Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:11 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:
Fighting words:
"Hey, you're a no good Jew."
"That makes me angry." [punch]
Not legal.

Self-defense:
"Hey, you're a no good Jew, so I'm going to get my rifle from my truck and kill you and your whole family."
"No, you won't." [Shoot]
Legal. (Generally.)


I disagree with your interpretation of recent changes to the law but even if I didn't, there exists a clear moral value such that it was once the law (and still is in some countries) that the former is a morally valid position from some perspectives.


Child rapists?



Look morally upstanding in comparison to Nazis. Clearly better. Only not better if they are also genocide advocates. In which case they are on the same level as Nazis.

By your metric, apparently these countries are sufficiently free and pluralistic. And to be fair, I've traveled to enough oppressive, third-world cesspools to know that these countries are a huge improvement. However, to me, freedom to speak my mind, so long as I don't offend my monarch, or some foreign head of state, or blaspheme Islam, or insult someone rich and powerful enough to bankroll a frivolous lawsuit against me, isn't really freedom.


And you accuse ME of strawmanning. I was clearly talking about present Germany not present day China (or wherever else).

I can't agree that we need to make space for advocating genocide in our society, and as Germany (and others) have demonstrated, it doesn't lead down the road to becoming present day China or any of the silly examples you give in the paragraph I quoted above to ban these practices. And as the United States has demonstrated over the past 12 or so years, the political and social program of opposing Nazis by argument does not work and gets them a spot in the white house.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:20 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:I don't tolerate Nazis, any more than I tolerate unprincipled hypocrites. I do, however, recognize that in a country ruled by laws and recognizing individual rights, the same law that prevents me from punching you in the face also prevents me from punching a Nazi in the face.
Hitler was elected; he rose to power via a wholly legal and lawful process1. And yet -- I bet you'd be hard-pressed to complain if someone walked up and illegally shot him in the face right before he was sworn into office.

I mean, I get it: You don't want us to abandon our values. Not even for Nazis. Especially not for Nazis. I respect that. If holding on to our values was easy, they wouldn't be values; they'd be hobbies.

Here's the thing, though: "Don't punch people who call themselves Nazis" is a value I expect our government to hold. But as for the rest of us? As long as we're not, like, all punching the Nazis? I'm fine with one or two people taking a swing now and then. I mean, I'm not going to encourage it, but I'm not really going to give much of a flying fuck, either.

I understand the whole 'personal rights' and 'liberty for all' thing, but you have to be a little flexible now and then. If you've watched people you love get hurt and/or killed by goose-stepping shit-heels, then one of these fucks gets in your face and starts screaming about the second coming of the Third Reich... uh, yeah, I don't think losing your cool for a moment is the end of the universe.

I mean, put this in context: On one side, you've got these Nazi-fucks screaming about genocide while the police protect them... and on the other, you've got certain segments of the population that are being straight-up murdered by police. And then here you are, worried because somebody might throw a punch at one of the Nazis? Dude, as long as we're not talking about a hospital visit, I really can't bring myself to give a fuck. The Nazis will be fine. The fucking President has got their back.

1Yes, I know he broke the law plenty of times to consolidate political capital -- but he still ascended to power through wholly legal channels.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:50 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:I don't tolerate Nazis, any more than I tolerate unprincipled hypocrites. I do, however, recognize that in a country ruled by laws and recognizing individual rights, the same law that prevents me from punching you in the face also prevents me from punching a Nazi in the face.
Hitler was elected; he rose to power via a wholly legal and lawful process1. And yet -- I bet you'd be hard-pressed to complain if someone walked up and illegally shot him in the face right before he was sworn into office.


You know, you hide a pretty important "but" in a footnote: I don't think Hitler would have taken power the way he did without all the illegality. Also, I don't know if you're into Marvel, or Minority Report, but suffice it to say I am pretty firmly against team Captain Marvel/Ulysses/PreCrime. I think that says everything you need to know about my opinions regarding free will and predestination.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think killing Hitler, as you say, the moment before he was sworn into office would have made things better. Hitler was central to the cult of personality, but he wasn't the only true believer, nor was he the only one with the talents that actually made their little authoritarian regime work. Making Hitler a martyr the moment before this "political outsider" was able to assume his duly elected office? Yeah, sure, that's absolutely guaranteed to castrate his movement and to prevent them from ever carrying out his terrible plan in his honor.

