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 Ba'athists, Hamas Supporters, and Taliban Supporters in Paterson, NJ or Dearborn, MI? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
If it we're up to me, I'd move that one too. The only reason that one stays here apparently is because it was here before the PSF split I believe, so it's grandfathered in it seems. But yeah, you a cool dude in my books. Let's keep it that way
Northern Voice
Footballguy
I didn't say a word about those religions.
What exactly makes you wake up and think "you know, I think I'll defend the Nazis today."
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
I don't wake up thinking about them, never mind thinking about defending them. You apparently missed/are missing the thread bumped (at one point to the top of) on Page One and its snarky tone about condoning politically-directed violence at disgusting rallies. Herewith:
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/753777-can-i-punch-nazis-spoiler-alert-yes/
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
No personal animus has been felt. The only personal animus felt in this thread was the longing to punch the OP, but Joe Summer does that all the time, and it's par for the course.
eta* Actually, given our dealings and simpatico outlooks on life and some politics, @Chakais easily on my list of people that I'd love to have a (non-alcoholic) drink with should he ever be in Southern California.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Voice
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I said violence was inherent in their ideology. Whether each practitioner of the ideology had committed violence was another issue entirely. It's why I bring up Ba'athists, the PLO and Hamas, and the Taliban. If a US citizen -- or any other citizen -- is a member of those parties or sects, can one justifiably punch them even if they personally have committed no violent acts?
I vote no, and that politically-dervied violence must be used with extreme caution.
Would you punch Ba'athists, Hamas and the PLO, or the Taliban? I'm waiting for the logical inconsistencies to come out, because there's violence inherent in all three ideologies for anybody who dissents from their basic tenets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Voice
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, the Gaza Strip. But Yasser Arafat and his terrorist PLO ran Palestine for decades. I don't care that he won a Peace Prize. It probably did more damage to the prize than anything in recent memory. But the title can be changed to reflect the dynamics of Palestinian politics more accurately. I figure most people get it.
This topic may not have a chance but for now I asked the moderators to let try to survive here but not put up with much that's over the line.
Please help us be cool and please keep in mind what we said here https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776093-official-petty-arguments-and-squabbles-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21919956
Please help us be cool and please keep in mind what we said here https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776093-official-petty-arguments-and-squabbles-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21919956
rockaction
Footballguy
An imperfect analogy: The Moonlight Graham of threads.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think the juxtaposition against the Nazi punching on the FFA's front page was a large part of its original impetus. I think vigilantism and non-state actor violence is an interesting, deep topic with a long tradition under the rubric of both illegitimate governments and civil disobedience under legitimate ones. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope that it gets discussed that way. Personally, I'm conflicted about the larger issue. Perhaps we can honestly reflect and talk about the conflicts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not unless I or others are in physical danger.
squistion
Footballguy
This thread should be :IBTL:
Seriously, Joe, if I started a thread entitled "Can I punch someone wearing a MAGA hat?" the thread would be instantly deleted and I would be serving a lengthy time out. You even locked a thread about people's reactions to MAGA hats (which has been violent). With all due respect, your stance here seems inconsistent to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a big problem with your initial post and headline is the inclusion of Palestinians. While some are violent and support terrorist actions, the vast majority are not.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s an important distinction. I’m all for punching terrorist members of Hamas. I’m not for punching Palestinians. Grouping them together is not only inaccurate, it leads to bigotry.
rockaction
Footballguy
For brevity's or lack of oversight's case, my original post included Palestinians with the hopeful understanding that the point would be noted that Hamas governs the Gaza Strip and was elected to do so by the Palestinians. It's like the East Coast of the U.S. agreeing to be defended by a white supremacist militia.
I (almost) always defend squistion's threads, even we he starts four of the same ones. His complaint should be noted with a grain of salt. If somebody that's not on his side starts a thread, he's likely to say it's not threadworthy, something people give him wide berths with.
rockaction
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re an amenable guy in general rock. That’s what I like about you, among many other things.
But I still don’t understand what point you’re trying to make with this thread. I think that most people agree that it’s OK to punch bad guys. Now what?
It's really not like that at all unless the only powerful option available was that white supremacist militia.
And claiming brevity is hard to do with such a long title.
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, why didn't you set us up a pole?
rockaction
Footballguy
I don't agree with it, actually. I'm with IK on politically-themed violence. I don't agree with violence towards those peaceably assembling. It's the old Skokie straw. Allow the march, allow the speech, defeat it in the marketplace of ideas, and if necessary, with force.
But a bystander punching a white supremacist during a rally strikes me as individualized mob justice. (Yes, I meant that. Individuals can feed off of the mob).
