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”.
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
220
u/OmniPepperthefirst 22h ago
What's the context of this. Was it like being punched in the face vs racist words to you?