Nazis marching in America

Oh, and “Anyone who stands trial for violence against nazis, I will arrange to pay for your defense lawyers,” sounds an awful lot like what Trump said during the campaign, about paying for the defense of anyone who punches a protestor during one of his rallies. Good company you’re keeping there…

If punching / killing Nazis is wrong I don’t want to be right.

2 Likes

Yeah, that was intentional.

You see, I’m not a slave to logical consistency or words on paper. I don’t give a fuck about laws. I don’t care about technicalities like being “at war” or “civilian”. Those are all just fucking useless words.

It’s morally OK to murder a nazi, but it’s not OK to even lay a hand on a BLM protester. Laws be damned, it is always, and perhaps only ever, OK to use violence against genocidal nut jobs.

You want to try non-violent methods, go for it. I sure hope it works. I hope beyond hope that it works, but it didn’t work last time. I’m not going to wait until millions are dead before resorting to the only proven option we have available.

3 Likes

1 Like

I watched every single one of those and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I even thought to myself, some of those racist punchers could have done better punches. I wish I had a racist to punch to add to this list. I don’t wanna mob @jabrams007 because he’s speaking as a lawyer and someone who’s though a bit about this, but at the same time Scott’s got a point. Violence works. I read an account from a historian and a soldier saying that the most effective thing against the old nazis socially was pure punching.

That and I believe I’ve made it through my entire life not raising my fists in anger. That is genuinely something I wanna do once before I die.

Don’t listen to the carceral state fan. It is okay to protect yourself if you are in danger from fascist goons. The law and the police aren’t there to protect you and they won’t.

Then let’s rid of ALL laws then. Let’s make you, Scott Rubin, King or Emperor. Let’s make you judge, jury, and executioner. You get to decide what’s a crime, what thoughts and what speech is permissible or not. You get to decide who lives and who dies based purely on your whim and on what you think is correct. Congratulations, you’re now a tyrant, and even though I may agree with you on most things, I can never agree with you on this.

Laws matter. Legal distinctions matter. And I would rather defend the right of a Nazi to spout whatever bile and vile hatred he thinks, than punch him. Look back at history, look back at who historically was censored and punished for their thoughts and what they said. It was the minorities, it was the oppressed, it was those who held views that questioned unfair laws and practices. Today’s Nazi is tomorrow’s oppressed group being muzzled for saying things that others don’t want to hear.

The fact that so many people on this forum think it’s ok or even good to punch someone else just for their thoughts or beliefs is genuinely disturbing to me.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

@jabrams007 he’s talking about you.

5 Likes

The fact that you would agree to defend an avowed Nazi is probably equally disturbing on our end.

2 Likes

Oh give me a fucking break…

At the end of the day, what everyone on this forum who thinks that punching Nazis is ok is really saying is: “I can punch you because I disagree with you.” That’s reducing your argument down to its base level. I disagree with you, so I can punch you.

Yes, Nazis are abhorrent and vile and I would personally love to punch every one of them, but I don’t, because people are entitled to believe whatever they want, however wrong they are, however vile their ideas. If you don’t believe that, you’re in the wrong country. Society views Nazis as abhorrent, so according to the people on this forum, it’s ok to punch them without consequence. Well, in the 1950s, in the South, society thought that Civil Rights protestors’ views were equally abhorrent, so I guess it was ok for them to punch Martin Luther King Jr., and John Lewis. Up until the Suffrage Movement, it was abhorrent to society that women should have the right to vote or be equal to men, so I guess it was ok to punch every woman protestor. I guess it’s ok to punch people who believe in a woman’s right to choose and who think that birth control is a should be free to everyone.

My point is not that Nazi beliefs are similar to those other beliefs, it’s that throughout history, what was deemed “abhorrent” to society changed. To make it ok to punch someone for one set of beliefs opens the door to punch someone else for a different set of beliefs. I may be fine with Nazis being punched in the abstract, but I’m not ok with a member of Planned Parenthood being punched.

We live in a democracy. And with that comes certain obligations. One of which is that we have to tolerate the speech we hate in order to protect the speech we love.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

I’m not alone in thinking that by any means…

“On behalf of the NSPA, the ACLU challenged the injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois that prohibited marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. The ACLU was represented by civil rights attorney Burton Joseph.[3][4] The challengers argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves.”

Yeah I figure I’ll wait to punch a Nazi until it’s legally justifiable. I generally only advocate violence when it’s to stop other violence, for legal and moral reasons.

And I really wasn’t being too serious or trying to start shit. I don’t recommend responding to speech with violence, I was just particularly pissed because people actually got hurt/ died this time.

2 Likes

It’s not ok to punch a nazi merely because we disagree with them, or because their ideas are abhorrent. For example, I would not say it is ok to punch a flat-earther, who I also completely disagree with.

It is OK to punch a nazi because nazis are a direct threat to our continued existence. I am a jew. A nazi wants me dead. Waving their swastika is not just exercising free speech and spreading ideas. It is a threat to my existence. Fascism is a threat to the very ideas you are trying to defend in this thread. Ironic that in trying to defend your democratic ideals you could end up destroying them by aiding and abetting your enemies.

It’s only OK to punch nazis because it is self defense. You need a legal argument so badly. There it is. While you’re standing in the way defending their right to free speech and keeping us from punching them, they’re gonna shoot you in the back of the head. Where will your laws be then?

9 Likes

Waving a flag is a threat to your existence? Is the world you live in so terrifying that this is your justification?

So by your rationale, it’s ok to attack someone waving a Confederate flag? It’s ok to attack someone waving an ISIS flag? Are they also threats to your continued existence? If not, why are they different? Where do you draw the line? People who don’t believe in Climate Change are a legitimate threat to the World’s existence. Is it ok to punch them? If not, why?

Maybe I disagree with the people on this forum because I’m not scared of Nazis or anyone else. I refuse to live my life in fear. I know that we can stop Nazis, or anyone else, through peaceful non-violent means, and if the Nazis, or anyone else become violent, I have faith that the law or other people will stop them. I am not afraid of their speech or their marches.

A flag does not scare me.

A big part of the problem is that Nazis have been turning into the police for a long time.

Or never weren’t

BlockquoteIn the South, however, the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered not on the protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of the slavery system. Some of the primary policing institutions there were the slave patrols tasked with chasing down runaways and preventing slave revolts, Potter says; the first formal slave patrol had been created in the Carolina colonies in 1704. During the Civil War, the military became the primary form of law enforcement in the South, but during Reconstruction, many local sheriffs functioned in a way analogous to the earlier slave patrols, enforcing segregation and the disenfranchisement of freed slaves.

1 Like

If you can logically equate Nazis to BLM and Planned Parenthood and the Civil Rights movement then you are morally bankrupt.

4 Likes

On both counts of Confederates and ISIS yes. 100%

2 Likes

What scares me is that I remember watching a documentary about white supremacists where one plainly states that they told their members to publicly pretend to not be racist, with the intention of infiltrating powerful positions in the government.

I actually disagree here. Hyperbolic comparisons are a very useful illustrative device. Scott very frequently compares things other people like to poop. Illustrative devices aren’t off limits just because nazis and BLM are involved.

1 Like

Also, I still defend free speech. Congress shall make no law… I do not advocate congress making any law. If they tried to make a law, for example, that banned the book Mein Kampf, I would oppose it. That is where free speech begins and ends.

Also, we are not having a situation where where the nazis are peacefully protesting and simply exercising their rights. They are attacking people with torches and attacking crowds and murdering innocents with cars. They aren’t just marching with flags. They are marching with assault rifles.

2 Likes