Here's the thing, though: "Don't punch people who call themselves Nazis" is a value I expect our government to hold. But as for the rest of us? As long as we're not, like, all punching the Nazis? I'm fine with one or two people taking a swing now and then. I mean, I'm not going to encourage it, but I'm not really going to give much of a flying fuck, either.


And you know what? The fact that you're so... flexible on your principles certainly isn't something to be admired about you, but if you keep it to yourself, I wouldn't really bother calling you out for it. However, the people who actively encourage it, as they have on this thread, I will absolutely call out.

I understand the whole 'personal rights' and 'liberty for all' thing, but you have to be a little flexible now and then.


The latter part of that sentence strongly implies that the former isn't all that true. Now, I understand why--in an imperfect world--it's not always practical to enforce rights as the top priority 100% of the time, to the detriment of all other goals. That being said, coming out the gate with the attitude that "Sure, I care about the law and rights, but you have to be a little flexible now and then, and I'm going to be the one who decides when to be flexible, usually with the rights of people I don't particularly like" is a recipe for disaster.

I mean, put this in context: On one side, you've got these Nazi-fucks screaming about genocide while the police protect them... and on the other, you've got certain segments of the population that are being straight-up murdered by police.


Ah, you're going to use that rhetorical fallacy? Okay fine, your entire argument is pointless, because North Korea might trigger a war that will wipe life from our planet. I win.

Now, if we can get back to being serious,

And then here you are, worried because somebody might throw a punch at one of the Nazis? Dude, as long as we're not talking about a hospital visit, I really can't bring myself to give a fuck. The Nazis will be fine. The fucking President has got their back.


Frankly, I don't care about how you feel. This isn't an insult against you. You're staunchly anti-Nazi. In that respect, you're the base--and in politics, as long as you don't annoy the base into apathy, you can pretty much ignore it. I care about the people who might change their minds one way or another. The kind of people who only know the Holocaust as an abstract historical thing, distant in both time and space, but might have a visceral, emotional reaction to--hypothetically--the bits and pieces of the bodies of a few dozen teenage skinheads playing on the news. Do you know why we ended up with a President who would actually have their back? It's because a bunch of people decided that certain things were so self-evident that they could afford to be condescending and heavy-handed about it without worrying about losing people, and that certain people were so irredeemably deplorable that it wasn't worth trying to reach out to them. Are we going to lose Congress to Nazis just because a few internet tough guys punch a few Nazi internet tough guys? Probably not. But if you create the sort of atmosphere where doing so is not only accepted, but praised, then it won't be long before punches become bullets. It's already happened.

In fact, we are damn lucky that the Nazis were responsible for the first fatality, and that it was done it a way that couldn't plausibly be argued to be self-defense. Just look at the stuff Trump has pulled without being called out by a single prominent Republican. Suddenly, that changed, and I guarantee you that would not have happened if it had been a bunch of Nazis who were killed or hospitalized.

People who run their mouths, repeatedly, about punching Nazis are like the random Muslims who chant "Death to America!": Regardless of whether or not you think their statement is morally justified, it doesn't change the fact that it's completely counterproductive. I don't think many drone pilots have watched them burn our flag and thought "Gee, I'm going to be extra careful to avoid collateral damage on my next strike." We thought Trump was impossible, and by taking that fact for granted, and quite frankly being too smug about spiking the ball prematurely, we made the impossible possible for him. One punch won't make a difference, keep punching and escalating and eventually we might be unpleasantly surprised.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:18 am UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:I disagree with your interpretation of recent changes to the law

Please explain then.

And you accuse ME of strawmanning. I was clearly talking about present Germany not present day China (or wherever else).


Not strawmanning. Simply pointing out that the bar for having "no freedom at all" (or however you phrased it) is pretty damn low. Also, one of my examples was specifically Germany. I note you conspicuously avoid addressing it.

I can't agree that we need to make space for advocating genocide in our society, and as Germany (and others) have demonstrated,


I think it's my turn to accuse you of strawmanning again.

We don't need to make space--the First Amendment has already provided a nice, general purpose space that can be used both to advocate genocide and to ridicule, condemn, refute, shame, or otherwise oppose the genocide advocates. We need to make space for free speech in general, and once we do that, we need to be incredibly careful about how we selectively shrink that space to exclude certain badthink that's categorically worse than normal badthink.

it doesn't lead down the road to becoming present day China or any of the silly examples you give in the paragraph I quoted above to ban these practices.


No. But in the less than 100 years we've had to see that experiment play out, it's led to a country that allows a foreign dictator to sue a German citizen for hurting his feelings. It's led to the rise of a right-wing political movement that that advocates many of the same things as the Nazi party--and arguably different from the Nazis only by degree, and not type--that owes its strength in part to pushing narrative that they represent German ideals that have been suppressed by both Basic Human Decency and actual censorship laws. It's led, in short, to a country that you can only defend by repeatedly yelling, "You said China! But Germany's not China! Germany is better than China."

And as the United States has demonstrated over the past 12 or so years, the political and social program of opposing Nazis by argument does not work and gets them a spot in the white house.


Judging by the responses of the vast majority of people, no, that is patently not true. The vast majority of people--including folks I would characterize as "the asshole right" for reasons that have nothing to do with Nazis--have come down against the Nazis. Donald Trump didn't win because America is more pro-Nazi than it was ten or twenty years ago. He won because--for a variety of reasons--people were so opposed to the alternatives that they were willing to rationalize away clear signs of his pro-Nazi leanings. Is it terrifying to me that "racist, potentially Nazi-sympathizing" wasn't immediately disqualifying? Absolutely. But it's equally terrifying that to a large number of Americans, the only alternatives presented problems that were even scarier than "racist Nazi." Punching a Nazi in the face might make you feel better. It won't, however, scare that Nazi out of being a Nazi. It won't discourage his movement. It also won't do anything to convince the rest of the country that you're better than the Nazi. In fact, it will do the opposite.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:30 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:You know, you hide a pretty important "but" in a footnote: I don't think Hitler would have taken power the way he did without all the illegality.
I'm... actually pretty sure he would have? If anything, all the illegality interfered with his ascension to power; he wasn't some sort of politically savvy operator.

A lot of the stuff the Nazis did to get votes was actually pretty legal (beef up the hate-speech in places where it played well, tone it down in places where it didn't). I don't think stuff like the Beer Hall Putsch really helped Hitler.

Regardless, I'm not saying shooting Hitler in the face would save the day. I'm saying that if you found out some guy was about to shoot Hitler in the face -- and you knew what you know now -- I don't think you'd be the guy who yells "HITLER, WATCH OUT!". I think you'd probably just shrug and let it happen. It's not like shit's gonna turn out much worse, and, I mean -- it's Hitler. He's already responsible for a lot of deaths, and he's gonna be responsible for a whole lot more.

I'm trying to demonstrate that for certain values of 'punch' and 'Nazi', you're probably okay with someone punching a Nazi. Or maybe not; maybe you are the guy who'd yell "HITLER, WATCH OUT!". In which case, uh... good luck with that moral code there, Rorschach.
Netreker0 wrote:The latter part of that sentence strongly implies that the former isn't all that true. Now, I understand why--in an imperfect world--it's not always practical to enforce rights as the top priority 100% of the time, to the detriment of all other goals. That being said, coming out the gate with the attitude that "Sure, I care about the law and rights, but you have to be a little flexible now and then, and I'm going to be the one who decides when to be flexible, usually with the rights of people I don't particularly like" is a recipe for disaster.
Replace "people I don't particularly like" with "people I know don't believe certain people should have rights at all".

Of course, just because you think I shouldn't have rights doesn't mean I can ignore your rights. That's the point of having rights -- nothing you can do makes them 'go away'. But we compromise on them all the time -- because we have to. The moment I lay my hands on you to stop you from killing someone, I've violated your rights. Sure, I've done it in pursuit of protecting rights -- but a right is violated regardless of the reason why it was violated.
Netreker0 wrote:Ah, you're going to use that rhetorical fallacy? Okay fine, your entire argument is pointless, because North Korea might trigger a war that will wipe life from our planet. I win.
I'm pointing out one situation where I might be flexible: Black people are literally being murdered by cops. Meanwhile, a bunch of white Nazis are screaming racist shit at them while under the protection of those very same cops. This is not an equal situation.

I mean, yeah -- I'm a pacifist who abhors violence. But I also try to keep in mind that it's incredibly fucking easy for me to be a pacifist who abhors violence. I'm not faced with violence as an every day occurrence.

Some people gotta throw punches just to stay alive. And if you've been in that sort of situation, it's really hard to know when you're not in that sort of situation.

EDIT: Also, sidenote -- you don't know me. You have zero clue how I'd react to dead teenage skinheads. All you know is that I can deal with an occasional Nazi getting occasionally punched.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:27 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Regardless, I'm not saying shooting Hitler in the face would save the day. I'm saying that if you found out some guy was about to shoot Hitler in the face -- and you knew what you know now -- I don't think you'd be the guy who yells "HITLER, WATCH OUT!". I think you'd probably just shrug and let it happen. It's not like shit's gonna turn out much worse, and, I mean -- it's Hitler. He's already responsible for a lot of deaths, and he's gonna be responsible for a whole lot more.


Honest, I don't know. It's hard to argue that someone else would be more evil than Hitler, but I would argue that many of them would be more competent than Hitler. Keep in mind, he didn't quite finish wiping out the prisoners he had, and never got to make a real concerted effort to wipe out the Slavs, primarily because he lost the war when he did, and particularly toward the end, he was making some terrible top level decisions that nobody was willing to challenge. If he were killed and replaced by, for example, someone

I'm trying to demonstrate that for certain values of 'punch' and 'Nazi', you're probably okay with someone punching a Nazi. Or maybe not; maybe you are the guy who'd yell "HITLER, WATCH OUT!". In which case, uh... good luck with that moral code there, Rorschach.


Okay, if we're moving into ad hominens... actually, I don't really care. Says more about your character than mine anyway. Doubt I'd go out of my way to save Hitler, but I also wouldn't be arguing that we should be pardoning the assassin, maybe giving him a shiny new gun so that he could extrajudicially murder a few other people that our precogs told us will grew up to be evil.

Also, nice work with the false dilemma, but as I've already explained--repeatedly--I'm not okay with punching Nazis for both principled and practical reasons.

Replace "people I don't particularly like" with "people I know don't believe certain people should have rights at all".


And again, I'm still not okay with it. There are many people--many generally decent people--who believe that citizens should have greater rights than non-citizens, that convicted criminals of certain categories should have many important rights stripped away. There are people who don't agree certain rights are rights that the government should protect. I would like to believe that the best path forward is to convince them that they're wrong, and not a bullet to the head or systematic government censorship.

The moment I lay my hands on you to stop you from killing someone, I've violated your rights. Sure, I've done it in pursuit of protecting rights -- but a right is violated regardless of the reason why it was violated.


That's one of many interpretations that's largely consistent with how we do things. Another is more of a social contract theory: Government protection of our rights is what we receive in exchange for agreeing to abide by those same laws when they protect the rights of others, and by breaking that law and trying to violate the rights of others, you've abdicated your rights. In other words, there is no crime that needs to be justified, because the moment you tried to kill someone, you abrogated your right not to be killed by me, your victim, the police, or some other bystander.


I'm pointing out one situation where I might be flexible: Black people are literally being murdered by cops. Meanwhile, a bunch of white Nazis are screaming racist shit at them while under the protection of those very same cops.
Do you have some footage I haven't seen, because from my understanding, the black people were also being protected by a different subset of those same cops.

I'm not denying that there are some very bad cops who have earned the hatred distrust of the black community. In fact, I believe that the even "good cops" are guilty because they see precisely what's happening and do nothing to condemn it. (Sorry, I know how my ideological consistency bothers people.) South Carolina had some bad police shootings, but Charleston was also the place where the police and the rest of the community really came together after the racist church shooting. Also, IIRC, Charleston was one of the places where the police actually didn't use disproportionate force against the BLM protesters. While I don't think the Charleston black community necessarily trusts the police completely, I also don't think that they were worried about the police and the Nazis all taking up arms together to wipe them out at the protest, as you seem to be trying to imply.

I mean, yeah -- I'm a pacifist who abhors violence. But I also try to keep in mind that it's incredibly fucking easy for me to be a pacifist who abhors violence.


I'm not a pacifist. I don't particularly abhor violence. In fact, I enjoy sports that closely simulate violence, and in my very few experiences with real violence, I honestly enjoyed it too for the parts where I wasn't mostly terrified. But for me, developing a coherent moral system isn't about finding a way to justify me doing things I like and avoiding things I dislike. I have no problem using violence to stop violence, or to prevent imminent violence. However, when the violence becomes more distant, more uncertain, more abstract, then the response also has to be attenuated. If a guy tells me, "If you don't pay me back, I'll come over and rob you next Tuesday," I don't think that justifies shooting him in the face. If someone writes a manifesto arguing that people shouldn't generally be killed, but that we should be flexible with the idea of personal rights when it comes to folks who murder unborn babies, then we should absolutely do something to oppose him, but probably not blowing up his car with him inside.

