Can I Punch Ba'athists, Hamas Supporters, and Taliban Supporters in Paterson, NJ or Dearborn, MI? (1 Viewer)

[Gr00vus]

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." 

Not assaulting someone isn't the same thing as defending them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Not assaulting someone isn't the same thing as defending them.

Very 

 

[timschochet]

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.

Sure. It’s wrong. 

But I’m not going to get that upset, as I wrote. 

 

[rockaction]

I'm not talking about what you're getting at. I'm talking about what I see. 

Apathy coupled with relativism? Yes, I also see that. On the flip side, I also see unwarranted self-assuredness without a proper reflection on the self's own fragility in matters of logic, reason, and truth. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Work here..it's not bad.  

Amazing food, diversity, history and of course some of the most important historical items in the history of the country.

 

[Northern Voice]

Not assaulting someone isn't the same thing as defending them.

Very 

Rockaction defined them as a non-violent people and equated them with Palestinians in his deliberately trolling/inflammatory title and initial posts before he was called out on it a dozen times and changed his argument, found new anecdotes and moved the goalposts. Par for the course I guess. 

 

[rockaction]

Rockaction defined them as a non-violent people and equated them with Palestinians in his deliberately trolling/inflammatory title and initial posts before he was called out on it a dozen times and changed his argument, found new anecdotes and moved the goalposts. Par for the course I guess. 

Absolutely untrue. I said nonviolent individuals and said about eight times that violence was inherent in their party. I'm not sure if your anger/partisanship is clouding your judgment about what was said or what. This is like the Maple Leafs. 

 

[Northern Voice]

Absolutely untrue. I said nonviolent individuals and said about eight times that violence was inherent in their party. I'm not sure if your anger/partisanship is clouding your judgment about what was said or what. This is like the Maple Leafs. 

I just don't buy the idea of a non-violent Nazi.

 

[rockaction]

I just don't buy the idea of a non-violent Nazi.

That membership of a party makes one violent, that is. That's where we'll have to disagree. Even by your own standard, which I'm not agreeing to, I think that someone is violent only if they have actus reus, not just mens rea. That's generally the standard we use in criminal law for prosecuting violence and therefore using the force apparatus of the state. 

One must have committed or be planning to commit a violent act to be considered a threat to be met with force. 

 

[supermike80]

Amazing food, diversity, history and of course some of the most important historical items in the history of the country.

Decent food,  diversity isn't a draw for me(not that I am against it, but I don't use that as a qualifier)--very hugely massively industrial..if you dig that.   And lots of historical car stuff, again, if that's your thing then yes.

 

[Ilov80s]

Ba'athists? Yes.

Palestinians and the PLO and Hamas as its ruling entity? Yes.

The Taliban and their killing soccer fields? Yes.

People unafraid of seeming racist to the modern left have seen these political parties and groups for what they are. Irredeemably nationalistic, fascistic, terroristic, genocidal and theocratic maniacs. 

Didn't the left vote and support the war against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein as well as almost universally side with Israel over Hamas. How has the left given political cover to these groups? 

 

[Ilov80s]

Decent food,  diversity isn't a draw for me(not that I am against it, but I don't use that as a qualifier)--very hugely massively industrial..if you dig that.   And lots of historical car stuff, again, if that's your thing then yes.

and the car Kennedy was assassinated in, the chair Lincoln was assassinated in, the Rosa Parks Bus, Menlo Park, the Wright Brothers shop, etc. 

Also I highly recommend checking out: AB's Amazing Ribs, M Cantin, Bangkok 96 and Dearborn Meat Market beyond all the other obvious places like Millers and Middle Eastern places that people Anthony Bourdain recommend. 

 

[timschochet]

I just don't buy the idea of a non-violent Nazi.

That could be true today. But not in historical terms. There were actually lots of Germans who belonged to the Nazi party that were basically bureaucrats or low level types, white collar, etc. 

 

[rockaction]

The Democratic left supported the war against the Taliban and, with massive caveats, Iraq, but the Democratic left is not the "left," as most would define it. The politics of the day are not the ideological underpinnings nor where the intellectual action is on either side. From J Street to academia, people have a radically different view of how these groups should be treated when they become state actors.

eta* This is in response to ilov80s, who I can't quote. 

 

[supermike80]

and the car Kennedy was assassinated in, the chair Lincoln was assassinated in, the Rosa Parks, Menlo Park, the Wright Brothers shop, etc. 

All in the same place.  So yeah, if you wanna go to the Henry Ford Museum, for sure.  But that doesn't really make the whole city IMO.

Like I said, I work here..I think it's a fine town.  I don't think it's nearly as awesome as you think it is, but I only work here, don't live here..so maybe thats the difference

 

[Ilov80s]

All in the same place.  So yeah, if you wanna go to the Henry Ford Museum, for sure.  But that doesn't really make the whole city IMO.

Like I said, I work here..I think it's a fine town.  I don't think it's nearly as awesome as you think it is, but I only work here, don't live here..so maybe thats the difference

I mean it's not Chicago or Toronto, but it beats most of the cities of it's size. 

 

[Steve Tasker]

That membership of a party makes one violent, that is. That's where we'll have to disagree. Even by your own standard, which I'm not agreeing to, I think that someone is violent only if they have actus reus, not just mens rea. That's generally the standard we use in criminal law for prosecuting violence and therefore using the force apparatus of the state. 

One must have committed or be planning to commit a violent act to be considered a threat to be met with force. 

Whether or not you're intentionally dog-whistling in this thread, that's the way it reads to this impartial observer. 

 

[Ilov80s]

The Democratic left supported the war against the Taliban and, with massive caveats, Iraq, but the Democratic left is not the "left," as most would define it. The politics of the day are not the ideological underpinnings nor where the intellectual action is on either side. From J Street to academia, people have a radically different view of how these groups should be treated when they become state actors.

eta* This is in response to ilov80s, who I can't quote. 

Well, maybe there should have been more caveats since the Iraq War was an epic disaster. I consider the Democratic Party the active political voice of the left. Sure, there is a much far left people out there but at this point they aren't enough of them or they are too dispersed to really have a voice Nationally. 

 

[rockaction]

Whether or not you're intentionally dog-whistling in this thread, that's the way it reads to this impartial observer. 

Dog whistling whom or what, though? I'm not even sure who I'm dog-whistling. Am I defending Nazis or am I trying to beat up Muslims or what?  I'm sort of getting accused of both, in tacit ways.

The point, I guess, is indicative of how fractured we've become in modern times. Everyone is looking for motive or subtle, under-the-radar racism of some sort or another. It's a message board. There's no PR here. This is the problem also with taking a position that classical liberals and universalists take. Our fractured identity politics have made it impossible to take a stance like this.

Punching Nazis that haven't committed acts of violence or are not planning on doing so = bad

Punching the three groups I mentioned in the same circumstances = bad.

How has liberal toleration changed so much? 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Can I punch nazis taking baths in humus?

Those nazis are such a PITA. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

How about Hoda Muthana? 

 

[rockaction]

Well, maybe there should have been more caveats since the Iraq War was an epic disaster. I consider the Democratic Party the active political voice of the left. Sure, there is a much far left people out there but at this point they aren't enough of them or they are too dispersed to really have a voice Nationally. 

As to the caveats, the success/failure depended on what the goal of the Iraq war was. If -- and this is if -- we had set the bar at simply winning a war, showing our military might in the Middle East to the populace, and removing Hussein from power, then it was a success. Instead, much like punching Nazis, we went in with the goal of making a "preemptive strike" so that we could "build democracy." It was overreach in the grandest, most tragic sense. It was Wilsonian nation-building in outlook for a country that wasn't ready. 

As far as the left goes, IMHO (and this doesn't really go to the debate at hand, it was more an anticipatory response to the psychology of the modern left) the academic and publication left will always drive the political left-of-center, trying to pull them ever leftward toward their goals. Right now, those goals have roots that are based in identity politics and relativism as the main lockstep tenets.

 

[Ilov80s]

As to the caveats, the success/failure depended on what the goal of the Iraq war was. If -- and this is if -- we had set the bar at simply winning a war, showing our military might in the Middle East to the populace, and removing Hussein from power, then it was a success. Instead, much like punching Nazis, we went in with the goal of making a "preemptive strike" so that we could "build democracy." It was overreach in the grandest, most tragic sense. It was Wilsonian nation-building in outlook for a country that wasn't ready. 

As far as the left goes, IMHO (and this doesn't really go to the debate at hand, it was more an anticipatory response to the psychology of the modern left) the academic and publication left will always drive the political left-of-center, trying to pull them ever leftward toward their goals. Right now, those goals have roots that are based in identity politics and relativism as the main lockstep tenets.

Realistically we couldn't have done without attempting the other. It's not the kind of world where a country can just blow something to hell and walk away like they could have 1000 years ago and we definitely couldn't have gone the imperialism route like would have been done 400 years ago. 

 

[Steve Tasker]

Dog whistling whom or what, though? I'm not even sure who I'm dog-whistling. Am I defending Nazis or am I trying to beat up Muslims or what?  I'm sort of getting accused of both, in tacit ways.

The point, I guess, is indicative of how fractured we've become in modern times. Everyone is looking for motive or subtle, under-the-radar racism of some sort or another. It's a message board. There's no PR here. This is the problem also with taking a position that classical liberals and universalists take. Our fractured identity politics have made it impossible to take a stance like this.

Punching Nazis that haven't committed acts of violence or are not planning on doing so = bad

Punching the three groups I mentioned in the same circumstances = bad.

How has liberal toleration changed so much? 

I'm not a "liberal" in the general sense; I'm about as little-l libertarian as it gets.  I certainly am not looking for a "motive" or "subtle under-the-radar" racism in your post.  That said, this thread is in not-so-subtle reference to the similarly-titled and discussed "Can I punch Nazis?" thread.  In a vacuum, absent that thread, this thread may have standalone merit, and I suspect you'd get different responses.  But context matters, and while you're not saying literally incorrect things in here, it's hard not to see the parallels drawn.

 

[rockaction]

I'm not a "liberal" in the general sense; I'm about as little-l libertarian as it gets.  I certainly am not looking for a "motive" or "subtle under-the-radar" racism in your post.  That said, this thread is in not-so-subtle reference to the similarly-titled and discussed "Can I punch Nazis?" thread.  In a vacuum, absent that thread, this thread may have standalone merit, and I suspect you'd get different responses.  But context matters, and while you're not saying literally incorrect things in here, it's hard not to see the parallels drawn.

I see your first point. I meant "liberal toleration" in the true sense. Like Western, classical liberal. I don't usually use the term "liberal" to describe people left-of-center of the traditional paradigm, I use the simple term "left." And the comment, more importantly, was rhetorical and not directed at you personally.

As for the title, it's of course a response to the Nazi thread. It's my whole thread's purpose. The Nazi thread was on the front page of the FFA and was posting links of comedians making fun of those of us that thought the "marketplace of ideas" was a legitimate avenue to pursue to defeat the ideology of modern-day Nazism. Part of the impetus for this thread was to ask if those that are okay with an Antifa/left-wing guy punching somebody with a Nazi ideology -- and are smugly sure about the righteousness of their cause -- would be okay with, say, a right-winger punching a Muslim at a demonstration or in their community, given that the parties listed are all inherently evil ideologies based on killing of some sort.

 

[Zow]

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).

Nobody here is going to punch a nazi. Calm down. 

 

[rockaction]

Nobody here is going to punch a nazi. Calm down. 

The theoretical thought upsets me theoretically?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Nobody here is going to punch a nazi. Calm down. 

62% of the people here seem to think it's ok.  

 

[Zow]

62% of the people here seem to think it's ok.  

Technically, they think it’s “cool.”  I imagine there are plenty of things that somebody may think is cool but won’t actually do. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Technically, they think it’s “cool.”  I imagine there are plenty of things that somebody may think is cool but won’t actually do. 

Sure. Lots of people think something is cool but won't do it.

62% of the people here think it's cool to punch a Nazi. Not sure how you can take a majority that big and think "Nobody here is going to punch a nazi. Calm down."

Are you saying the people here are all just talk?