What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Can I punch Nazis? (spoiler alert: yes) (1 Viewer)

Is it cool to punch a Neo-Nazi in the face?

  • Yes

    Votes: 101 60.5%

  • No

    Votes: 66 39.5%
  • Total voters
    167
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't know?  Does it matter?  When is violence over political differences acceptable, and are you comfortable with folks on the other side of the aisle going through the same calculus?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't matter if he was a reporter. Violence over political differences is not acceptable. Censuring   differing ideas is also not acceptable.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
So how is the normalization of political violence working out for us?
Click to expand...
Man, this is some kinda mental gymnastics, tying the GOP beating on reporters to some random punching a nazi.  I'm not even sure mental gymnastics adequately captures it.  Mental Cirque du Soleil?  The mental Simone Biles?  I'll work on it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Man, this is some kinda mental gymnastics, tying the GOP beating on reporters to some random punching a nazi.  I'm not even sure mental gymnastics adequately captures it.  Mental Cirque du Soleil?  The mental Simone Biles?  I'll work on it.
Click to expand...
These are both part of a very broad, bipartisan pattern of trying to silence people with different views.  Many people simply won't listen to other people anymore, or tolerate disagreement.  The "free speech" thread is littered with examples, as is the Trump thread.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
These are both part of a very broad, bipartisan pattern of trying to silence people with different views.  Many people simply won't listen to other people anymore, or tolerate disagreement.  The "free speech" thread is littered with examples, as is the Trump thread.  
Click to expand...
Nobody was trying to silence Richard Spencer. Some dude was understandably angry at him, quite possibly because he advocates forcibly evicting him from his own country, so he punched him. Other people who also love this country and don't appreciate being told that they don't belong here (as well as other decent people who don't like people saying that about their friends and neighbors) enjoyed the clip and didn't take it too seriously.

For what it's worth I'm fine with arresting the guy who punched him, and for the sake of consistency I will also promise not to support the puncher for public office even if punching Nazis is pretty clearly less awful than punching a reporter for asking a question.

 
TobiasFunke said:
even if punching Nazis is pretty clearly less awful than punching a reporter for asking a question.
Click to expand...
See, I don't agree with this premise at all.  It's not just that I disagree with it but I see where you're coming from.  It strikes me as obviously, self-evidently wrong.

 
I have a terrible confession to make, guys. You know how all those Catholic priests are sexually abusing young children?  You have have blamed the priests themselves, and perhaps also the Catholic Church for creating a culture that condones such behavior.  It turns out it was actually my fault. 

See, I once enjoyed a pornography video on the internet in which a "barely legal" female actress appeared in a Catholic schoolgirl outfit. This may seem like fairly harmless behavior, but it turns out I was actually normalizing the sexualization of Catholic children.  I hope you can forgive me.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
See, I don't agree with this premise at all.  It's not just that I disagree with it but I see where you're coming from.  It strikes me as obviously, self-evidently wrong.
Click to expand...
It strikes me as obviously, self-evidently correct, but maybe that's because I'm Jewish. Perhaps if Richard Spencer wanted to kick you out of the country and refused to condemn the mass murder of your ancestors you would find him more punch-worthy than a guy who had the nerve to ask a congressional candidate about health care legislation.

 
Ivan, I wouldn't punch a Marxist. But I might punch a Stalinist. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to regard people with certain ideologies- Nazis, KKK members, avowed Stalinists, ISIS or al Qaeda guys- as beyond the pale in a civilized society. These are not just people with a "different viewpoint", as you put it. I think it's OK to punch them, and I'm not seeing the slippery slope that this would make it OK to punch journalists. 

 
timschochet said:
Ivan, I wouldn't punch a Marxist. But I might punch a Stalinist. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to regard people with certain ideologies- Nazis, KKK members, avowed Stalinists, ISIS or al Qaeda guys- as beyond the pale in a civilized society. These are not just people with a "different viewpoint", as you put it. I think it's OK to punch them, and I'm not seeing the slippery slope that this would make it OK to punch journalists. 
Click to expand...
Look at the post directly above yours.  People do not generally have to struggle too hard to justify violence against people who they have some reason for disliking.  Again, see the Free Speech thread if you need more examples of this phenomenon.  Or see the non-reaction to the reporter-punching for another example coming out of the other tribe.

Once you say that, yes, violence is okay when it's directed at otherwise-peaceful people whose ideas are "beyond the pale," you are absolutely starting down a slippery slope, because a huge number of people are currently walking around under the impression that people in the other tribe are, in fact, beyond the pale.  You are giving pro-life activists a green light to start assassinating doctors who provide abortions, for example.  Nationalists think that folks who support sanctuary cities are beyond the pale -- is that where you want to go with this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Look at the post directly above yours.  People do not generally have to struggle too hard to justify violence against people who they have some reason for disliking.  Again, see the Free Speech thread if you need more examples of this phenomenon.  Or see the non-reaction to the reporter-punching for another example coming out of the other tribe.
Click to expand...
I agree. But none of that means that WE have to accept the slippery slope. We, the intelligent and rational people, do not have to be bound by what the stupid and emotional among us think. We can look at each incident separately and say "this one is OK" and "this one is not OK." 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Look at the post directly above yours.  People do not generally have to struggle too hard to justify violence against people who they have some reason for disliking.  Again, see the Free Speech thread if you need more examples of this phenomenon.  Or see the non-reaction to the reporter-punching for another example coming out of the other tribe.
Click to expand...
First, a clarification: I'm not advocating a massive, consequence-free Nazi-punching effort. I think the guy in the Spencer video should have been arrested and charged. I'm just laughing at it, and I don't think it's any more serious of significant than some dude clocking a guy who was hitting on his girl at a bar or something.

