The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

As you say, it's not always possible but reason and talk should always be the first, best solution.

If someone in 2017 has chosen to identify as a Nazi and publicly extol that ideology, reason is a completely wasted approach.  Tolerating their public flaunting of racial superiority and genocidal aspirations as if it were one side of a debate, a point of view to be rebuffed, with facts to be refuted, is unacceptable. The discussion is over, if there is one ideology that is the enemy of all others, it is this particular historic manifestation of fascism. 

Of course Prodigal is correct, concerted, legislated, funded multi-pronged approaches are the best way to change attitudes.

But public celebrations by Nazis?  No, sorry, I make an exception:  whatever it takes to beat them down is what needs to be done.

[Hawkmumbler]

We had this 'debate' 80 years ago. 10's of Millions died. There is nothing to debate.

[Smith]

Well said, Prodigal. I find this "it's okay to punch a Nazi" idea to be hypocritical, distasteful and dangerous. As you say, it's not always possible but reason and talk should always be the first, best solution.

I agree there.

[TordelBack]

No.  How is it hypocritical to support punching a Nazi?  That would require that the act in some way goes against someone's stated beliefs or position on punching people.  It's entirely consistent with my belief that Nazi ideology should never again be allowed expression, and that anyone aligning themselves with Nazis deserves a good punch.  So whatever else it is, it ain't hypocrisy.

This is not an open discussion of conflicting views, this a demonstrable evil that does not deserve a hint of recognition. With Nazis we've already moved on from what is quite obviously 'the first best solution' (unfortunate resonances for that phrase) of engaging in reason and talk.  We're 80 years beyond that.

Again, I respect Prodigal's particular experience in this area, and his always-reasonable approach, and Sharky's determination to examine everything from first principles without being guided by the 'wisdom' of the herd, but I've thought long and hard about this and I believe the visual semantics of these utter c*nts being driven from their podiums is a positive thing in this world.

[TordelBack]

I probably mean 'semiotics', not 'semantics', but it's all the same when the red mist descends...

[Smith]

Problem isnt punching nazis,problem is when they start punching back.

[Hawkmumbler]

Don't...fucking...let them then. Remove their platform, drive them back into their internet hovels, make it COMPLETELY clear that in 2017 their is no room for their far right brand of bigotry.

And fuck an centrists who would apologise for them either.

[Hawkmumbler]

Beware the idiot in the middle.

[The Legendary Shark]

Just to be clear, I am totally against punching anyone just for their beliefs, no matter how vile or toxic those beliefs might be - Naziism, communism, statism, etc. The best way to counter those is always through reason, debate and even ridicule.

Only when these beliefs threaten actual harm to others would I tolerate the use of force. Force, in my view, is only ever acceptable in defence. I realise I am in the minority with this view as most people are statists and watch, and tolerate or even actively support, the propensity of the state to initiate offensive violence whenever it wants.

One might argue that this issue was "settled" 80 years ago with an unimaginable amount of death and suffering but it clearly wasn't. If setting half a planet on fire and eradicating millions of people didn't sort this out 80 years ago then further violence is obviously not the answer - no matter how tempting a target a spouting hatemongering bigot might be.

[Hawkmumbler]

I'n anti fascist activist was killed at the protests this weekend, Sarky. It's already gone beyond the point of harm being a worst case scenario, and in greater terms of the very ideology harming people....fucking hell, do I have to spell it out?

[Smith]

Beware the idiot in the middle.

Because anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extremes of any ideology is an idiot?

[Hawkmumbler]

Beware the idiot in the middle.

Because anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extremes of any ideology is an idiot?

If it's a literal toss up between denouncing civil rights and advocating them then dear god yes.

[sheridan]

Beware the idiot in the middle.

Because anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extremes of any ideology is an idiot?

No, someone who thinks that people at risk of being lynched can compromise with people who want to do the lynching are idiots.  There is no half-way place for those to groups to compromise, one wants the other exterminated or in slavery, the other wants to be alive and free.

[Smith]

Beware the idiot in the middle.

Because anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extremes of any ideology is an idiot?

If it's a literal toss up between denouncing civil rights and advocating them then dear god yes.

Only a Sith deals in the extremes.
I was really asking in general,not just in this case.I realize that sometimes a compromise cant be reached,but violence shouldn't be our first response.

[The Legendary Shark]

Who deserves civil rights? Everyone or just some?