Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Tiassa]

So we see that is really difficult, as you illustrate, to find examples comparable with - say - an armed black man in an unmarked pickup truck following a white teenager down a dark street , chasing him when he ran, getting into a fight with the kid, and killing him when it appeared the fight wasn't going his way.

I wonder if people would recognize the white kid's right to stand his ground?

Can you imagine the police when they find out the armed black male adult is chasing down the white kid in defiance of the 911 operator's direct advice?

When the black man is the local crackpot who keeps calling to complain about white people?

With a history of attacking cops?

Okay, okay, okay. I admit, that last one's pushing it too far. They would have killed him when he attacked the cop.

 

[James R]

Nazis are by definition a threat to anyone who isn't white, or straight.

Perhaps so, but I'm thinking of an immediate physical threat here rather than an ideological one.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Nazis are by definition a threat to anyone who isn't white, or straight.

Yes. Labeling someone a Nazi because you disagree with them, and assaulting them based on that 'belief' seems to be the thing these days, and screw that. That seems to be like Nazi behavior to me.

So we're back at the OP...

No, it isn't OK to punch a Nazi. Or a Nietzsche. Or even Jerry Falwell. Sadly.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I'm lost - you did realize that was what the exercise was for, right? I want to see whether Ice says, "Yep, you're right - legal to kill white people" or "No, that's different" and why.

i apologize - yes, i realised that is what you were saying, but my sense of humour has been strained on this thread, especially considering certain other folk. some of whom i respect but i am still wondering WTF ...

so i am truly sorry - i just wanted clarification.

thanks for bringing the humour back to me

Would you agree that we (in the U.S.) have lots of notions about “scary black guys,” but not a whole lot about “scary white guys”?

erm... i suppose you've never watched Deliverance or hung out in the mountains of, say, Northern Arkansas? [jk]
Paddle Harder! i hear Banjo music!
LMFAO
(man, i just had to !!)

Stand Your Ground laws are contingent upon “feeling” threatened; conversely, a Nazi is demonstrably—in fact—a real threat.

to whom? this isn't WWII anymore
is it repugnant? yes. but so are most religions in my opinion... after all, you can honestly point to some of the worst and most horrific killings in history and it's clearly over religion, or, who's god is more loving: the Crusades, Witch burning, the Ghost Dance massacre, the Inquisition...

so using the same logic as your nazi example, you can state that simply being a christian is demonstrably a real threat ...

that is why the wording of the law i linked is so important

Regardless, one’s only got to “feel” in danger for one’s life. So, on the legality of killing blacks and whites, if you agree that the “scary black guy” theme is still very much prevalent in U.S. culture, and the “scary white guy” theme is virtually non-existent, save as a joke:

Would you then agree that, in actuality, it is far more likely to be legal to kill a black guy than it is to kill a white guy?

regardless of the state statute of stand your ground, simply by invoking race (or the other listed no-no's), it then falls under the purview of the federal statute, and as such, it is a hate crime and illegal

so your question invokes the requirement of establishing the legality of something which is clearly and explicitly stated as illegal
if you meant are you more likely to get away with it, that calls for a subjective argument of opinion and requires a judicial system that will refuse to act upon the law

and if that is yet another repetition of TCS's strawman paraphrase

bullsh*t trolling baiting crap
for starters, when you talk about the law and you can't provide source material to support your claims, then claim a racial statement like you did, then by law and logic the reciprocal must also be factual

that is a point that i made.
that is the point that @Randwolf just made and you quoted

Is anybody here actually arguing that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone? I don't think they are, but correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Actually, yes. Tiassa defended by Ice
and it started here:

You do not live in a country where you can legally shoot someone to death for being black. You can shoot anyone to death to defend yourself. And you should do so if you are being attacked or someone with a gun has entered your store or home with the intent to harm you.

to which Tiassa replied:

Yeah, actually I do. Remember, I live here, while you make believe from afar.

this is validated later:

The race of the victim did, in those three cases, make it legal.

