Politics Violence against Nazis, acceptable?

[Chief]

That's very intolerant of you.

I'll let you chase your own tail.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Can you make the same argument for pedophiles or Islamic terrorists, as you do for neo-Nazis.

When you can't, will you pause to consider if it's the movement you support, not the platitudes you're preaching?

Baffled old mate never got round to responding to this one

 

[bzparkes]

Baffled old mate never got round to responding to this one

2 reasons:

1. He's on ignore, because he's goes troppo and loses the plot frequently. Amusing in short bursts but way too tiring when it stinks up every thread.

2. It's a dumb AF comment, because pedophiles and terrorists actively break the law and harm/kill people. They wouldn't be labeled as such if they didn't take actions that lead to them being labeled as such, would they?

Having said that, if neither actively break any laws, how are you going to punish them? Use overreach and authoritarian tactics to punish people who haven't committed a crime? I thought people on this board were against fascism??

I'm curious as to how many people watch Hassan Piker on this board, for instance. This is a guy who has actively admitted he uses 'soft' propaganda to funnel people into the Islamist cause and actively promotes terrorist groups on his stream, yet he gets free reign on Twitch to do as he pleases.

If he was softly pushing Nazi propaganda, he wouldn't last a second.

Both instances should be de-platformed.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

2 reasons:

1. He's on ignore, because he's goes troppo and loses the plot frequently. Amusing in short bursts but way too tiring when it stinks up every thread.

2. It's a dumb AF comment, because pedophiles and terrorists actively break the law and harm/kill people. They wouldn't be labeled as such if they didn't take actions that lead to them being labeled as such, would they?

Having said that, if neither actively break any laws, how are you going to punish them? Use overreach and authoritarian tactics to punish people who haven't committed a crime? I thought people on this board were against fascism??

I'm curious as to how many people watch Hassan Piker on this board, for instance. This is a guy who has actively admitted he uses 'soft' propaganda to funnel people into the Islamist cause and actively promotes terrorist groups on his stream, yet he gets free reign on Twitch to do as he pleases.

If he was softly pushing Nazi propaganda, he wouldn't last a second.

Both instances should be de-platformed.

Tolerate pedos and listen to their POV, stick up for their right to be heard etc. I get it, you're very open minded.

 

[CM86]

Baffled old mate never got round to responding to this one

He can't respond to it. Because he can only talk about outcomes while defending what leads to those outcomes.

He's crippling dishonest.

 

[bzparkes]

Tolerate pedos and listen to their POV, stick up for their right to be heard etc. I get it, you're very open minded.

I get that reading comprehension isn't your strong point but you didn't have to make it so obvious.

If emotive arguments are all you've got, what are you even doing here?

 

[CM86]

I get that reading comprehension isn't your strong point but you didn't have to make it so obvious.

FMD people are hysterically stupid on this board...

He's against rape, why do you have an issue with that?
Why would you consider an anti-rape position to be 'hysterical'?

 

[Gralin]

2 reasons:

1. He's on ignore, because he's goes troppo and loses the plot frequently. Amusing in short bursts but way too tiring when it stinks up every thread.

2. It's a dumb AF comment, because pedophiles and terrorists actively break the law and harm/kill people. They wouldn't be labeled as such if they didn't take actions that lead to them being labeled as such, would they?

Having said that, if neither actively break any laws, how are you going to punish them? Use overreach and authoritarian tactics to punish people who haven't committed a crime? I thought people on this board were against fascism??

I'm curious as to how many people watch Hassan Piker on this board, for instance. This is a guy who has actively admitted he uses 'soft' propaganda to funnel people into the Islamist cause and actively promotes terrorist groups on his stream, yet he gets free reign on Twitch to do as he pleases.

If he was softly pushing Nazi propaganda, he wouldn't last a second.

Both instances should be de-platformed.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-sa/i-dont-care-what-the-law-says-nsn-figure-joel-davis-advocates-for-child-marriage/news-story/2479eca39a2ad84e001a9277c0950c15

 

[bzparkes]

View attachment 2225746

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-sa/i-dont-care-what-the-law-says-nsn-figure-joel-davis-advocates-for-child-marriage/news-story/2479eca39a2ad84e001a9277c0950c15

Horrible. I hope he's on a list and the police are watching him like a hawk for the moment he screws up.

 

[CM86]

Horrible. I hope he's on a list and the police are watching him like a hawk for the moment he screws up.

He hasn't 'screwed up' yet?
Gotta wait until he kills someone, or helps influence legislation that allows murder of 'unwashed'?

It's just when he gets caught after the fact??

You keep letting your 'power level' slip...

 

[Chief]

That's exactly what they did to groups they didn't like themselves, after all.

Why are you framing Nazis as "people we don't like"? As if the fault is in the non-Nazis for disliking the Nazis?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I get that reading comprehension isn't your strong point but you didn't have to make it so obvious.

If emotive arguments are all you've got, what are you even doing here?

To be clear here, you're not at all addressing the content of my very short post. Clumsy attempt at distraction, simping for teh nazis.

\

 

[Theseventhhamster]

View attachment 2225746

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-sa/i-dont-care-what-the-law-says-nsn-figure-joel-davis-advocates-for-child-marriage/news-story/2479eca39a2ad84e001a9277c0950c15

Libertarian/alt-right. Variations on levels of priority between racism and not paying tax but in the triangle of priorities, the wanting to **** children is a constant.

 

[bzparkes]

To be clear here, you're not at all addressing the content of my very short post. Clumsy attempt at distraction, simping for teh nazis.

\

Again, if you can't comprehend what I'm saying to begin with, because it's too difficult, please don't quote.

 

[bzparkes]

Why are you framing Nazis as "people we don't like"? As if the fault is in the non-Nazis for disliking the Nazis?

I'm not.

 

[Chief]

I'm not.

You literally are.

 

[bzparkes]

You literally are.

Too nuanced I guess.

My bad.

 

[Chief]

Too nuanced I guess.

My bad.

By all means, explain what you meant by it.

 

[bzparkes]

By all means, explain what you meant by it.

I've explained it about 5 times but people still don't seem to get it, so feel free to go back and reread through my posts.

But if you can't be bothered doing that:
1. I don't think preemptive violence against any group who hasn't broken the law is justified under any circumstances in a civilized society, regardless of who they are.

2. I agree with close monitoring of extreme groups, such as Nazis, and applying the full force of the law against them should they break any law, especially ones pertaining to hate crimes, however unjustly applying laws, harmful treatment, etc is unacceptable in a civilized society, this is why we have laws to begin with. All undesirables should be closely monitored but again, that can end up being a very slippery slope, depending on who the majority power is. There must be a way to safeguard against this being abused.

3. If we want to live in a civilized society, we can't remove human, constitutional or judicial rights from groups we don't like, simply because we disagree on ideological grounds if they haven't broken any laws. That's a can of worms that should never be opened in a civilized society.

4. If you are in the majority and think it's entirely fine to go ahead and ignore points 1-3 because you find a particular group abhorrent, don't be surprised if you then find yourself the victim if you end up in the minority, nor should you complain. If you think it's ok to remove the basic rights of another human, or inflict violence upon them for their opinions(note: not their acts, I'm talking about thoughts only) then you're no different than the people you pretend you're better than. You're also doing nothing more than emboldening them to double down on their position and spread their vitriol even further. As per point 3, they should be very closely guarded and met with the full force of the law should they break it but until that happens, you can't go out of your way to make up laws on the spot to persecute people if they haven't broken any existing ones.

This is how people from all walks of life should behave if they want to take part in a civilized society.

I don't think my position of not wanting to wilfully inflict violence and remove human rights from people with opposing ideological views who haven't broken any laws is particularly controversial, no matter how abhorrent those views are.

There's no such thing as thought police just yet, so make sure you stay well away from Elon's Neuralink.

 

[Gethelred]

I've explained it about 5 times but people still don't seem to get it, so feel free to go back and reread through my posts.

But if you can't be bothered doing that:
1. I don't think preemptive violence against any group who hasn't broken the law is justified under any circumstances in a civilized society, regardless of who they are.

You had a crack at me in another thread, desperately trying to label my posting as irrelevant when police unilaterally decided to preempt violence against anti-war protesters, leading to an escalation of the situation.

Police pre-empt violence with their own an awful lot, BZ. Is that okay?

2. I agree with close monitoring of extreme groups, such as Nazis, and applying the full force of the law against them should they break any law, especially ones pertaining to hate crimes, however unjustly applying laws, harmful treatment, etc is unacceptable in a civilized society, this is why we have laws to begin with. All undesirables should be closely monitored but again, that can end up being a very slippery slope, depending on who the majority power is. There must be a way to safeguard against this being abused.

... dude, do you have any idea how often the police/state wind up trying to get people who they think are dirty on legitimately whatever they can get?

If they want to get you, they will. Everyone is guilty of something.

3. If we want to live in a civilized society, we can't remove human, constitutional or judicial rights from groups we don't like, simply because we disagree on ideological grounds if they haven't broken any laws. That's a can of worms that should never be opened in a civilized society.

This is an absolute statement, and logically speaking absolute statements can be undermined by a single instance.

... which is why kranky al threw an example at you you've failed to address.

4. If you are in the majority and think it's entirely fine to go ahead and ignore points 1-3 because you find a particular group abhorrent, don't be surprised if you then find yourself the victim if you end up in the minority, nor should you complain. If you think it's ok to remove the basic rights of another human, or inflict violence upon them for their opinions(note: not their acts, I'm talking about thoughts only) then you're no different than the people you pretend you're better than. You're also doing nothing more than emboldening them to double down on their position and spread their vitriol even further. As per point 3, they should be very closely guarded and met with the full force of the law should they break it but until that happens, you can't go out of your way to make up laws on the spot to persecute people if they haven't broken any existing ones.

To this stance, I made the following post a while back:

Here's the thing, at least for me; it's what, in essence, I said to demondavey.

Someone who is a Nazi does not believe in freedom of speech, but they will campaign on it if it gets them support. Someone who is a Nazi does not believe in worker's rights, neoliberalism, communism, the market, but they will campaign on each of them if it gets them support. And when they get support, they suppress everyone else; not solely their hated other, although they are certainly suppressed harshest and/or soonest. Every single person then needs to be one of them; if they are not, the system of fascism is turned against them, brutally.

Because these people are willing to do absolutely whatever it takes to get them support, they can and will recruit from any movement, from any forum. They aren't prejudiced when it comes to what gets them power; power is the point. Once they have power the mask comes off, but only then. They will infiltrate movements, social groups and networks. It's why it's so insidious, and why you cannot allow one Nazi in. One becomes two, becomes three, because they're willing to be anything in the short term to win.

The point about a willingness to 'punch a Nazi' is a euphemism; it means that you're willing to withstand social disapproval, even consequences, to reject Nazism and fascism.

I certainly used to think the two wrongs don't make a right thing, but I think that's a rule that can, will and has been taken advantage of. I made this point a few days ago in another thread, but if you are determined to hold the moral high ground you are permanently giving your opponent control over your actions provided they are willing to define what it means to go low or be underhanded. "You go low, we go high" results in paralysis when your opponent takes the position, "You go high, we will win if we define what going low means."

If your opponent will do anything to win, you cannot treat them as though they are anything other than they are.

You need to be willing to punch a Nazi.

And it remains my thoughts on the subject.

This is how people from all walks of life should behave if they want to take part in a civilized society.

I don't think my position of not wanting to wilfully inflict violence and remove human rights from people with opposing ideological views who haven't broken any laws is particularly controversial, no matter how abhorrent those views are.

There's no such thing as thought police just yet, so make sure you stay well away from Elon's Neuralink.

... this feels like a weird form of tone policing to me.

You disagree strenuously with nazis, but disagree even more strenuously with how others express their disagreement.

 

[bzparkes]

You disagree strenuously with nazis, but disagree with how others express their disagreement.

Not going to waste my time with the irrelevant stuff you've posted before this but if you think it's appropriate for people to express disagreements in a violent manner, then I think we're done here.

 

[Gethelred]

Not going to waste my time with the irrelevant stuff

Lol.

'I don't want to talk about it' =/= 'irrelevant' any more than the last time you said it.

... you've posted before this but if you can't discern that I'm against people expressing disagreements in a violent matter then I think we're done here.

Cool.

Let me know when you're reinterested in participating in this thread again. Bye now.

 

[kranky al]

 

[evolved2]

Most of us disagree, you do you.


No.
And it's so easy to make you cede this point, by pushing you on a position that you know you cannot defend.

Pedophilia.
Pedophiles should have no rights to their thoughts or positions, because of the actions that they can lead to.
You agree with this, everyone does.
No one wants to even protect the concept of them having a right to thoughts and opinions, because of the real world harm that comes from their thoughts and opinions.

There's a reason people will defend the thoughts and positions of neo-Nazis. And it isn't some aspect of free speech, it's always because part of them supports the aspect of neo-Nazism.

How are you going to police thoughts?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...if you think it's appropriate for people to express disagreements in a violent manner, then I think we're done here.

Here's the thing though - the Racist Right don't want to disagree with other races, colours and creeds.

They want to ERASE them, either altogether or 'merely' from the nations that the Racist Right want to run.

Now I conceded before that you had a point, that there are most certainly those on the Far Right who haven't completely given in to Racist Hate and could yet be convinced to give up that evil ideology.

They are part of the nourishment that the Racist Right need to grow as a movement, and preventing their turn is an essential part in combatting the Racist Right as a whole.

But the haters themselves? Too far gone down that path. They themselves have disavowed any notion of a common humanity, and therefore have given up their own. Freely I might add, and of their own volition.

Why should those who seek to destroy human rights be granted any collective protections?