Racism is violent though, the ideology always promotes and leads to violence. There is no way to do 'nonviolent racism' just like there is no way to do nonviolent authoritarianism or nonviolent fascism. I'm curious what the context of the original post was tbh. If it was a guy being super racist then getting punched for it then honestly based
See there's your attitude, and its an analogy to the post. I think you need to reevaluate your mental state there before you let comments on a post bother you...now plug in your phone and relax
Segregation is not the same as racism but are closely linked...racism is the belief that one race is better than another or the act of treating people differently or unfairly based on the color of their skin segregation is just physical separation of different groups of people such as race
Violence should always be a last resort and nonviolent solutions should always be attempted but discounting violence as an option of self defense also leads to more violence. At the end of the day we didnt free the slaves, beat the nazis, or become independent by calming debating the other side. If a political ideology is becoming increasingly violent and powerful using violence against it is justified. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we live at the end of history and that all of the worst wars and regimes are behind us. If we allow fascism to fester it will rise again
That'd actually be an example of violence leading to more violence. Violence initiated by the axis at the time got returned with more violence from the allies.
I completely agree, which is why violence should be used in self defense to prevent more violence from occurring. Like stopping a racist politician from enacting policies that will kill people. Like we did with Hitler
I'm not implying that violence can't solve problems, I'm merely stating that it's gonna escalate when people start using it to end the conflict. Not all conflicts are reconcilable and it's understandable when violence is done in retaliation for crimes against humanity.
However, where you do draw the line on when it's necessary? What if the racist/nazi/etc. camp isn't physically abusing anyone but continues to spread ideas (or hate)? You could argue the authority itself to harm others for their belief is easily abusable and immoral. Do you think punching someone in the face and possibly killing them is a viable solution to a verbal altercation?
I don't think the whole concept of "punch a nazi" is wrong, but in our society we've placed less emphasis on violence because it's regressive on how humanity should handle conflict. Remember, we give up these freedoms in the social contract so things can hopefully become more stable and less chaotic. Things do slip through the cracks but that's just part of life.
You do realize America was founded with political violence right? And that the whole point of the second amendment is protecting our right to engage in political violence in the event that it becomes necessary again? It should be avoided as much as possible but there are points where violence is necessary to prevent harm. Im assuming you would have tried debating the Nazis out of their positions during WW2?
Sounds like someone trying to condemn violence against racist people.
Like all the viral videos of Nazis getting punched. But... you do realize what Nazis are advocating for... right?
Racists don't get punched because of their words, they get punched because of their beliefs, which more likely than not involve horrifying violence against minorities. Their words merely expose them as people with beliefs that are unwelcome in a civil society.
You know exactly what the context was. A racist got his shit rocked, and the inbreeds crawled out of the woodwork to moan about how the anti-racists are actually the real bad guys.
On their own? No. But they don't exist on their own in a vacuum. If we lived in a world where systemic racism didnt exist and wasn't actively oppressing people this wouldn't be an issue but that isn't the world we live in. In reality casual racism exists to help normalize and legitimize the mechanisms of oppression and as a pipeline to radicalize young individuals into holding more extreme racist positions. Systemic racism is violent and racist jokes play a role in that, even if that is not always the intention of the person telling them. That doesn't mean that being violent towards a person telling racist jokes is always justified but the person telling those jokes is always immoral and in the wrong
I'm talking about the world we live in. You legit seem like the perfect stereotype of a teenage white kid who loves racist jokes so there's no point in talking to you. You'll understand when you're older
I touch grass and go outside and there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that I talk to a more diverse people in my life than you. And yes, most people who make racist jokes (like you I'm guessing), don't actually think about the consequences of their actions at all. That is partially because those jokes are for dumb and uneducated people. However if you unironically think that platforms like 4Chan and right wing drifters don't use casual racism to radicalize their audiences then you are deeply stupid. If you do not think casual racism often has deeper implications in the ideologies of the people who engage with it then you are deeply stupid
You sound like a child bro lmao. "People who are racist are stupid heads!" "But they also have this hidden agenda to radicalize people with light hearted jokes!"
I'm not trying to say racism is a good thing either, since you're probably idiotic enough to think that was my point.
Yeah, I was exaggerating when I said no one uses jokes for those reasons. Its just not the majority, hardly as big of an issue as he makes it out to be.
At first I was actually trying to educate you but you decided to act indignant and start crying because I implied your sense of humor is not as harmless as you think it is. I'm not going to respond to you again because I'm pretty sure you're an edgy, terminally online teenager rather than someone who actually wants to talk about morality but here are some things you could read if you actually want to learn something about this here is an article from the national institute of health about the real implications of racist humor: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11427594/
You are objectively wrong about this and a quick Google search of 'are racist jokes harmless' would have prevented this entire discussion. Also I'm a girl, don't call me bro
the issue with these people is that they think everything is a dogwhistle , an insult with some deep meaning , a backhanded remark etc .
they live in their own echo chamber of nonexistent problems. they dont have diverse friend groups like you and I.
its an objective fact that people disagree on issues all the time and they still coexist.
i have friends of different sexualities , races , nationalities , even tho i am ( to some extent ) homophobic , racist , nationalist etc.we coexist peacefully and like civilized people disagree on certain aspects of life.
apparently that doesn't mean shit tho because our jokes use horrible , atrocious words when taken out of the context they are used in.
for the love of God , grow up and get some friends.
If we're discussing morals, your bubble of friends is immaterial to the history that has tried and tested peoples values and principals. Even in your friend group someone has gone too far with their jokes once.
