Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm UTC

Are people saying that antifa is as bad as Nazis? I certainly never said that. I simply said that if our rule is that violence is justified when a group is planning violence and that the government isn't stopping them, then antifa meets the criteria.

Ultimately, I'm trying to illustrate my belief that there's no good way to define a hard-and-fast line of when violence is justified, and once you claim it's justified for any reason you'll quickly find yourself on a slippery slope.

SecondTalon wrote:1. Without Antifa, Nazis would have one less oppositional group and less fear of personal violence when marching.

2. Without Nazis, Antifa would..... watch Netflix and eat Cheetos.


This is getting awfully close to a "well they started it!" kind of argument, which is flimsy at best since it depends so strongly on the ambiguous notion of who's the aggresor. Remember, many people being driven to Trumpism/racism/white nationalism these days are doing so because they perceive themselves as being under attack. Ask any white nationalist what they think antifa members would do without Nazis around, and I suspect the answer will be something a lot more aggressive than Netflix and Cheetos.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25705
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:17 pm UTC

The Devil doesn't need more advocates.


1. You can decide to not be a Nazi. You can't decide to not be Afro-Caribbean.

2. So the idea around the recent White Nationalist Marches are to show that there are more racist White folk than everyone thinks. I mean, in their head it's just showing support for Traditional American Ideas, sure. So on the other side, there's also plenty of "I'd rather be playing PUBG, yet here I am fighting Nazis" signs, indicating a similar thing - that is, it took something as awful as Nazis to get them out of their houses.

From that, we can theorize that while yes, the traditional Black Bloc will continue and yes, you'll have some assholes punching people who litter (.... then again, is that so wrong?) the numbers will be reduced. How much reduced? Hard to say. Can we run a real-world experiment where Nazis just go away for ... I don't know... 60 years.. and we see what Antifa does? Can we? Can we?


Regarding what Nazis (still using my expanded definition from earlier) think of Antifa - given that we have historical evidence of what Nazis do when unopposed, i couldn't possibly give less of a fuck about what they think of Antifa. Like, I could probably find a separate horrible thing to link to on Wikipedia for every word in this paragraph.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:23 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:And if we say violence is justified against any group that a) Promotes their views in a way likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others, b) Are not reduced by normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence, and c) Are more likely to be reduced through violence than non-violence, I'm pretty sure we just said that violence against antifa groups is justified.
Consider who does what. Large groups of white supremacists are already violent. Many are criminal gangs. Not some few reside in Federal Super Max facilities. So there was violence before antifac. And it isn't exclusively targeted at blacks.

Antifac as it appears to me, isn't very meaningful outside of some violent conflicts at demonstrations. The white supremacist movement is dangerous to the establishment directly. The government as well as NGO's monitor them closely. If antifac want to get up close and personal at demonstrations, I have no particular problem with that. The antifac seem to be the inside the beltway type of extremist. I don't see them espousing unrestricted violence.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:23 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:Are people saying that antifa is as bad as Nazis?


That's the position of the government.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25705
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:24 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:Are people saying that antifa is as bad as Nazis?


That's the position of the government.

And Bingo was his name-o.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:38 pm UTC

...I meant people in this thread. Sure, if you want to say the current administration is wrong about something, go ahead, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone on these forums that disagrees. But this is a thread about whether Antifa-style violence is justified, so when I saw so many posts arguing why Nazis were worse than Antifa I assumed it was in response to someone posting a claim they were the same. Or a strawman against my slippery-slope "where do you draw the line" arguments.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25705
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:50 pm UTC

In this thread, which was admittedly split from another, on the first page, you have KnightExemplar (kinda reinforcing the anecdotal data I have that people with knight or other feudal/chivalry usernames are white supremacists, knowingly or unknowingly) and SlyReaper (who has since been banned) not explicitly stating that Antifa = Nazis, but making statements that are read as Antifa = Nazis
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:37 pm UTC

The morality of being afrocarribean is independent of whether or not you can choose which vagina to pop out of. It's not immoral to be black, nor is it any more or less moral to be any other ethnicity. Black people should not be required to straighten their hair nor required to bleach skin, even though they CAN do those things. A person can't choose to not be a pyromaniac or a while host of other urges and dysfunctions, only whether or not to act on those urges or seek therapy, but I'd posit that such a thing is immoral or something that needs to be controlled. Unlike being black.

