We need one standard of non-violence

drummerboy said:

it's not vigilantism.

It's a damn punch.

Gilgul said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.

exactly.

Gilgul said:

So where does your justification of vigilantism end?

I havent justified anything, what I've done is explain a persons choices.

When a bully is focused on you, what do you do?

What can a punch be if not vigilantism?

hoops said:

drummerboy said:

it's not vigilantism.

It's a damn punch.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.

exactly.

Gilgul said:

So where does your justification of vigilantism end?

I havent justified anything, what I've done is explain a persons choices.

When a bully is focused on you, what do you do?

Do what any responsible citizen does, go to the authorities.

Gilgul said:

What can a punch be if not vigilantism?

Sometimes a punch is just a punch. And sometimes traffic is just traffic.

A punch is a crime. And so sometimes is traffic.

Snowflakes melt in traffic.

nuance always dies on a message board, doesn't it?

I don't think a single one of us is advocating violence, and not one of us has said we'd engage in it.  We're just saying a non-lethal punch to the face of a Nazi or a Klansman or some other proponent of hate speech isn't going to get our dander up.  If you're a Nazi, you should know that an occasional smack upside the head might come with the territory.  Tough ****.

Non lethal or not, a punch is violence. So administering one is vigilantism.

Gilgul said:

hoops said:

drummerboy said:

it's not vigilantism.

It's a damn punch.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.

exactly.

Gilgul said:

So where does your justification of vigilantism end?

I havent justified anything, what I've done is explain a persons choices.

When a bully is focused on you, what do you do?

Do what any responsible citizen does, go to the authorities.

In other words, invoke governmental violence.

And grant The State a monopoly on violence.

The whole concept of civilization is that the government has a monopoly on violence.

I guess you are no big fan of the 2nd Amendment

The second amendment was written to make the state, in the form of its militia, more effective

all of a sudden you're quite the statist.

ooh, tingle.....

Gilgul said:

The second amendment was written to make the state, in the form of its militia, more effective

anyway, vigilantism is when you take the law into your own hands when you feel the authorities are not effective. Haven't you ever seen Death Wish?

None of that stuff applies here. Punching a nazi is just punching a nazi. The punch exists unto itself. It is whole and complete.

marylago said:

Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal ... I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.

Second.

read my post on being "anti-violence". I doubt either of you are absolutists on this, so you're kind of taking the easy way out by claiming that you are.

BrickPig said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/marylago">marylago said:

Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal ... I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.

Second.

How did you feel about the ACLU siding with Nazis who wanted to march in a town which has a large Jewish community, namely, Skokie IL (obviously this happened years ago but the principle is still the same)?

drummerboy said:

Violence is never justified.

Except of course, when it is. Which is often.

Anyone who is "anti-violence" - tell us that you will not violently set yourself upon some person who is attacking your child. Or who is attacking you.

What most people really mean is that violence is only justified when applied to violence. And ideas and speech rarely (some would say never) reach this threshold.

So the question is whether actions, like speaking, that don't involve damaging physical contact with another (i.e. violence) ever reach a threshold that justifies a violent reaction.


Maybe they do sometimes. There is a difference, for example, between punching a Nazi and shooting a Nazi. Maybe punching them is appropriate, given the inherent violence of their words and beliefs.

Or maybe not. But that's the real discussion to be had. What does violence actually mean? Is oppression by a government violent, even if it doesn't meet the strict definition? And are we then justified in physically attacking that government anyway? Is promoting a belief system that, at the very least, implicitly encourages violence, violent itself?


The whole issue here is a just a question of proportionality.

personally, I think punching Nazi's is ok.

this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.

The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them.

RealityForAll said:

How did you feel about the ACLU siding with Nazis who wanted to march in a town which has a large Jewish community, namely, Skokie IL (obviously this happened years ago but the principle is still the same)?

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

Violence is never justified.

Except of course, when it is. Which is often.

Anyone who is "anti-violence" - tell us that you will not violently set yourself upon some person who is attacking your child. Or who is attacking you.

What most people really mean is that violence is only justified when applied to violence. And ideas and speech rarely (some would say never) reach this threshold.

So the question is whether actions, like speaking, that don't involve damaging physical contact with another (i.e. violence) ever reach a threshold that justifies a violent reaction.


Maybe they do sometimes. There is a difference, for example, between punching a Nazi and shooting a Nazi. Maybe punching them is appropriate, given the inherent violence of their words and beliefs.

Or maybe not. But that's the real discussion to be had. What does violence actually mean? Is oppression by a government violent, even if it doesn't meet the strict definition? And are we then justified in physically attacking that government anyway? Is promoting a belief system that, at the very least, implicitly encourages violence, violent itself?


The whole issue here is a just a question of proportionality.

personally, I think punching Nazi's is ok.

I agree with you that the ACLU was great in defending free speech (I disagree that these are different issues). However,your comment does not square with DB's comment: "personally, I think punching Nazi's is ok." [emphasis added]. Fascists suppress political speech with violence (this appears to be what DB is promoting).

I am sure that some will say a leftie can never be a fascist (I believe that this justification focuses on the leftie's good intentions). However, the 1st amendment was not established to protect the orthodox and mainstream views. Instead, the 1st amendment was created to protect the views of the dissident, odd man (or woman) out and even, the abhorrent nazi. One last thing, cherry trees bear fruit (namely, cherries) and fascists bring violence against political speech with which they disagree (the fruit is violence used to suppress political and which thereby identifies the violent suppressor of free speech as a fascist)..

maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/%7Buser_profile_link%7D/hoops">hoops said:

this is two entirely different things. I feel like the ACLU did exactly the right thing, defending the first amendment, defending our rights to demonstrate, even if we are a group of disgusting pigs.

The ACLU is great. Period. What they do is necessary and the fact that they exist means there is a need for them.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

How did you feel about the ACLU siding with Nazis who wanted to march in a town which has a large Jewish community, namely, Skokie IL (obviously this happened years ago but the principle is still the same)?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" drummerboy"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

Violence is never justified.

Except of course, when it is. Which is often.

Anyone who is "anti-violence" - tell us that you will not violently set yourself upon some person who is attacking your child. Or who is attacking you.

What most people really mean is that violence is only justified when applied to violence. And ideas and speech rarely (some would say never) reach this threshold.

So the question is whether actions, like speaking, that don't involve damaging physical contact with another (i.e. violence) ever reach a threshold that justifies a violent reaction.


Maybe they do sometimes. There is a difference, for example, between punching a Nazi and shooting a Nazi. Maybe punching them is appropriate, given the inherent violence of their words and beliefs.

Or maybe not. But that's the real discussion to be had. What does violence actually mean? Is oppression by a government violent, even if it doesn't meet the strict definition? And are we then justified in physically attacking that government anyway? Is promoting a belief system that, at the very least, implicitly encourages violence, violent itself?


The whole issue here is a just a question of proportionality.

personally, I think punching Nazi's is ok.

I do not think the DB is advocating punching a nazi in the face. I do think that DB is reveling in the imagery that was the actual punching of the nazi in the face. Two different things. One is obviously a wrong, ie an assault on someone espousing anti-societal views, and the other is the feeling one gets when justice is meted out.

Now on the other hand if said Nazi was advocating violence and threatening the person who punched him, then that person is certainly justified in defending himself.

Gilgul said:

The second amendment was written to make the state, in the form of its militia, more effective

That is the position of those to whom you refer as "The Left".

yeah, if I were to punch a Nazi, it would simply be for the visceral satisfaction. I have no expectation of stopping them from being Nazi's, or preventing their right to speech (though as a mere citizen, I have nothing to do with their Constitutional rights anyway). Getting punched in this case is just a natural consequence of holding utterly abhorrent views. Just desserts, if you will. If I were to punch one, I'm willing to accept being charged with assault.

I think the ACLU did the right thing in Skokie. I rarely find fault with the ACLU's actions. I can't think of an organization out there that so closely hews to their stated intent.

hoops said:

I do not think the DB is advocating punching a nazi in the face. I do think that DB is reveling in the imagery that was the actual punching of the nazi in the face. Two different things. One is obviously a wrong, ie an assault on someone espousing anti-societal views, and the other is the feeling one gets when justice is meted out.

Now on the other hand if said Nazi was advocating violence and threatening the person who punched him, then that person is certainly justified in defending himself.

Sorry DB but if your punched a Nazi he would beat the living crap out of you while he would not be hurt at all. So we are in the realm of fantasy here.

I'm a pretty big guy. Lots of upper body strength. Though no experience whatsoever in throwing a punch. I'd probably do something more like throwing an elbow if the opportunity arose. And I have no qualms about taking a sucker punch.

Gilgul said:

Sorry DB but if your punched a Nazi he would beat the living crap out of you while he would not be hurt at all. So we are in the realm of fantasy here.

I'm wearing a Captain America t-shirt. Punching a Nazi is fine.

All that is missing from DB's threat is it being imminent (time and place for such violence). I hope that DB's threat is merely highly charged fantasy.

hoops said:

I do not think the DB is advocating punching a nazi in the face. I do think that DB is reveling in the imagery that was the actual punching of the nazi in the face. Two different things. One is obviously a wrong, ie an assault on someone espousing anti-societal views, and the other is the feeling one gets when justice is meted out.

Now on the other hand if said Nazi was advocating violence and threatening the person who punched him, then that person is certainly justified in defending himself.

Threat? Who am I threatening? A pretend Nazi?

RealityForAll said:

All that is missing from DB's threat is it being imminent (time and place for such violence). I hope that DB's threat is merely highly charged fantasy.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/hoops">hoops said:

I do not think the DB is advocating punching a nazi in the face. I do think that DB is reveling in the imagery that was the actual punching of the nazi in the face. Two different things. One is obviously a wrong, ie an assault on someone espousing anti-societal views, and the other is the feeling one gets when justice is meted out.

Now on the other hand if said Nazi was advocating violence and threatening the person who punched him, then that person is certainly justified in defending himself.

I guess I'm not as virtuous as some people. Apparently there is no one in the world so terrible that they wouldn't get a little bit of pleasure from hearing they had been punched. Because I can think of a few types of people who could get a punch and I would find it satisfying. I would never do it myself, but if someone else did, I'd give them a slow clap.

If someone offered to kick the shite out of a Nazi right now, I'd bring beer and popcorn.

DB, you would probably only have to dodge the wheelchair and duck when he tossed his oxygen tank.

drummerboy said:

I'm a pretty big guy. Lots of upper body strength. Though no experience whatsoever in throwing a punch. I'd probably do something more like throwing an elbow if the opportunity arose. And I have no qualms about taking a sucker punch.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/Gilgul">Gilgul said:

Sorry DB but if your punched a Nazi he would beat the living crap out of you while he would not be hurt at all. So we are in the realm of fantasy here.