Before+after punch lands: Twat. Upon landing: That poor Nazi - Alternative suggestions of methods of engagement welcome

Gently-Parted Ringpiece wrote:Sorry, I didnt mean that lefties should put boots on the ground and punch all the nazis. I was trying to counter Preezy's devils avocado argument and Jawa/OR's well meaning de-escalation.

Punching everybody you dont agree with isnt going to get you anywhere unless you like punching and being punched a lot. A few reprehensible dickwads getting a slap here and there I have an easier time digesting.

Long and short of it - you cant slap every banana split but a few banana splits being slapped is gonna happen and will probably wake a few banana splits up (on both sides), but you cant sit at your desk and tug your collar and ask the banana splits mobilised in the streets to maybe not mobilise and be nice to people with different skin colours. Ya dig?

Unrelated, but Mama Said Knock You Out just started on my random playlist.

I dig.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Hexx wrote:Out of interest - can you think of one instance in history where facism was beaten by civilised debate?

Every example I can think of was either through violence or direct action (banning, policie action etc)

Define "beaten". I'm certain that in part I am so strongly opposed to facism from having studied history at school, from having learnt about the holocaust, from having experienced civilised debate. Not that I would have become a facist without those things - who is to judge how much impact varying factors such as moral character, upbringing, etc. have on such things - but it's certainly a factor in my distaste for the ideology. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I don't know to be honest - it was more a response to your position

I don't know a facism throughout the world (I bet you know far more than me ) but I could only think of ones (and not a big list!) where it's been beaten in conflict, or effectively suppressed by being outlawed (you could argue if that's debate changed laws or laws allowed "force" to stop meeting) - Struggle to think one which has solely been "beaten" (let's say removed from power, or declined in significant influence?) by debate?

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

Probably about the same time that the Nazis started marching "inferior" people to death camps.

Although that ideology really started when the head Nazi wrote a book about his "struggle".

Yes but those inferior people who were marched to their death were not all under then classification "non-white". There is a whole lot more that is wrong with the shit-storm that is Nazi-ism than "I think all non-white people should be killed".

Assuming you class Jews and Slavs as white, then the definition of “non-white” didn’t really make much sense in 1920s/1930s/1940s Germany. There were so few non-white people that they didn’t even register on the Nazis agenda, other than as potential slave labour if they won the war and took Africa.

I don’t doubt for a second that the modern Nazis will be adding Black and Asian people to the list along with the Jews.

Neither do I, my point is that Nazi-ism was never an anti-black movement. Lebensraum was all about pushing out anything historically non-German as to mix with cultures beyond the master race would weaken them - black, white, ginger, it didn't matter if you didn't hit the specific criteria of "strong German characteristics" required then you were screwed.

Moggy wrote:I don’t know if you mistyped that last sentence, but I’d agree there is a lot wrong with Nazism, but I’d disagree there are worse things in Nazism than killing non-whites. The killing of “inferior” races is probably my biggest problem with Fascists. I’m not so fussed on their policy of autobahns and trains running on time.

Not mis-typed - but potentially open to misinterpretation. I wasn't saying there were things worse than the killing of "inferior" races, I was saying that to boil their atrocities down to a single sound-byte was to do their horror a disservice.

Hexx wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Preezy wrote:I would only ever condone someone punching someone else if it's in self-defence (as in self-defence from actual bodily harm, not the use of offensive, inciteful or hurtful language).

Can't really make it much clearer than that.

Cheers for wading through my badly typed non-sense.

'Self'? Not defense of others then (from actual harm)

Hmm I hadn't actually considered punching somone in the defence of someone else, but I'd extend it to that, sure.

Can I caveat this argument with the disclaimer that I'm a massive hypocrit and I'd gladly punch someone who verbally abused my wife or daughter. I'm not above resorting to baser instincts when it suits me

Can't make it any clearer -> Oh wait! I totally can!

But seriously - when do you get involved then? (and I know this is still putting a lot on you - but you're the one who's admitted there's a line )

When it's clear there's going to be violence? When there's been violence to stop more?

