Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I think it fair to say no one will even try to make that argument.

other than T and Ice...
LOL

Semantic rewording or not we need a label - "getting away with it" doesn’t do the phenomenon justice. (pardon the pun) Do you have a suggestion?

1- loved the pun - thanks! LOL
2- well, it has a word: unjust

this is the problem people have with the system. it is a problem that i, personally, have with the system. it isn't something that will go away though, IMHO. we can minimize it, and we really have taken great strides to minimize racial issues in LE and society in general ( see: hate crime victimization 2003-2011 , hate crimes reported in NIBRS 1997-99, FBI hate crimes report 2014, and 2016 )
mind you, those are just some the latest, but they're also limited to and specific only to hate crimes.

but there is a change! i am hopeful for more change in the future

and i guarantee that there is a huge change from 1960 and prior - even though i can't give you details and i don't think this was even tracked back then. so that is my opinion and offered IMHO only - from what i can tell, and from family history and tales, it was a hostile time in the US for minorities of any race not white in certain areas. qualifier intended. and i can only speak for knowledge gained through family history of certain areas, certain times and certain races not white, specifically and limited to: American Tribal Natives (Lakota, Cherokee, Cree, Apache, and Navaho) and certain Asians (Japanese, Filipino).

Something is very, very wrong and I don’t think it just started – rather, it just started becoming verifiable with everyone having a video camera in their pocket. If we don’t acknowledge the problem’s existence we can’t address it – similar to “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. (I was on the fence about that label but have landed on the side for calling it like is – but being sure to include the “Radical”)

i think it's definitely getting more attention because of the proliferation of camera's and free access to information, like the internet. but i also think that it's getting better, and that the camera's (etc) are making it less likely to get away with the (or "a") crime
about this part

similar to “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. (I was on the fence about that label but have landed on the side for calling it like is – but being sure to include the “Radical”)

IMHO, terrorism is just terrorism. islam is islam, muslims are muslims. none of them independently refer to any of the other unless it specifically requires it's addition due to a relation found or admitted
i've seen German terrorism, Italian Terrorism and Spanish Terrorism as well, with groups like: the red army factionhttp://www.stripes.com/30th-anniversary-of-usafe-headquarters-bombing-1.153700
i lived through it first hand: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/09/world/car-bomb-kills-2-on-a-us-air-base-in-west-germany.html
that doesn't mean Germans, Italians and Spanish are terrorists, just like the Inquisition supported by the church doesn't mean all christians are terrorists today

so i may have a different perspective on this than most people

Which I don’t dispute – sorry if I gave the impression that I did. I don’t even think the Ice-T duo dispute it in the way that you are defending against. I suspect a misunderstanding and differing definitions… However, I will leave it for them to speak for themselves.

gotcha
i am down with that and i would love to hear from others
well... let me revise that: certain others
we certainly already know where T and ice stand

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So says you.

so says the facts

What does that have to do with anything?

everything

You compared transgender to being a Nazi. That is disgusting.

and you're still lying and blatantly so, as i just proved the only one equating Nazi's with Transgenders is you

just because you're acting intentionally stupid doesn't mean you can blame me for your inequities

so again, to prove you wrong:
i used a list compiled and presented by the courts and stated, clearly, in 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts
the only change i made was: i used specific rather than vague terms, as the USC used vague terms

And this useless digression is apparently your ... what, defense? ... excuse?

it is not a useless digression, it is a clear, concise explanation that demonstrates your blatant inability to see facts laid before you in a clear, concise manner

it is also demonstrative of your pathological need to lie and misrepresent whatever you choose in an attempt to garner sympathy for your very specific brand of fanatical stupidity as well as bias - you're trying to bully me into submission because you're delusional and can't accept facts

that's all on you, so save it for your echo chamber mates who all adore you and refuse to ever challenge your word
a lie is a lie is a lie

i can and have admitted to mistakes, in this thread and others
you cannot because your narcissism makes you to believe you are infallible


so, i will say it again
this is easily checked: take your argument to a prosecuting attourney and present the case as stated, and require a written, on the record reply for reposting on a public forum.

you will find the PA likely presenting the same case that i've presented, and maybe even using the same wording

i can wait for it...

