Should we punch nazis?

Should we punch nazis?

Has any book taught anything about it? Is there any moral lesson out there that you're willing to share? Any philosophical insight?

Let's settle this down, Veeky Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

qz.com/896463/is-it-ok-to-punch-a-nazi-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-talks-richard-spencer-nazis-and-donald-trump/
youtube.com/watch?v=BocmFOVUBCQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

There exist some problems that can only be solved with violence.

You should punch whoever you want, as long as you accept the possible consequences.

1)Leftists want to punch Nazis
2)Leftists call everyone they don't agree with "Nazis"
See the problem here?

Yeah, we should destroy all those that disagree with us.

talk shit, get hit

Do you think that it is unreasonable to call Richard Spencer ''Nazi''? I mean, I'm not seeing any leftist advocating for punching libertarians or GOP politicians. They're only fine with punching the guy who obviously is a Nazi.

Punching a Nazi suggests that you think it's okay to harm or eradicate people you don't like or people who disagree with you.

So, by punching a Nazi, you're actually saying that you're the same sort of person as they are, but you just believe in different things. You're not admonishing or rejecting the idea that some people are simply undeserving of peace or respect or safety. The Nazi and the Nazi-puncher actually have a lot in common. Just like two people who engage in war on a battlefield both agree that war is a valid solution to a problem, they just have different ideas about what counts as a problem.

Punching people just because you disagree with them is fucking nigger behaviour. I'm gonna fucking laugh the next time one of these nu-male sjw fucks gets hit by a Bruder.

Silencing through fear and public displays of violence have never resulted in people becoming sympathetic with those attacked. This hasn't happened in history once.

Yes I do. Those who disagree with the ideals of the coming communist revolution should not be punched, they should be shot.

Use of force is justified as long as you're prepared to face retaliation. In other words, Spencer was in full rights to pull out a gun and shoot this cunt to death

>the guy who obviously is a Naz
Is he really, though?
I disagree with his beliefs, but that's all they are, just stupid things he believes. Does he go out hunting minorities or executing jews? or is that just something he talks about? And does simply talking about that make him a nazi?

And where do you draw the line?
Say there are two people who feel justified getting a punch in - is that okay?
What if there are ten? Well, I guess if he is still standing.
But what if he falls to the ground? Should we get a kick in? As long as it's not in the head?

See how quickly things get messy when trying to establish the proper amount of justice to be dispensed on someone?

Then the messiness snowballs as more people are allowed to decide.

It's best to stick to the principle of non-violence, because you can justify yourself your way to murder pretty quickly

>Has any book taught anything about it? Is there any moral lesson out there that you're willing to share? Any philosophical insight?
Are you having a fucking laugh? You seriously think this qualifies it without breaking the rules? Saged

Is racism, a drive for a white ethnostate and simpathies for actual nazism just a matter of opinions? Is seeing certain people as literally subhuman a 50/50 problem?

I don't think so. Now, i wouldn't advocate for punching Spencer if he was just another guy going on with his life. But he is a political organizer instead. He is trying to organize a political movement, and its foundation are just horrorific, inhuman and should find no place in society.
He deserves to be punched, since him being succesful in politics means that our democracy is ruined forever.

Yeh yeh so you're so edgy

No

Commie scum should be hung from trees though

It's not about whether we should or shouldn't, it's just that punching nazis is a symptom that the nazis are not as irrelevant as they should be. This makes them more proud of themselves and provides a relief for those who are against them. A relief that is temporary and not at all substantial and therefore can help conceal their real harm. There is an underlying thought of "look, nazis are ridiculed and getting punched, we don't have to worry about them right now".

There is no question that punching a nazi can be a thrilling experience for anyone anti-nazi, but if we were to repress this sensation a bit more we can see it come up a little more fiercily when it needs to be. The real question is why interview them at all, why give them press or voice at all. We should not ignore them, we should just realize there is nothing of value to even be ignored... and then ignore them.

