Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Chen » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:41 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The morality of antifa violence.


So aside from a snide Normandy vs Dresden response, I ask again what is the limit of the violence that people here are deeming morally acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, how are you drawing that line?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:45 pm UTC

Vimes is definitely LG; LG doesn't mean blindly obeying stupid rules, but always doing the right thing and always honestly. He's not stupid good, which people conflate with LG. Carrot is also LG, but with a different mindset. Vetinari is only masquerading as LE; while he openly calls himself a tyrant he's doing so in the most gods awful city in history and he's improving it. It's unclear if this is because having a poor dysfunctional city is unprofitable or he actually cares about public welfare, ultimately everything he has done has made Ankh Morpork a better city to live in.

The contradiction of LE comes from the fact that many LE people will convince themselves they are good, because they followed the rules, even if the rules have been corrupted by lobbyists and so on. This is how Trump is able to call himself a good businessman; he obeyed the laws when he fucked over his business partners and contractors through so many things including bankruptcy. But in real life, your shady lawyer is going to forge documents and break all sorts of rules as long as they are not caught.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:03 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I ask again what is the limit of the violence that people here are deeming morally acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, how are you drawing that line?
One possible place to draw it is at the minimum level needed to get the Nazi to stop.

Which is a far more restrained and nonviolent place to draw a line than the police have in practice.

CorruptUser wrote:The contradiction of LE comes from the fact that many LE people will convince themselves blah blah blah
People you think are in one moral category convincing themselves they're in another doesn't indicate any inherent contradiction in either category, though. It just means people are good at lying to themselves.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25656
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:13 pm UTC

I also remind you of my first point. Applying D&D alignments to well rounded characters or real people is dumb. Because the D&D alignment chart is both dumb and always used incorrectly.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

cphite
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:29 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The morality of antifa violence.


So aside from a snide Normandy vs Dresden response, I ask again what is the limit of the violence that people here are deeming morally acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, how are you drawing that line?


For me, an imminent threat of bodily harm justifies a violent response. The limit is however much violence it takes to negate the threat.

Without that imminent threat, violence is merely adding fuel to a fire.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby slinches » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:29 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The morality of antifa violence.


So aside from a snide Normandy vs Dresden response, I ask again what is the limit of the violence that people here are deeming morally acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, how are you drawing that line?

My opinion is that a direct and imminent threat against an individual is the threshold for violence in the case of civilian on civilian political/personal conflict. The appropriate amount of violence is the minimum it takes to prevent that threat from being realized (or in the case of the police, to prevent the threat and detain the individuals responsible), up to and including lethal force.

The way I'm drawing the line is based on a hierarchy of rights. Freedom from physical violation is number one. Freedom of movement and assembly is second. The right to freely express ideas is third and all others are below. This means everyone has the right to speak their mind as long as they don't impede the movement/assembly of others or threaten them with immediate physical harm. And since rights are defined as absolute, there's no justifiable way to limit speech based on its content short of it violating the first two rights.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7299
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Zamfir » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:45 pm UTC

One possible place to draw it is at the minimum level needed to get the Nazi to stop.

This is unclear to me . To stop doing what?

morriswalters
Posts: 6898
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The morality of antifa violence.
Liar. It's about silencing dissent. You're forcing a litmus test for my speech, speak the way I like or don't post. There isn't anything I can do about it. And I'm not even a Nazi. I'm about to simplify things for you and Doogly.
SecondTalon wrote:Things like that.
You talk too much. I don't suffer fools close to me. Neither Nazi's or people like you. Did you think that Nazi's just appeared out of thin air? Unlike you or gmalivuk I have things to lose, and know that I can be hurt. I wouldn't let one get close to me or mine.

I don't need to discuss the morality of the antifac. If I judge a thing as moral, I act. Unlike gmalivuk I don't need to justify anything to anyone. I will accept the consequences, whatever they are. So I'm not restraining antifac in any fashion. They've made their choices. They seem to believe that what they do is moral. They have to follow the dictates of their conscience. Gmalivuk and you are talking to make yourselves feel better or something.

Tell me, after you ban me are you going to use me as an example?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:56 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
One possible place to draw it is at the minimum level needed to get the Nazi to stop.
This is unclear to me . To stop doing what?

To stop doing the thing you want them to stop.

I'm not saying this is a universal moral imperative or even the one I would personally adhere to. The question was asked in the context of, "Why just punch them and not murder them?" That question can be answered with, "If punching them makes them stop whatever they're doing, then murder is excessive."

(In practice, the random acts of antifascist violence usually seem to have the goal of getting the person to stop loudly spouting fascist propaganda. The more organized acts generally have the goal of getting the people to stop actively being violent or threatening violence, as in Charlottesville for example.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:00 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The morality of antifa violence.
Liar. It's about silencing dissent. You're forcing a litmus test for my speech, speak the way I like or don't post.
Asking you to stick at least vaguely to relevant comments about the topic is not "silencing dissent". And I'm not saying "speak the way I like or don't post", I'm saying "If all you're going to do is whine about how much you don't like this thread then don't post".

I don't need to discuss the morality of the antifac.
Then why do you keep posting in this thread about the morality of Antifa?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

iamspen
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby iamspen » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:40 pm UTC

If we take this discussion back to its roots and simplify it a bit from there, will that help? Because I feel like if a Nazi's face has an impactful encounter with a fist, the person at fault for the punch is, in almost all cases, the Nazi simply for being a Nazi, regardless of the morality of such a punch.

morriswalters
Posts: 6898
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Asking you to stick at least vaguely to relevant comments about the topic is not "silencing dissent". And I'm not saying "speak the way I like or don't post", I'm saying "If all you're going to do is whine about how much you don't like this thread then don't post".

Let's find out.

From a purely moral perspective, if they perceive fascists as existential risks, what is justifiable?

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SDK » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:09 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:If we take this discussion back to its roots and simplify it a bit from there, will that help? Because I feel like if a Nazi's face has an impactful encounter with a fist, the person at fault for the punch is, in almost all cases, the Nazi simply for being a Nazi, regardless of the morality of such a punch.

And this seems so backwards to me that I actually find it scary how many people on this forum hold to this belief.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:12 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Asking you to stick at least vaguely to relevant comments about the topic is not "silencing dissent". And I'm not saying "speak the way I like or don't post", I'm saying "If all you're going to do is whine about how much you don't like this thread then don't post".

Let's find out.

From a purely moral perspective, if they perceive fascists as existential risks, what is justifiable?

Enforcing laws that are being ignored because the government has been compromised. Or forcing laws into being (to cow the Nazi threat with State sanctioned violence). Or we could institute widespread discrimination against Nazis, where they have excessive encounters with police, disproportionate sentencing, less employment offers, and worse housing.

Alternately, we could look the other way as crimes against bad people happen. How about those? It seems to work well for White people against minorities.

It's not like we don't know how to put minority groups in their place, we just choose not to.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby slinches » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:47 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
iamspen wrote:If we take this discussion back to its roots and simplify it a bit from there, will that help? Because I feel like if a Nazi's face has an impactful encounter with a fist, the person at fault for the punch is, in almost all cases, the Nazi simply for being a Nazi, regardless of the morality of such a punch.

And this seems so backwards to me that I actually find it scary how many people on this forum hold to this belief.

Agreed.

I mean, I may not agree with you on some things like hate speech laws, but at least I can understand and relate to your viewpoint. We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree. I don't even know where to begin with iamspen's statement.


sardia wrote:It's not like we don't know how to put minority groups in their place, we just choose not to.

How about we all do our best to not do that to anyone?

iamspen
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby iamspen » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:33 am UTC

slinches wrote:We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree. I don't even know where to begin with iamspen's statement.