.

[crickets]

 

[iceaura]

It is functionally "legal" (with scare quotes) to shoot black people - in some cases, under some circumstances. I thought maybe you were arguing that it is statutorily legal somehow and I wanted to read that.

And here we meet the well known and much discussed fact that the law is essentially functional, as a defining property. It commands, acts, etc, by definition. It is not a merely abstract system, in which statutes have meanings in some mathematical manner wholly separate from their enforcement and adjudication.

The scare quotes mislead, by implying that an official and consistent and unappealable application of the statutes is somehow illegitimate, a violation or similar offense in itself. Instead: The justification proffered is legitimate, the described behavior therefore legal, say the judges and police and attorneys general, in their official capacity, in public, unbribed and unconfused and irreversible - that makes what was done, for the reasons given, justified and legal. Their consistent and predictable and officially validated application of the law to the cases before them is the law.

If your opinion on what these statutes mean - or somebody's opinion like the troll's here - disagrees with that of the judges, the the police, and the attorney's general, you have to make a pretty good case. You have to do better than call people morons and liars, and post the statutes themselves (as if the judges etc did not know what they were), and so forth.

so it is not "legal" as the word relates specifically to the law,
I agree - in fact, this is one of the points I'm trying to build consensus on

Your consensus will be in defiance of the law, the "legal", as it specifically relates to police apprehending suspects, attorney's general prosecuting cases, judges issuing verdicts , and people going to jail.

What you would have to establish is that it is not legitimate, legally, in public, to be in fact threatened by racial identity and end up abusing, injuring, even killing someone in consequence - in the face of dozens of court decisions and decades of precedence establishing otherwise. Good luck.

And if you bring it around to nazi punching, you'll have accomplished something that exactly two people in this thread have even attempted - me being one of them.

 

[Michael]

This was interesting: Via IJR, An Interview with a woman who grew up in Nazi Germany.

"What is going on in this country is giving me chills. Trump is not like Hitler. Just because a leader wants order doesn't mean they're like a dictator. What reminds me more of Hitler than anything else isn't Trump, it's the destruction of freedom of speech on the college campuses — the agendas fueled by the professors. That's how Hitler started, he pulled in the youth to miseducate them, to brainwash them, it's happening today. It saddens me that we are teaching garbage in the schools and in the college. We don't teach history anymore. History repeats itself over and over. The kids out there today haven't ever lived through a war like I did. I remember sitting in a rock pile, cleaning rocks, to rebuild Germany. I remember eating maple leaves and grass to survive."​

Incidentally, if you happen to find yourself identifying as a Democratic Socialist on the Left, then you may find this study of interest: Study from 2012 now corrected to show liberals, not conservatives, more authoritarian.

Of course, this makes perfectly good sense, so-called socialism (democratic or otherwise) is predicated on violence. State violence. That's the 'Social' part of the "Socialism", you know, where representatives of the Nation State punch you in the face for the "good of the country" (Nationalism) because you use the State-owned roads.

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. Is it okay to hit a Nazi? No. But, funny enough, it may be the Left, who are the Nazi / the National-Socialists.

How ironic.



** Study:
“Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies,” published in the American Journal of Social Science in 2012, initially found that social conservatives might be more genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors than their socially liberal counterparts.

“In line with our expectations, [Psychoticism] (positively related to tough-mindedness and authoritarianism) is associated with social conservatism and conservative military attitudes,” the study said. The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.

But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed.”


--o--
LoL

Much like IQ, looks like the tendency to be a violent arse-hole also have a large genetic component. All the more reason to implement peaceful parenting.

 

[iceaura]

This was interesting: Via IJR, An Interview with a woman who grew up in Nazi Germany.

She was born in 1940. She emigrated to the US when she was 13, having spent most of her childhood in US military run camps and housing - centers of the re-eduction effort, the "reverse brainwashing" of the American occupation government.