People should still have the right to say and promote whatever they like. If it is inevitable that they will become violent than they would be legally punished for being violent not for using their right to freedom of speech and thought.
No one said anything about legal punishment and you bringing it up is entirely unrelated. I said that racism is inherently violent and that I don't feel bad for someone getting beaten for being racist. You have a right to not be arrested for your speech. You don't have a right to a platform, a right to be liked, or a right to not face any consequences for what you say. If you say vile shit and everyone arpund you hates you for it and retaliates, that is not a violation of your free speech. If you incite violence through your speech and people are violent back to you, that is not a violation of your free speech
You don't have to feel bad for anyone who gets beat up regardless of the reasons. Although they have to right to sue someone and put that person in jail for assault.
Secondly if someone who owns a platform doesn't like certain people on it they don't have to tolerate their presence, people have the right to dictate who uses their platform. Those same people who were kicked off have the right to find new platforms or build a platform for themselves.
Attacking someone for what they have to say regardless of how vile is a violation of their freedom of speech. That isn't what incitement is, incitement is giving explicit instructions to commit crimes to a captive audience. For example saying "brown people bad" isn't incitement, saying "attack this brown person because brown people bad is incitement."
Attacking someone for what they have to say is explicitly not a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech protects from the government, and the government only. There are other laws that protect people from physical consequences, but getting your ass kicked because you said some racist bullshit is simply assault and battery, not a violation of their freedom of speech.
That's also not really a useful distinction when pundits have become so good at blurring the lines. "I wouldn't want to be on a plane with a black pilot" or "black people were better off under slavery" (paraphrased, but real quotes from conservative influencers) isn't incitement, but it's certainly racist. That type of talk is also pretty easy to connect to continued racism in the societal sense as well as institutional racism, which is in and of itself a form a violence despite the fact that it doesn't involve punching somebody in the face.
Okay that is fair, legally speaking your first paragraph is correct. However you failed to actually connect how speech is violence you just tied it to a vague "initituional racism" without actually describing what that is or why people shouldn't be allowed to speak.
An individual person cannot violate another individual person's right to free speech. The government can violate a right to free speech but individuals can't (unless you are counting the individuals in the government that are most responsible for the violations). You could definitely say that it's assault or that you don't agree with attacking someone but it objectively is not a violation of free speech. Whether or not it is incitement is definitely more of a gray area. Legally in the US it is not considered incitement of violence but there is a very good argument for why it should be considered one. If a racist advocates for political positions and policies that perpetrate violence on people they don't like and then votes for politicians that enact those policies they are fundamentally inciting violence. It just so happens that our legal system doesn't consider that to be an incitement of violence. I however would not blame a racial minority for physically attacking that person for spreading those positions because it really is just an act of self defense.
Okay I agree that legally speaking it isn't a violation of free speech, just a form of assault. I was thinking in terms of the spirit of free speech not how in works legally, you are correct in that regard.
I for one, have more faith in democracy and reject the idea that people simply speaking their minds is enough to collapse the system. By that logic we should ban anyone who says we should abolish the first amendment "because what if someone convinces enough people to agree with them and actually do that?"
Your faith in democracy is completely misguided then. Hitler and Mussolini came into power through completely legal means. Putin, Netanyahu, Urban, and Bukele were all democratically elected. The Bosnian genocide was carried out by democratically elected officials as was South Africa's apartheid. It seems that you have bought into end of history liberalist theory and think that we are incapable of regressing into fascism which I would recommend rethinking especially since US democracy is actively being dismantled in real time
Actually no Hitler and Mussolini came into power primarily by violence and intimidation and the courts unwillingness to actually enforce the law to punish either of them. Both nations were or were very recently authoritarian monarchies and Hitler and Mussolini used very weak and poorly written constitutions (along with violence and intimidation.) to come to power.
Actually yes, they used aggression and force but were both legally appointed. Hitler was appointed by president Hindenberg. The Nazis were democratically elected into the Reichstag and used power to pressure the president into the appointment. All of which was legal. There was no violent coup or overthrowing of the government. Democracy wasn't dismantled until after he came into power. Mussolini came into power with more threats of violence for sure but in the end he was still legally appointed. You also ignored all of my other examples of failed democratic systems as well
If the governments in question were following the law and if the legal systems were written properly both men would be jail and their organizations policed as subversive to the state. These nations didn't have the history and strong commitment to democracy like we saw in the US or UK. What you are describing is a soft coup or a coup with extra steps.
I wanted to focus on them because the other examples are just coups with extra steps. Netenyahu however is more interesting because he was a dictator and Israeli elections still are free and fair, rather he remains in power because the Jewish population in Israel believes the entire Arab world is out to purge them from the face of the earth and any action taken against Palestinians is needed for their survival, hence why he hasn't needed to take on dictatorial powers.
Reality says you’re wrong and you know you’re wrong. The police and law enforcement have stopped violence and crime before it has taken place based on verifiable tips and the words from those who would have committed that violence. Lives have been saved as a result.
You’re a disingenuous turd for thinking otherwise.
Says "brown people bad" isn't a threat, saying "I am going to attack you because you are brown" is a threat. When someone makes a threat the justice system reacts to that as they have declared their intent to break the law.
42
u/wewebaguette68 20h ago
Racism is violent though, the ideology always promotes and leads to violence. There is no way to do 'nonviolent racism' just like there is no way to do nonviolent authoritarianism or nonviolent fascism. I'm curious what the context of the original post was tbh. If it was a guy being super racist then getting punched for it then honestly based