Shouting "blacks go home!" at a person - No
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" - ???
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" and in the wind up to throw a punch -???
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" and punches being thrown person can't defend themselves obviously? - ???
Punching person down on the floor, unconscious? Yes

Sorry I'm just gonna jump on this post as I'm on my phone and cba picking apart previous quotes.

Thanks for the earlier response, IIRC the Milo book deal came to mind as it was directly after our debate on no platforming that he received a massive advance thanks, in part, to the huge publicity that was generated.

I didn't want to support those that called for no action, but to highlight that saying you're part of the non-targeted majority so can't have a viewpoint isn't a great argument (which i thought you were implying but i may be wrong). I can understand (partly) that as a gay person it must be annoying having to try and convey the persecution that could come about because of that to those who will never need to understand but that's probably the most important debate to have since it's those in the majority that dictate the law/social norms.

As for the post above, we're all going to have a line and I'm not certain as many of us on here would punch a nazi as you would guess from this thread. Would you have simply walked up and hit that man Hexx?

I think sometimes watching such videos can give the impression street fighting is quite clean cut - the guy got strawberry floated up but there's no blood, no mangled faces and no real brutal violence. Street fights are often strawberry floating horrible and it's not the easiest thing to get involved in, particularly if you haven't before. Not to mention the fact that it's very rare you're going to be equally matched to said racist. I've had arguments with a few people on the street about such behaviour and the worst cases were two old guys seperately (who i obviously wasn't going to hit as i don't want a murder charge and don't have it in me to hit a basically defenceless old man) and one roided up monster who i managed to stop screaming at the black guy across the street but let him rant on just to me. Should i have hit him due to his rhetoric and run the risk of getting strawberry floated up if he was combat trained?

Hexx wrote:I don't know a facism throughout the world (I bet you know far more than me ) but I could only think of ones (and not a big list!) where it's been beaten in conflict, or effectively suppressed by being outlawed (you could argue if that's debate changed laws or laws allowed "force" to stop meeting) - Struggle to think one which has solely been "beaten" (let's say removed from power, or declined in significant influence?) by debate?

It's difficult because "successes" where facism has been beaten in the sense of declining popularity as an ideology can be down to numerous factors. The decline of the national front and the BNP - probably the two most successful facist political parties in modern British history - could be examples. There was an element of outlawing to the National Front with police not allowed to be members, but I think some of the decline of these parties must be down to their critique in the media and being out-debated.

Of course when you get to a facist party being in power that's a different situation altogether, and one that probably necessitates conflict due to their very nature of not allowing for democratic transfer of power.

Brerlappin wrote:i also cant believe were having a debate about how ethical it is to punch someone espousing those views in public.

I don't think we're debating the ethics so much as the consequences

Rocsteady wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Preezy wrote:I would only ever condone someone punching someone else if it's in self-defence (as in self-defence from actual bodily harm, not the use of offensive, inciteful or hurtful language).

Can't really make it much clearer than that.

Cheers for wading through my badly typed non-sense.

'Self'? Not defense of others then (from actual harm)

Hmm I hadn't actually considered punching somone in the defence of someone else, but I'd extend it to that, sure.

Can I caveat this argument with the disclaimer that I'm a massive hypocrit and I'd gladly punch someone who verbally abused my wife or daughter. I'm not above resorting to baser instincts when it suits me

Can't make it any clearer -> Oh wait! I totally can!

But seriously - when do you get involved then? (and I know this is still putting a lot on you - but you're the one who's admitted there's a line )

When it's clear there's going to be violence? When there's been violence to stop more?

Shouting "blacks go home!" at a person - No
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" - ???
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" and in the wind up to throw a punch -???
Shouting "I'm gonna punch you filthy *****" and punches being thrown person can't defend themselves obviously? - ???
Punching person down on the floor, unconscious? Yes

Sorry I'm just gonna jump on this post as I'm on my phone and cba picking apart previous quotes.

Thanks for the earlier response, IIRC the Milo book deal came to mind as it was directly after our debate on no platforming that he received a massive advance thanks, in part, to the huge publicity that was generated.

I didn't want to support those that called for no action, but to highlight that saying you're part of the non-targeted majority so can't have a viewpoint isn't a great argument (which i thought you were implying but i may be wrong). I can understand (partly) that as a gay person it must be annoying having to try and convey the persecution that could come about because of that to those who will never need to understand but that's probably the most important debate to have since it's those in the majority that dictate the law/social norms.

As for the post above, we're all going to have a line and I'm not certain as many of us on here would punch a nazi as you would guess from this thread. Would you have simply walked up and hit that man Hexx?

I think sometimes watching such videos can give the impression street fighting is quite clean cut - the guy got strawberry floated up but there's no blood, no mangled faces and no real brutal violence. Street fights are often strawberry floating horrible and it's not the easiest thing to get involved in, particularly if you haven't before. Not to mention the fact that it's very rare you're going to be equally matched to said racist. I've had arguments with a few people on the street about such behaviour and the worst cases were two old guys seperately (who i obviously wasn't going to hit as i don't want a murder charge and don't have it in me to hit a basically defenceless old man) and one roided up monster who i managed to stop screaming at the black guy across the street but let him rant on just to me. Should i have hit him due to his rhetoric and run the risk of getting strawberry floated up if he was combat trained?

Ah you meant the advance - yeah you're probably right controversy helped him then. But we're still talking personal enrichment - him getting that might be worth not emboldening X people on a campus. Longer and more difficult chat there.

I think the line will be tricky - because ignoring snippets of video it's hard to know exact content of what they'll say'. All our hypotheticals aside it's very unlikely someone would shout something as 'clean cut' as 'Jews should die and I'm going to start helping them in 10 minutes'

Again your example is hard as don't know enough - we've not been talking 'general' racists here - but a very specific ideology and iconography.

Should you put yourself in danger? I don't know.

It's certainly different in (again such simple examples) a) Nazi, target, you and 40 people in a town square at midday and b) Nazi, target and you in a darkened side street

It's more dangerous (probably) to intervene in (b), but is it also more important? How much do you value safety versus principals? (We're back to Portland again)

And that also swings back to an earlier point. It's about solidarity. In (a) above you'd feel safer as you'd think others would step in to help - but what if you weren't so sure. It's important to present a united front which is why I'd think (b) is arguably more important. It's not that you stepped in - it's that someone will

OrangeRakoon wrote:The decline of the national front and the BNP - probably the two most successful facist political parties in modern British history - could be examples. There was an element of outlawing to the National Front with police not allowed to be members, but I think some of the decline of these parties must be down to their critique in the media and being out-debated.

Unfortunately not. Their support just moved to UKIP.

He did Nazi that coming! (Not see.)

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Hexx wrote:I don't know a facism throughout the world (I bet you know far more than me ) but I could only think of ones (and not a big list!) where it's been beaten in conflict, or effectively suppressed by being outlawed (you could argue if that's debate changed laws or laws allowed "force" to stop meeting) - Struggle to think one which has solely been "beaten" (let's say removed from power, or declined in significant influence?) by debate?

It's difficult because "successes" where facism has been beaten in the sense of declining popularity as an ideology can be down to numerous factors. The decline of the national front and the BNP - probably the two most successful facist political parties in modern British history - could be examples. There was an element of outlawing to the National Front with police not allowed to be members, but I think some of the decline of these parties must be down to their critique in the media and being out-debated.

Of course when you get to a facist party being in power that's a different situation altogether, and one that probably necessitates conflict due to their very nature of not allowing for democratic transfer of power.

Brerlappin wrote:i also cant believe were having a debate about how ethical it is to punch someone espousing those views in public.

I don't think we're debating the ethics so much as the consequences

On phone sorry - I wasn't meaning BNP style entities as they never really had significant influence/power to reduce, and the resins for their collapses are more complex

The first half of 20th century though Europe was filed with fascist parties rising in popularity that wrec(largely) beating by containment/outlawing IiRC (if you know better I'll believe you!)

Jenuall wrote:Neither do I, my point is that Nazi-ism was never an anti-black movement. Lebensraum was all about pushing out anything historically non-German as to mix with cultures beyond the master race would weaken them - black, white, ginger, it didn't matter if you didn't hit the specific criteria of "strong German characteristics" required then you were screwed.