This, btw, is part of the penalty we are going to pay for carelessly assigning Hitler references to Trump's fascism. Mussolini, as the Left tried to market, would have avoided this - although the best comparisons, to some Latin American like Trujillo, would have required awareness of political and historical reality unavailable in the hoped for audience.

Incidentally, if you happen to find yourself identifying as a Democratic Socialist on the Left, then you may find this study of interest: Study from 2012 now corrected to show liberals, not conservatives, more authoritarian.

Your blurb there is - how do we put it - deceptive. Here's the text, which is indeed dubious in its language - but because its language was never supported in the first place, not because it was reversed. It's no more valid to conclude the one than the other.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809096/

 

[Tiassa]

so again, to prove you wrong:
i used a list compiled and presented by the courts and stated, clearly, in 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts
the only change i made was: i used specific rather than vague terms, as the USC used vague terms

And?

By definition, you compared transgender and Nazi.

I've even explained↑ what my evidence↑ means; all you can manage is a blithering↑ bawling↑ diva↑ troll↑ tantrum↑ desperately↑ dodging↑ the point.

 

[DaveC426913]

By definition, you compared transgender and Nazi.

This has been settled. You agreed.

 

[Tiassa]

This has been settled. You agreed.

You do realize, do you not, what sounds about right is you ducking out↑. Hardly surprising.

Meanwhile, as to your whine, it would seem Stumpy disagrees↑.

So, you know, whatever, dude. Take it up with him. The thing is, I'm not redefining words simply to suit your willful irrationality. Or his.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

By definition, you compared transgender and Nazi.

blatantly false claim

repeating your lies don't make them more true the next time around

I've even explained↑ what my evidence↑ means;

"So ... redefining stuff to accommodate your needs, then.

I have pointed out a dictionary definition. Apparently you need pseudo-literacy (or is it #AltDef?) in order to support your crackpottery."

all you can manage is a blithering↑ bawling↑ diva↑ troll↑ tantrum↑ desperately↑ dodging↑ the point.

"So ... redefining stuff to accommodate your needs, then.

...Apparently you need pseudo-literacy (or is it #AltDef?) in order to support your crackpottery."


repeating your lies don't make them more true the next time around

The thing is, I'm not redefining words simply to suit your willful irrationality. Or his.

epic!

so, you finally ADMIT to ... let me use your own words again: "redefining stuff to accommodate your needs, then."

but you still argue that the problem is me?


fascinating!
truly fascinating!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

This has been settled. You agreed.

you can not settle this with i-MOD's fanatical mindset - regardless of what it ever claims to you

 

[Tiassa]

blatantly false claim

​

 

[Ophiolite]

The thing is, I'm not redefining words simply to suit your willful irrationality.
So why are you doing it?

 

[parmalee]

a brief interlude

he gets a bit redundant during the build

The "redundancy" to which you allude is fairly commonplace in late 19th/early 20th century Romantic composition, especially when informed by folk music traditions. Personally, I regard that particular aspect--among others--key in making "classical" music "good" again (Trump reference unintended)--there's a period of about two centuries , later Baroque onwards, which I find almost altogether impossible to appreciate, save for on a purely intellectual level.

Anyways, a perhaps more topical, and even more redundant--or rather, drone based--interlude might be Wagner's Prelude to Das Rheingold (here, arranged for organ). Or, better yet--as far goes as to what, where, and when certain courses of action are practicable/advisable/defensible, Dagmar Krause's stellar rendition of Eisler/Tucholsky's "Ballad of (Bourgeois) Welfare":

Edit: Just realized I was partly responding to a rather perplexing bit waayyy back on page 11 there, so... anyways.

 

[parmalee]

Just my humble opinion, but I think that reading TCS's statement:

OP by TCS
just like it is not OK to punch someone if they're a: transgender; christian; republican; democrat; moonie (well, that's debatable considering their actions at airports - hyperbole intended, Tiassa)

as equating to "comparing a transgender to a Nazi" is bit a dangerous and uncalled for, especially when only a few posts prior we have Medium Dave posting:

I think punching a Communist could be better justified. Is punching a Communist OK? Sure it is.