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Trying to keep it one line. Problem noted by tim, title changed. I do that often when I'm inaccurate. I try to keep the titles interesting and as concise as possible so that people may immediately look at them and get a chuckle or reference or agreement or antagonization or what-have-you.
This thread was more of a dialectical reaction to the snide Nazi punching thread than a serious exercise. The title proved the point all by itself. But I should have set it up as a pole. It would have gauged the temperature of the FFA better.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
We have to have laws against public violence obviously. But personally, if somebody punches a Nazi out I’m not going to be that upset.
rockaction
Footballguy
I guess "Can I Punch Nazis?" might have been an ethical question rather than a political one, but it seemed really political in its impetus. I also find it hard to muster sympathy for Nazis, though the worst group beating I was ever a witness to was at a hardcore/punk show where Nazis showed up Sieg Heiling and the like. They were potentially violent, and nobody waited. It was a free-for-all. The Nazis were outnumbered. Twenty kicks to the head later, and a bouncer curled up in a fetal position, taking the blows away from one young man's head as the boots came cascading down and through on it. I'll never forget the scene. It was mob violence. Incidents like that -- in the hardcore and punk world -- helped shape my worldview about subcultures and violence and lack of authority, etc. But the bouncer taking the blows for the kid that he obviously didn't like? Pure altruism and a love of humanity, IMHO. This was an odious kid, and he was saved by some form of grace, be it religious or secular. But he was lucky. I'd like to hope he grew up and out of that phase, actually, but I'm not holding out too much hope...
supermike80
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think starting violence will only lead to more violence. That said, you’d still likely be punished for punching anyone. But I have zero problem with someone wanting to punch an actual nazi or member of isis or hamas. Lumping all Islam together or other groups though is a bit off IMO
As Carlton said, noted.
Locking both was my first instinct but I also try to listen to people who've told me we're too quick to lock.
If I understand his point, the two threads are tied and it really is a deeper question of is it ok to ever physically assault a person who we radically disagree with. Even a Nazi. It's not about politics at all. It's about ethics.
I think then he's working back to where is not ok? I do think it has the potential to be a good topic if people stay cool. That's to be seen. Thus why I moved it here and asked people to be cool. Thanks for helping there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Starting a physical confrontation is either wrong or it's right. There can't be a list of people who you can hit and a list you can't.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That it's not okay to commit a violent act against somebody who is no threat, immediately or distantly, (I allow for distant threats in my own personal calculus) to you. Considering Nazis comprise probably .01% of the population, their numbers certainly aren't dangerous, only their individual actions.
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
Nice to see that ratting posters out and running to the mods trying to dictate what kind of censorship takes place here doesn't automatically make it so. Thanks Joe.
supermike80
Footballguy
"Well I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit, and there's guys you can't.
Now that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit."
rockaction
Footballguy
By the way, I'm personally really conflicted on this, especially as it extends to groups that are vocally and militantly anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, anti-secular, or anti-American. I view these groups as a threat needing to be monitored in some fashion but am not sure what apparatus I support or what role government should have in the monitoring.
Should this be left to the feds? Should non-profit watchdogs step in and fill the void? Is there a public-private symbiosis to be had?
And what of prison? We know that gangs and gang culture form around stuff like this in prison. How do we empower police and corrections officers to report on and stop this stuff without trampling civil rights? Tough stuff, all of it.
Should this be left to the feds? Should non-profit watchdogs step in and fill the void? Is there a public-private symbiosis to be had?
And what of prison? We know that gangs and gang culture form around stuff like this in prison. How do we empower police and corrections officers to report on and stop this stuff without trampling civil rights? Tough stuff, all of it.
And to add, I think Clayton's point is an interesting question and it's why we're letting this one stay for now.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think it's very different, actually. Politically-motivated violence takes the individual as a member of a group and ascribes qualities to that person as a member of a group. Violence, absence of a sociopolitical motive, is an individual problem qua individual, and is a problem between two differing entities, not one's membership as a subset of a class of people.
For me, it gets down into other important, and sometimes messy, areas of things like Grace and Forgiveness and Tolerance. Which swirl around with Apathy and a condition where everything is cool and nobody stands for anything. It's complicated.
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
It is complicated. Just like we have had people state they have severed relationships with friends and family if they voted for Trump. I don't understand that.
rockaction
Footballguy
Chaka brought up the relativism argument against violence earlier in the thread and thought that might be what I was getting at. I wasn't. He found it undesirable. So do I. I am all for knowing that there are certain core beliefs that are true and universal. But at the same time, I think we have to allow, at least politically if not personally, radical deviations from the norm in order to be a tolerant, pluralistic society. It's very messy, this conundrum.