That's the thing that gets me. SJW Liberals constantly spout that freedom of speech isn't really freedom of speech unless there's consequences. OK sure -- but freedom of speech is really just about protecting out rights to politically talk in public without legal discourse. It by no means justifies the reactionary violence that is in this video clip.

It's pretty childish imho to react this way. No matter what toxic someone spews, at the end of the day it's just words. And guess what, liberals seem to forget that they have the power of words -- and in this day and age, they should have cognitive ability to make some argument against this, instead of opting for straight out violence.

Kind of silly, really.

Doesn't punching someone suggest that they're subhuman to you?

Sounds like someone wants to go to Gulag.

I wonder what's gone so wrong in your life that you feel the need to post things like this. What void are you trying to fill user?

He's not doing this, but he's recruiting people in a actual political movement.
Should we just let him do that, while wishfully thinking that he will somehow lose it and ruin the whole party by himself?

Wake up, the whole world is radicalizing, and people like these should be punched in the face everytime they show up. It's not just a random guy spouting bullshits, that's an actual political organizer who is spouting his party propaganda in order to recruit as many white supremacists as possible.

To think that things will just solve themselves without any need for action, and that reason is a strong enough weapon to fight these troglodites is simply naivety.

Don't certain ideas and actions make you a subhuman?
Should I really respect as a human being someone who is openly, politically advocating for institutionalized white supremacy, while blatantly spouting actual Nazi and KKK propaganda?

Give me a break, not all idealogies are the same. To be unable to see that is either intellectual cowardice or actual Nazi sympathy.

I've got the same issue with the death penalty that I do with punching nazis.

It makes no sense to me that you think murder is a crime, yet you punish people by murdering them and suddenly it's not a crime. Which means you think it's appropriate or acceptable to kill people you don't like. Which means you could rationalize a murderer's decision to kill, assuming he didn't like the person enough.

You may think that being a murderer is a crime punishable by death. Someone else may think that being a Jew is a crime punishable by death. By keeping the spirit of capital punishment of any kind alive, you leave room for people to use that tool in ways you don't like. Eradicating the very notion of violence as punishment means that you, as a people and a government, can actually stand by your admonishments of murderers and violent people. But as long as you think it's okay to kill or hurt people you don't like, you're no different from them.

Quartz: So, is it OK to punch a Nazi?

Žižek: No! If there is violence needed, I’m more for Gandhian, passive violence.

I once made a statement, maybe you know it, which cost me dearly. I said the problem with Hitler was that he wasn’t violent enough. Then I said, in the same statement, that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. All Hitler’s violence was reactive violence. He killed millions, but the ultimate goal was basically to keep the system the way it was—German capitalism and so on—while Gandhi really wanted to bring down the British state. But his violence was symbolic: peaceful demonstrations, general strikes and so on.

If a guy talks like that jerk [Richard Spencer], you should just ignore him. If he hits you, turn around. Don’t even acknowledge him as a person. That’s the type of violence I would call for. Not physical violence. Because, you know, people say symbolic violence can be even worse, but don’t underestimate physical violence. Something happens when you move to physical violence. I’m not saying we should greet everyone, embrace them. Be brutal at a different level. When you encounter a guy like the one who was punched, act in such a way that even hitting him, even slapping him is too much of a recognition. You should treat him or her or whoever as a nonperson, literally.

You have to realize that this man is rallying people with just words. They're words. You can use words too, so can others. So if you're so against it then just make the better argument. And let's be honest here -- that really isn't all that hard when you bring up the obvious repercussions of nazism, radicalism, etc.

C'mon. You're stooping to a level that doesn't even need to be stooped when you jump to violence.

Ideology is just a bunch of words that mobilize a group of people which believe in certain things, so you know you can do the same thing to counter said ideology.

MODS

Q:In other words, leftists should “go high?”