Was that made in jest? Perhaps. Still, kinda fucked up. Nevertheless, TCS's list of potential punching victims was more (deliberately so, I believe) random, where Medium Dave's was more in spirit with the "assault on the basis of ideological conviction" theme, where, in fact, said ideology has no history for supremacism--making it all that more fucked up.

 

[Ophiolite]

In post 292 the words "So why are you doing it" have been inadvertently shown as those of Tiassa, but are actually mine. I noticed this after the post edit option had disappeared.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

​

list
noun
Definition of list

1. 1a : a simple series of words or numerals (such as the names of persons or objects) <a guest list>b : an official roster : roll <drawing up a list for … party nomination — Richard Scammon>
   
   
2. 2 : catalog, checklist <The song jumped to the top of the hit list.>
   
   
3. 3 : the total number to be considered or included <add spelling reform to his list of interests — W. B. Shaw>

1. 
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/list
   

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Nevertheless, TCS's list of potential punching victims was more (deliberately so, I believe) random,

parmalee
it was exactly that, and based solely and entirely on the list located here: 18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts. thank you for noticing.

in fact, as already noted, more than once (links provided to some), i specifically took the list general terms and simply defined random specifics that were the very first to come to mind, hence "Christian" as it's the most common local religion, etc

EDIT: also note that i used political ideology as well in that list. and of course which political ideology did i choose to use in said list? DEM and REPUB

also note, there is a cult listed as well, just for the sake of juxtaposition (moonie) - along with a joke referencing "Airplane", the movie (in the original quote)

In post 292 the words "So why are you doing it" have been inadvertently shown as those of Tiassa, but are actually mine. I noticed this after the post edit option had disappeared.

i got that Ophiolite
thanks for making that point.

 

[DaveC426913]

You do realize, do you not, what sounds about right is you ducking out↑. Hardly surprising.

Still off-topic.

 

[Tiassa]

Just my humble opinion, but I think that reading TCS's statement ... as equating to "comparing a transgender to a Nazi" is bit a dangerous and uncalled for, especially when only a few posts prior we have Medium Dave posting:

Frankly, Parmalee, I think the implication that the justification for not judging and punishing the guilty without trial is the same as the justification for not attacking the innocent is more than a bit dangerous.

Because it's true. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch the surgeon saving your life. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch the epileptic having a seizure. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch a baby.

But, hey, what's a walking Godwin violation.

• • •​

Still off-topic.

Dave, you ran away in the face of logic↑.

Yoo don't have anything left to say.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I think the implication that the justification for not judging and punishing the guilty without trial

problem is (WRT my comment)- you're playing judge, jury, and executioner when it's obvious you're not capable, mentally or otherwise of even comprehending the situation... especially since most of the people responding (other than ice) have stated you're wrong on that "equating" bullsh*t argument
so... why are you "redefining stuff to accommodate your needs, then."?

Because it's true. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch the surgeon saving your life. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch the epileptic having a seizure. You don't punch a Nazi just like you don't punch a baby.

so, you're equating nazi's with: surgeons, epileptics and babies
and it's ok for you to do this?

and all of this because you want to argue a blatant lie that was proven false by the evidence (you know, where you said shooting blacks is legal in this country)
wow

just...
wow

Yoo don't have anything left to say.

really?
and here i thought he was being a clear, logical, methodical,voice attempting mediation between your narcissistic delusional transgressions from reality and my pointing out your idiocy

but that's just how i see it
tell me - do you have anything other than your opinion on my list taken from 18 U.S. Code § 249 that validates your claims?
anything at all?

you know... something that is not subjective to interpretation?
something, perhaps, that shows the legal statute explaining the legality of shooting blacks in the US?

i do have a specific comment you will be interested in: you can sue the government about that list
obviously you feel strongly that the feds are equating nazism with transgenders, so take that argument to the courts!
let me know how that goes