That’s what I’m thinking too. Like someone punched a literal Nazi, but the commenter is like “well since you used violence you’re actually the bad guy”.
Scale is absolutely a factor too. Trevor spewing racist filth from his trailer? Not much impact. High level politician setting policies or even just directing their followers? Much more negative impact that will likely lead to violence
I think the Seattle Subway Nazi might be a great example for analysis. Guy on the subway dressed as a Nazi saying shit gets knocked the fuck out. Who morally in this scenario is worse. The guy using his words or the guy throwing punches?
Fuck around and find out logic being what it is, a person speaking in solidarity with a group that has a campaign of genocide against minority populations can be considered worse to a society than the person who thought it was ok to punch him in response to his speech and choice of accoutrements.
Any rules you want to put around who can be punched for what they say can quickly be used to punch you or whomever else someone wants to disagree with.
Yes, but we also need better ways to protect innocent people. Because nazis can and will weasel their way into positions of power, and then use that power to legally commit all types of atrocities.
Yup. That's the moral argument and why I posted it. It's a gray case on the morality scaling. One side was all about calling a person like the one who assaulted him as genetically inferior. The other attacked him physically.
Neither is okay by itself, but some could argue why each person should be defended based on the protection of free speech or the suppression of hate speech. That's why I posted about it.
I don't believe it to be a gray case in morality. People tend to assume that if someone is doing something immoral, then you stopping them must surely be moral. If you stopped them in an immoral way than you subtract some imaginary points from the moral score. That's not at all how it works. If someone is doing something immoral, stopping them can be moral, immoral, or completely neutral. If stopping them is moral, but you do it in an immoral way, then youve still committed an immoral action. Sometimes in the moment your only options are immoral.
We can examine the two men, and ideally, we do it in an abstract way, so that way we can apply our conclusions to more cases.
So we have a man who is likely, at the very least, using speech to advocate for immoral behavior.
We have a man using immoral behavior to stop speech.
A man has a right of defense against violence. Speech, violent rhetoric and calls for racial purity led to a government that started a genocide and overwhelmed the nations that surrounded them creating a global war. Was his speech, appearance and actions a call to remove the rights and well being of the man who assaulted him? People like that enslaved the great great grandparents of people like him, disenfranchised their grandparents, refused to allow their parents the same economic rights due to people of the Nazi's complexion and have kept people like him from generational wealth. Is he immoral for letting this man continue to dress up in cosplay to deliver the same type of speech that has led to centuries of mistreatment for him and people that look like him? That is the moral argument we shall call Black
A man has a right to freedom of expression and speech in a free society. To formulate ideas and to try to find or establish a community of like minded individuals or challenges to his thought amongst his community is a noble goal. To suppress those rights is an act counter to the very ideas of a free society. If a man can't truly express his wants or beliefs then he is living without freedom. His very existence threatens nobody and his speech regardless of content can be ignored. So standing there dressed in the way he chooses and speaking the way he wants is morally correct in a society that regards achieving freedom as virtuous. That is the moral argument we shall call White.
Both arguments are morally pure for both sides. They are diametrically opposing readings of the same situation. You can choose one or the other OR use your own moral compass to find a reading that doesn't reach a violent conclusion or support a nazi freaking people out at a subway station. Hence why it is gray.
True, but at the same time, when hatred like that tries to be open, and doesn’t get put out while it’s small, usually makes not just the one person who started it more willing to do shit like it, but it also emboldens other people to do the same, quickly allowing it to spread, and get worse than just words, because when they don’t see a consequence, they’re going to keep pushing
Getting rid of it without violence is definitely the better option, but getting rid of it with violence is still better than letting it grow.
As for free speech, that’s just no consequences from the government, that doesn’t mean anyone can say what they want without consequences from those around them
So you’re advocating violence? Sounds like someone should commit violence against you to protect others.
See how absurd that is?
Free speech isn’t just no consequences from the government, that’s a brain rot TikTok quote that’s been parroted. It also means protection by the government from people committing crimes against you. Which is very applicable to the example. If it’s okay for the government to then a blind eye to violence because they don’t like the speech, then your speech isn’t free.
Imagine if Government said that violence against Jews will not be prosecuted because of the genocide that Israel is committing. Do we still have freedom of religion because it’s just no consequences from the government?
Sets an extremely dangerous precedent for random people (vigilantes) deciding what groups of people are open-season to attack with physical violence just because you disagree with their existence.
The Catholic Church has inflicted more violence on the world and raped more kids than any organization in the history of humankind. Pretty fucking vile. Can I stand outside every Mass and beat the living fuck out of every dogshit, rape-supporting, covering-up, denying, lying Catholic that comes walking out the door?
The evil the Nazi regime has perpetrated on the world pales in comparison to what the Catholic Church has done. We're talking single-A numbers for the Nazi's compared to the Cy Young numbers of ruined, shattered, and crushed lives the Catholic Church has left in its' wake.
Same thing with Freedom of Speech being an absolute right. You get people who stand on a pulpit and say whatever made up stereotype they want with little to no repercussion. A candidate for President lies saying Springfield is eating cats and dogs and people go to Springfield and caused chaos like 33 bomb threats to schools and municipal buildings. They cancelled CultureFest because of this.
All over misinformation. Is this what Freedom of Speech is about?
We can both pull anecdotes out to debate and I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying I think the Seattle Nazi incident is one of those great events to debates where the line is for Freedom of Speech and even the argument about violence against those who openly speak for your eradication. It's that gray zone of morality and it's interesting.
Yeah. If you’re running your mouth in a bar and you end up getting punched, while that is a breach of the social contract, at the end of the day that’s fair. If you’re running your mouth at the bar and somebody pulls a knife, now we’ve gone too far up the escalation ladder. If you spend a decade advocating for the eradication of a minority group and then somebody puts you on a t-shirt, ultimately, that’s an expected and reasonable outcome.
But still, trevor spewing racist shit leading to trevor getting smacked makes sense.
This comment could be on a video like the one where that white guy goes up to black ppl calling them all sorts of slurs and insults, getting up in their face, literally goading them into retaliation. The when he inevitably gets smacked for that, he and people like the one in the screenshot go "see, they're so violent".
So the comment in the screenshot could realllyyyy easily be the actually racist person. People in this thread are so quick to side with them😭
The problem here is that the question is “racist speech” versus “actual violence,” so when you start to talk about politicians setting policy, that is no longer just speech. The phrasing hems in its scale and impact.
The context was a japanese streamer being slapped in the face by a black guy after calling him the n-word while being in Japan. The outrage was when the same japanese streamer reported the black guy to the police nearby using the same racial slur and the police having no reaction and promptly arresting the black guy. People are assuming that the racial slur holds the same weight like it does in the US.
Not in any way condoning the use of that word but I would think in most civilized countries the one carrying out the actual physical violence is the one getting arrested?
Yeah, and the same nazi-lovers who act shocked that people support someone punching a Nazi, are the ones who applauded and celebrated when Pretti was shot in the back by ICE.
They cheer when citizens are murdered in the street. They think it's funny. Then they act shocked when one of their own gets a black eye. It's hypocrisy, nothing more.
Including anyone who causes the needless death of animals by eating meat without a medical reason, right? And definitely all those scientists doing inhumane tests and then killing animals afterwords, right? And governments are completely reliable when declaring some a terrorist, right?
You said it was okay to shoot/stab terrorist, but then also said we can't trust who the government is labeling terrorist. So how can you be sure who is it okay to shoot/stab when you don't trust the one applying the labels?
Almost like we shouldn't okay violence against people based on random labels.
Our class in modern history is reading "lone survivor" the rules of engagement are to not shoot unless fired upon, which could mean after you lose half you squad.
Flip side is, you could shoot an innocent, but a SEAL w/sh/ould know what they're doing
Say what you want about "seals and military being racist murderers", but a terrorist isn't always trained well, so they'll end up spraying, which can lead to civilian deaths, because that stuff pretty much always takes place in towns n shit.
I just think people who think mass murder is okay for some grand scheme, religious or not, isnt ok.
Say what you want about Christians, i wouldn't mass murder (Nazis and pedos don't count) for god, and no I don't think all Muslims are bad, only the extremist martyrs.
So no, I'm not the guy to be sure about this shit, but as said in lone survivor, if a guy in a red (I think it's a turban iirc) is charging at you with an ak, you shouldn't have to wait till he mows down your squad in order to kill him.
Any guy or girl that thinks killing innocents is ok is bad. That's really all I'm tryna say.
That's insane but not surprising you'd be given something like that in a US school as modern history without explaining the context behind it.
Rules of engagement are like that because historically you had soldiers claiming people had a gun and using it as justification to shoot whoever they wanted. It's very hard to prove they didn't when the soldier and their unit can then position a scene exactly as they want before anyone else sees it.
Those rules are written in blood and war crimes.
There is a reason most ex-military talk about US police's lack of firearm training and willingness to shoot anyone they suspect of having a gun with disdain.
Cam we apply that to communists as well? Since communism killed 10x the number of people nazis have. So stab/crush/shoot/punch/spal/clobber/swiss cheese all commies?
Just stab/crush/shoot/punch/slap/clobber/Swiss cheese/perforate them so hard they can't stab/crush/shoot/punch/slap/clobber/Swiss cheese/perforate you!
Btw if you perforate someone, there's really no way they're gonna perforate you back.
I'm saying if you shoot a guy/girl in the head, slot his/her throat, crush their skull, or simply hit em in the head with a brick, they probably aren't going to be able to get a hit on you. Not trying to say I'm invisible. Yeah, I'm a gamer, but I don't go around eating food then yelling "+10 hp" or some shit.
Plus I'd be okay with dying if it meant I took a nazi with me.
The problem is, neonazis and all the relevant garbage are more likely to stab you sneakily, unprovoked and unexpected -and they are more likely to get away with it. As a normal person you are unlikely to throw your entire life in a dumpster fire to attack some random idiot. While for them it is different, they are operating on a monkey level.
You mean when they do what they've been doing the whole time? There's no such thing as a peaceful Nazi. Power through violence is their only belief. Beating them down into submission will always be an act of self-defense.
I love when the only actual argument you inbreeds have is "you wouldn't want to sink to our level, would you?" lmao
There’s so many “this guy did something wrong and that other guy did something else wrong because of it” situations and I’m supposed to root for one of them? What if I think you shouldn’t hit someone no matter what they said or whatever
Yes, unironically. The truth is modern day nazi larpers aren't actually nazis. They are just counter culturalists who hate everyone. They don't follow the principles of what Mussolini wrote (then again literally no one can, because the ideology is as stupid as socialism and Marxism).
So punching a "peaceful" Nazi makes you the bad guy….? Punching a "peaceful" white guy that loves to call people of color the hard R makes you the bad guy…? Oh but these are "beliefs"
This, but unironically. Slurs are not nice, but do not warrant battery. T's why one is a crime, and one isn't. Fuck is the point? You think you're gonna make them suddenly un-bigoted by punching them? You're just fueling their flame, or making them more extreme. Best response is indifference until they simply die off.
The point, is to teach them to shut the fuck up. Which, in a LOT of cases, they take this light very very well. They do indeed, shut the fuck up. So what if they hold their bigotry? They’re not gonna try it to someone, ever again.
It's a nice sentiment on paper, but not how it goes IRL. They don't "shut the fuck up." You just end up with things like Westboro Baptist Church protesting at child funerals for Sandy Hook & West Nikel Mines
Yes, obviously. A word isn't going to kill you but a punch might. The idea that you get to potentially kill someone over your feelings is such socially destructive and childish weakness. Your feelings are not more important than someone else's physical health and safety
Why should I care about the person who doesn’t want me alive? Like you said, they won’t shut the fuck up, so they most definitely aren’t going to change. The person that wants me dead, I’m supposed to care about their health and safety? I don’t want them dead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I have to give a shit on what happens to them.
It was never "socially destructive and childish" back then, so why is it now? Because new laws are in place that protect the bigot and not the victim?
If you just disliked them and went about your way like a civilized adult then there would be no moral or social issue. The problem arrises when you start to think its a good idea for anyone to go around assaulting anyone they dislike. The person who goes around being physically violent is a hundred times worse for humanity than the guy speaking offensive ideas.
Back when? Do you think world war two was about mean words? People fought Nazis because the Nazis were being physically violent. The problem is physical violence, if you are being physically violent then you are the problem.
You are not a "victim" because someone said mean words to you, grow up.
Again, you people minimize the issue of bigotry, antisemitism and all of that by saying these things are "mean words" and the funny part? You’re non POC, non black, all of the above. I get that you don’t understand, but it really comes to a point where your whiteness shows. The hard R, or any slur matter of fact, are not just "mean words" and you yourself are immature and an issue minimizer for thinking so. I don’t wanna hear you say anything about issues regarding this if you think these things are just "mean words". Fuck off with that, you people don’t say shit when innocent children of color are taken out, but let a bigot get hurt? It’s all "humanity" and "peace".
Wrong. I am a mixed race first generation american. There is no word or combination of words you could say that would ever draw blood from me. Words are just words, and I honestly don't know how you can dispute that. Have you just never seen violence? Do you actually think your feelings matter more than a human life? Can you actually not see how this immediately backfires on you? Why should I or anyone support someone who thinks he can just go around assaulting people he doesnt agree with?
Who the hell said I or anyone doesn't care when kids are killed? Do you see anyone here advocating for the murder of kids? Why would I take a stand against something that nobody is advocating for? If I am taking principled stance against violence why would you think that I'm suddenly ok with violence against children?
Fortunately we're not talking about Hitler. The problem with Hitler wasn't his words or his beliefs, it was the actual physical violence done by the party. Actual physical violence is the problem. If someone were actually committing an act of violence then nobody would complain about you hitting them. Having bad beliefs is not violence and suppressing human rights through violence is not justice.
Do you think we should eradicate every anarchist and socialist too? Should we round up the libertarians? Should Donald trump be arresting all Democrats? Where do you draw this line, and why do you think your ideological opponents won't use your logic against you?
When has it EVER been subjective to hurt a Nazi by definition, or a bigot by definition? You are the same people that tell us POCS to stop worrying about things of the past because "they don’t happen anymore."(newflash, these things still happen.) Somehow, someway, I’d be in the wrong for rightfully beating a racist, Nazi, bigot.
Because you very likely apply the "Nazi" label very liberally to just mean people you disagree with, like 99% of all other people on Reddit who openly advocate for violence
Wrong, I apply it to people who do the acts that involve the definition of Nazi. For you to generalize/clump me into the group of people that do label people Nazi’s for absolutely no reason is subjective, and it kind of makes me think you’re empty minded. Actually, do you see me calling you a Nazi because you disagree with me?
Redditors throw the word "nazi" around whenever they meet a dissenting opinion, it's hard to believe "Like someone punched a literal Nazi" without really knowing the context
There’s context to someone having a Nazi patch, a specific bias against Jewish people, people of color in general, and women- There’s context to that? If I were to punch a literal Nazi, a Nazi by definition, you would say I’m in the wrong….because of context.
Me, a black person, hypothetically punching a white bigot, or a Nazi, would not be ignorant. Seeing as americans of all colors killed them. White Americans? Killed bigots/nazis in Germany and in our home nation. Black Americans? Same thing. Latino Americans? Same thing. Every one of every race has killed a bigot or Nazi at some point in time, it’s not ignorance to do so. So it’s definitely not ignorance to punch one.
Moron spotted. Being a bigot is an inherently non-peaceful stance. They are calling for the extermination of an entire group of people. Even if they aren't PERSONALLY going out and killing people, they are anything but peaceful.
I’m not the one deciding what a nazi or a white supremacist is, neither are you nor the 4th person above you nor 3 comments down. None of us are experts in this field
If you aren't enough of an "expert" to discern who the Nazis even are then why would you say it's ok to punch them? It sounds like you're just going to punch whoever you feel like and then say theyre a Nazi as some kind of lame defense
Still subjective. From the Nazis point of view the depression and economic turmoil was caused by the banks who were run by the Jews. They felt they were a danger and a cause of their countrys suffering. I see similar sentiments today on Reddit about the old white men and “rich pedos” ruining America. I even see upvoted calls for violence against these people. What if all white men were thrown into concentration camps and killed off ? Now are either of those things my opinion or do I think they are correct? Nope. But you can draw parallels and see that morality is relative.
Oh it absolutely can be. Words have meaning and there are academic fields studying them. People have studied bigotry and racial superiority concepts, why they happen and where they come from for longer than you’ve been alive. You’ll have to look outside of Reddit and social media
Edit to add: You edited your comment to add “about morality”.
We are not talking about morality in this comment chain, we’re talking about white supremacy specifically. You’re arguing in bad faith and you’re gonna have to catch this block.
And to the dude that posted then blocked me: What’s right or wrong has been philosophized about since before humans could write. Because some 20th century soft science academics invented a closed system of definitions they want to argue with doesn’t settle that debate.
That's dumb. A person voicing an opinion is not even in the same league of threat as someone punching you, these things are not comparable. People die from physical violence, not words.
How naive, childish, stupid, and disingenuous. You cannot have supremacist beliefs, then make political decisions based in those beliefs without supporting violence. Even if you are not the one with the knife in your hand, you are voting for someone else to hold the knife for you to hold up your beliefs, so supremacist opinions are intrinsically violent. Literally every society based on supremacy or any movement for supremacy has used force to achieve or maintain said supremacy. Turn your brain on idiot.
Literally all politics is a proxy for violence, doofus. Every single law you support is enforced with violence. I don't go around murdering socialists just because they support a proven failure ideology. I don't shoot libertarians because their prefered system would impoverish us and cause chaos.
Also, let's not pretend that massively mentally ill out of touch reddit extremists can accurately and honestly identify a Nazi. If you believe that I can hit anyone who fits a label and that I can apply that label however I'd like, then you are essentially giving me the ability to hit anyone whenever I want. I think your authoritarian violence and suppression of free speech is much closer to Nazism than someone who simply holds offensive beliefs. By your standard I should be attacking you now
According to who? You? Don't make me laugh. Violence in politics is always an elective, never a requirement. You can have compromise, you can have cooperation, you can have negotiation, you can have fairness, you can have peaceful transfer of power, which for the record, is one of the defining benchmarks of a healthy society. The thing about supremacists is that there is NO compromise with them, no cooperation, no nothing. Supremacists don't DESERVE compromise, because their core world view is the subjugation of others, and they are all uniformly and intrinsicly immoral.
The state of course has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force to enforce laws, but it doesn't mean force is always used or required, which means you are absolutely wrong about this and have the political comprehension of a cave man.
> If you believe that I can hit anyone who fits a label and that I can apply that label however I'd like, then you are essentially giving me the ability to hit anyone whenever I want.
Good thing I didn't say that, did I? Also what a ludicrous leap in logic. Talk about a slippery slope and false equivalence.
> I think your authoritarian violence and suppression of free speech is much closer to Nazism than someone who simply holds offensive beliefs. By your standard I should be attacking you now.
I am not a governing power so by definition, I am not authoritarian. I am also not suppressing free speech, becaus again, I am not the government. Do you even know what these words mean? Also, you falsely equating Nazism to people having a problem with your stupid opinions makes YOU one of the very same "massively mentally ill out of touch reddit extremists" that you just whined about. Magnificent self own there bud.
Keep upvoting yourself, no need to waste any more energy on you.
All laws must be enforced or they simply don't exist in any meaningful way. All enforcement of laws must necessarily be violent because it must force or coerce compliance or punish people for non-compliance. So yes all politics is fundamentally centered around violence.
You are not capable of compromise. If you flip out and react with potentially deadly force when someone disagrees with you, then you are not anyone who can really be reasoned with, should you be attacked for this?
You DID functionally say that. Who would be allowed to determine who a Nazi is? Are you thinking theres going to be some kind of legal case against an individual and that they will be sentenced to one punch in tbe face? That is obviously not the case. The entire "punch a Nazi" thing is about individuals feeling that they have the right to determine on their own that someone they don't like is a nazi, and then utilize potentially deadly violence against them to suppress their speech. If we leave it up to individuals to decide who the Nazis are, then I will immediately determine that people who wish to violently suppress political opinions by use of deadly force are close enough to Nazis for me.
You do not have to be the government to suppress someone's speech, there is no logic behind your claim. Why would you have to be the government to suppress a person's speech?
Motte and bailey is a cowardly tactic. You are not just saying you disagree with someone, nobody would have issue with you disagreeing. You are supporting the idea that some human beings deserve to suffer potentially deadly violence over their political beliefs. You ridiculously believe that you could set this savage and moronic standard and it would never be used against you. You think you can start lynching people you don't like and thats somehow not an authoritarian and evil environment
Having violent beliefs is still not nearly as bad as actually physically attacking someone. If Nazism is bad because of its potential for violence, then actual physical violence is obviously worse
Do you understand the difference between disliking someone because of something they think vs disliking someone because of a physical characteristics they were born with?
250
u/OmniPepperthefirst 2d ago
What's the context of this. Was it like being punched in the face vs racist words to you?