As for your experiment, slavery is gone, mostly, and abolitionists are mostly gone but the people that would have been abolitionists became suffragists, and when women got the right to vote they moved on to things like gay rights, and so forth, where today we now have trans issues. Why wasn't gay rights an issue in 1855? Was society less gay back then, even though due to larger families and the in utero testosterone hypothesis it should have been fabulous? Or were the people who would have cared, busy with suffrage and slavery? Without Nazis, Antifa wouldn't be around but the people would've found something else to focus on.

So yes, we need to get rid of Nazis. They do hold us back by wasting the energy of people in antifa. Antifa is predominantly a good thing, but the world would be better if the Nazis weren't wasting Antifas time by refighting battles that should've been settled by now.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:38 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:In this thread, which was admittedly split from another, on the first page, you have KnightExemplar (kinda reinforcing the anecdotal data I have that people with knight or other feudal/chivalry usernames are white supremacists, knowingly or unknowingly) and SlyReaper (who has since been banned) not explicitly stating that Antifa = Nazis, but making statements that are read as Antifa = Nazis


You've just suggested someone is a white supremacist. Nifty. So according to you if someone has knight in their user name they are probably a white supremacist as well. Peachy. Seems thin. But what do I know?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25705
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:57 pm UTC

Oh, it is. That's why I labeled it as anecdotal. Because I know it's confirmation bias. I remember all the times BenTheCrusader and LordArthur talked about "those people" in terms to make it clear they knew saying "The Blacks" wasn't acceptable but wanting to also talk about how they were BetterThanThem because they are white, and I don't remember all the times KnightFantastic, JackTheKnight, SquireGeorge or LordFancyPants weren't rehensivle human beings.

I'm also not stating that I believe KnightExemplar is some kind of white supremacist. I don't have enough evidence to be conclusive. But, uh, it's also not looking too good either.

(I also have as much if not more anecdotal evidence that people with Dark, Crimson, Sanguine, or various names that look like they're from a Anne Rice knock-off book have a 95% chance of writing god-awful poetry and being completely incapable of taking any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive. It just wasn't relevant to mention)

If you're asking *why* I'm sharing my known biases? It's because I am rapidly running out of shits to give re:Being An Impartial Moderator.

I mean, we are talking about literal Nazis. There are more arguments for treating Vampires with respect than Nazis, what with regardless of how they became undead soulless bloodsuckers they really don't have a choice beyond "Decide to Die/Eat People" so working to minimize the harm done is a more human solution to treat a condition they cannot control versus "Nazis can just stop being shitheads. Not that hard"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:27 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:If you're asking *why* I'm sharing my known biases? It's because I am rapidly running out of shits to give re:Being An Impartial Moderator.
Well at least your honest. Could you post a list of those things that you are running out of shits on so I can avoid them as topics.
Toodles

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:36 pm UTC

Vampires may be more moral than Nazis because they didn't choose to be vampires, but neither did hookworms choose to be hookworms but I still say it's a good thing to exterminate hookworms as well as vampires, whereas it's possible to reform a Nazi.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:19 pm UTC

Some may find this essay in The Atlantic from a few weeks ago helpful. I thought it made some excellent points, based on an examination of the old Machiavellian chestnut "the ends (goals) justify the means."

How to Distinguish Between Antifa, White Supremacists, and Black Lives Matter: Navigating the most fraught conversation of the moment requires attention to both means and ends.

TL;DR: Although all groups that resort to violence may look similar on the surface, because they're using the same violent means, violence occupies a different place within the ultimate end-goals of recent protesters on the far right and far left. The KKK and various neo-Nazi groups' are devoted to goals that are, themselves, based on the violent removal and/or suppression of certain segments of society. In contrast, Black Lives Matter and various Antifa and anarchist groups are working toward the goal of equality, peace, freedom, and justice for all members of society, including Whites and police officers. The author reserves the right to criticize, sometimes severely, certain means by which BLM and Antifa groups are trying to achieve their stated goals--in the case of BLM, blocking traffic, which he still characterizes as a form of disruption and chaos, even if less violent than Antifa's punches, etc.

However, the fact that condemnation-worthy tactics sometimes accompany political protests on both the left and the right does not automatically put BLM and Antifa groups on the same moral plane as the KKK and neo-Nazis.

