Punching Nazis

Also I think it's ok to punch certain people, just like Spencer thinks it's ok to ethnic cleanse certain people.

Why is his opinion ok, but not mine? That's what I don't understand. If you don't want to be philosophical peers with one who wants to remove entire swaths of people then you're somehow a bigot?

lol.

Edit:
And frankly, punching is the least damaging prospect of the two.
 
hush said:
Not even addressing the punching thing, just the attempt to contend that Spencer is not a Nazi/Neo-Nazi. I mean, this is pretty blatant.


The Nazi salutes are not subtle. Spencer referring to "The Great Struggle" and "Children of the Sun" is not subtle. The Great Struggle refers back to one of the most blatantly Nazi pieces of literature and figures.

Hitler-Biggest-Hit-033142241837.jpg
Click to expand...
He's definitely a racist and segregationist, but he's not a Nazi. I think he probably aligns more closely with the kind of apartheid which was formerly found in South Africa.

The nationalisation of industry would be anathema to that group. Nazi's are not capitalists... and Nazi's were antisemitic, not broadly racist.
 
sprinkles said:
Also I think it's ok to punch certain people, just like Spencer thinks it's ok to ethnic cleanse certain people.

Why is his opinion ok, but not mine? That's what I don't understand. If you don't want to be philosophical peers with one who wants to remove entire swaths of people then you're somehow a bigot?

lol.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with Spencer and nor do I agree with assaulting him.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
He's definitely a racist and segregationist, but he's not a Nazi. I think he probably aligns more closely with the kind of apartheid which was formerly found in South Africa.

The nationalisation of industry would be anathema to that group. Nazi's are not capitalists... and Nazi's were antisemitic, not broadly racist.
Click to expand...

Nazis were not only anti-Semitic, they believe(d) in racial purity and the superiority of the "Aryan race." The Jewish people were (and still are) huge victims, suffering and slaughtered in mass droves, but anyone who didn't fit within the defined, very clearly, superior white race with blond hair and blue eyes, was considered fair play. Gypsies, for instance, and pretty much anyone, well... not white. All sorts of people have been killed (including during the Holocaust), and Neo-Nazis in general tend to be quite open about their opposition to anyone not white. The Jewish people were a convenient target, especially considering Hitler staged his political career in Europe, but that is not so much the case with Neo-Nazis these days. They are very much so broadly racist. Even Nazis though... defining a superior race as being white with blond hair and blue eyes, is very clearly excluding the majority of the world's population in regards to what is considered ideal and superior.
 
sprinkles said:
But it's ok for me to want to assault him so long as I don't actually do it. Right?
Click to expand...
I know that if I assaulted everyone I wanted to, in the way I wanted to, I'd be sent up the river on sentences spanning several lifetimes.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I know that if I assaulted everyone I wanted to, in the way I wanted to, I'd be sent up the river on sentences spanning several lifetimes.
Click to expand...

So why are you preaching so hard about somebody who wasn't even really injured?

There will never be perfect pacifism. You can say it's wrong to hit people all day long and there will still be people getting hit. It serves no purpose other than to disavow your own self from the practice.

Practically speaking it is pointless to say what everybody knows. There are people out there who want to do violence just like you do and they will not be stopped by mere words.
 
hush said:
Nazis were not only anti-Semitic, they believe(d) in racial purity and the superiority of the "Aryan race." The Jewish people were (and still are) huge victims, suffering and slaughtered in mass droves, but anyone who didn't fit within the defined, very clearly, superior white race with blond hair and blue eyes, was considered fair play. Gypsies, for instance, and pretty much anyone, well... not white. All sorts of people have been killed (including during the Holocaust), and Neo-Nazis in general tend to be quite open about their opposition to anyone not white. The Jewish people were a convenient target, especially considering Hitler staged his political career in Europe, but that is not so much the case with Neo-Nazis these days. They are very much so broadly racist. Even Nazis though... defining a superior race as being white with blond hair and blue eyes, is very clearly excluding the majority of the world's population in regards to what is considered ideal and superior.
Click to expand...
They regarded Asians, Indians, Italians, and a few others highly. I get the impression that the antisemitism was a kind of 1930's anti-globalism+anti-capitalist sentiment bundled into a single race. I also get the impression that the white master race propaganda was about getting the Germans to resent the Versailles Treaty. Apparently, there was a kind of national guilt-complex about WW I, which made people anti-national expansion. It's hard to tell what was real ideology and what was just propaganda used for power and military ambition.
nazi-germany-had-african-arabian-and-other-non-white-european-soldiers-please-make-a-movie-about-this.jpg

the_sino_german_soldier_by_ss_oschawolf.jpg
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
So why are you preaching so hard about somebody who wasn't even really injured?

There will never be perfect pacifism. You can say it's wrong to hit people all day long and there will still be people getting hit. It serves no purpose other than to disavow your own self from the practice.

Practically speaking it is pointless to say what everybody knows. There are people out there who want to do violence just like you do and they will not be stopped by mere words.
Click to expand...
Assault laws are adequate. I object to the notion that violence is valid for differences of opinion. If violence is acceptable for one, it is acceptable for all.. and that undermines society.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Assault laws are adequate. I object to the notion that violence is valid for differences of opinion. If violence is acceptable for one, it is acceptable for all.. and that undermines society.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not really valid, but who actually plays by the rules 100% of the time?

Do you?
 
If you want change, but aren't willing to undermine the status quo, then you don't really want change at all.
 
sprinkles said:
Of course it's not really valid, but who actually plays by the rules 100% of the time?

Do you?
Click to expand...
Nobody does. But the issue we are discussing is about accepting political violence in principle. Undeniably, many people are angered by differences of opinion; and undeniably some people act on their anger violently. What no one should claim is that these violent actions are OK/acceptable/excusable/admirable/tolerable/etc.

Going round and round trying to justify political violence is kind of pointless to me.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Nobody does. But the issue we are discussing is about accepting political violence in principle. Undeniably, many people are angered by differences of opinion; and undeniably some people act on their anger violently. What no one should claim is that these violent actions are OK/acceptable/excusable/admirable/tolerable/etc.

Going round and round trying to justify political violence is kind of pointless to me.
Click to expand...

And if I claim it's ok, what are you going to do about it?
 
sprinkles said:
It's not effective.
Click to expand...
If changing your mind were the only possible pay off for responding, I would not have replied to you at all. I don't go after impossible causes. I enjoy having to answer objections... it's mentally stimulating: I'm looking at this topic from angles I would never had considered.

I think the topic is pretty much exhausted, unless you can come up with some new and very coherent objections of substance.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
If changing your mind were the only possible pay off for responding, I would not have replied to you at all. I don't go after impossible causes. I enjoy having to answer objections... it's mentally stimulating: I'm looking at this topic from angles I would never had considered.

I think the topic is pretty much exhausted, unless you can come up with some new and very coherent objections of substance.
Click to expand...
Nope. Was just looking to run it out faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top