Some people gotta throw punches just to stay alive. And if you've been in that sort of situation, it's really hard to know when you're not in that sort of situation.


I have been in that sort of situation (well, maybe not death, but a very serious beating by a larger group of people than I had on my side was certainly in the cards.) It's still easy for me to know the vast majority of the time. If a Nazi is giving a speech to rile up his fellow Nazis and frankly didn't particularly want any Nazis to be around, and you specifically seek him out in order to punch him and gain Youtube fame, that's probably not a situation where you absolutely had to throw a punch to stay alive.

Are there grey areas where I would agree that it's not reasonable for a "normal" person to fear for his life, but more reasonable for a guy who has been exposed to frequent violence to do so? Absolutely. But let's not kid ourselves, we're not talking about the kind of situations where you're just minding your own business and a bunch of torch-wielding skinheads start following you. We're not talking about the fact that a Nazi is probably more likely than the average person to try to hurt someone or to deliberately threaten someone in a way that justifies self-defense. We're talking about a bunch of guys who want to go find a Nazi to punch in the face because Nazis all deserve to be punched and apparently that's the best contribution they can make to our society.

Edit: In response to your needless indignant straw man side note, I never made any assertions about how you would personally react, and honestly, I don't really care how you would personally react. What I care about is the fact that a non-zero amount of other people would likely react with sympathy. Let's not forget, America was pretty damn anti-Semitic before the war. It's part of the reason we were so slow to get involved. Everything that Hitler said about the Jews, Americans agreed with--the only point at which we differed was the extent to which we were willing to do something about it. The Holocaust changed everything--images of the emaciated bodies of people who many of us didn't even regard as equals changed hearts and minds. The need to prove we were nothing like the Nazis pushed us to demonstrate our belief in racial equality in a way that the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement never quite did.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:29 am UTC

Okay, if we're moving into ad hominens...
I can't have a serious discussion with someone if they keep accusing me of fallacies they don't actually understand.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:38 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Okay, if we're moving into ad hominens...
I can't have a serious discussion with someone if they keep accusing me of fallacies they don't actually understand.


I'm not accusing you of the ad hominem fallacy (which is to attack a person in order to undermine their argument.) In fact, to me it seems like you're primarily attacking me, personally, because you enjoy it, and I was merely pointing out that I kind of wish you'd stop doing offensive bull like calling me a guy who would go out of my way to save Hitler.

But yes, I am the reason you can't have a serious discussion.

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby wst » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:06 am UTC

On one hand, I'd like to punch a Nazi. On the other hand, I like the idea that free speech is an "inalienable right" (that is such a ridiculous set of words that I've only seen in terms of US politics) on the off chance that one day my (currently fairly polite and mainstream) views become abhorrent to the multitude. I don't want to be punched in the face.

I was thinking, way back before we reached the point of "The Trump Administration" being a guaranteed "modern history" topic for my - potentially irradiated - children, that it was a really shit choice to have to make. You'd have Hillary on one hand, the very model of a modern career politician whose ascension to the pinnacle of the "Democratic" party was suspicious and a bad tactical error that put the name of the party into question (not quite as bad as the Democratic Republic thing some dictatorships have, but still). On the other hand you'd have Trump, a bad businessman with worrying views and I figured, a particular inability to get anything done. And Gary Johnson, who every time he spoke would say something great about freedom as well as something massively stupid about what he'd personally do with freedom.

To be fair to Trump, he's met my initial expectations. He's got worrying views and he seems to think Twitter is how you make laws and policies, and he keeps getting undermined by people who somewhat deserve their position in Government departments.

But I didn't expect him to have a domestic neo-Nazi terrorist incident to deal with. Not this early, certainly. And he's dealing with it poorly, obviously. It's just... I knew he'd be a terrible president.

The next President is going to have an easy ride to look even halfway competent.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:13 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:I'm not accusing you of the ad hominem fallacy (which is to attack a person in order to undermine their argument.) In fact, to me it seems like you're primarily attacking me, personally, because you enjoy it, and I was merely pointing out that I kind of wish you'd stop doing offensive bull like calling me a guy who would go out of my way to save Hitler.

But yes, I am the reason you can't have a serious discussion.

That isn't what the ad hominem fallacy is and I didn't accuse you of being that guy. And even if you were that guy, I don't think that would make you terrible; I just think it's an absurdly unworkable moral system.

After reading through your previous post more closely, it's pretty clear to me that you're not putting any significant effort into understanding what I'm saying. You grossly misrepresent me in nearly every response. So, yeah. The problem is you.

For the record, I don't think it's shameful to actually want to save Hitler. I don't even hate Nazis (I have no particularly strong feelings toward them; why should I?). You just made a bunch of random assumptions about my unstated positions and ran with it.

Good luck.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:38 am UTC

(Sometimes I wish I hadn't rebelled against the Chronology Protection Corps by going back in time to shoot the guy who shot Hitler, thus undoing the events that led up to the ChronoNazi War Of Near-Ultimate Doom and the eventual setting up of the CPC. I mean, there were markedly far fewer attacks by fire-breathing dinosaurs, this last seventy-odd years, but now it's just me, trying to police the temporal highways, trying to make sure that nobody else successfully shoots Hitler. And I keep having to tell 'em that helping von Stauffenberg never really ends well, either, no matter how much you try to augment the briefcase with futuristic substances, . Unfortunately, nobody realises how good this timeline is, because they never knew all the others. That includes the one with the New Gallic Imperium and its forced Cheese Camps. Tasty, admittedly, but you'd be surprised at the tide of human suffering they bring about.)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:13 pm UTC

Netreker0, no one was saying all the marching Nazis should get a bullet to the head. If you can't make your point without resorting to blatant lies about the position you're arguing against, then maybe it was a shit point to begin with and you should stop trying to argue it.
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
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:18 pm UTC

Maybe there should be, like, a whole sub-forum devoted to threads about whether it's okay to punch Nazis.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:03 pm UTC

The people out on Saturday were actively calling for genocide, by the way. At repeated points throughout the day while I was caring for patients I was also treated to lots of talk about how my people should be killed en masse and how they were in fact going to kill us & wipe us all from the country. And then, by the end of the day, GUESS WHAT they murdered folks.

I'm getting really goddamn tired of listening to asshats moralize about how it's so hypocritical and offensive to punch Nazis because they've done no crimes and we need to talk to them, as if the acceptable outcome of losing a philosophical debate is the wholesale slaughter of me and mine. Cool.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:20 pm UTC

What do you suggest then? What level of violence do you think should be used here?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:40 pm UTC

Punching? I mean, if you ignore the sympathizer's car bomb and bullet to the head exaggerations, punching is pretty transparently what everyone else has been talking about this whole time.
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)

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:56 pm UTC

I took punching throughout the posts are more figurative than literal, but fine. Aside making you (the general you, not anyone here in particular) personally feel better, I'm curious as to what this would accomplish though, aside escalating things. Even if we deem Nazi protests as incitement or the equivalent of "fighting words", it doesn't tend to let people off the hook for resorting to violence. That's just vigilantism.

I mean it seems that much higher level of force would at least have some sort of goal. Like killing these people to prevent their spreading of hate. I mean that would be terrible because the escalation would just result in basically civil war, but at least there's some sort of purpose to it. Aside from catharsis I'm not sure what punching them actually accomplishes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:04 pm UTC

I'm not sure I get it.

Punching somebody because they're a Nazi seems to me to be the same as punching somebody because they are gay.

Punching somebody who is a Nazi because they are robbing a general store seems to me to be the same as punching somebody who's gay because they are robbing a general store.

What am I missing?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:08 pm UTC

Well first of all, being born with a certain sexual orientation, and choosing to adopt a certain ideology, aren't exactly the same thing. Particularly if the latter's ideology involves exterminating the former.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:18 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Punching? I mean, if you ignore the sympathizer's car bomb and bullet to the head exaggerations, punching is pretty transparently what everyone else has been talking about this whole time.

Why don't we do what the criminal justice system does to minorities? Jail Nazis for any excuse with mandatory minimums. With the overturning of part of the civil Rights act by scotus, it's not like minorities have any protections anymore. There's a lot we can do Nazis that is perfectly legal. Shoot them and claim stand your ground. Escalate traffic stops and minor police interactions until you can justify fearing for your life. Start a war on opioids that is concentrated in Nazi communities with heavy use of swat teams.
Nixon and the new age of Jim Crow taught us a lot.

This requires a lot of people to join law enforcement, public office, military, and judgeships.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:20 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I'm not sure I get it.

Punching somebody because they're a Nazi seems to me to be the same as punching somebody because they are gay.

Punching somebody who is a Nazi because they are robbing a general store seems to me to be the same as punching somebody who's gay because they are robbing a general store.

What am I missing?

Jose
You're missing that Nazis and gays are not remotely equivalent, and acting like they are strongly suggests that you're homophobic, a Nazi sympathizer, or both.
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:30 pm UTC

At least we don't have Hillary. Last I heard, she used to be friends with an asshole that covertly supports the alt-right.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:33 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I'm not sure I get it.

Punching somebody because they're a Nazi seems to me to be the same as punching somebody because they are gay.

Punching somebody who is a Nazi because they are robbing a general store seems to me to be the same as punching somebody who's gay because they are robbing a general store.

What am I missing?

Jose
Also, no one is talking about hunting down people who privately agree with Nazis and punching them without provocation. We're talking about punching the ones publicly promoting their genocidal ideology.
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
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:49 pm UTC

ucim wrote:...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose

I guess I misspoke, it's less about adopting the ideology than advocating it. And exactly what they're advocating matters. Advocating peace on Earth, and advocating death to all <insert race here> aren't equivalent either.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:51 pm UTC

ucim wrote:...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose

The Nazis just committed domestic terrorism, and killed a woman. Go punch them in the face?

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:53 pm UTC

Spoiler'd for thread derailment

Spoiler:
Netreker0, your series of strange novellas above began with some rather bizarre assumptions and accusations about my post which I'll briefly attempt to unpack. Firstly, you accused me of being unprincipled and tribalistic for allowing our hypothetical Nazi to be punched, without seeming to realize you're comparing me to actual Nazis, a group that turned unprincipled tribalism into a damn science, and you completely ignored the fact that I specifically stated that I support their right to boldly lay claim to a vile political and social ideology, but I will do nothing but watch gleefully as the consequences of their actions unfold. These assertions also imply that you think society should be inclusive to Nazis and racists, which...that's gonna be a hard no.

Secondly, you seem to think I was making a commentary about the legality of assault. I wasn't. In most circumstances, the assault on our hypothetical Nazi would be illegal. But legality and morality aren't mutually inclusive concepts, and your implications otherwise are,
ironically, at the core of fascist ideology.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I think you abhor violence more than anything else and are decrying the use of violence against Nazis, rather than defending Nazis themselves. But you're doing it in such a way that's a.) making fake equivalences between societally acceptable ideologies and Nazis, and b.) making false assumptions about how I, personally, am claiming I want to handle Nazis.

Your arguments are, therefore, quite baffling and I think we unintentionally coming off as enablist.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:57 pm UTC

ucim wrote:...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose
yes you are missing that you cant just put {fill-in} because Nazis arent quite the same as {fill-in}. Yes? You're comparing genocidal racists to these other groups. I cant believe you need that explained.

Do you understand...why...we would want to hunt down genocidal racists?

I also cant believe yall got tricked into actually discussing the merits of punching Nazis.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
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.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote:...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose


Being a Nazi is defined by a certain set of actions. These actions include calling for, or supporting people and institutions who call for, racial segregation, violence and genocide. Nazi actions also often include intimidation of innocent uninvolved parties (such as marching through the streets carrying torches and chanting "Blood and Soil!" and "Jews will not replace us" for fuck's sake), and actual violence. If those aren't harmful actions I don't know what are. The Nazi agenda is inimical to the peaceful functioning of society. Being gay, Christian or Muslim isn't.

Edit: And for people who aren't familar "Blood and Soil", or "Blut und Boden" in the orignal German, is the slogan for the ideology which (obviously among other things) led pretty fucking directly to the Holocaust. If chanting that at a rally isn't harmful, like I say, I don't fucking know what is.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:22 pm UTC

"We aren't hunting down (gays/muslims/furries) because they are (gay/muslim/furry) but because they try to normalize their deviant lifestyle."



Look, I hate neo Nazis and other altrighters, especially since I'm one of the groups they want to eliminate. They are terrible and if they all suddenly caught fire I wouldn't even so much as piss on them. I do want to live in a world where I can punch them. But who decides who and who isn't too dangerous to be allowed to run around unpunched?

I'm of the belief that the polyamorous community represents a grave threat to the world if they ever get normalized, at least in the sense of much more polygyny than polyandry, but should we be able to beat the crap out of any guy with two girlfriends? Is it the popular vote that gets to decide if a group is too deviant or dangerous, such as right after 9/11 when a large number of people would've been in favor of ethnically cleansing the US of Muslims had it not been for Bush's propaganda campaign of "Islam is the religion of peace,"* one of the few things I give him a lot of credit for? What about atheism, the only (ir)religious group that is more despised in the US than Islam, at least by those "I wouldn't let my daughter marry" polls, should we be allowed to punch those people as well?