Ž: I remember when [Greek leftist party] Syriza was still competing for power in Greece. A representative of [far-right political party] Golden Dawn threw glasses full of water at his Syriza opponent at a TV round table. A couple of times, Syriza members of parliament were attacked in parliament, and so on. Today it’s these new alt-right people who are acting physically violent. They represent the decay of common morality and decency. And I use here the the very precise term, Hegel calls it Sittlichkeit. It’s not simple morality, it’s a set of thick unwritten rules which makes our social life bearable. And, paradoxically, I think that progressives should become the voice of common decency, politeness, good manners and so on.

Here I see also the failure of political correctness, because political correctness is, for me, a desperate reaction to this disintegration. But they are doing it in a suicidal way, by precise regulations, saying this word is forbidden and so on. If it has to proceed like this, the left has already lost.

Q: But the “when they go low, we go high” strategy didn’t actually work for Democrats against Donald Trump in 2016.

Ž:It’s much more complex than that. I think that’s their biggest mistake. Isn’t is sad that the best left-liberal critique of Trump is political comedy? People like Jon Stewart, John Oliver and so on. It’s nice to make fun of him, but you laugh at him and he wins. My God! There is something terribly wrong with playing this game of ironically making fun of Trump. You know, in medicine they call it symptomatic healing, when you take some things, they just neutralize the effects, like you have this pain, but they don’t heal the disease itself. Criticizing Trump is just symptomatic healing. Trump is an effect of the failure of the liberal-left. Everybody knows this knows this now. The only way to really beat Trump is to radically rethink what does the left mean today. Otherwise he will be getting ordinary people’s votes.

qz.com/896463/is-it-ok-to-punch-a-nazi-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-talks-richard-spencer-nazis-and-donald-trump/

I think that punching a nazi means you're also giving that nazi permission to punch someone he doesn't like. It's the opposite of nazi sympathy, if anything and certainly not as cowardly as sucker punching someone because I don't like the words that come out of their mouth.

To anyone who says no, here a riddle:
You sit at a bar, enjoying some beer, when suddenly a man comes up to you and says that he's going to attack and murder you precisely 10 minutes from now. Unnerved by the weirdo, you leave the bar, however, the man follows you, all while repeating that the clock is running and in exactly 5 minutes he's going to rip you apart and rape your corpse. Your home is too far away, nor you can see any policemen. But you see a shard of sharp glass lying on a sidewalk. The man says "2 minutes left".
Would you be justified to grab the shard and attack?

>Wake up, the whole world is radicalizing, and people like these should be punched in the face everytime they show up.
Maybe radicalization occurs because people are tired of being punched in the face? You give a man a choice between being assaulted on false pretenses or embracing the Nazi label to defend himself and it won't be long until you see actual Nazis and not just memers wearing Trump hats. People forget that Hitler's Brownshirts only really organized in response to Communist/leftist street violence.

Tell me, do you ever frequent /pol/?

No. That's not a riddle, it's a retarded hypothetical and you're not clever or intelligent.

Nah

Off to Gulag then.

Chat shit get banged

You are honestly pathetic

he's a nobody, a pathetic little beta. you think any of the dangerous racists out there actually give two shits about some alt-right blogger?

he's a powerless fuckhead and if you think you're doing anything noble or heroic by sucker-punching him you're a bigger fascist than he'll ever be.

want to punch someone? pick a lockheed martin executive and go for it, they're the ones getting rich off of war and death.

hit somebody who matters and stop LARPing you stupid fuck

>C'mon. You're stooping to a level that doesn't even need to be stooped when you jump to violence.

I'm white, so I'm not a good example. Let's take this example: I'm a black man in New York. My family was somewhat wealthy and I managed to get a decent education.
One day I go to university and a guy, while blatantly using KKK and Nazi propaganda, argues for the fact that I'm a subhuman and that society should simply reject me, either through ''legal means'', or through violent ones. I ask who this guy is to the organizer and he tells me that that guy is a political organizer with tenths of thousands of followers.

Should I just be passive, hope that his movement will fail autonomously and that I won't ever have to care about it? Shouldn't I, instead, account for the worst case scenario, wich sees this guy in power, emanating legislations that identify me as an actual subhuman? Should I take the risk?

It is easy to debate about it from my (and presumably) yours position: we're not affected by it. Yet this guy is openly advocating for a white ethnostate in a country wich is not completely white. His existence is a direct thread to all the people he wish to oppress.

Also he may have never used the world concentration camp, but never did Hitler in the '30s. I feel that usually drawing comparisons with Hitler is a poor way to argue, but in this specific case, considering that Adolf is one of his role models, it makes sense to just assume that he is an actual Nazi (and nothing can make you think otherwise: he actually is a Nazi), and that he will try to push Nazi legislations if he ever manages to get in a position of power.

tldr: punching Nazis is fine if they're not trying to get involved in a political organization: in that case it's your duty to either punch them or supporting the punching of Nazis

No. Killing communists is acceptable however

Nazis are above nothing. They lost their human rights when they threatened to violate the rights of others.

Now, I want the government and the NSA to know that I'm a loyal Trump supporter myself and what I'm about to ask is entirely hypothetical.

BUT, if this tack works, why doesn't someone just go ahead and punch Donald Trump and everyone else they think is a bigot and a nazi and whatever else they think? Probably because it doesn't work.

Just don't give up your guns and kill anyone who tries to take them.

>using freedom of speech to spout ideology
>omg they lose their right because they offended me!!!!11!!!

That's not how human rights work user

Richard Spencer is not Donald Trump. Although many leftists may want him punched, most of them already divorced the actual alt-right (wich is at this point a hardcore version of stormfront) from Trump's campaign (and so did he).

So stop saying that punch nazis equates punching donald trump. It really doesn't, and no one in this thread held this point.

It seems absurd to me that the left would try to engage in violence, when everyone knows that the right has all the guns.

Morally, maybe.
But punching them will just add fuel to them and their supporters.

The Gulag sentence just got 10 years longer, LMAO.

People who post things like this must have serious mental issues or terrible upbringings. What is the void in your life user? Parents that don't love you? A lack of friends? Depression? Low IQ?

I never said that spencer was trump. I'm simply asking why, if someone believes punching a person is an effective way to stop them/their ideas, why not go ahead and punch DJT?

I don't see how you can joke about such disgusting atrocities

>the alt-right
>a hardcore version of stormfront
Idiotic.

who/what is a nazi?
I hate real nazis, like the guys from the 30s and 40s that killed loads of people for no good reason.
but in 2017, where are the nazis? point me to them and I'll do more then punch them.

this guy is wrong right? logically, racism is incorrect? if that is true, which it must be, than there is no reason to physically attack him.

not to mention the fact that you're helping his cause more than hurting it, chimping out and beating on some probably autistic white jackass.

not that hypothetical scenarios ever made any point about the real world, infinitely more fucking complex

I'd like to think I share a board with people who have a basic understanding of human rights

>the left cries about wars overseas
>the left advocates punching people

I don't get it.
They're either both wrong or both right, since there's no difference between shooting someone you dislike and punching them, except that one has a higher chance of killing them.

>this guy is openly advocating for a white ethnostate in a country wich is not completely white.

OK I understand your point. But what I'm trying to say is this. All he's doing, at this point, is using words to argue that blacks are subhuman. You know what? It's working.

You know what else would work? The black man, in your hypothetical situation, advocating against this man's ideas -- through words. Because when anyone chooses to use violence instead of arguments, they make a public display saying, "look! I don't have a strong enough argument to stop this guy's ideas from spreading, so I have to punch him instead!"

We all know that this guy's racist ideology isn't right, and that it's pretty terrible. But I'm not saying to stay passive either -- I'm saying that using good arguments against his nazi propaganda is more than enough to sway public opinion against him (if it hasn't already).

There's no need for violence when public perception and good arguments are at play. The only time I'd say go for it is when it's an oppressive government that stifles public political dissent, then it's OK to use violence.

But if on an individual level people choose to be violent so quickly, it just shows that their arguments are good enough in the sphere of debate.

People who get this assblasted over shitposts on an Uzbekistani horse trading forum like this must have serious mental issues or terrible upbringings. What is the void in your life user? Parents that don't love you? A lack of friends? Depression? Low IQ?

It is not a joke. 25 more years in Gulag, LMAAAAOOOOO

Yeah, here's the thing I don't understand about going out to "punch a nazi"

I get on twitter and troll/fight with old conservatives and racists all day. It's fun and gets them mad and is absolutely legal. It's the 2017 equivalent of publishing a paper full of radical ideas, in terms of how no one cares. If I started showing up at their houses to punch them in the face, then that makes me the asshole, doesn't it? If they show up at my house and spraypaint the word "NIGGER FAGGOT" on my house, that makes them the asshole. They call me a nigger faggot on twitter? That's cool, I'll fire back and no one gets hurt.

We aren't on an Uzbekistani horse trading forum. We are on the pride of Veeky Forums. Please act like it or feel free to move to another board that will accommodate your inhumane views

the normalisation of political violence is not something the left will win
for that reason keep punching Nazis

A hero.

Advocating political violence is wrong, especially if you only advocate violence toward the people you disagree with. That goes for nazis and liberals.

I, personally, don't want to live in a world where anyone gets punched for believing something because that means I'm also fair game and could get punched, as long as someone thinks I deserve it.

>normalisation of political violence
>most if not all political violence, political movements, political outcry, political assassinations, etc. have come from the left

uhhhhh, seems to be the norm desu imho doesnt make it right though

If that means I can punch a marxist, yes

This machine kills leftists.

>muh rights
>muh amendments
Fucking americans need a healthy injection of muslims to learn realpolitik by hard example

just watched the video. why did no one celebrate the hilarious fact that he was just starting to explain pepe when he was socked?

if i were a superstitious feller, i'd say it was a message from a grumpy frog god.

Why do the mods allow these Reddit b8 threads to stay up?

yeah maybe last century
look at the current left, they're nothing, especially in America
middle aged women calling themselves "The Resistance" aren't revolutionaries

shoo /pol/ shoo!

Take a chill pill, buddy :D
youtube.com/watch?v=BocmFOVUBCQ

Because there is no reason to do so. Although some of Trump's proposition are seen as unacceptable by a relevant portion of the population, those propositions are still approachable through debate and reason.

That's not available when you're talking to Nazis.
I could understand your scepticism if we had seen lots of people punching minor right wing politicians, but we're not seeing it, nor it is being debated.
People are not asking if it's okay to punch right wing nuts in the face, they're only concerned about Richard Spencer because he's an actual, certifiable Nazi.

>logically, racism is incorrect? if that is true, which it must be, than there is no reason to physically attack him.

That's very naive of you.
>not to mention the fact that you're helping his cause more than hurting it, chimping out and beating on some probably autistic white jackass.
Not really, considering that after the punching Spencer missed other manifestations (the main one is obviously the Women's March) because he was scared of getting punched again.

>You know what else would work? The black man, in your hypothetical situation, advocating against this man's ideas -- through words

I appreciate the fact that you, as a person, are good enough to really think something like this, but the sad truth is that history proves you wrong.
The rethoric used by the Nazi party, how they got the power, and more importantly, what was the reaction that liberals had towards the first signs of Nazism (wich, by the way, is the same you're exposing here) should be studied in order to identify parties with wich collaboration is simply impossible.
When you start arguing that white people are objectively superior and that brown people should be treated as subhumans you know that there is no point in debating with you. You're not using actual information, and you've already internalized a strong bias against everything that shows that racial realism is nothing more than a joke.
Saying that we shouldn't punch them only because they're yet not a massive party is a weak argument. What if they grow? Again, are you willing to risk it? Or is it better to just punch all those guys who try to build genocide-based parties?

stop overthinking this guys, we should be able to punish wrongthink with impunity

this
Hopefully Trump is the start of this overthrow of people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who cry about "muh constitutionalism".

I used to be a libertarian and then a paulbot.
t. reality hit me hard and I got on board the Trump train!

It's fine, so long as the Left is prepared to admit that the gloves are off in doing so. They get as good as they give, and give as good as they get.

If they want it to be a one-way street, fuck 'em. I personally want it to be a two-way street, because if it comes to a contest of physical force between Left/Right, the Right will win every time. Particularly in America, where they are by far the most armed.

If they want to go down this route, be my guest. Just be honest about it.

Is that the Sam Hyde? The one who committed numerous mass shootings?

Yeah. He gunned down 46 people during HWNDU a day or two ago.

Fucking sick that he's still on the run.

...

this desu

Reminder that the right always starts the conflict better armed.

Reminder that the historical dialectic leads inexorably to communist revolution.

If you believe so strongly in the power of punching, why are you even bothering to have a conversation here with your ineffectual words? Put on a boxing glove and plant one on me, user.

>Reminder that the historical dialectic leads inexorably to communist revolution.

How about no?

...

Quality thread.

The women and minorities of the world should watch out and stay indoors until this madman has been stopped!

I lol'd at that pic. Embarrasing, but it happened.

This is a rather simple matter for Deontological Ethics.
1) All people live within society
2) Society abrogates to the government certain powers to avoid the abuse of these powers
3) In contemporary society conflicts are resolved first via discussion, then debate, then through legislation, then the courts. Internal political violence is reserved for the police who act only in obedience to the law and the courts.
4) It is the duty of members of contemporary societies such as this to adhere to the process and have political violence reserved only for state actors.
5) If and only if the discussion/debate/legislation/court process is broken can the use of political power be morally reassumed by the average citizen.
6) Those citizens who violate the process (i.e., 'Nazi punchers') are objectively more dangerous/harmful to society than non-violent citizens who are still in the discussion/debate area of the conflict resolution cycle.
------------------------------------------------------
Even more bluntly, a few weeks ago Spencer was a nobody who had trouble getting 200 people to attend a party with free food. Now he is well-known and has a legitimate reason to have armed security with him at all times - all because super-geniuses thought he was Bad.
----------------------------------------------------------
In another stellar move, the sorts of geniuses that advocate punching Nazis (as they define them) forget just how bad it was for the Left not too long ago.

Wouldn't surprise me if the so-called radical who punched him was one of his friends. That would certainly explain why the puncher's identity has remained a mystery.

I mean, if I were some retarded political pundit with an unpopular opinion and a boner for attention, I would definitely take a punch to further my cause. It wasn't even a good punch.

Is it just me or has there been a spike in /pol/ threads for the past few weeks or so?

We're specifically in a terrible /pol/bait thread on Veeky Forums mate, not exactly the pride of Veeky Forums.

Probably the only good post in this train wreck

Well, more people are thinking and talking about these topics in general now. If you have a problem with that, you're either a child or a retarded centrist and you should let the big people talk while you play rocket league or read harry potter, whatever it is proles like you do.

Centrism is literally the only ideology that manages to get away from the retardation of the left and right

> leftists are the only ones who demonize their opponents

Centrism is for people who say things like "no politics or religion at the dinner table, let's just have a nice meal"
aka fools, babies, cowards, simpletons, assholes

>I WILL USE VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYBODY I DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE
>I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS POSITION

Fools that manage to collect the evidenced-based policy from both the left and the right..