Michael challenged it:

They weren't killed 'because they were black'.

i challenged it (over and over and over and still)
they reiterated their claim here:

And it's probably pretty important to note that what I mean is exactly contained in this post:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

Ice was already defending it http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-6#post-3435687


so they started off saying it's legal to kill blacks in the US and used the defensive shootings to justify this belief, but when it was pointed out that the law explicitly states that shooting over race is illegal, i was a: nazi sympathizer, equating transgenders with nazi's, racist, sexist, and a few other -ist's

that's the short version


and here is the short short version, started by your question:

So, could somebody please explain what the actual point of dispute is here? Or are you all just spending page upon page splitting hairs?

the point of the dispute is the legality of shooting blacks in the US

i am saying it's not legal because of the law, and i've provided multiple links to justify this from original sources, not subjective opinions or articles
(like: 18 U.S. Code § 249 )

they're saying it's legal because it appears to them, due to their articles (no source material), that stand your ground laws justify racial killings

i pointed out that this can't be factual because:
1- it's a state statute, and i presented federal law
2- stand your ground covers only shootings in self defense
3- getting away with a crime is not the same thing as being legal

they repeat with the obvious intent that somehow repetition is how facts are established and that if i would only listen to them, i would see reality
i refute with source material that explicitly states they're wrong
repeat ad nauseum for 15 or so pages

 

[iceaura]

On the thread topic (and I haven't read the entire thread), the answer as to whether it's ok to punch a Nazi depends on the circumstances. Punching the Nazi just because he's a Nazi is an assault and not justifiable on the basis that you don't like his political or racist views. On the other hand, punching a Nazi who is threatening to hurt you because he doesn't like your race (for example) may be completely legal and legitimate.

So, could somebody please explain what the actual point of dispute is here?

So you have weighed in on the thread topic - when it is OK to punch a "nazi". You used the capital N - that, imho, changes things, as has been mentioned. But still, that's progress:
We now have three contributions, one of which we can separate into two somewhat different takes:
1) Mine: it is ok to punch a "nazi" not only whenever it's ok to punch anyone (legal and legitimate), but also - particular to "nazis" - when their self-identification as a "nazi" amounts to an instigation, is "fighting words", or otherwise increases the threat level enough over the non-nazi background to justify punching.

(I compared punching someone who is burning a flag - sometimes that is "fighting words", and no other threat or excuse is needed to punch them imho. Other times it's free speech, and punching is not ok imho. Depends. ) I made no distinction between legal and illegal (I don't know, and don't care, whether it's illegal to punch someone for burning a flag in the entry lot of a VFW club on July 4th. I think it's ok, and by my use of the comparison it's also ok to punch a "nazi" sometimes whether it's legal or not. My opinion.)
2a) It's only ok to punch a "nazi" when it would be ok to punch anybody else, with the "nazi" aspect disregarded.
2b) It's only ok to punch a "nazi" when it would be legal to punch anybody else, with the "nazi" aspect disregarded.
3) It's ok to punch a "nazi" when they are threatening to hurt you in some specifically Nazi associated manner that would not apply if they were non-Nazi (Some clarification would be necessary on what constitutes such a threat).

Fair summary?

 

[iceaura]

the point of the dispute is the legality of shooting blacks in the US

so they started off saying it's legal to kill blacks in the US and used the defensive shootings to justify this belief, but when it was pointed out that the law explicitly states that shooting over race is illegal, i was a: nazi sympathizer, equating transgenders with nazi's, racist, sexist, and a few other -ist's

You are not capable of paraphrasing my posts. You always screw them up. Use quotes only.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

now about this:

You are not capable of paraphrasing my posts.

1- you mean you are not defending the legality of shooting blacks here in this post you just ignored?

Ice was already defending it http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-6#post-3435687

that is from the argument you just now quoted - it directly supports my claims and it is a link to your specific post. not a paraphrase. in your own words.
So STFU

2- i've already been through this with you more than once - and that link says it all, in your words, in your own post.

so... where is that source material?
you wanted quotes, i gave them
I wanted source material.... where is it?

Use quotes only.

and yet i've quoted you time and again
you asked for quotes and i provided them, to which you then pull a changing goalpost, or strawman, or distraction from the point, or meaningless quote from my own source, or.....

what you just did above is called transference, and i just proved it again

.

.


regarding the OP and your other post

when it is OK to punch a "nazi".

actually, per the OP, the question is more about morals - is it morally OK to punch a nazi
see below for OP

and that would have to be then about what you consider morally OK - so do you abide by the law (as the OP listed in the post, 2nd sentence) or do you have your own set of laws that supersede everything? (like ice and tiassa, apparently)

The assault on self proclaimed "white nationalist" Richard Sponsor has caused the rise of an ethical question on Facebook and twitter about if it is acceptable to use violence on anyone labeled or simply is a "nazi".

Legal no it is wrong to attack anyone for spouting what ever they spout, or to attack them for claims against them, only police and a court of law my beat, imprison and even execute someone legally.

