i mean 100+ Fahrenheit (that’s the normal temperature here in south Texas) while other races would just suffer in such an extreme heat.

Nah I was referring to the pre war European "study" of the" negroid race" which was the main aspect and pillar of the White supremacy ideology. It was a bunch of sham that tries to justify how "black immigrants" are "inferior".

 

[The Mechanist]

Nah I was referring to the pre war European "study" of the" negroid race" which was the main aspect and pillar of the White supremacy ideology. It was a bunch of sham that tries to justify how "black immigrants" are "inferior".

Ah I see