I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
But Nazis are by definition an active threat to me and mine. So punching them is always the correct answer.
History also shows that the only way to stop Nazis is to punch them often and early. An ideology built on hatred and violence needs to be stamped out by force, for the safety of everyone else.
Neo-confederates are not quite as bad, but still need a boot to the face every now and then to tell them that their hatred and bigotry is not kosher. Otherwise, they start looking for minorities to harm.
Violence against Nazis pretty definitively defeated Nazi Germany in WW2, and the lack of violence against Nazis on the international stage failed to arrest their advances before the outbreak of war.
In Britain, the Battle of Cable Street was a highly influential action in which violence against fascists stymied their growing influence.
The government retains a monopoly on force because we (implicitly) agree that its use of force, in the form of institutions, is preferable, in its reliability and consistency, to individual use of force. Outside of the context of the concession of the monopoly of violence to a central authority or authorities; immediate self-defense is not the only valid use of violence.
Outside of that context; that is to say, regarding the morality and not the legality of an act, one would have to have a fucking death wish to disregard the use of violence outside of the context of immediate self-defense. That’s the whole reason cultures of honor get started - because if you do not react to threats and advocacy with force, because if you sit there and meekly let Clan McNazi from across the highlands whisper that all of ‘you people’ in your clan should be killed while you’re trying to work the fucking fields, because if you try to play tit-for-tat, all that ends with is you and all of your family in a shallow grave, or in chains.
In a civilized society, the position of reacting with force is taken up by the state, however flawed and imperfect this system is. We haven’t stopped reacting with force in non-self-defense contexts, we’ve merely outsourced it to a (theoretically) representative body.
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
… my guy have you not been paying attention
Slavery was only totally abolished in the 1940s with the end of peonage in Texas. People today still openly defend slavery. Florida’s new curriculum for public schools includes the idea that slavery was good for Black people because it ‘taught them valuable skills’. De facto enslavement happens by the selective enforcement of unjust laws combined with targeting of minority and impoverished communities combined with for-profit prisons and subminimum wage in conditions that would be illegal anywhere else.
We’re not that far removed from actual, literal slavery, and it’s not a leap to believe that a fascist regime would joyfully reimplement it.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Again, that’s only valid within the context of a functioning state. That’s not a comment on morality, that’s a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
Well, the philosophy is based heavily on how the Nazi’s came into power. So maybe you should just look into that and see how it worked out for the other parties involved.
I think most people would agree they wouldn’t want to wait to get violent until after their opposition is sending them to camps.
This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Also, the philosophy goes over this. They would wait until you aren’t in a position to fight back.
I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
Man, you are such a poet, you have put it perfectly.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
In a vacuum, your pacifism might seem good.
But Nazis are by definition an active threat to me and mine. So punching them is always the correct answer.
History also shows that the only way to stop Nazis is to punch them often and early. An ideology built on hatred and violence needs to be stamped out by force, for the safety of everyone else.
Neo-confederates are not quite as bad, but still need a boot to the face every now and then to tell them that their hatred and bigotry is not kosher. Otherwise, they start looking for minorities to harm.
Do you have an example of this, or are you extrapolating from the failure of appeasement prior to World War II?
… there aren’t many other examples of Nazis outside of the 20s, 30s and early-mid 40s. Kind of hard to find any example outside of that time frame.
You said “history shows” that punching them is the best way to solve the issue. What in history shows that?
Violence against Nazis pretty definitively defeated Nazi Germany in WW2, and the lack of violence against Nazis on the international stage failed to arrest their advances before the outbreak of war.
In Britain, the Battle of Cable Street was a highly influential action in which violence against fascists stymied their growing influence.
The government retains a monopoly on force because we (implicitly) agree that its use of force, in the form of institutions, is preferable, in its reliability and consistency, to individual use of force. Outside of the context of the concession of the monopoly of violence to a central authority or authorities; immediate self-defense is not the only valid use of violence.
Outside of that context; that is to say, regarding the morality and not the legality of an act, one would have to have a fucking death wish to disregard the use of violence outside of the context of immediate self-defense. That’s the whole reason cultures of honor get started - because if you do not react to threats and advocacy with force, because if you sit there and meekly let Clan McNazi from across the highlands whisper that all of ‘you people’ in your clan should be killed while you’re trying to work the fucking fields, because if you try to play tit-for-tat, all that ends with is you and all of your family in a shallow grave, or in chains.
In a civilized society, the position of reacting with force is taken up by the state, however flawed and imperfect this system is. We haven’t stopped reacting with force in non-self-defense contexts, we’ve merely outsourced it to a (theoretically) representative body.
Listen trucknuts. Can I call you trucknuts? Intolerance of intolerance is the only way through. Otherwise we get only more extreme.
I don’t own a truck so I’m not sure why you’d want to, but sure.
Why do you think intolerance of intolerance is the only way through? Assaulting your ideological opponents seems extreme to me. Does it not to you?
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
I have two concerns with this.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
… my guy have you not been paying attention
Slavery was only totally abolished in the 1940s with the end of peonage in Texas. People today still openly defend slavery. Florida’s new curriculum for public schools includes the idea that slavery was good for Black people because it ‘taught them valuable skills’. De facto enslavement happens by the selective enforcement of unjust laws combined with targeting of minority and impoverished communities combined with for-profit prisons and subminimum wage in conditions that would be illegal anywhere else.
We’re not that far removed from actual, literal slavery, and it’s not a leap to believe that a fascist regime would joyfully reimplement it.
Again, that’s only valid within the context of a functioning state. That’s not a comment on morality, that’s a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
Well, the philosophy is based heavily on how the Nazi’s came into power. So maybe you should just look into that and see how it worked out for the other parties involved.
I think most people would agree they wouldn’t want to wait to get violent until after their opposition is sending them to camps.
Also, the philosophy goes over this. They would wait until you aren’t in a position to fight back.
I don’t know man, we’ve had a striking return to child labor being acceptable.
deleted by creator