But morally is it ok?

 

[Randwolf]

And is anybody actually arguing that is illegal to defend yourself if you're being threatened? Again, I don't think that's what people are arguing here, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Just my two cents, as the only thing I am arguing against is "that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone".

I asked Ice to clarify his position way back in post [265] and got this in response:

Here it is again, in summary form: It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are black; Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are black. (Would you prefer a less pejorative rewording, less redolent of presumed bigotry?
Here: It is legal to have killed somebody because they were black. Or even: Because they were black, it is legal to have killed somebody. Feel better? )

Which seems pretty straightforward so I rephrased just to be sure we were on the same page:

So this whole thing is over the obvious...

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.

Expecting that to be the end of it. But no, Ice objects to that:

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.

Now I'm confused again - is he really "arguing that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone?"

And off we go... Interestingly enough, I believe Ice, T, TCS and myself all feel the same as to the substantive injustices perpetrated on minorities by the U.S. justice system. However, we can't have that discussion because we can't seem to agree on what the definition of legal is.

All I want is to see Ice state "No, it is not legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone."

I will go away - hang up my guns - die a happy man - etc.

So, how about it Ice?

Are you "arguing that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone?"

Yes or no will suffice...

 

[iceaura]

and yet i've quoted you time and again
you asked for quotes and i provided them

You also reworded and paraphrased them, and then argued from the paraphrases and rewordings. Like this:

1- you mean you are not defending the legality of shooting blacks here in this post you just ignored?

Use quotes only, argue from the quotes, not your paraphrases.

You'll find that quite difficult.

Or keep posting reams of what I accurately labeled "stupid fucking shit". Your choice.

 

[Randwolf]

Would you agree that we (in the U.S.) have lots of notions about “scary black guys,” but not a whole lot about “scary white guys”?

I wouldn't agree if I happened to be a black father talking to his son about the "right" way to act if pulled over by a white cop. What say you?

 

[Randwolf]

As to the OP, this sums it up for me:

Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly.

Well, that was fast.

First, a black bloc protester punched alt-right figure and white-nationalist sympathizer Richard Spencer during inauguration weekend, and some people defended this blatant exercise of violent censorship on the grounds that Spencer is a fascist and as such should not enjoy free speech right. (The Nation's Natasha Lennard called it "pure kinetic beauty.")

Some weeks later, protesters at the University of California, Berkeley, smashed windows and set a large fire in order to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus. Yiannopoulos is not as extreme as Spencer—he does not identify as a white nationalist or a member of the alt-right—but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views and is closely associated with Breitbart and Trump-ism. Again, the black bloc said that defending people from fascism requires Yiannopoulos to be silenced by the mob.

The day after, similarly-aligned people tried to prevent Gavin McInnes from speaking at New York University. Black bloc protesters maced him as he left the building. McInnes, a former Fox News personality aligned with Trump and Yiannopoulos, certainly does make ugly and offensive statements. But was violence the best answer to those statements? Some say yes.

Today, I couldn't help but notice this, from Mike Monteiro, a design expert and occasional writer:

Is he kidding? I can't tell. No clarification was offered. I emailed and tweeted at him. He did not respond. If it's a joke, at the very least he thinks it's funny to entertain the idea.

So how's that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it's okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it's okay to punch people who aren't Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn't punch them. You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there's the slippery slope for you. And we'll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.

Meanwhile, the shut down of Yiannopoulos at Berkeley was so wildly successful that conservative students have been cowed into silence. Just kidding: They're actually bringing Milo back to campus, and Alex Jones.

As I wrote previously, research shows us that violent resistance is not the most effective tactic for stopping Trump, and runs the risk of making the broader public more sympathetic to the kinds of bad policies the Trump administration would like to enact. Violence is the language that fascists understand best.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/15/now-its-okay-to-punch-nazis-and-white-ma​

 

[Tiassa]

Actually, yes. Tiassa defended by Ice
and it started here:

You really need to stop misrepresenting the record.

I have told you this before↑.