*As any actual Muslim will tell you, true fundamentalist Islam isn't a religion of war, peace, or any other shade on that spectrum. It's the religion of OCD. Is it time to pray, am I praying right, is the food halal, how do I prepare it, is my dress ok, what do I need to change, hoiw long is my hair, should I shave, what can I shave? Kind of like any other religion...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:27 pm UTC

Being wrong or ignorant about the consequences of a group doesn't magically make it moral to do violence against them.

Nazis actually explicitly advocate for the kinds of violence we accuse them of, and will actually do those things if we let them get away with them.
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Being wrong or ignorant about the consequences of a group doesn't magically make it moral to do violence against them.

Nazis actually explicitly advocate for the kinds of violence we accuse them of, and will actually do those things if we let them get away with them.


And when they advocate violence they break the law and can be arrested. So what do you do about the "peaceful" Nazis that technically don't openly advocate violence or just make vague threats in their goal of ethnically cleansing the US?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:34 pm UTC

The police in Charlottesville didn't arrest them when they broke the 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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The police in Charlottesville didn't arrest them when they broke the law.


Then the police there have fucked up bigtime and the mayor should lose his job over this.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:41 pm UTC

We're asking the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "is it ok to punch a Nazi?" We should be asking "Is anyone at fault besides the Nazis at the Nazi really that violence broke out?" Were both sides at fault, as Trump would have us believe?

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:43 pm UTC

"First they came for the neo-Nazi's, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a neo-Nazi.

...

And that's pretty much where it ended."

I mean, I can understand how you would think the above would be true. To you and me, Nazism and calling for genocide feels a lot different than normalizing same-sex relationships or living in the same neighbourhood as people of different religions. This doesn't feel like a slippery slope.

However, to a lot of other people, violence is a lot more acceptable on the sin-scale than sodomy or heathenism. It is absolutely a logical argument to equate them when talking about freedom of speech and the protection of basic human rights. If people who think sodomy or atheism are worthy of death became the majority, you would be very happy to have that basic level of protection. Protecting neo-Nazi's from being punched in the face is absolutely morally justified.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:51 pm UTC

SDK wrote:"First they came for the neo-Nazi's, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a neo-Nazi.

...

And that's pretty much where it ended."

I mean, I can understand how you would think the above would be true. To you and me, Nazism and calling for genocide feels a lot different than normalizing same-sex relationships or living in the same neighbourhood as people of different religions. This doesn't feel like a slippery slope.

However, to a lot of other people, violence is a lot more acceptable on the sin-scale than sodomy or heathenism. It is absolutely a logical argument to equate them when talking about freedom of speech and the protection of basic human rights. If people who think sodomy or atheism are worthy of death became the majority, you would be very happy to have that basic level of protection.

The Aristocrats.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
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.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6890
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:55 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:Being a Nazi is defined by a certain set of actions. These actions include calling for, or supporting people and institutions who call for, racial segregation, violence and genocide. Nazi actions also often include intimidation of innocent uninvolved parties...
...but Muslims have been accused of this too. Fundamentalist Christians have been accused of falling into that bucket.

Again, it's the actual actions that warrant being punched in the nose, not the actions associated with the group that one belongs to. If these blacks riot, it's still wrong to punch those other blacks in the nose.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:01 pm UTC

SDK wrote:If people who think sodomy or atheism are worthy of death became the majority, you would be very happy to have that basic level of protection.


If such people became the majority we would not have that protection or any other for very long, and it is, IMO, an utterly ludicrous fantasy to suppose that we would. History has shown that institutions of law and state ultimately crumble beneath the will of those with the most power, for good or ill.

Again, it's the actual actions that warrant being punched in the nose, not the actions associated with the group that one belongs to. If these blacks riot, it's still wrong to punch those other blacks in the nose.

How would someone even identify these supposed "non-practising Nazis" if they wanted to punch them in the face?

I'm actually horribly conflicted as to when it becomes ethical to punch a Nazi, but I don't feel that drawing these particular distinctions is helpful for furthering discussion because as far as I can tell no-one is actually proposing punching anyone who is Nazi "in name only".
Last edited by Quercus on Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:05 pm UTC

Are you suggesting that there are peace-loving moderate Nazis who are appalled by the actions of their radicalized brethren? Or can we come to an agreement that being a Nazi is, in itself, a reprehensible and unacceptable action?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests