Politics Violence against Nazis, acceptable?

[Richard Pryor]

Said it in a bit more graphic detail than that let's be honest. I mean if someone said my kid would turn out gay I wouldn't care, but in that sort of graphic detail when they're 3 months old, I can see why that would make you see red.

OMG I'm a Nazi sympathiser!

I feel like driving six hours is unhinged though if that part is accurate. How do you stay violently mad for a whole ass cross country trip?

 

[the_interloper]

I feel like driving six hours is unhinged though if that part is accurate. How do you stay violently mad for a whole ass cross country trip?

Absolutely, I think they're both ****wits to be honest. I feel like more on here might sympathise with the bloke a bit if he wasn't a Nazi, but he's a Nazi so yeah.

Even if he wasn't though a 6hr drive is slightly over the top maybe, if I was in that situation I'm pretty sure I'd call the cops, I have no idea what I'd really do.

 

[demondavey]

Firstly, he wasn’t saying the baby is going to be having sex with black people when it’s a baby. He said when it grows up. I have children. When they grow up they might be gay, they might have sex with people of the opposite sex, they might have sex with black or white people. It will happen. Its life.

Secondly, driving 6 hours to assault someone because they made a comment about what ‘might’ happen is rather extreme and embarrassing. If someone said that about my child then I’d probably not think it’s particularly tasteful but I wouldn’t drive that far to hurt them. What he is saying is probably factual one day, but I don’t think it’s overly comical per se to allude to it. I don’t think it’s offensive, just a bit in bad taste.

Thirdly, as a self recognised Nazi he has a few more problems. The whole concept of nazism is a lot worse than saying ‘your child will grow up one day and have sex with black people’. I am not even going to get into the ethical hypocrisy this person espouses.

 

[demondavey]

Absolutely, I think they're both ****wits to be honest. I feel like more on here might sympathise with the bloke a bit if he wasn't a Nazi, but he's a Nazi so yeah.

Even if he wasn't though a 6hr drive is slightly over the top maybe, if I was in that situation I'm pretty sure I'd call the cops, I have no idea what I'd really do.

But the moron brigade will say ‘what’s being a Nazi got to do with it?’

 

[demondavey]

Back on the title of the thread, it’s acceptable. If you identify as a Nazi and even do anything to act out behaviours espousing nazism then you’re a social liability that needs to be locked away for life or strung up from a long beam of wood.

 

[CM86]

Firstly, he wasn’t saying the baby is going to be having sex with black people when it’s a baby. He said when it grows up. I have children. When they grow up they might be gay, they might have sex with people of the opposite sex, they might have sex with black or white people. It will happen. Its life.

Secondly, driving 6 hours to assault someone because they made a comment about what ‘might’ happen is rather extreme and embarrassing. If someone said that about my child then I’d probably not think it’s particularly tasteful but I wouldn’t drive that far to hurt them. What he is saying is probably factual one day, but I don’t think it’s overly comical per se to allude to it. I don’t think it’s offensive, just a bit in bad taste.

Thirdly, as a self recognised Nazi he has a few more problems. The whole concept of nazism is a lot worse than saying ‘your child will grow up one day and have sex with black people’. I am not even going to get into the ethical hypocrisy this person espouses.

I think the instinct to defend is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in the same way progressives has an instinct to excuse it.

It's a team sport, and has increasingly become a way people interact on a daily basis when hearing new information.
The deliberate undermining of faith in society, government and media (as well as the increasing exposure of corruption), the grifter movement becoming an industry, and AI... means that no one really knows who or what to trust.
All they can trust is their own beliefs/experiences, so they begin to only accept the information that supports them.




Progressives are hypocrites. We know this because we're constantly told that they are. "So much for the tolerant left", "Did you just assume my gender?" etc. So this instinctively because kind of a schadenfreude thing, to watch progressives squirm.
And the narrative is that it has nothing to do with Nazism, it's about the poor baby being attacked!
There was no harm, there was no damage, and the insult was only made (and effective) because he is a nazi.
But because of the whole progressives/LGBTQ+ community being a danger to children, it's really easy to pretend that this isn't soft compared to most of what is posted on twitter everyday.