(One tiny, tangential quibble: the author mentions an anti-malarial group as an example of a totally unproblematic group, having both virtuous ends and virtuous means for accomplishing those ends. However, the distribution of mosquito netting has actually proven very problematic, since people in malaria-prone areas have been using the mosquito netting as fishing nets, and its ultra-fine mesh ends up removing all the teeny, tiny baby fish, which means there won't be as many big fish to feed the people next year. Also, the insecticide with which the mesh is often treated pollutes the waterways--also leading to not as many big fish to feed the people next year. There's a New York Times article (with accompanying auto-starting video) on the environmental damage caused by mosquito nets here: Meant to Keep Malaria Out, Mosquito Nets Are Used to Haul Fish In. This quibble of mine should not be interpreted as equating the Against Malaria Foundation with Antifa, the KKK, or neo-Nazis. :) )
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:25 pm UTC, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25705
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:If you're asking *why* I'm sharing my known biases? It's because I am rapidly running out of shits to give re:Being An Impartial Moderator.
Well at least your honest. Could you post a list of those things that you are running out of shits on so I can avoid them as topics.
Toodles
Alrighty. Just keep in mind I'm coloring the positions to be more honest.
1. "Hey, let's look at it from the point of view of the Nazis for a change."
2. "All I'm saying is that White Supremacists don't inherently mean violence from their position of 'Everyone not white needs to GTFO'. That's not inherently hostile or violent because it's not explicitly saying to murder or assault people, it just implies it."
3. "What Trump meant to say was...."

My birth town is the sort of place that venorates a terrorist group while simultaneously ignoring the lynching they did. I've grown up around apologists for White Supremacy and the last year and a half or so has just brought it out from goddamn everywhere, and I'll be fucked if I'm going to let that sort of shit start up here.

That help?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:22 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:That help?
It didn't tell me anything new. Except that you seem to be ashamed of your birthplace. And I don't know why I would care about that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:19 am UTC

The night riders are kind of like the confederates and Che guevera and so forth in that people will promote the symbols of defiance and rebellion and pride without actually bothering to learn what they actually represent. When someone points out the murder and the actually awful ideologies they represent, the supporters get defensive and hostile. The point is that Second has to deal with these assholes in the meat-net, so has no patience for similar on the intertube.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:37 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:And I don't know why I would care about that.
Don't ask questions and then be confused as to why you would care about the answers.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:07 am UTC

Birthplace shame? Wow, I didn't interpret SecondTalon's message that way at all.

Then again, I come from a family that's crawling with pedophiles, and I'm not ashamed of them. But my relationship to them makes me keenly aware that otherwise perfectly nice, intelligent, worthwhile people can nonetheless be in complete denial about the seriousness of the harm done by their need to make themselves feel happy and powerful at more vulnerable people's expense.

I thought ST was saying something similar.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Quercus » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:01 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
Quercus wrote:If the following conditions are met:

a) A white nationalist or group of white nationalists promotes their views in a way that is likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others (which given their views encompasses most ways apart from vague wishing)
b) The normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence do not act to reduce that threat, either because the actions of the white nationalists are protected by law, or the police choose not to act.
c) Actions including violence are likely to be more effective in reducing the threat than actions not including violence

Then, the minimum effective level of violence against that person/group by private citzens is morally justified (though should probably still be illegal).

It seems like it would be hypocritical to make this rule *only* be about white nationalists. Shouldn't it apply to any group that meets your criteria a), b), and c)?

And if we say violence is justified against any group that a) Promotes their views in a way likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others, b) Are not reduced by normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence, and c) Are more likely to be reduced through violence than non-violence, I'm pretty sure we just said that violence against antifa groups is justified.

Do you disagree, either with my logic or conclusion?


Okay. thread's moved on since I was last here, but lets address this point. Yes, your logic is sound, but that's clearly a perverse outcome (my criteria would condemn the very acts they justify), so there's a hole in my criteria. To make this perversity clear, by my criteria violence against the anti-antifa would also be justified, and the anti-anti-antifa, and so on ad infinitum

How about this: replace "violence" in (a), with "violence which does not protect others from violence". The whole jist of my position is that violence becomes justified when it acts to protect others from violence (now or in the future), and non-violent action would not be sufficient for that task. Being violent to those effecting such "protection through violence" would not be justified, because the consequence of that would be to protect people less, not more.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And I don't know why I would care about that.
Don't ask questions and then be confused as to why you would care about the answers.
If I have to get a safe list of topics for this board so as not to call down the wrath of a Mod, than we are past the point where I care about what might be on that list.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:12 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:How about this: replace "violence" in (a), with "violence which does not protect others from violence". The whole jist of my position is that violence becomes justified when it acts to protect others from violence (now or in the future), and non-violent action would not be sufficient for that task. Being violent to those effecting such "protection through violence" would not be justified, because the consequence of that would be to protect people less, not more.


That makes sense to me, Quercus...except that many, if not all, white nationalists seem to sincerely believe that their race is the target of an actual, systematic genocide (now or in the future), and therefore the violence in their ends and means is justified, from their perspective, because they are merely defending/protecting themselves and their people.

I think everyone can exonerate themselves if they convince themselves that their aggression is actually defensive.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5235
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Somerville, MA
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby doogly » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:16 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:and therefore the violence in their ends and means is justified, from their perspective, because they are merely defending/protecting themselves and their people.

Of course they can justify their own selves, but why should that matter to anyone? You can believe people are wrong without them believing it first.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Quercus » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:41 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:That makes sense to me, Quercus...except that many, if not all, white nationalists seem to sincerely believe that their race is the target of an actual, systematic genocide (now or in the future), and therefore the violence in their ends and means is justified, from their perspective, because they are merely defending/protecting themselves and their people.

I think everyone can exonerate themselves if they convince themselves that their aggression is actually defensive.


Yes, and that would be relevant if I was trying to convince white nationalists not to be violent. I don't think that can be done. Most everyone will be violent if they sincerely believe that they or their loved ones lives are under threat. We don't need to convince white nationalists not to be violent, that's a waste of time and energy, we need to convince them not to be white nationalists anymore. Probably even more so we need to convince people not to become white nationalists in the first place.

The beliefs of white nationalists on race are not equivalent to the beliefs of non-racists. White nationalist beliefs are not supported by evidence, they do not represent a good model of the world, they are demonstrably false. I don't have to construct a moral framework which accommodates such beliefs. Yes, if you feed such beliefs into my criteria you get an horrific outcome. That's not because the criteria are horrific, it's because the beliefs are. If you eat poison and it makes you sick, that doesn't imply that anything is wrong with your digestive system.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:34 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:How about this: replace "violence" in (a), with "violence which does not protect others from violence". The whole jist of my position is that violence becomes justified when it acts to protect others from violence (now or in the future), and non-violent action would not be sufficient for that task. Being violent to those effecting such "protection through violence" would not be justified, because the consequence of that would be to protect people less, not more.

My problem with this is similar to ObsessoMom's. Basically, who decides when others are in danger of violence and needs to be protected? This kind of rule has the same feeling as all those "stand your ground" laws that make it okay to murder someone if you feel threatened by them. And then it turns out the killer basically only felt threatened by their victim because they were black.

Maybe it's worth drawing out a bit of spectrum here - I'm curious at what point people feel violence is justified:

Situation 1: A white nationalist is actively chasing down and beating someone.

Situation 2: A person is meeting with others to plan violence in the name of white nationalism.

Situation 3: A person is meeting with others to stage a public white nationalist demonstration, planned to be peaceful, but which realistically could turn violent when counter-protesters show up.

Situation 4: A person organizes a private white nationalist rally in which they espouse their views.

Situation 5: A person is handing out flyers advertising the rally from 4).

Situation 6: A person with no previous connection to white nationalism shows up at the rally from 4) to see what white nationalism is all about.

Situation 7: A 5-year-old child of white nationalists is almost certainly going to grow up to be a white nationalist because of the culture they are being raised in.

I think we can all agree that violence is justified against the person in Situation 1, and isn't against the person in Situation 7. The disagreement seems to be where the cut-off is in between. The "violence which does not protect others from violence" rule feels so ambiguous that I can see arguments that it doesn't apply past situation 2 as well as arguments that it applies in situation 7.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:42 pm UTC

Isn't justified in situation 7, but arguably "for the greater good", although I'm going to need a citation that children of white nationalists/KKK/etc have even a 50% chance of growing up to be such. For example, Prussian Blue, a white nationalist pop duo, mellowed out a lot after puberty.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:21 pm UTC

We're not talking about whether racists feel threatened by the presence of black people, we're talking about whether someone is *actually* threatened.

Facts before feels, right?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:13 pm UTC

The law defines when violence is justified. And you are always justified acting in self defense.

