US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Guys. Guys. Nazis have rights too. We can talk these guys down, did Neville Chamberlain teach us nothing?

twitter.com/natemcdermott/status/899798155495182336

"He wasn't being serious!": https://twitter.com/natemcdermott/statu ... 7451544576

I sense zero humour in his delivery.

On the non-Nazi getting stabbed story.

Joshua Witt, 26, was stepping out of his car outside a restaurant to buy a milkshake when the assailant lunged at him and swung the blade towards his head.

He held up his hands to defend himself in the attack in Sheridan, Colorado amid the frenzy and remembers the man saying: “Are you a neo-Nazi?”

Mr Witt luckily ended up only with minor injuries, suffering a deep cut below his left thumb which needed three stitches after the attack that left his clothes splattered with blood.

He didn't understand why he was targeted because he has no tattoos linking him to ultra-right wing groups and he is not aware of anything on his car linking him to fascism.

But his friends pointed out that his hairstyle, which is long on top and closely cropped at the sides, was to blame for the mix-up. Neo-Nazis often fully shave their heads.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 04626.html

There's no evidence he was attacked for his haircut, that was an assumption from his friends. It was outside of a fast food place not at or anywhere near a rally.

This sounds like a lone nutcase rather than an example of evil lefties attacking innocents.

It's a disgusting thing to do to someone and I wouldn't support stabbing even actual Nazis, but it's not a story of anti-Nazis going too far, just a nutter being a nutter.

Moggy wrote:I wouldn't support stabbing even actual Nazis,

Alright, Neville "the enabler" Chamberlain.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:I wouldn't support stabbing even actual Nazis,

Alright, Neville "the enabler" Chamberlain.

Chamberlain would stab you and everyone you love.

I would just give them flowers and pray that their Naziness goes away with the power of positive thinking.

Read the last couple of pages with interest, I'm surprised that some of you still can't see what I (and Rightey) were getting at.

I believe in law and order. I wouldn't want to be walking down the street and suddenly get lamped by someone because I held a different political or religious or whatever belief from them. I think that should work both ways. If I see someone spouting hateful poison, I'm not going to punch them, I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do. They may not be civilised, but you have to rise above it. Free speech of course shouldn't be consequence-free, if you say evil gooseberry fool then don't expect to be greeted with flowers (although that might actually work), but you should also be free to say what you think without getting physically assaulted by anyone, civilian or otherwise. So long as you're doing it peacefull/non-physically and not inciting violence you should be handled as such. If you start getting rowdy and aggressive/violent then it should be the authorities that dish out the punishment, not opposition protestors taking the law into their own hands.

Basically, treat others as you would llike to be treated.

And some philsophical thoughts for the day:

Michael Nyqvist, famous villain philosopher from John Wick antiquity - "Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Preezy wrote:Read the last couple of pages with interest, I'm surprised that some of you still can't see what I (and Rightey) were getting at.

I believe in law and order. I wouldn't want to be walking down the street and suddenly get lamped by someone because I held a different political or religious or whatever belief from them. I think that should work both ways. If I see someone spouting hateful poison, I'm not going to punch them, I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do. They may not be civilised, but you have to rise above it. Free speech of course shouldn't be consequence-free, if you say evil gooseberry fool then don't expect to be greeted with flowers (although that might actually work), but you should also be free to say what you think without getting physically assaulted by anyone, civilian or otherwise. So long as you're doing it peacefull/non-physically and not inciting violence you should be handled as such. If you start getting rowdy and aggressive/violent then it should be the authorities that dish out the punishment, not opposition protestors taking the law into their own hands.

Basically, treat others as you would llike to be treated.

And some philsophical thoughts for the day:

Michael Nyqvist, famous villain philosopher from John Wick antiquity - "Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Personally I'd call punching evil in the face civilised.

You're not "fighting" monsters - you're sitting by passively proud of yourself for being so monster tolerant as they threaten the village.

Actually it wouldn't. It would leave one person blind and flailing and the other a Cyclops dodging.

Preezy wrote: I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do.

That "if possible" is incredibly telling as it means to you ignoring them is the most desirable outcome.

So despite presenting it as "don't punch them, fight them a different way" - in reality you're a coward who'd avoid even that engagement if possible. Walk on by...leave them to it.

it's very very easy to be so wishy washy and condescendingly smug when you're completely insulated from any consequences. (I don't think you realised what you're admitted with that "if possible")

If only there was some case in the last 70 or 80 years that showed tolerating and giving into Nazis wasn't a good idea.

Leave other people to be threatened and/or deal with the Nazis. How "civilised" of you.

You're not "principled" Prezzy, you're just privileged (at best. At worst you're a complete coward who wants other people to suffer as a price for getting to claim to be principaled).

I think everyone can see what you're getting at,

We're not talking some vaguely different opinion, or someone on a different political spectrum. We are talking evil.

But hey it doesn't affect you so you should (if possible) be allowed to ignore so can be free to spread, propagate and incite.

Out of interest what's your opinion of these two?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mu ... KKBN18N080

They could have just ignored it and walked on by - and according to you that's the desirable outcome?

Got what they deserved for forcefully standing up to hate? (It's not Nazi's obviously - but interesting)

Would you be prepared to tell their families they shouldn't have got involved?

Or the Muslim women that they should have left her to it?

Preezy wrote:Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

This gooseberry fool doesn't work when you're faced with literal Nazis who believe to their core that minorities should be purged from the earth. Here's another idea, ignored on the last page:

"Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I think everyone understands what you're talking about, we just vehemently disagree with it. Personally, I find your opinion a wee bit offensive as well as being the very definition of White Privilege: "Let's not cause a fuss, we can all deal with this like men (because it doesn't directly affect me or anyone I know)."

No. No you can't. Because these are literal Nazis.

EDIT: To briefly return to 1999, "Hexx ftw"

Tafdolphin wrote:Personally, I find it a wee bit offensive and the very definition of White Privilege: "Let's not cause a fuss, we can all deal with this like men (because it doesn't directly affect me or anyone I know)."

"Someone else can deal with it" is what he means. It's the "if possible" that's really ground my fears.

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: To briefly return to 1999, "Hexx ftw"

I don't think that's ever been the case but bless you, you're sweet.

Yep. Sorry (not sorry) Preezy but "I believe in the rule of law" is the wettest excuse for appeasement. Again, we fully understand you. We just hate what you're espousing.

Tafdolphin wrote:Yep. Sorry (not sorry) Preezy but "I believe in the rule of law" is the wettest excuse for appeasement. Again, we fully understand you. We just hate what you're espousing.

Although to be clear - you're in no danger of being punched.

Just very very severely scolded.

Preezy wrote:Read the last couple of pages with interest, I'm surprised that some of you still can't see what I (and Rightey) were getting at.

I believe in law and order. I wouldn't want to be walking down the street and suddenly get lamped by someone because I held a different political or religious or whatever belief from them. I think that should work both ways.

I can’t answer for the others, but I don’t think you and Rightey understand what we are getting at. These are not just people with a different opinion/politics/religion, we are talking about actual Nazis. People that believe lesser races should (at best) be forcibly deported out of the country and (at worst) exterminated. That’s not “I think the rich should be taxed less” bullshit, this is the ideology that led to the deaths of millions of people in extermination camps. And in the past they got their power by people sitting by and trying to argue rationally and not fighting until it was too late.

If I see someone spouting hateful poison, I'm not going to punch them, I'm going to argue with them in a reasoned manner (or ignore them altogether if possible), because that's what civilised people should do.

And if their movement starts growing? If they start winning elections? If they seize power in the country? If they start forming ghettos for Jews? If they start opening camps?

They may not be civilised, but you have to rise above it. Free speech of course shouldn't be consequence-free, if you say evil gooseberry fool then don't expect to be greeted with flowers (although that might actually work), but you should also be free to say what you think without getting physically assaulted by anyone, civilian or otherwise. So long as you're doing it peacefull/non-physically and not inciting violence you should be handled as such. If you start getting rowdy and aggressive/violent then it should be the authorities that dish out the punishment, not opposition protestors taking the law into their own hands.

Basically, treat others as you would llike to be treated.

That’s all lovely but things don’t work like that in reality. If you are going to march around in KKK outfits and waving Nazi flags then you shouldn’t be shocked if people get angry. Large numbers of angry people inevitably leads to violence. People start punching others over football matches, it is not surprising that they do the same when it comes to ACTUAL NAZIS.

All of this is sort of irrelevant though. As I showed on the other page, the vast vast vast majority of (US) domestic violence comes from the far right. Followed by the Islamic extremists. The left wing/anti-Nazi types are amazingly restrained when it comes to violence and all of this talk of “Lefties causing trouble!” is a deflection away from the actual Nazis, the violence from the KKK and the murder of minorities by the far right. I am not talking about you and Rightey personally there, but there seems to be a trend of ignoring that Nazis (strawberry floating Nazis!!) deliberately murdered an innocent person by running them over with a car in favour of a lone nutcase in Colorado non-fatally stabbing somebody for some reason.

You are right that non-violence is the best way and people should turn the other cheek. But this isn’t a normal political group, we are talking about Nazis. We know what happens when Nazis grow unchecked.

And some philsophical thoughts for the day:

Michael Nyqvist, famous villain philosopher from John Wick antiquity - "Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Nyqvist, Nietzsche and Gandhi are all great but they would be off to the gas chambers within a week of their policies being enacted.

Moggy wrote:

And some philsophical thoughts for the day:

Michael Nyqvist, famous villain philosopher from John Wick antiquity - "Let us not resort to our baser instincts and handle this like civilized men..."
Friedrich Nietzsche - "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Gandhi - "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Nyqvist, Nietzsche and Gandhi are all great but they would be off to the gas chambers within a week of their policies being enacted.

Moggy wrote:And if their movement starts growing? If they start winning elections? If they seize power in the country? If they start forming ghettos for Jews? If they start opening camps?

That's a rather interesting point I hadn't considered in the context of "I believe in law and order"

It really is. Trump proclaimed himself the "law and order" candidate. He didn't say whose.

I do see what the rest of you are getting at, it just doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every little point. That's the great thing with discussion, you can have back and forth and digest what each side (I don't actually think there are 2 sides here, we're all against Nazis, but whatever) says and then having done that either stick with your views or alter them after consideration.

Some of you made some great points that I hadn't considered, some of you didn't and couldn't help but get personal, which is unfortunate and a bit unneccesary - we're just talking after all. I think Brer made a great post, for example.

Preezy wrote:Some of you made some great points that I hadn't considered, some of you didn't and couldn't help but get personal, which is unfortunate and a bit unneccesary - we're just talking after all. I think Brer made a great post, for example.

By singling out Brer as making a good post, are you not getting personal by insinuating that the rest of us did not and that we are unfortunate and unnecessary?

I’d punch you in the face for that if I knew where you lived.

Seriously Preezy, I get what you are saying about being non-violent and usually I would 100% agree with that. When it comes to actual Nazis though, I just can’t find it within myself to not cheer if I see one getting punched.

Moggy wrote:By singling out Brer as making a good post, are you not getting personal by insinuating that the rest of us did not and that we are unfortunate and unnecessary?

Do not fear. When I come to power, you will be on the protected scrolls.

Moggy wrote:I’d punch you in the face for that if I knew where you lived.

http://grcade.co.uk/t:the-grcade-worldwide-member-map?f=7

Moggy wrote:Seriously Preezy, I get what you are saying about being non-violent and usually I would 100% agree with that. When it comes to actual Nazis though, I just can’t find it within myself to not cheer if I see one getting punched.

Nah I'm the same really. I just think society in general shouldn't be setting precedents for when it's acceptable to use vigilante force. But yeah, with Nazis I guess that can be an exception to the rule.

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:By singling out Brer as making a good post, are you not getting personal by insinuating that the rest of us did not and that we are unfortunate and unnecessary?

Do not fear. When I come to power, you will be on the protected scrolls.

That's a good point actually. Your pacifist views are in direct contradiction to your Murder Pit™! You strawberry floating hypocrite.

Moggy wrote:That's a good point actually. Your pacifist views are in direct contradiction to your Murder Pit™! You strawberry floating hypocrite.

There are hypocrites on many sides, many sides.