On Political Violence

[Admiral X]

I honestly don't care. The upshot is that just because someone is saying something you don't like, doesn't make it right for you to get physical with them. Also, if you believe so, why shouldn't others treat you the same way? What you're talking about is little different from forming a lynch mob, and requires much the same mentality. You advocate for an anarchic society that solves its differences with violence, and I advocate for a civil society that solves its differences by talking them out.

[Karha of Honor]

Well we should take the usual route of using the word frivolously until it loses all impact and meaning - See the usual scapegoat 'Literally'.

I think gay people would like to see you about thinking the same logic regarding a certain slur beginning with F. Or trans people regarding a certain slur beginning with T.

I do use that same logic and I have nether a conventional gender or sexuality - I just don't allow words to control me in that fashion. you wanna call me a fag or a bitch or whatever? You can do that free speech is a wonderful thing after all and I hear far far worse than that all the time.

Slurs don't hurt you, personally. That doesn't mean they stop being slurs.

Speaking as a bisexual, the word that is used to describe a block of wood hurts me, and scares me, because in many circumstances it is followed with a broken bottle.

Admiral X, you talk about Advocating Violence Against People With Different Political Views. This seems to be something you consider immoral.
Richard Spencer is advocating violence against people. Only he's not advocating violence against people with different viewpoints, he is advocating ethnic cleansing.

This is not somebody others are labeling as a Nazi. This is a self-identified Nazi.
The premise is not "it's okay to attack grammar nazis" or "it's okay to attack feminazis". This is "It's okay to attack actual, genuine, self-identified Nazis, who advocate for ethnic clensing and shout 'Hail Victory' and do the Hilter Salute."

The answer is no, laws apply to everyone or they ain't worth the paper they are written on.

[Admiral X]

Speaking as a bisexual, the word that is used to describe a block of wood hurts me, and scares me, because in many circumstances it is followed with a broken bottle.

Block of wood? Do you mean faggot? That's a bundle of sticks, and the word shouldn't scare you. Actually I'm somewhat curious how the word for a bundle of sticks got associated with homosexuality.

[TGLS]

Actually I'm somewhat curious how the word for a bundle of sticks got associated with homosexuality.

This sounds like a job for Etymology Man!

Faggot originally meant "bundle of sticks" and was derived from the Latin word "Fascis", from which Fascist was also derived. Faggot was later used as word to deride women, particularly old women, as a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", a job old widows had involving gathering firewood. It is possible the slur to male homosexuals came in the same way other slurs came in like "queen" or "sissy".

It is possible that the word has origins in the practice of fagging at British public schools (where students would act as servants to upperclassmen, and potentially perform sexual favours), but the term faggot was never used there.
Another possibility is that it relates to the Yiddish "faygele" (lit. little bird) and it is possible that the words may have reinforced each other.

There is no evidence that the modern used of faggot has anything to do with burning at the stake.

I'm going to need to scrub my keyboard predictions now.

[Admiral X]

Huh.

[Admiral X]

Oh, and just for amusement's sake.

youtu.be/2AhGYo9TExU

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

First, TGLS, thank you for the etymology lesson. =o I had been misinformed about that term's origins and appreciate learning more.

1. Admiral X, the reason I do not open myself to the same treatment is that I am not advocating genocide. I realize this may seem like a technicality, but please bear with me.

There are, generally agreed, limits to free speech, and to what the right of free speech protects you from. Banning a person from a forum for a forum rules is not a violation of free speech. Refuse to publish something somebody in your newspaper because you find it offensive is not a violation of free speech. Being criticized for the things you say is not a violation of free speech. With me so far?

One particular area where free speech does not keep you free from punishment or consequences is in the area of threats.

There are things that can get you in trouble, legally and morally, just by saying them to somebody's face. "Your money or your life" is one of them. "Nobody move or the little girl gets it" is another. "How about you mind your own business before I split your jaw open" is one more example.

Let's move a little further. This isn't just things you say face to face. Recently, a girl made a post on social media about how she wanted to "reenact Columbine", and was very distressed and shocked when a swat team was called on her and she suffered legal consequences for that. Any threat to the POTUS, saying you want/intend to kill him, is technically a federal offense. Sending death threats on anon to a blogger you really hate is, again, something you can be morally and legally punished for, even if it's just "Im gunna kill you punk ass bitch".