Moving on to your post ... it's not "some reason" in the case of a Nazi. It's a very clear and specific reason- because the punchee is someone whose is advocating or condoning hatred and violence. There's no slippery slope here, it's fairly bright line. If Gianforte or anyone else wants to explain their reason for punching a reporter who was asking about the AHCA, I'm happy to evaluate their reasons on their merits and will adjust my attitude accordingly. If it's because the reporter supports violence and hatred towards wealthy conservative tech dooshbag types and wants them forcibly evicted from the United States, I would certainly see the incident in a different light.

This, by the way, is why your Marxism argument is nonsense. Even if it's true that Marxists have caused more deaths than Nazis, it's not because those people were Marxists. Hatred and violence is not a central tenet of Marxism. If it was, I assure you I'd be OK with you laughing about someone punching one. In the meantime, punch all the Stalin supporters you like. I look forward to the video.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Are you comfortable with pro-lifers picking up this standard and running with it?
Click to expand...
There is no "standard" . And no matter how many attempts you make to use the slippery slope argument, it won't matter. I can distinguish Nazis from other people, and assign different rules.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Are you comfortable with pro-lifers picking up this standard and running with it?
Click to expand...
To make this analogy work you have to remove the "advocating" part (because very few people encourage and celebrate abortions- if they do I'll happily punch them myself) and the "hatred" part (because nobody advocates or condones hating a fetus).

So that leaves us with condoning violence.  Not quite the same reasoning.  Even so, I suppose I would understand if a passionately anti-abortion person had the same attitude towards a video of someone punching a prominent abortion advocate that I have towards a video of someone punching a Nazi. I'd think they were kind of an ####### due to my own personal beliefs though, so if someone who is cool with or supportive of Nazism wants to think I'm kind of an ####### for enjoying the Spencer video that's OK with me. They're not wrong.

 
TobiasFunke said:
To make this analogy work you have to remove the "advocating" part (because very few people encourage and celebrate abortions- if they do I'll happily punch them myself) and the "hatred" part (because nobody advocates or condones hating a fetus).

So that leaves us with condoning violence.  Not quite the same reasoning.  Even so, I suppose I would understand if a passionately anti-abortion person had the same attitude towards a video of someone punching a prominent abortion advocate that I have towards a video of someone punching a Nazi. I'd think they were kind of an ####### due to my own personal beliefs though, so if someone who is cool with or supportive of Nazism wants to think I'm kind of an ####### for enjoying the Spencer video that's OK with me. They're not wrong.
Click to expand...
Realistically, other people are not going to split these philosophical hairs.  People who are prone to lashing out violently at folks who think differently than them are especially not going to reason this through accurately or in good faith.  They are going to engage in the same motivated reasoning that has driven folks to hate people in the other tribe.

 
timschochet said:
There is no "standard" . And no matter how many attempts you make to use the slippery slope argument, it won't matter. I can distinguish Nazis from other people, and assign different rules.
Click to expand...
I am extremely confident that people like Robert Dear, Michael Griffin, and Eric Rudolph could have written that last sentence just as sincerely as you did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Ivan on this one.

Having said... an elected GOP House member punching an accredited reporter for asking a question isn't ideological violence.  It's just violence.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Realistically, other people are not going to split these philosophical hairs.  People who are prone to lashing out violently at folks who think differently than them are especially not going to reason this through accurately or in good faith.  They are going to engage in the same motivated reasoning that has driven folks to hate people in the other tribe.
Click to expand...
That's on them.  We all draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior (and just how unacceptable certain behavior is) based on context. I can laugh at the famous Ben Konop heckler and also condemn Joe Wilson for shouting You Lie! at the President of the United States during the state of the union.  I can enjoy Roughned Odor clocking Jose Bautista and also condemn the White Sox fans who punched the first base coach.  Just because two incidents have some circumstances in common doesn't mean I have to formulate a context-free golden rule that applies to all of them.

 
I'll readily punch a Nazi. To me, they....more than any other political/societal entity (probably from being drummed into my head for 50+ years from television, history books, grandparents and uncles who fought in WWII and video games that these are the WORST people ever) shouldn't be able to hide behind the Freedom of Speech defense. Nazis, to me...are immune.  

But that being said.....I readily acknowledge that any actions on behalf of my Nazi opinions are indefensible in a civilzed world. There's no legitimate, non hypocritical, non "someone probably hates pro-choicers or Maoists or Red Sox fans as much as you hate Nazis" slippery slope defense to the way I feel. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
That's on them.  We all draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior (and just how unacceptable certain behavior is) based on context. I can laugh at the famous Ben Konop heckler and also condemn Joe Wilson for shouting You Lie! at the President of the United States during the state of the union.  I can enjoy Roughned Odor clocking Jose Bautista and also condemn the White Sox fans who punched the first base coach.  Just because two incidents have some circumstances in common doesn't mean I have to formulate a context-free golden rule that applies to all of them.
Click to expand...
Ben Konop. Boo! 

Actually, as much as I laugh at the Ben Konop heckler, I thought that was pretty rude and disrespectful. But I'm rude and disrespectful, so I get it. I also think Joe Wilson is a buffoon, but if someone of more stature had said it, I'd love it.  

But to your broader point about context: I think, and I do not speak for IK, that the heckler's veto, the violent veto, the extrajudicial veto, the jury nullification depends on whose hands it's in. It's not necessarily context, it's a judicial reasoning and line-drawing that we do. Let me explain my position. I was once making the exact argument IK was making to a law professor and he looked at me and said, "But __, we draw lines, that's what we do as lawyers." All well and good, but in an extrajudicial setting, who is drawing the lines and making the judgments? I would trust you, Tobias, because you're smart and everything points to decency. Everybody else, not so much. Maybe that's where you guys are having the difference of opinion. The conservative and liberal temperament is different in that respect. Conservatives fundamentally distrust people, liberals not so much. 

My two cents. Hope it helps. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
All well and good, but in an extrajudicial setting, who is drawing the lines and making the judgments? I would trust you, Tobias, because you're smart and everything points to decency. Everybody else, not so much. Maybe that's where you guys are having the difference of opinion. The conservative and liberal temperament is different in that respect. Conservatives fundamentally distrust people, liberals not so much. 
Click to expand...
Most people here want to punch Nazis; but who's to say we stop at punching Nazis? When does a particular ideology become punchable? Who makes the call that a certain group or ideology becomes punchable? I'm not comfortable making those distinctions, and neither should anyone else.

Nazi ideology is heinous, barbarous, and cruel...but so is militant Islam. Yet, I've seen no calls in this thread to punch followers of Islam. Why is that? Is it because there's a fear of real retribution from a Muslim as opposed the comedic relief of punching Nazis?

 
Tom Servo said:
Most people here want to punch Nazis; but who's to say we stop at punching Nazis? When does a particular ideology become punchable? Who makes the call that a certain group or ideology becomes punchable? I'm not comfortable making those distinctions, and neither should anyone else.

Nazi ideology is heinous, barbarous, and cruel...but so is militant Islam. Yet, I've seen no calls in this thread to punch followers of Islam. Why is that? Is it because there's a fear of real retribution from a Muslim as opposed the comedic relief of punching Nazis?
Click to expand...
As for the bolded, that's the argument I made to my professor and his response was that "we're line-drawers." 

:shrugs: 

I agree with you. I was just getting theoretical. 

And "when does a particular ideology become punchable" is also a great point. It speaks to retribution and utilitarianism. At what point can we tolerate the intolerant? It would seem to me we should only be intolerant and violent in self-defense. But when does self-defense begin? There's the rub. 

I'm also not comfortable making those distinctions. 

I do not think the retribution factor plays a role. That's the only thing I'd disagree with you on. I think not punching followers of Islam is a leftist shibboleth these days; punching Nazis is okay. 

I started a thread here called "Is It Okay To Disinvite A Communist From A Free Speech Symposium" because I thought it was relevant to this topic and touched on the things you just said, but nobody really got it going. 

 
Tom Servo said:
Most people here want to punch Nazis; but who's to say we stop at punching Nazis? When does a particular ideology become punchable? Who makes the call that a certain group or ideology becomes punchable? I'm not comfortable making those distinctions, and neither should anyone else.

Nazi ideology is heinous, barbarous, and cruel...but so is militant Islam. Yet, I've seen no calls in this thread to punch followers of Islam. Why is that? Is it because there's a fear of real retribution from a Muslim as opposed the comedic relief of punching Nazis?
Click to expand...
Nothing comedic about Nazis.

 
dickey moe said:
Are there any other abhorently racist groups where it would be ok to do this?
Click to expand...
Are pro lifers allowed to punch pro choice folks? I mean, in their eyes 1.2 million lives are ended annually. 
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I just get confirmation that Timschochet is an Ubermensch, an elitist.  It would explain the Hilary support as she feels obligated to rule to protect us, the hoi polloi, from our own ignorance and destructive tendencies, and when the ends justify the means that includes lying to us, after all, it is for our own good whether we know it or not. 

Interesting.

Tim's biography here started as an objectivist libertarian, moved through a time where he avowed conservatism though few bought that, to a progressive liberalism, and now to this.  What next?  Will his second literary effort be Thus Spake Timschochet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ignatiusjreilly
George Soros and anti-Semitism
2 3
Replies
120
Views
3K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
Ruffrodys05
  • Poll
Lying - Acceptable, Yes or No?
2
Replies
70
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
GordonGekko
Ben Shapiro Debates Piers Morgan On Gun Control & "Assault Rifles" (5/26/22 7:59 PST)
Replies
3
Views
445
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top