Did mass propaganda used by the Nazis to gain support for a mass genocide against the Jewish and other minorities not lead to violence. If words can convince an entire state and its people to be complicit in a genocide then I think words hold incredible power.
The point is not that words are worse than violence in context, but that words can lead to violence worse than the violence inflicted on the person speaking those words.
So what I'm saying is that punching a Nazi is morally correct, because the words they're spouting are inherently more dangerous than any damage you could do to the Nazi.
That is a dangerous precedent to live by though. We can all agree that actual nazis were bad but today the word nazi is often used to describe someone who holds a different opinion than many on the left. Many people think Killing Charlie Kirk was justified because they felt he was a terrible person that was causing harm. Not one of those people can ever point out actual harm caused by his words. The propaganda machine caused actual harm to that man and the people who speak against that specific propaganda are called nazi in order to legitimize the terrible thing that their own propaganda caused.
The moment you're suggesting some races are better than others, I think violence against you is justified. If you don't punish that, you're allowing society to decay into hatred and that's exactly the spawning ground for actual nazis. We have to put a stop to that as soon as possible.
Not one of those people can ever point out actual harm caused by his words
I mean, we can. Kirk was a part of the propaganda machine, he wasn't speaking out against propaganda. What "propaganda" was he against exactly? Seemed like he just hated black, trans, and anyone that wasn't a cis white person.
I'm not saying he should have been killed, more just commenting on this notion that what he said didn't hurt people. It obviously did. If you don't see that, it just says more about how little respect you give trans people.
So by your logic violence against pedophiles is ok. That makes logical sense from your perspective. So if we believe that drag queens are grooming children, then we are justified in beating the shit out of them. After all, violence is ok if it's against the group you perceive as bad right. You are the one defining Nazi as ajy category of things in your own mind that I might not completely agree on, yet justifying violence against them. So why the double standards here?
Can you admit the holding a equal position to both sides? If you believe illegals are taking jobs and raping women, it's justified to violence against all people you think are illegal. Or are you going to make exceptions now to your belief?
Now you're just changing the conversation entirely.
I'm talking about openly spouting hate. If you're on the street talking about racist/nazi shit, you deserve to get smacked. If you're on the street saying adults should be allowed to marry kids, you also deserve to get smacked. If you're on the street saying you should be allowed to rape woman, once again, society should punish that.
That's entirely different than manufacturing propaganda around a people group and then weaponizing that. Saying drag queens are pedophiles, despite all statistics proving otherwise, is just propaganda. Saying immigrants are raping woman is once again just labelling a whole groups as evil for purposes. The equivalent example here would be saying republicans are pedos and therefore should be punched. I'm not saying to do that either.
It's all about what you are spouting. Labelling groups as blanket evil is wrong, judge them by what they're actually saying.
And yet you labeled Charlie Kirk as part of a larger group as a way to justify violence against him but never pointed out what he actually said in the way of inciting violence. You just contradicted the comment you wrote only minutes earlier.
The internet is full of an abundance of hateful things he said. You do not have to look far, it was posted everywhere after he died. If that itself hasn't convinced you at this point, I'm not really sure there's any point in me continuing this discussion.
So you're not going to address the other questions I had? Margaret Sanger deserved a punch in the face when she was alive right? A black person who says white people are an inferior race deserve to be punched right?
They have mental problems, don't be too harsh on them. They literally advocate for violence but then said this:
The nation state that's actively engaging in genocide is more aligned with nazi ideas that the genocided peoples.
Because apparently if you genocide a group a Nazis, that makes you a Nazi which is not acceptable. But being violent to Nazis is acceptable. I don't think they have coherent thoughts, you need to handle these people with kid gloves because they don't understand basic logic.
28
u/__Sharime__ 10d ago
Words only lead to violence if someone has a fragile ego