Lebensraum meant "living space". That meant taking over the lands to the East of Germany, it didn't necessarily mean the holocaust (although of course the Russian, Polish and other Slavs would have been strawberry floated).

The only reason it wasn't an anti-black movement was because there were very few black people in Germany in the 20s/30s. The only way they really had any thought of black people was resurrecting the enslavement of black Africans. That was then, I would imagine modern day American/British/European Nazis will add black people to the list along with Jews, Slavs and homosexuals.

Moggy wrote:Unfortunately not. Their support just moved to UKIP.

A more moderate party that in part enjoys larger support precisely because it isn't quite so facist. (I also don't think it's strictly true to just say the support moved over - it's a contributing factor but not the whole story.)

Hexx wrote:On phone sorry - I wasn't meaning BNP style entities as they never really had significant influence/power to reduce, and the resins for their collapses are more complex

The first half of 20th century though Europe was filed with fascist parties rising in popularity that wrec(largely) beating by containment/outlawing IiRC (if you know better I'll believe you!)

I don't know better - but isn't it BNP style entities we're currently talking about? I'm not sure what you mean by containment, but outlawing is certainly a working strategy and one I can support (like with the banning of National Action last year).

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:Neither do I, my point is that Nazi-ism was never an anti-black movement. Lebensraum was all about pushing out anything historically non-German as to mix with cultures beyond the master race would weaken them - black, white, ginger, it didn't matter if you didn't hit the specific criteria of "strong German characteristics" required then you were screwed.

Lebensraum meant "living space". That meant taking over the lands to the East of Germany, it didn't necessarily mean the holocaust (although of course the Russian, Polish and other Slavs would have been strawberry floated).

Yes, Lebensraum was a pre-existing concept about the re-establishment of a German empire, "re-claiming" land that they believed would enable their independence and prosperity. Hitler radicalised the idea to focus on developing a state in which only those of "pure" German stock would be allowed - he wrote that to allow co-existence with other nationalities, to let their bloodlines into those of the Germans would weaken them.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Moggy wrote:Unfortunately not. Their support just moved to UKIP.

A more moderate party that in part enjoys larger support precisely because it isn't quite so facist. (I also don't think it's strictly true to just say the support moved over - it's a contributing factor but not the whole story.).

Nothing is ever the whole story. But those NF/BNP types are not voting for the Green party are they?

UKIP enjoyed greater support because they were more careful about the language they used, but a large part of their core support still comes from unrepentant racists.

And rational debates didn’t stop UKIP achieving it’s main aim. It will be interesting (in the sense that interesting is terrifying) where that support moves once Brexit doesn’t achieve the aims of the “send ‘em back where they came from!!!!” mob.

Moggy wrote:those NF/BNP types are not voting for the Green party are they?

"Would I vote green? Well, it's better than voting black or brown innit!"

- some BNP/NF type

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:those NF/BNP types are not voting for the Green party are they?

"Would I vote green? Well, it's better than voting black or brown innit!"

- some BNP/NF type

I should have saw that joke coming.

Brerlappin wrote:I cant believe we live in an era where people are openly walking around wearing the insignia of the Third Reich, you know, the people who wanted to exterminate gays, jews, disabled people, you know, pretty much every minority, and i also cant believe were having a debate about how ethical it is to punch someone espousing those views in public.

I do wonder is this guy was muslim wearing the black flag of ISIS, screaming at white people and saying"death to all middle class, white, videogame loving 20/30something year old men" would people on here be as conflicted about standing up to them. It very easy to debate the ethics of hitting someone who isnt directly promoting the genocide of your own particular ethnic group.

Punch every one of these banana splits until theyre too scared to leave their basements.

I'm all for freedom of speech but anyone who expresses such morally repugnant views as nazism or religious extremism deserves to be treat like the scum they are and if that includes the occasional act of violence then I won't lose any sleep over it.

I would however prefer the police and legal system to deal with these dickheads rather than seeing vigilante 'justice' as that creates more problems than it solves.

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

"All non white people should be killed and we should have fantastic infrastructure based on Autobahns" then?

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

"Nazis: We kill White Christians too!"