Presented with the point of digression↑, you dismissed it as a―

distraction from the argument. the OP is about nazism. the argument between us is about your false claim

―and then went on to misrepresent the record, in the very same post―

You need to show that Iceaura and I are talking about hate crimes. You make the claim, you bring the evidence.

start here:

―and the immediately subsequent post, thirty minutes later:

more for your evidence, just in case you think there are too many from ice above

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

continue here

And then you went on to proclaim:

so, clearly the topic i originally argued against posted by you (and defended by ice) is a hate crime
it's explicitly stated, and it's defined explicitly that shooting blacks is the same as shooting over race, therefore, a hate crime

.

that should be enough evidence for any MOD to establish that you argued a hate crime is legal, as i noted and continue to note
so i have provided more than adequate evidence that you and ice are talking about hate crimes and attempting to even state their legality, even though you don't even know what that means

And that's the thing: You try too hard; thoe paragraphs depend on your deliberate misrepresntation, which was called out:

No, we will not start out of order just to accommodate your deception.

Naturally, you jut insisted:

especially the part about making sh*t up when i quote you verbatim and link the quotes for all to validate the claim

And now here you are, repeating the misrepresentation.

And you really are trying too hard; when you present out of order, you're appealing to a straw man in order to assert your post hoc recontextualization. It's pretty transparent, anyway, and then when you go on to insist you only make the purpose clear.

• • •​

So, could somebody please explain what the actual point of dispute is here? Or are you all just spending page upon page splitting hairs?

See Michael at #70―

Again, it's immoral to punch someone who is not attacking you.

―and Tiassa at #73:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

Some back and forth; Iceaura↑ checks in on the issue; Dr Toad↑; eventually TruckCaptainStumpy↑ enters the dispute at #123; the rest, essentially, is history. There are some twists and turns along the way, but that's approximately where, when, and how the Nazi discussion fell by the wayside. I would tell you to have fun reading through, but it likely wouldn't be fun.

 

[iceaura]

Now I'm confused again - is he really "arguing that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone?"

No.
And where you got that idea, after posting my argument clearly including the role of "threat", is one of those mysteries.

Which seems pretty straightforward so I rephrased just to be sure we were on the same page:

Your "rephrasing" altered the argument, revealing your take on it to have been less than straightforward.

And off we go... Interestingly enough, I believe Ice, T, TCS and myself all feel the same as to the substantive injustices perpetrated on minorities by the U.S. justice system.

I think you'll find that to not be the case. There is a significant difference between consistent and predictable and officially accepted and explicitly argued workings of all levels of the US Justice system over a continent sized region and decades of time, and occasional "miscarriages of justice".

 

[billvon]

Nazis are by definition a threat to anyone who isn't white, or straight.

Not if he's a fat 30 year old living in his mom's basement, posting Nazi nonsense on Reddit.

 

[Randwolf]

No.

Thank you.

And where you got that idea, after posting my argument clearly including the role of "threat", is one of those mysteries.

Perhaps you are right. I'm just glad we cleared up the other matter.

 

[Randwolf]

occasional "miscarriages of justice".

bold emphasis mine

If you are attributing that "occasional" to me I would love for you to link it.

 

[iceaura]

I wouldn't agree if I happened to be a black father talking to his son about the "right" way to act if pulled over by a white cop. What say you?

Uh, no: It's any cop - not just a white cop. That's critical.

So how's that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it's okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it's okay to punch people who aren't Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn't punch them.

Uh, "we"? You got frog in your pocket?

 

[iceaura]

bold emphasis mine

If you are attributing that "occasional" to me I would love for you to link it.

And I would like to know how you missed the fact that I was responding to your claim of equivalence in views between yourself and TCS, among others.

 

[Randwolf]

Uh, "we"? You got frog in your pocket?

You're losing it entirely Ice. That is clearly a line from the article I quoted and not my words. Using that article to respond to the OP does not mean I agree with every word and turn of phrase nor does it imply that the opinions expressed therein apply to all participants in this thread.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Paddle Harder! i hear Banjo music!

Ever been through Georgia or Mississippi back in the day? There were seriously nasty white men around then. Mostly dead now, thank God.

So you have weighed in on the thread topic - when it is OK to punch a "nazi". You used the capital N - that, imho, changes things, as has been mentioned.

You're nitpicking? I'm shocked to my bones!

As I said above, the label doesn't justify hitting someone. Skin color doesn't justify shooting someone.

What the fuck is the problem with this? Is the entire thread sophistry, and the rational folks got trolled?

I wouldn't agree if I happened to be a black father talking to his son about the "right" way to act if pulled over by a white cop. What say you?

I've talked to my son about how to act, as any rational parent does. What in heaven's name prompts that diversion?

Edit: Sorry, I was cooking, and got diverted from my response, missed some replies, and now I have to read up before I dare open my pie-hole in this thread again...