The Political Thread

[NapalmKev]

To associate yourself in 2017 with nazisim is to take their actions in the 40's as fair or accountable. It is not. Never will be.

A smack across the jaw isn't even in the same league as condoning genocide. Don't even begin to rationalize or tolerate nazism. Don't do it.

You need to read my post again! I have not endorsed genocide and do not tolerate Nazism!

I thought better of you Hawk!

[NapalmKev]

Additionally: this is why people don't talk about anything anymore. Accusations and willful miss-reading gets in the way of fair and balanced debate!

[TordelBack]

People choose to be Nazis. In doing so they choose to be abhored, boycotted, ignored and, yes, punched. That's what allying yourself with the de facto symbol of evil entails.  If they don't like that stuff they could choose some other less sub-human pastime.

[NapalmKev]

People choose to be Nazis. In doing so they choose to be abhored, boycotted, ignored and, yes, punched. That's what allying yourself with the de facto symbol of evil entails.  If they don't like that stuff they could choose some other less sub-human pastime.

Whether I, you, or anyone else agrees with them is largely irrelevant. If we accept free speech in the literal sense then that means tolerating and listening to others. If we're happy to punch someone with views that differ from our own that makes us Fascists.

FOR THE RECORD: I have not, do not, tolerate bigotry in any form. And I won't be accused of such!

[Hawkmumbler]

Nazism had it's chance at free speech. It didn't end well. That argument is moot.

[JayzusB.Christ]

If, in a ludicrously improbable hypothetical situation, the decision to have Trump assassinated was entirely down to me, I wouldn't do it. I don't believe in killing and I'd be a hypocrite if I had someone murdered.

That said, if someone else did it, I wouldn't mourn the cunt one bit.  But I'd also worry about the presidency being handed to a man who thinks homosexuality can be 'cured' by referring to the hallucinatory ravings of Bronze Age desert tribes.

I wouldn't punch a nazi unless he unprovokedly attacked me or someone else, but (whether I am morally in the right or wrong, I don't know) it gave me pleasure to see it happen.

[Hawkmumbler]

"We shouldn't hit nazi's! We should debate them!"

Meanwhile literal nazi's want folk dead. That's the difference.

[NapalmKev]

"We shouldn't hit nazi's! We should debate them!"

Meanwhile literal nazi's want folk dead. That's the difference.

For the FUCKING RECORD: I was referring to modern day Nazi's, not Hitler's murderous regime!

And I stand by my previous post: if it's OK to punch someone with different views to yourself that makes YOU a Fascist! No ifs or buts, a fucking fascist!

The modern definition of free speech: "say what you like but if I disagree I'll kick your head in"!

If Jesus existed he surely did weep!

[TordelBack]

"We shouldn't hit nazi's! We should debate them!"

Meanwhile literal nazi's want folk dead. That's the difference.

Agree. Nazism has had its shot. There's no debate to be had, no value in engagement, nothing to be gained from affording them a platform. History happened, lesson learned, move on, punch away.

[Hawkmumbler]

And for the fucking record also...

To associate yourself in 2017 with nazisim is to take their actions in the 40's as fair or accountable. It is not. Never will be.

You can't just separate "modern" nazism from "old" nazism. It's the same fucking thing. Especially when you consider the nazi that got twatted, Rich Spenncer, has published dozen of articles advocating black genocide. Yeah, a punch across the face isn't even remotely in the same league. Check your freaking privilage.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Ah, so we shouldn't be punching the modern more cuddly Nazis.

For the record I wouldn't punch a Nazi. I'd give them a swift slap with the back of my hand. My left hand.
If that makes me a fascist, so be it.

And hawk, don't say check your privilege, it's horribly cringey

[Frank]

.
The only useful definition of fascism is the use of violence to enforce political will. If you use violence to silence or intimidate a non-violent opponent you are a fascist. Slavoj Zizek kick it up one time:

Is it OK to punch a Nazi? 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.

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.

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.

(The alt-right) represent the decay of common morality and decency. 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.

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.

My fear is not that Trump will fail and there will be chaos, but what if he succeeds? In Poland, the Law and Justice party, they did such a tremendous social transfer to the poor that no elected European government would dare to do it. They lowered retirement age, they made better conditions for health care, more help for mothers with children and so on. No wonder that people like them. They did something that no left government dares to do.

When I was young I remember when former US president Nixon went to China. The idea was that only a right-winger can do something like this. If a left-winger, or a Democratic president had done this, he would have been attacked as a traitor. A left-winger would have been considered a traitor. And we are at the end of this crazy logic. If you want better conditions for the working class, you have to be populist right wing

[Hawkmumbler]

To be fair, if someone thinks slapping a nazi is equatable to genocide they kinda do have some privilege issues going on.

Edit: By useful, Frank, I presume you mean the one that fits your definition. Convenient.

[NapalmKev]

It's an EXAMPLE! Rather than list every evil movement that ever existed I chose the one we had the most experience in dealing with. Substitute 'Nazi' for any group you want, the point about free speech stands. We don't have to like it but it's the price we pay for our tolerant society.

[Hawkmumbler]

Someone needs to un-twist their knickers, sit down and realize you can't isolate Nazism and expect us to just roll with the 'free speech' speal. Free speech my arse. They're entitled to say what the fuck they want but the second they start advocating genocide they can expect physical resistance.