Quercus doesn't get to make the rules. He can only choose to act according to his conscience. Which means if he feels the need to act, he need only look to his sense of morality to decide how he should act. That is distinguished as an act of conscience. It is important to him but it may mean nothing to me. And I don't care how he justifies it.

Part of what you give up to live in civil society is legal protection for acts of conscience. If you commit extrajudicial violence, you are liable at law. In the eye of the law once blows get traded, both sides have breached the peace. I don't really care who they are. That fight in the street may need to happen, but there is never any legal justification.

It's why Presidents in the past have always addressed violence in the fashion they did. They condemned the violence not a specific group. The current President drug half the country down a rabbit hole by making people think that two wrongs can somehow make a right.

Comparing the two organizations is a false flag. They are equally culpable, because it isn't about ideology, it's about breaching the peace. No one was arrested for either being a antifac or a white nationalist.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:22 pm UTC

Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2079
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby speising » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.

Who watches the watchmen?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Weeks » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:44 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.

Who watches the watchmen?
alan moore
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:56 pm UTC

Not anymore, he gave up his rights.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:41 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.
Yeah, reality is sloppy that way. Forces you to make difficult choices which don't have clear boundaries. It seems to be pushing people pretty hard.

This thread is a massive waste. The premise is false, and the morality and limits of protest deserve a better header than the mess over this one.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:06 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.
It's not a line of argument, it's a statement of the fact that legality and morality don't always align. A statement you agree with if you can understand the concept of a bad law.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:19 pm UTC

A (really useless and frustrating) politician in Israel was asked what his position on marijuana legalization is. He answered "Well it's illegal", which is the most stupid and dumb response I can think of. Laws can be changed, and they can be changed according to developments in our understanding of moral behavior, but it's not usually very quickly. Homosexuality was still illegal in the US until 2003 - does that mean it was immoral? The separation between what's legal and what's moral is absolutely worthwhile. To say that only the legal is moral is to walk towards fascism.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5235
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Somerville, MA
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby doogly » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:They are equally culpable

banned
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

speising
Posts: 2079
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby speising » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.
It's not a line of argument, it's a statement of the fact that legality and morality don't always align. A statement you agree with if you can understand the concept of a bad law.

It is a factual statement which has repeatedly been used as an argument in dicussions of this subject.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We're not talking about whether racists feel threatened by the presence of black people, we're talking about whether someone is *actually* threatened.

Facts before feels, right?

But is "being threatened" actually an unambiguous fact? The argument I keep trying to make is that "Person A is threatened by Person B" is a very fuzzy concept. I haven't yet seen a definition of it I'm comfortable with, at least insofar as using it to decide whether violence is justified against Person B.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:41 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.
It's not a line of argument, it's a statement of the fact that legality and morality don't always align. A statement you agree with if you can understand the concept of a bad law.

It is a factual statement which has repeatedly been used as an argument in dicussions of this subject.
So what? Lots of facts have been used in lots of different arguments. That doesn't make any of them less true, and using a fact in an argument for one position doesn't suddenly take that fact out of play for all possible arguments for different positions.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2079
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby speising » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Capital punishment and a retributive penal system didn't exist before Trump?

In any case, the law defines when violence is *legally* justified. An ethical system defines when something is ethically justified. The two frequently don't line up.

The problem with this line of argument is that it justifies all kinds of vigilantism and lynching.
It's not a line of argument, it's a statement of the fact that legality and morality don't always align. A statement you agree with if you can understand the concept of a bad law.

It is a factual statement which has repeatedly been used as an argument in dicussions of this subject.
So what? Lots of facts have been used in lots of different arguments. That doesn't make any of them less true, and using a fact in an argument for one position doesn't suddenly take that fact out of play for all possible arguments for different positions.

You are entirely right, and yet your post is entirely irrelevant here.
You just like to argue, don't you?
This thread is about the morality of violence against nazis, and the fact and arguments are the ones mentioned in these quotes. And you know that, so why bring up those irrelevant generalizations?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:58 pm UTC

speising wrote:You are entirely right, and yet your post is entirely irrelevant here.
No, what's irrelevant was your pointing out that my "line of argument" (i.e. my pointing out that legality and morality don't always align) has been used to justify atrocities.

My pointing that out in the first place was entirely relevant because Morriswalters was going on about how the law already determines when violence is justified, but we've acknowledged from the beginning that we already know (and have never cared) what the law says about most instances of Nazi-punching.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests