Punching Nazis

Flavus Aquila said:
Nope. We all have biases in our past, present, and future, which makes advocating approval for violence against biased people pointless, and overlooks the fact that none of us are better, or in a position to condemn.

I have no issue with telling you, or anyone else, that you are neither better, nor worse than me, or anyone else. Pretending that others are below you, or that some are entitled to smack others is stupid.

Wake up call: we are all equal.

Attack opinions with opinions, fine, but physically attacking/assaulting because of opinions is wrong, as is advocating complacency towards physical assault.
Click to expand...
Neither do I have an issue with calling out hypocrisy and calling out hatred. My statement was for you specifically calling someone out on a statement that was made years ago, one which he apologized for and demonstrated change. One that you decided to get personal with and insult the man. That is what I was referring to. But thanks for making my post a platform in which to soapbox your own morality.

the said:
I think flavus has a good point and you guys are mad because he is pointing out your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Not mad about that at all. It's more about the above and below...
sprinkles said:
I think he's just amusing himself because I don't believe he legitimately cares.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Flavus Aquila said:
But the issue we are discussing is about accepting political violence in principle
Click to expand...
Then why did you bother to get personal in the first place with the op?
 
He identifies himself as an identitarian, not a Nazi. In my opinion there's not much difference, but whatever.

In an interview on his website, alternativeright.com he said this:

Spencer: The Paris peace conference of 1919 was an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing.

McAfee: Would you support something like that, a peaceful ethnic cleansing like that of Paris 1919, taking place in the United States?

Spencer: I would support peaceful ethnic redistribution. Yes. Encouraging recent immigrants to return to their true homes, etc.

Also this, from the same interview:

Spencer: I’m not a true pacifist, in the sense that I do not believe that violence is *never* justified. Obviously, violence as self-defense is in inherently legitimate. But we need to go deeper than that, beyond liberal logic.

McAfee: What do you mean by “go deeper than that”?

Spencer: The state is fundamentally about violence, it’s about who or what can engage in violence legitimately. In the shadow of a sovereign state, we can use liberal logic (e.g., “self-defense is justified,” etc.). But we shouldn’t forget that we have fundamentally given to the state warmaking power.

alternativeright.com


Spencer is a pretty intelligent dude. He speaks of "peaceful" ethnic cleansing, to which I am positive he knows no one is going to pack up their lives and leave the country without resistance. If what he calls the Alternative Right finds themselves in the political position to impose a peaceful ethnic cleansing, the people will resist, (undoubtedly leading to an act of physical violence somewhere) to which the response will be, as he calls, "legitimate" violence. All while the alternative right claims they wanted a peaceful resolution from the beginning.

I am of the opinion that Spencer is intentionally putting the alt right in a position to be a victim of violence in order to justify violence to further his agenda and bring his ideals to fruition. There is no such thing as a peaceful ethnic cleansing, or redistribution as he calls it. There will never be such a thing as peaceful ethnic cleansing. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 that he states as a model of peaceful ethnic cleansing was not a result of a spontaneous political movement where everyone magically agreed to nationalism. It helped bring about the end of World War I. (And that's really all I know about. Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I would say that peacefully forcing millions of people to leave their jobs, friends, pack up their shit and start anew in a different country is an act of violence. Of course there is resistance now. It's easier to resist now against words and ideas than it is to resist against government/military power.

If anyone disagrees with me, even a little bit, I will view that as an act of violence and I will punch your face.
 
And regarding the logic and reasoning behind being violent with this guy...

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.

Edit:
And frankly, punching is the least damaging prospect of the two.
Click to expand...
This. Yes I'm condoning violence against a person with clear violent intentions, given what Spencer's ideals are.
 
Milktoast Bandit said:
He identifies himself as an identitarian, not a Nazi. In my opinion there's not much difference, but whatever.

In an interview on his website, alternativeright.com he said this:

Spencer: The Paris peace conference of 1919 was an example of peaceful ethnic cleansing.

McAfee: Would you support something like that, a peaceful ethnic cleansing like that of Paris 1919, taking place in the United States?

Spencer: I would support peaceful ethnic redistribution. Yes. Encouraging recent immigrants to return to their true homes, etc.

Also this, from the same interview:

Spencer: I’m not a true pacifist, in the sense that I do not believe that violence is *never* justified. Obviously, violence as self-defense is in inherently legitimate. But we need to go deeper than that, beyond liberal logic.

McAfee: What do you mean by “go deeper than that”?

Spencer: The state is fundamentally about violence, it’s about who or what can engage in violence legitimately. In the shadow of a sovereign state, we can use liberal logic (e.g., “self-defense is justified,” etc.). But we shouldn’t forget that we have fundamentally given to the state warmaking power.

alternativeright.com


Spencer is a pretty intelligent dude. He speaks of "peaceful" ethnic cleansing, to which I am positive he knows no one is going to pack up their lives and leave the country without resistance. If what he calls the Alternative Right finds themselves in the political position to impose a peaceful ethnic cleansing, the people will resist, (undoubtedly leading to an act of physical violence somewhere) to which the response will be, as he calls, "legitimate" violence. All while the alternative right claims they wanted a peaceful resolution from the beginning.

I am of the opinion that Spencer is intentionally putting the alt right in a position to be a victim of violence in order to justify violence to further his agenda and bring his ideals to fruition. There is no such thing as a peaceful ethnic cleansing, or redistribution as he calls it. There will never be such a thing as peaceful ethnic cleansing. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 that he states as a model of peaceful ethnic cleansing was not a result of a spontaneous political movement where everyone magically agreed to nationalism. It helped bring about the end of World War I. (And that's really all I know about. Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I would say that peacefully forcing millions of people to leave their jobs, friends, pack up their shit and start anew in a different country is an act of violence. Of course there is resistance now. It's easier to resist now against words and ideas than it is to resist against government/military power.

If anyone disagrees with me, even a little bit, I will view that as an act of violence and I will punch your face.
Click to expand...
❤
 
Milktoast Bandit said:
He identifies himself as an identitarian, not a Nazi. In my opinion there's not much difference, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wouldn't be a great move to overtly identify as anything related to Nazism, a bit of a political career killer, which I'm sure he's intelligent enough to realize. Identitarian sounds much more innocent, without decades of stigma attached to it. You can cover shit with roses though, and it's still shit underneath.

Great post btw, Milky.
 
Milktoast Bandit said:
If anyone disagrees with me, even a little bit, I will view that as an act of violence and I will punch your face.
Click to expand...

Milktoast Bandit said:
*unclenches fist*
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Free said:
Neither do I have an issue with calling out hypocrisy and calling out hatred. My statement was for you specifically calling someone out on a statement that was made years ago, one which he apologized for and demonstrated change. One that you decided to get personal with and insult the man. That is what I was referring to.
Click to expand...
He insinuated false and offensive things about forum members a short time ago: half a dozen posts, implying there's srormfront, white nationalism, racism, and who knows what else thriving here. I wanted to call out his past actual/demonstrated transphobia and racism as a means of showing up his fucking hypocrisy. I decided not to because everyone kind of shut his labeling/accusing/insinuating/hate-stirring that time.

I think I finally got the shits with his hate mongering because this time he introduced the notion of accepting political violence. I decided "no mas."

Here's the antecedent bullshit, from earlier this month, which almost got me calling him out:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/infj-predisposition-to-ethno-nationalism.33012/page-7#post-963441

(NOTA BENE: THIS IS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NOT TO OPEN OLD WOUNDS.).
 
Flavus Aquila said:
He insinuated false and offensive things about forum members a short time ago: half a dozen posts, implying there's srormfront, white nationalism, racism, and who knows what else thriving here. I wanted to call out his past actual/demonstrated transphobia and racism as a means of showing up his fucking hypocrisy. I decided not to because everyone kind of shut his labeling/accusing/insinuating/hate-stirring that time.

I think I finally got the shits with his hate mongering because this time he introduced the notion of accepting political violence. I decided "no mas."

Here's the antecedent bullshit, from earlier this month, which almost got me calling him out:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/infj-predisposition-to-ethno-nationalism.33012/page-7#post-963441

(NOTA BENE: THIS IS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NOT TO OPEN OLD WOUNDS.).
Click to expand...
88chaz88 said:
Though maybe that's just more indicative of the political landscape right now.
Click to expand...
He wasn't wrong...
 
hush said:
I think the only thing we decided to agree on is that we disagree with each other...
Click to expand...

How should we settle this then? Are we gonna face punch over this or should someone challenge someone to a duel? I want to wear a glove then take it off and smack someone with it. Or without the glove. A good passionate face smack with a teary glare afterwards is fun too.
 
CindyLou said:
How should we settle this then? Are we gonna face punch over this or should someone challenge someone to a duel? I want to wear a glove then take it off and smack someone with it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Robin Hood Men in Tights? Gauntlets are the only way to do it. It's the INFJs way. ;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top