What I am proposing is that the Nazi ideology, the fourteen words, agendas like "Are Jews human?" and proposals of ethnic cleansing fall under the same category as the bomb threat to a school, the post on face book, and "your money or your life."


2. I don't know whether or not you will agree with this line of reasoning. I can, however, state that even if you don't, punching Nazis does not make us "as bad as them." Physically hurting somebody because of their agenda is a far, far cry from killing people en mass because of their race, orientation, or ability.

3. Even if you don't accept the basic morality of violence, punching a Nazi has it's place on the sliding scale of idealism vs. pragmatism. It accomplishes something by denying them a platform and letting them know that their ideology will not be tolerated. Denying a platform slows down their recruitment rates. Letting them know they won't be tolerated compels the active Nazis to crawl back to their subreddits and private forums instead of acting in more openly hateful ways. They are less bold. Also, in terms of the internal mythology of the Nazis, there is a big emphasis on masculinity and Strong Man figures, so punching Richard Spencer in the face lowers his standing and their faith in him by showing how easily he can be cold-clocked.

[Admiral X]

1. Admiral X, the reason I do not open myself to the same treatment is that I am not advocating genocide. I realize this may seem like a technicality, but please bear with me.

It really doesn't matter. I'm essentially making two points.

Communism is the end goal of socialism. Guess which political ideology has killed and oppressed millions more than even the Nazis? So by saying you are communist or socialist, it could be argued that at the very least you are saying you're cool with that history, not to mention the oppressive nature of such a government, even if you aren't outright endorsing it. So by the same logic you are using to defend the idea of punching someone, because Nazi (and ignoring how loose the term as been applied when it comes to political differences), you are opening yourself to someone doing the same to you on the same basis.

On a more pragmatic standpoint, you are advocating violence against people because they say things you don't agree with. There is no defending that. If you feel people are a threat, you report that to the authorities and let them take care of it. That is not up to you to be a vigilante and part of some mob (which when you think about it isn't to dissimilar to how lynch mobs were formed). Hell, I'm real big on the Second Amendment, but I would never advocate violence as a first resort, and I would never support violence in anything other than defense of life and limb. The actions of these "antifa" types makes them no different from the brownshirts and the stuff they did. What you advocate for is very much a repeat of Italy's Years of Lead, and that is unacceptable.

There are, generally agreed, limits to free speech, and to what the right of free speech protects you from. Banning a person from a forum for a forum rules is not a violation of free speech. Refuse to publish something somebody in your newspaper because you find it offensive is not a violation of free speech. Being criticized for the things you say is not a violation of free speech. With me so far?

Not really, as I'm very anti-censorship. I see bad ideas as something that should have the light shown on it as much as possible, so they can be refuted and derided as necessary.

Let's move a little further. This isn't just things you say face to face. Recently, a girl made a post on social media about how she wanted to "reenact Columbine", and was very distressed and shocked when a swat team was called on her and she suffered legal consequences for that. Any threat to the POTUS, saying you want/intend to kill him, is technically a federal offense. Sending death threats on anon to a blogger you really hate is, again, something you can be morally and legally punished for, even if it's just "Im gunna kill you punk ass bitch".

And you've stumbled upon the distinction. There's also the whole causing a riot thing.

What I am proposing is that the Nazi ideology, the fourteen words, agendas like "Are Jews human?" and proposals of ethnic cleansing fall under the same category as the bomb threat to a school, the post on face book, and "your money or your life."

Except they aren't. They can talk as much shit as they want, but as long as they don't walk the walk, that still falls under free speech because as reprehensible as it is, they are spouting political ideology. And even if it was, we still come down to - if you think it's illegal, get the authorities and have them deal with it. What's-his-face being a smug asshole in front of a camera isn't any kind of immediate threat to anyone. And given that that's all he does, I'd say he isn't really a threat at all, and the shit he says does fall under free speech.

2. I don't know whether or not you will agree with this line of reasoning. I can, however, state that even if you don't, punching Nazis does not make us "as bad as them." Physically hurting somebody because of their agenda is a far, far cry from killing people en mass because of their race, orientation, or ability.

Actually in a way it makes you worse, because while you're being the violent thugs, they are keeping fairly civil and aren't escalating things beyond words. There's also the risk that you'll give them the very thing they want and as I've mentioned previously, we'll end up with a Years of Lead situation.

3. Even if you don't accept the basic morality of violence, punching a Nazi has it's place on the sliding scale of idealism vs. pragmatism. It accomplishes something by denying them a platform and letting them know that their ideology will not be tolerated.

So you are advocating censorship through violence. Definitely not making your argument look any better.

Denying a platform slows down their recruitment rates.

Much like other moral busy-bodies, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that simply being exposed to something will magically turn people into whatever boogeyman you're trying to scare people with. And again, if anything, the violence and censorship will actually cause the recruitment, rather like the Iraq war helped get recruits for Al Qaeda and helped to inspire ISIS.

Letting them know they won't be tolerated compels the active Nazis to crawl back to their subreddits and private forums instead of acting in more openly hateful ways. They are less bold. Also, in terms of the internal mythology of the Nazis, there is a big emphasis on masculinity and Strong Man figures, so punching Richard Spencer in the face lowers his standing and their faith in him by showing how easily he can be cold-clocked.

Or you'll simply show them it's possible to be violent in the open with little consequence. And if you're very lucky, it won't end up being a repeat of the Greensboro massacre. But really, it's not up to you to get all brownshirt on the Nazis to try to scare them into keeping their heads down. That simply makes you criminals, and the cops will come after you while the Nazis cry victim. Do you really want to end up in the slam for something like that (keeping in mind that there are Nazi gangs there)?

[The Romulan Republic]

My position on political violence is one of strong opposition. Imposing ones' views by force is the antithesis of democracy, risks escalation and great harm not only to the guilty but to the innocent, and offers no guarantee of being any quicker or surer a method of reform than non-violent methods. How many revolutions, after all, have raged on for years or even decades, only to replace one brutal and tyrannical regime with another?

To be honest, I draw very little distinction between "political violence" and "terrorism.

Note, however, that I do consider defensive violence acceptable in some circumstances, and in certain very extreme and limited situations would even consider armed revolt against a government acceptable (primarily when a government is engaged in slavery or genocide or other forms of mass murder). I draw a distinction between "political violence" (i.e. violence to advance an agenda/message, or silence opposition) and defensive violence, although I acknowledge that in practice, that line can become very blurry at times.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Admiral X, I'd like to reply to your "if you are socialist/communist you are responsible for the bad things that happened under the communist regime" comment.

You can be a communist without approving of mass violence against religious people and Stalin.

You can be a democrat without supporting Hillary Clinton and her hawkish politics.

You can be a conservative without support the Donald and whatever dumpster fire he's involved himself with at the time of this post.

...you can't be a Nazi without approving of Hitler and being pro-genocide.

That's really the crux of my argument.

There is nothing civil about promoting ethnic cleansing. You can't really say "You, and all you other queers, and your jewish and black friends, and the disabled and retarded, must be killed and burned to purify the gene pool" in a polite way. This is why I hate respectability politics. It takes attention away from the actual message, the agenda, the goal, and focuses it on "these people are bad because one of them broke a window, but look at this dapper and soft-spoken Nazi gentleman".

The reason I'm not reporting them to the proper authorities, is, well, the proper authorities don't give a frell. Surely you understand the distinction between what is legal and what is ethical.

All Nazis want me dead. They want my Jewish stepfather dead. They want most of the people in my row house dead.

The antifas are not just as bad as the brownshirts. The brownshirts did not rise to infamy by punching people or shouting over protests. They rose to infamy by setting up the systemic extermination of whole swaths of the human race.

The year of lead is not applicable here. That was two political factions vying for control of the state. Antifas don't want to take positions of authority, they aren't trying to gain political clout, they are just actively denying a platform to Nazis.

I have no moral obligation to be polite and respectful to somebody who intends to kill me and most of the people I care about.

This isn't a "difference of political opinion". This is a hard-line stance on life-or-death matters that affects me and people like me in a very real way. This is self-proclaimed terrorists, except they never get called terrorists because they have the support of the status quo and the power of institutional bigotry behind them.

Richard Spencer is now scared to make public appearances. That means he can recruit fewer Nazis and he doesn't look like a great Strong Man and he isn't going to get lots of abusers flocking to him in hopes of gaining power without accountability.

I call that a positive result.