 

[evolved2]

Back on the title of the thread, it’s acceptable. If you identify as a Nazi and even do anything to act out behaviours espousing nazism then you’re a social liability that needs to be locked away for life or strung up from a long beam of wood.

There are very few reasons that warrant violence - I find it strange that so many posters here think it's acceptable to hit someone on the basis of them even identifying as a nazi.

Violence is violence to me - anyone who hits someone without legal justification deserves punishment fitting of the crime. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who lacked the very minimal level of self control required to not hit a nazi.

This thread is insane. I just don't get it at all.

 

[Gough]

There are very few reasons that warrant violence - I find it strange that so many posters here think it's acceptable to hit someone on the basis of them even identifying as a nazi.

Violence is violence to me - anyone who hits someone without legal justification deserves punishment fitting of the crime. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who lacked the very minimal level of self control required to not hit a nazi.

This thread is insane. I just don't get it at all.

Eightieth anniversary of the D Day landings and you can't understand why Nazis that pop their heads above the parapet deserve no sympathy.

 

[evolved2]

Eightieth anniversary of the D Day landings and you can't understand why Nazis that pop their heads above the parapet deserve no sympathy.

You may have misinterpreted my words - I have zero sympathy towards Nazis. Likewise, I have no sympathy towards violent people.

I'd hope the legal system has sufficient measures to take care of Nazis and violent people because I don't want to be around either type of person.

 

[CM86]

There are very few reasons that warrant violence - I find it strange that so many posters here think it's acceptable to hit someone on the basis of them even identifying as a nazi.

Violence is violence to me - anyone who hits someone without legal justification deserves punishment fitting of the crime. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who lacked the very minimal level of self control required to not hit a nazi.

This thread is insane. I just don't get it at all.

What IS something that could bring you to violence, or to support violence?

 

[the_interloper]

Just on a related point, a lot of these Nazi types appear to be juiceheads and train boxing or other martial arts, so you may want to think twice about just going up to one and having a swing.

 

[evolved2]

What IS something that could bring you to violence, or to support violence?

Violence is acceptable to me as a proportionate defensive measure, which is largely reflected in our legal system.

There are some grey areas such as international conflicts and the like - that's a discussion for another thread.

If my wife or children were subjected to verbal racism by Nazis, I don't see violence as an appropriate response. If offense is taken with lesser provocation, it's unfathomable to me that any mature minded adult would even consider violence as a legitimate solution.

 

[CM86]

Violence is acceptable to me as a proportionate defensive measure, which is largely reflected in our legal system.

There are some grey areas such as international conflicts and the like - that's a discussion for another thread.

If my wife or children were subjected to verbal racism by Nazis, I don't see violence as an appropriate response. If offense is taken with lesser provocation, it's unfathomable to me that any mature minded adult would even consider violence as a legitimate solution.

But what IS something that could bring you to violence, or for you to support violence?


Are you saying that there is nothing that could ever bring you to violence, even just in concept?
You would only use force as a last resort in proportionate defense to protect yourself until you can remove yourself to a safe location?

 

[CM86]

Yet you ban people and are often triggered by words you don't like

Pot meet kettle

Just on a related point, a lot of these Nazi types appear to be juiceheads and train boxing or other martial arts, so you may want to think twice about just going up to one and having a swing.

 

[Chief]

Yet you ban people and are often triggered by words you don't like

Pot meet kettle

If you were honest and referred to my whole argument you can see that I am comparing the comedian's words to the Nazi's premeditated, aggravated violence.

If you were honest you would also acknowledge that I didn't say anything about whether people are right or wrong if they decided not to buy tickets to the comedian's shows because of what he said.

But you are not honest.

You are just throwing in a straw man. Or is it a false dichotomy?

Try again?

 

[evolved2]

But what IS something that could bring you to violence, or for you to support violence?


Are you saying that there is nothing that could ever bring you to violence, even just in concept?
You would only use force as a last resort in proportionate defense to protect yourself until you can remove yourself to a safe location?

Pretty much. I only support violence as an act of self defence or protection of others - and even then, it should be proportional to the threat.

I thought that was normal. No?

 

[Chief]

I only support violence as an act of self defence or protection of others

It sounds simple but do you support it in defence against longer term violence? For example women defending themselves from DV at a point when the abuser is not currently attacking them physically, though they have over a period of time, and have shown no sign of stopping in the future?

 

[CM86]

Pretty much. I only support violence as an act of self defence or protection of others - and even then, it should be proportional to the threat.

I thought that was normal. No?

Pretty much?
So there IS something that could bring you to violence, or for you to support violence?

Or absolute, as in there is nothing that could bring you to either?


What's your honest opinion on a scenario where activists are holding up traffic to protest Woodside, and a man approaches them, rips the signs, flags, banners out of their hands, and pushes them off the road.
Can you easily find a reason that lets you support and justify that 'violence'? Or are you against that man's actions absolutely?

 

[Gough]

Pretty much. I only support violence as an act of self defence or protection of others - and even then, it should be proportional to the threat.

I thought that was normal. No?

Unless there's a Nazi that doesn't want to see the destruction of all Jews, gays, the intellectually handicapped, gypsies, Slavs, the list goes on, then zero tolerance is self defence.

 

[Seeds]

Pretty much?
So there IS something that could bring you to violence, or for you to support violence?

Or absolute, as in there is nothing that could bring you to either?


What's your honest opinion on a scenario where activists are holding up traffic to protest Woodside, and a man approaches them, rips the signs, flags, banners out of their hands, and pushes them off the road.
Can you easily find a reason that lets you support and justify that 'violence'? Or are you against that man's actions absolutely?

Given his post he would clearly be against it. Is that not self evident?

The protesters would have to be a safety threat to others as a start.

 

[Chief]

Given his post he would clearly be against it. Is that not self evident?

If he's consistent. The question is testing that consistency.

 

[Seeds]

There are very few reasons that warrant violence - I find it strange that so many posters here think it's acceptable to hit someone on the basis of them even identifying as a nazi.

Violence is violence to me - anyone who hits someone without legal justification deserves punishment fitting of the crime. I wouldn't be friends with anyone who lacked the very minimal level of self control required to not hit a nazi.

This thread is insane. I just don't get it at all.

The problem with this argument is doesnt someone automatically become a safety threat to others if they identify as a Nazi?

How can someone believe in Nazi ideology and not be a safety threat to innocent others?

 

[Seeds]

If he's consistent. The question is testing that consistency.

See my next post

 

[evolved2]

Pretty much?
So there IS something that could bring you to violence, or for you to support violence?

Or absolute, as in there is nothing that could bring you to either?

Nothing that comes to mind. I won't say absolutely because I haven't thought it through completely - there may be something I'm not yet aware of.

What's your honest opinion on a scenario where activists are holding up traffic to protest Woodside, and a man approaches them, rips the signs, flags, banners out of their hands, and pushes them off the road.
Can you easily find a reason that lets you support and justify that 'violence'? Or are you against that man's actions absolutely?

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't support behaviour of the man who's pushing protestors and I wouldn't support unnecessary violence against him.

What are the legal options? Is a citizens arrest an option or waiting for the police? If not, the protestors are best off walking away. Violence should be last resort.

 

[CM86]

Nothing that comes to mind. I won't say absolutely because I haven't thought it through completely - there may be something I'm not yet aware of.

Yes, that's why I keep asking you.

Because if we can find a baseline, we could start to find a position of understanding.

Because if you acknowledge that there IS something that COULD bring you to violence, or COULD bring you to support violence, then you'd have to acknowledge that it is reasonable that some people support violence against nazis.