You'll have a reasonable discussion with a Nazi to find mutual understanding and respect? Yeah, you get right on that. Meanwhile, I'll stick to my belief that if you proclaim yourself a supporter of wanton genocide and the extermination of over half the world's population, the consequences of your choices are yours to bear, regardless of whether or not those consequences involve getting punched.

Of course, we could always try appeasing the Nazis and treating them with respect and dignity they don't deserve, because that's worked so well in the past.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Vahir » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:49 am UTC

iamspen wrote:
slinches wrote:We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree. I don't even know where to begin with iamspen's statement.


You'll have a reasonable discussion with a Nazi to find mutual understanding and respect? Yeah, you get right on that. Meanwhile, I'll stick to my belief that if you proclaim yourself a supporter of wanton genocide and the extermination of over half the world's population, the consequences of your choices are yours to bear, regardless of whether or not those consequences involve getting punched.

Of course, we could always try appeasing the Nazis and treating them with respect and dignity they don't deserve, because that's worked so well in the past.


The problem is that you're defining a certain group of people as deserving of attack. Where do you draw the line? I'm not comfortable with the idea of someone dictating which ideologies you can hold without being assaulted, which is in itself a fascist way of doing things.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:50 am UTC

slinches wrote:
SDK wrote:And this seems so backwards to me that I actually find it scary how many people on this forum hold to this belief.

Agreed.

Me too.

I mean, I'm an anarcho-socialist myself, Nazis are basically the complete opposite of everything I believe in, I've suffered (minor) violence at the hands of their ilk myself (at least if the kids with shaved heads calling me a "race traitor" and "white n****r" while throwing rocks at me can be assumed to be more or less Nazis), I'm certainly not crying for the sake of any punched Nazis, I'm not an anarcho-pacifist and I believe strongly in the right to self-defense (and the defense of others), to the degree that I believe that in an ideal world there would be no distinction between police and ordinary citizens besides that police are paid to do what any ordinary citizen would be allowed to do, so I'm not saying just defer completely to the police, or just obey the law because it's the law.

I'm just saying that the laws against assaulting people solely for their beliefs or speech or association or identity are good laws, that people should obey not because they are laws but because the moral principles they encapsulate are good ones, moral principles that people should follow for moral and not merely legal reasons, and it disturbs me to see so many people nominally on "my side" saying with a straight face that it's a wonderful thing for people to be violating them. Not just "meh they're only Nazis getting punched so I'm looking the other way", which I would get, but actively encouraging people to go do more of it? Not actively in defense of self or others, not in any way that's going to do any practical good, all of which I could get behind depending on the specifics, but just because they're Nazis so they deserve it just for being Nazis and they should be hurt until they stop being Nazis?

That just looks like an unreasoned angry lashing-out. And I totally get why people would be angry about Nazis, the anger is justified. But are we having a reasoned discussion here about the right course of action, or are we venting about how much Nazis suck and how cathartic it would be to punch them? We have to keep those things separate.

I wanted to and would have been able to severely injure the skinhead fucks throwing rocks at me. I'm a big guy trained in martial arts and they were skinny little shits I could've mangled. But I'm pissed at a lot of people who deserve it a lot of the time, people I could seriously hurt if I let myself, and I have to be constantly mindful that violence I would like to take out on them would not be right to take out on them, not because they're in any way good people, but for the sake of the principle, never mind the practical consequences. So I gave them ample warning and then called the cops. And you know what, the cops did jack shit about it, even after they came out and caught the punks. So yeah, I know cops are useless sometimes. Still glad I didn't break anyone's faces over it in retrospect.

Had I felt like I was really in danger for my life though? Fuckers would be dead and I'd have no remorse. That would be justified. Hell, smacking them around some just for what they actually did would have been morally justified, it just wasn't the pragmatically best move to make. Punching them just for being Nazis though? I mean, fuck Nazis, but fuck that even more.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:59 am UTC

iamspen wrote:Meanwhile, I'll stick to my belief that if you proclaim yourself a supporter of wanton genocide and the extermination of over half the world's population, the consequences of your choices are yours to bear, regardless of whether or not those consequences involve getting punched.

Of course, we could always try appeasing the Nazis and treating them with respect and dignity they don't deserve, because that's worked so well in the past.


What if you proclaim yourself a supporter of wanton genocide but only the extermination of most of a continent's population? Because a lot of people support the American government despite the fact that we weren't the first ones on this land.

Didn't the Nazis come to power in Germany precisely because the two political sides weren't treating each other with respect and dignity? I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that there was an increasingly polarized political landscape in which the government swung between hard-left and hard-right a few times until a swing happened that gave the Nazis enough power to take over everything.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:09 am UTC

slinches wrote:
sardia wrote:It's not like we don't know how to put minority groups in their place, we just choose not to.

How about we all do our best to not do that to anyone?

Counteroffer, we do it to minorities less, and nazis more. Overall, the same amount of putting groups in their place happens, but to more deserving people. I mean what the police, real estate, and institutions do to minorities, is awful, but socially acceptable and legal. Might as well redirect it to better use.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:59 am UTC

Vahir wrote:The problem is that you're defining a certain group of people as deserving of attack.
Some groups of people are deserving of attack, though. Everyone agrees with that premise who isn't a complete pacifist, and if you were a complete pacifist that's probably what you would have said instead.

Where do you draw the line? I'm not comfortable with the idea of someone dictating which ideologies you can hold without being assaulted, which is in itself a fascist way of doing things.
It's not about which ideologies you can hold, it's about which types things you can loudly and publicly promote and recruit for. My answer is: not genocide.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

moiraemachy
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby moiraemachy » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:32 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Not just "meh they're only Nazis getting punched so I'm looking the other way", which I would get, but actively encouraging people to go do more of it? Not actively in defense of self or others, not in any way that's going to do any practical good, all of which I could get behind depending on the specifics, but just because they're Nazis so they deserve it just for being Nazis and they should be hurt until they stop being Nazis?

That just looks like an unreasoned angry lashing-out.

The discussion here isn't "is it moral to inflict suffering on bad people for no gain?". In a world where nazis have absolutely no perspective of getting any power or swaying minds, it makes sense to leave them alone. Alternatively, if they are close to seizing power and enacting genocide (even if they haven't killed anyone yet), it makes sense to employ every violent tactic that might be effective against them. The disagreement is about where our reality fits between these extremes.

In my experience, people who are for punching nazis have a "tooth and nail" view of culture: they believe that without the struggles of human-rights activists, there would be hardly any social progress, and alternatively, they believe groups that openly advocate for racism are very capable of dragging any society to a dark place even without resorting to violence (until it's way to late for your non-escalating-counter-violence to be effective). On the other hand, these against punching nazis believe that social progress tends to come naturally when a society is nominally built around the values of nonviolence, rule of law and equality, even though mistakes will happen along the way. To them, nazi ideas will either die out or forever remain a irrelevant minority that comes back from time to time, and the idea of escalating conflicts violently for the greater good is a much more fundamental threat to social progress in the long run.

Assuming this "tooth and nail" view of culture is correct, and that punching nazis is an effective way of stomping out their growth, would you agree punching nazis is moral?


CorruptUser wrote:
doogly wrote:Lawful Good is an oxymoron alignment. Eventually you have to figure yourself out.

No, lawful evil is the one with contradiction.

These posts are dripping with chaotic and lawful :lol: .
Last edited by moiraemachy on Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:43 am UTC

But it's easier to punch Nazis when there are fewer of them. You stop the problem befire it gets to the point of them being on verge of taking control.

morriswalters
Posts: 6898
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:16 am UTC

moiraemachy wrote:Assuming this "tooth and nail" view of culture is correct, and that punching nazis is an effective way of stomping out their growth, would you agree punching nazis is moral?
You can test that theory any time you want. Ball your fist up and do it.

idonno
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby idonno » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:33 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:What if you proclaim yourself a supporter of wanton genocide but only the extermination of most of a continent's population? Because a lot of people support the American government despite the fact that we weren't the first ones on this land.
How many people support the American government's historical genocides? Many (most?) people don't even support the current American government as more than a thing that should exist. It isn't some blind following that whatever the government does is what we support.


CorruptUser wrote:But it's easier to punch Nazis when there are fewer of them. You stop the problem befire it gets to the point of them being on verge of taking control.
Does punching Nazis actually result in fewer Nazis?

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:39 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But it's easier to punch Nazis when there are fewer of them. You stop the problem befire it gets to the point of them being on verge of taking control.


Um, ask the Romans how violence against Christians nipped the problem of Christianity in the bud. Kinda had the opposite effect, didn't it?

Are we sure we want to turn Nazis into sympathetic martyrs and give them TONS of "we're the real victims here" publicity and validate their narrative that they really do need to defend themselves...just so we can smirk with the petty schadenfreude of something bad happening to someone we don't like?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:44 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Are we sure we want to turn Nazis into sympathetic martyrs
Is that what's happening?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:50 am UTC

Better to let everyone think that Nazis are paranoid kooks than to prove that people really are physically attacking them when they're just walking up to a lectern to give a speech. When they're throwing punches themselves, that's another matter.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:54 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Better to let everyone think that Nazis are paranoid kooks
Is that what everyone thinks? Is that what everyone will continue to think if we let Nazis continue to publicly promote genocide?

"Better to let the Nazis think people aren't really that opposed to them than make them think twice before appearing in public."

"Better to show vulnerable populations that we let Nazis spew hateful propaganda than show in no uncertain terms that promoting genocide will not be tolerated."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:10 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Better to let everyone think that Nazis are paranoid kooks than to prove that people really are physically attacking them when they're just walking up to a lectern to give a speech. When they're throwing punches themselves, that's another matter.

Interesting trick you can do to take advantage of people like you. Pretend/lie about how it's all about free speech. Meanwhile, you attack people, but nobody in the media reports on it. Now you have the best of both worlds, where you get to terrorize others, but still have the victim card.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3894
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:21 am UTC

moiraemachy wrote:if they are close to seizing power and enacting genocide (even if they haven't killed anyone yet), it makes sense to employ every violent tactic that might be effective against them. The disagreement is about where our reality fits between these extremes.

In my experience, people who are for punching nazis have a "tooth and nail" view of culture: they believe that without the struggles of human-rights activists, there would be hardly any social progress, and alternatively, they believe groups that openly advocate for racism are very capable of dragging any society to a dark place even without resorting to violence (until it's way to late for your non-escalating-counter-violence to be effective).

[...]

Assuming this "tooth and nail" view of culture is correct, and that punching nazis is an effective way of stomping out their growth, would you agree punching nazis is moral?

I think that "tooth and nail" view is incoherent as you've stated it, so it cannot be true, and I cannot answer what I would think if it were.

Or rather, to put in more practical terms: if racist and genocidal groups are already poised to drag society into dark places "without resorting to violence (until...)", then you're already well past the point that punching them in the streets will do any good. I presume you mean by that quoted bit that they or those sympathetic to them are already in political power and could start enacting terrible violence any moment now. Let's imagine that they are.

Let's imagine that Trump and his cronies were as openly as possible supporting brazen Nazi ideology, or further still, imagine we're good Germans in antebellum Germany as the Nazis are rising to power but haven't actually seized it or started killing anybody with it yet. What good is punching Nazis in the street going to do there? If it's to that last point, it sounds like a violent political revolution could be warranted, but for that to succeed it's going to take the kind of broad popular support that would have kept things from getting to that point in the first place, which you therefore presumably don't have, as if you did you wouldn't be in that situation.

By that point, you're basically powerless already, and while I'd still cheer anyone fighting to save people from active violence committed by the powerful in such a situation, just randomly punching people in the street just because they're wearing a swastika or whatever is (completely understandable but) ineffectual angry venting, not the pragmatic application of violence it's being framed as in this discussion.*

And we're not at that point yet, and I've yet to see how assaulting people who are not themselves trying to assault others does anything to stop us from getting to that point, and I can see several lines of argument (some of them already under discussion in this thread) as to how it could push us closer to that point.

*(And, again, I get the impetus to ineffectual angry venting. I get why someone would want to punch a Nazi and I'm not especially upset about the fact that they did; no tears for the poor Nazi from me. I'm more bothered by people trying to frame it as more than just "I hate Nazis so I punched one", but rather some kind of practically calculated, morally justified application of violence as a mere means to an end, not just because you wanted to hurt a bad guy).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:26 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Is that what everyone thinks? Is that what everyone will continue to think if we let Nazis continue to publicly promote genocide?

"Better to let the Nazis think people aren't really that opposed to them than make them think twice before appearing in public."

"Better to show vulnerable populations that we let Nazis spew hateful propaganda than show in no uncertain terms that promoting genocide will not be tolerated."
If the problem were really just Nazis, then this wouldn't be an issue. But the Nazis really aren't the problem. It's everyone adjacent to the Nazis that are the problem. You can't really 'punch' Nazis without some of those 'punches' hitting... well, let's call them 'fashionable fascists'. People who would never call themselves Nazis -- people who outwardly reject Nazi ideology and Nazi iconography -- but people who also say things like, "Look, I'm not saying we need to detain all the Muslims, but..."

Those people scare the shit out of me. Because they're much harder to pick out of a crowd, and -- if our previous Presidential election has demonstrated anything -- much more numerous than some of us (see: me, at least) initially realized. And when your Nazi-aimed punches end up thwacking them instead, they can repackage their 'polite' brand of fascism ('now with 100% less Nazi!') in a bright shiny 'The Left Is Literally Trying To Kill Us' foil wrapping. And there's an alarming number of people in this country who will buy that product.

I mean, on one hand, I am not going to weep any tears because a Nazi/fascist/Alt-Right shitlord got face-punched. On the other hand, I do think it's very fair to be concerned about how that narrative can blow up in our faces. Punching Nazis at a Nazi rally? Hard to sell the Nazis as martyrs. Punching fascist-sympathizers at a rally that didn't include any clear Nazi/fascist/racist iconography? That one almost writes itself.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:02 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:But it's easier to punch Nazis when there are fewer of them. You stop the problem befire it gets to the point of them being on verge of taking control.


Um, ask the Romans how violence against Christians nipped the problem of Christianity in the bud. Kinda had the opposite effect, didn't it?

Are we sure we want to turn Nazis into sympathetic martyrs and give them TONS of "we're the real victims here" publicity and validate their narrative that they really do need to defend themselves...just so we can smirk with the petty schadenfreude of something bad happening to someone we don't like?


You do know that the persecution of Christians was GREATLY exxagerated by the church itself, right?

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SDK » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:19 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
slinches wrote:We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree. I don't even know where to begin with iamspen's statement.


You'll have a reasonable discussion with a Nazi to find mutual understanding and respect? Yeah, you get right on that.

Did iamspen just call me a Nazi? :shock:

(I hope you just didn't read that properly. You should probably make sure you understand what the other person is saying before accusing them of being a Nazi sympathizer since that is definitely not what slinches just said.)
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Chen » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:To stop doing the thing you want them to stop.

I'm not saying this is a universal moral imperative or even the one I would personally adhere to. The question was asked in the context of, "Why just punch them and not murder them?" That question can be answered with, "If punching them makes them stop whatever they're doing, then murder is excessive."

(In practice, the random acts of antifascist violence usually seem to have the goal of getting the person to stop loudly spouting fascist propaganda. The more organized acts generally have the goal of getting the people to stop actively being violent or threatening violence, as in Charlottesville for example.)


Ok fair answer, thank you. I do agree that you wouldn't want to use more force than is necessary to get them to stop what they are doing. But from a morality point of view is there a line where you would stop, even if they didn't stop what they were doing? Like say punching them doesn't get them to stop, after which you decide to hit them with a bat but it still doesn't stop them (after they recovered presumably). Do you continue escalating?

Clearly there's a difference in effectiveness between punching, hitting with a bat, and say shooting someone. I'm finding it hard to see how you draw the line without some arbitrary decision. Like "well him being a Nazi warrants me hitting him with a bat, but it definitely doesn't warrant me lightning him on fire". This may be because we don't normally think of degrees of violence as being acceptable in most cases. Usually when violence is justified its an all or nothing type of thing. Honestly the only example I can think of, off the top of my head, which isn't like that would be fighting in Hockey. I can throw down my gloves and punch the guy in the face and they'll let that go for a bit, but they're not going to let me club him to the ground with my stick.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:05 pm UTC

Chen wrote:we don't normally think of degrees of violence as being acceptable in most cases.
Of course we do, even if the law doesn't make as fine-grained decisions.

Shoving someone away from you and giving them a black eye may both be assault, but I'm sure you can think of situations where one is acceptable and the other isn't. Giving someone a black eye and putting them in a coma likewise. And even if the letter of the law doesn't technically make a distinction, I'm pretty sure there are pretty consistent differences in verdicts and sentences for each pair of assaults.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Chen » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Of course we do, even if the law doesn't make as fine-grained decisions.

Shoving someone away from you and giving them a black eye may both be assault, but I'm sure you can think of situations where one is acceptable and the other isn't. Giving someone a black eye and putting them in a coma likewise. And even if the letter of the law doesn't technically make a distinction, I'm pretty sure there are pretty consistent differences in verdicts and sentences for each pair of assaults.


Ok, in making it analagous to the law I was thinking more in terms of legal and illegal. But you're right in that there are different punishments associated with different levels of violence. How do you translate that to morality though? A qualifier of it being "a little moral" or "very immoral" is lacking in specificity, particularly because we're not looking at it like we would a legal framework. Hence there would need to be a cutoff at some point in the level of violence that would be deemed "morally acceptable" to use against, let's say, a group of white supremecists marching down the street.

morriswalters
Posts: 6898
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:20 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Did iamspen just call me a Nazi? :shock:
I don't think you were the target.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:28 pm UTC

Chen wrote:A qualifier of it being "a little moral" or "very immoral" is lacking in specificity
What kind of specificity are you expecting here? Do statements like "35% immoral" even make sense to you? Because they definitely don't to me.

If you can come up with some kind of precise and specific framework for levels of morality, I'm still not about to speak for everyone who is to some degree okay with violence against Nazis. I'd say it's unreasonable to expect me to define a strict cutoff even for just myself, unless you can first completely specify all the relevant contextual details.

Even if we just consider it in absolute terms of alive or dead, I doubt you or anyone else would be able to come up with and stick to some kind of rigorous mathematical relationship between X and Y in the statement, "It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to X people in order to save Y other people."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Chen wrote:we don't normally think of degrees of violence as being acceptable in most cases.
Of course we do, even if the law doesn't make as fine-grained decisions.

Shoving someone away from you and giving them a black eye may both be assault, but I'm sure you can think of situations where one is acceptable and the other isn't. Giving someone a black eye and putting them in a coma likewise. And even if the letter of the law doesn't technically make a distinction, I'm pretty sure there are pretty consistent differences in verdicts and sentences for each pair of assaults.


The letter of the law does make a distinction, though. "Aggravated assault" vs "assault" vs. "battery" vs. "Elevated aggravated assault" vs. attempted homicide", etc.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests