Legality of assaults

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Legality of assaults

Should it be legal for other people to assault you if they disagree with you? This poll is closed.
Yes	183	49.06%
No	190	50.94%
Total:	328 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

SSNeoman posted:

Okay gently caress it this topic is a piece of poo poo anyway so I'll it up.

When the gently caress did you Pure Leftists� become such loving pussies? You were uncompromising in your beliefs leading up to the election, but now with protests and Nazis being punched you're suddenly clutching your pearls. What the gently caress happened? Did your balls drop?

EDIT: I assume you're leftists cause if not then you're a Nazi supporter in which case go gently caress yourself.

Hogge Wild is a boring concern troll, which isn't quite as bad as being a Nazi supporter but it's close.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 19:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:26

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

blowfish posted:

one day you will be out of your depth and you won't know how to politics about a particular issue and then a nazi will punch you in the face and install a dictatorship

no he won't because we punched him in the face first and now he's whining about being scared to leave the house, and trying to save face by accusing the person who punched him of being a poo poo-eating masochist sex-haver

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 20:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

i think this might be more productive if we do a thought exercise: what would a modern-day organized uprising of neo-nazis in the united states look like, how would that work/get anywhere

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 20:27

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

What other thoughts justify violence against the thought criminal?

pretty much anything where you're directly calling for the organized mass murder of human beings, unless those human beings are themselves en masse calling for organized mass murder

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 20:52

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

this is what civil society defending itself from barbarism looks like, maybe you should deal with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_XZeQRdts

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 21:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

I support the guy who punched Richard Spencer and would still support him unironically if he had murdered Spencer instead. Is that better?

Nazis don't deserve life imo

Yeah I'd love to express my opinion wrt punching Richard Spencer by punching Richard Spencer, alas I will not get that chance to I'm left to post about it on a dead comedy forum instead.

AARO posted:

You guys are just making up your own rules. Why should anyone listen to you. You have no principles, you just make up your own morality as you go along.

"He 'calls for' genocide so I can justifiably punch him." This is incorrect. Those who respect constitutional rights know that "No matter what he 'calls for' you cannot justifiably punch him solely based on that act of calling for something." It is not ok to inflict violence on people solely on the basis of them expressing their thoughts, regardless of how abhorrent their thoughts may be.

Punching Nazis is not a morality I just made up, friend.

Anyway even your bullshit Constitutional law analysis is a joke. There is such a thing as fighting words, even the Supreme Court recognizes this, and calling for the systematic extermination of black people definitely qualifies. Get hosed.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 21:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

It is not legal to punch people except out of necessary self defense.

wrong-o

Like, you're really full of poo poo here. Boxing is not illegal, and street fighting is legal in many jurisdictions.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 21:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

Spencer's statements do not meet the above criteria.

Oh, sure. I was not claiming that it's legal to punch Richard Spencer, only that it's cool and good to do so. You seemed to be going down the "all speech is sacrosanct" road so I was nipping that in the bud.

Of course now you're saying that punching people is always illegal as well, so thanks for letting the thread know you're full of poo poo.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 21:18

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

In the USA in the 1950's a man who openly said he was gay could very easily get punched in the face by any white Christian male onlooker. Even it it wasn't legal to punch this man for his mere act of saying he was gay, I'm sure large parts of 1950's America would have said the assault was moral.

Richard Spencer is a disgusting rear end in a top hat and I hope he dies. However, I don't think we should normalize punching people for mere speech. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. We need to be a people who values free thought so much that we tolerate even the most abhorrent despicable speech of assholes.

We're not normalizing punching people for mere speech. We're normalizing punching Nazis. Try to keep up.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 22:35

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Condiv posted:

yes

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teen-who-prepped-bomb-terrorist-9638517

people aren't just killed by nazis once nazis have claimed control of a country, nazis kill people to this day based on nothing but their sick, warped worldview. nazi rhetoric is dangerous and incites the muder and death of innocents. worse yet, even if the speaker isn't advocating for killing innocents today or tomorrow, they do fully intend to murder said innocents when they get the chance and make that quite clear

That doesn't meet the threshold for "imminent". What Richard Spencer was doing doesn't qualify as incitement, though it might qualify as fighting words. Even in the latter case that's an argument for the state to place him under arrest, not to punch him.

Either way it's irrelevant because punching people who advocate genocide is cool and good.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2017 22:50

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

You can't punch Nazis, you'll be setting a poor example that will lead to more Nazi punching! :ohdear:

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

You'll be tearing apart the social and political norms that Nazis themselves are diligently working to tear apart, even as a write this, if you punch Nazis!

Better to let them do their work out in the open and in peace :allears:

After they're finished we can have a nice chat with them, if they're up for it.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yellowyams posted:

didn't you know? if you help slaves escape it sets a precedent for stealing property, then you're embracing the norm of a lawless society. geez people, there's a reason we have these social and legal norms.
<>

I could get behind helping slaves escape if I wasn't so sure it would lead to people thinking they could steal my horse and buggy with impunity :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:23

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

Did you know if you post a bunch of straw man arguments you're a loving idiot?

Slippery slope arguments are okay though?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:29

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

AARO posted:

All the arguments I have presented in this thread are iron clad and no one has even made a serious attempt to refute a single thing I've said.

Would this be when you implied that punching Nazis is tantamount to imposing thoughtcrime (it isn't)? Or was it when you asserted that it is never okay punch people except out of self-defense, which is also hilariously wrong?

Or do you just mean that thinking a thing is true really hard ought to count for something when making an argument?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

it's your fault for assuming people wanted to discuss the issue rather than live out violent fantasies

it makes more sense if you think of debate & discussion as being like dungeons & dragons except with nazis instead of orcs

Mainly you've both made the mistake of thinking that whether to tolerate literal loving Nazis who want to literally commit literal genocide, is a question with no obvious answer and lots of nuance. In fact, the answer is obvious and blunt: "No, of course we don't tolerate that - what the gently caress is the matter with you?"

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 01:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

i mean i don't like nazis but i like violence even less

maybe you should reconsider that

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 02:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Hogge Wild posted:

Why is he wrong?

He's not wrong. He apparently doesn't have a problem with Nazis being punched but doesn't think it's a good idea to ban or probate people who express concern over normalizing political violence. I happen to agree - those people we can point at and laugh instead.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 04:54

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

We should strive to normalize violence against Nazis, at the same taking care not to normalize political violence in the general case.

If these two goals are in direct conflict, then your society and your government are being infiltrated by Nazis, and the second goal has to be temporarily set aside. And yeah, it's a serious problem that it's hard to reintroduce those political norms once they're broken down - that's why you're not supposed to allow Nazis to infiltrate your government and society in the first place. Yet here we are.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 06:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

It is likely that Richard Spencer is playing up the danger he feels he is in, in order to get sympathy from milquetoast liberals who haven't figured out yet that American society is currently in a battle against fascism. I hope he actually fears for his safety, but he probably doesn't. Not yet, anyway.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 07:23

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Hogge Wild posted:

Could you explain in your own words what you think that "battle" and "fascism" mean.

I'm not using either word in any idiosyncratic way. So no, in the interest of not getting dragged into some dumb semantics argument with you, I won't.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 07:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Call Me Charlie posted:

I'll actually try to serious post.

Do you think it's cool to punch a communist in the face when you see them in public? Or for someone to punch a known anti-war activist for being a traitor to the country? Is a pro-life bomber justified in bombing an abortion clinic because, in their eyes, a baby holocaust is happening? Is Joseph Paul Franklin a heroic figure for shooting and paralyzing known scumbag and pornographer Larry Flynt for showcasing interracial sex in his magazine?

If you answered no to all of those then you can't support somebody assaulting or murdering a nazi for voicing their hosed up views.

That doesn't mean you have to sit back while they attempt to spread their doctrine. You can protest them. You can protest any venue that gives them a platform. You can protest any business that employs them. You can ostracize them. You can get the law involved when they try to make a show of force like those nazis that got arrested for 'terrorizing' in Welcome To Leith. But you can't beat or murder them unless they try to turn their hateful speech into action.

And honestly if you want to otherize literal neo-nazis and genocide advocates like Richard Spencer, you should stop trying to conflate them with Trump and the GOP.

(I saw this comic book writer get quoted in The New York Times so maybe his word will carry more weight than mine.

https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/822591535158034432
https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/822625805549367296
https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/822627812800692224
https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/822668442604015616
https://twitter.com/nickspencer/status/822972172666695681 )

Wrong.

Kilroy posted:

We should strive to normalize violence against Nazis, at the same time taking care not to normalize political violence in the general case.

If these two goals are in direct conflict, then your society and your government are being infiltrated by Nazis, and the second goal has to be temporarily set aside. And yeah, it's a serious problem that it's hard to reintroduce those political norms once they're broken down - that's why you're not supposed to allow Nazis to infiltrate your government and society in the first place. Yet here we are.

That's literally all there is to it.

By the time you've gotten to the point where Nazis have influential positions in your government, you're well past the "liberal democracy" stage. Acting like a liberal democrat in in spite of that fact, both empowers the Nazis and gets people killed.

This is what "lulled into complacency" feels like. You're so used to "we can talk it out" being a pillar of society that you've fooled yourself into thinking it's intrinsic to human nature itself. It is not, and even as fascists knock that pillar away you're convinced it still exists.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jan 23, 2017

# ¿ Jan 23, 2017 23:31

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Roland Jones posted:

A Thesis On And Defense Of Punching Nazis In Three Tweets:

https://twitter.com/libcomorg/status/823650250036547584
https://twitter.com/ArtDifficulty/status/823652026450137088

He's using the attack as an escalation - Richard Spencer isn't actually afraid yet. Hope this helps.

Next time there will be 50 Nazis in the street.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 00:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Kilroy posted:

He's using the attack as an escalation - Richard Spencer isn't actually afraid yet. Hope this helps.

Next time there will be 50 Nazis in the street.

Note that means there will be fifty faces to punch instead of just the one - but you have to punch all fifty.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 00:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

The problem with "oh but some black people talk about white genocide" as some :smug:

equivocation with Nazis and therefore if you don't also punch the mean black folks you're a hypocrite, isn't that white genocide is okay because white people deserve death, and it isn't exactly that Nazis like Richard Spencer should be a higher priority. They are a higher priority and should be, mind you, because they're the more imminent threat, but if you're talking strictly morality then that doesn't really matter.

The difference is that in the case of Nazis it's the strong lashing out against the powerless (they even say as much in their rhetoric), while in the case of blacks calling out for white genocide it's the reverse. Show me a white person who grew up in a black society, who was ostracized by blacks, reminded every day that he was white, denied opportunities because he was white, watched his white friends and family members struggle harder and get less for it because they're white, feared the police and other agents of the state because he was white, got denied the right to vote for committing a crime that black kids commit every day with impunity, lived with the knowledge that the behavior of every other white person reflects on him personally, just as his behavior in some small way reflects on every other white person, and all the other poo poo...

...show me that white person, and if he's a Nazi, I won't punch him. He has reasoned (incorrectly) his way into his Nazism, and can be reasoned back out of it.

And likewise, show me a black person who grew up privileged, or even just reasonably sheltered from the worst consequences of blackness in America and still advocates white genocide, and I'll punch him in the face.

That's not Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer had a pretty unremarkable middle class upbringing, and while I'm sure he'd love to tell you all the hardships he's faced, he has never had to face hardship on account of the color of his skin or his religion or any other aspect of his identity. He's an otherwise unremarkable white man of modest status and means who is super loving turbo pissed that society doesn't recognize the true greatness that he's certain beats within his Nazi heart, and doesn't shower him with the rewards he feels he so richly deserves. He is, in other words, a weaponized spoiled brat. Reasoning with the Richard Spencers of the world is a waste of time, because they didn't reason their way to Nazism, they turned to it out of desperation for a greatness they feel they are owed. You can't even placate them with praise - it will never be enough. They are a lost cause and the only remedy for their poison is to beat them back into the shadows where they can cry tears of bitter rage and nurse their wounds until they dare to come back into the light of day, and that's when you beat them again.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 24, 2017

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 01:17

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

enki42 posted:

What's your opinion on vigilantism in general? If your standards are "if the police can do it, then the average citizen can do it", than the violence you're OK with the average person using goes quite a bit beyond punching Nazis.

I'll admit I'm genuinely conflicted by this. I'm happy the dude got punched in the face, and I 100% think he deserved it, but like any black bloc tactic, things get way murkier and uglier when you get beyond the obvious black and white cases. What if, instead of Richard Spencer, it was some random person who identifies as Alt-Right, is obviously racist, but isn't calling for or behind genocide in particular? Alt-right is a big umbrella, and there's probably people in it who range from just "hating SJWs" to "kill all the jews / blacks".

Normalization of this sort of stuff always leads to more questionable usage of the tactic. Black Bloc vandalism against obvious targets like corporate sponsors or state property turns into random breaking of windows. When you add 100%, undeniably violent actions into the mix, it seems like something that is dangerous to be quite so gleeful about.

If our institutions have failed us to the point that crypto-Nazis with sympathies toward real actual Nazis have attained the highest positions of power in our country, then our institutions are nearly worthless and that includes the police. It would be one thing if we lived in a country where advocating global black genocide would get you arrested for hate speech or inciting violence, but we don't live in that country. Not yet, anyway. So if the police are blind to it, and if the Nazis are using that blind spot to creep into power, then vigilantism against them is all we have left.

And as I pointed out earlier, it is absolutely true that reestablishing those norms, after you've bashed the fash back into the shadows, is a difficult thing and that's a very serious problem. It's important to bear in mind that Nazis are going to tear down those norms anyway and they don't even intend to build them back up once they've won. This is why you're not supposed to tolerate Nazis even in times of peace and stability, but too late for that, so welp :shrug:

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 19:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

enki42 posted:

- He hasn't directly advocated for literal genocide (he has hosted an article on his site authored by someone else that calls for literal genocide)

"Someone else" being the cofounder of the site.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 02:27

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

You don't have to be a communist to punch nazis.

but it helps!

better post this one again:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 02:29

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Pittsburgh Lambic posted:

screw it, let's turn this entire nation into a free-for-all punch party, anyone we don't agree with deserves violence on the pretext that their opinions might, after 78 pre-requisite factors are fulfilled, lead to their own violence in some kind of nightmare world that i imagine trump will eventually create

What's weird is we keep talking about punching Nazis and you keep talking about punching everyone. Are surrounded by Nazis? I mean sometimes I feel like it too, but it's probably not literally true.

But hey, if it is you need to punch them all, Hope This Helps.

Hogge Wild posted:

I don't think that Trump is a fascist.

No one cares what you think.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 08:35

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Calibanibal posted:

what im struggling with is the dilemma that pittberg lamb and others have argued persuasively, that punches intended for nazis may sometimes be received by non-nazis, for whatever reason. this troubles me

there is also the issue that, having destroyed all nazis w/ punches, people may be then tempted to solve other problems with punching. this is bad, as punching is not a good solution for poor restaurant service, rush hour traffic, misbehaving dogs etc

For the first, yeah if your aim is bad enough that you'll miss and punch the person standing next to the Nazi, or holding him down for you while you're knocking out his Nazi teeth, then sure don't punch Nazis. I mean, practice punching first until you can reliably hit the Nazi, anyway.

For the second, yeah it's a bad deal, which is why you're not supposed to let Nazis ever think they have free rein in your society to go around doing Nazi things. We kinda fell down on that one though, America, so time to get punching.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 08:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Goa Tse-tung posted:

gently caress this gently caress you

I mean he's not wrong. Getting organized and going out and committing violence against fascists is literally antifascism. What else could it be?

Where he falls down is pretending there's something wrong with it, but up to that point he's on point. Poor fella just thinks all violence is the same, is all.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 11:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Wild Horses posted:

I just don't trust an assortment of anarchists and communists to draw the line for me.
Imo nazis should be arrested by police and forced to disperse whenever possible.
Leaving that job to citizens is just sloppy

I agree with this, but the thing is cops don't actually do any of that stuff, so...

# ¿ Jan 25, 2017 11:15

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

FreeKillB posted:

Vigilante violence by random people on the street is a different category altogether.

There is a breaking point somewhere though, right? Like, you wouldn't begrudge Jews living in ghettos across Nazi-occupied Europe their right to punch Nazi and murder Nazis whenever given the chance and by whatever means they had, would you? It's an extreme example to be sure, but somewhere between that, and where we are now, it becomes okay to punch Nazis, right?

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 09:59

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Kubrick posted:

It's funny you should mention that because Spencer has said that he isn't nazi (clearly is a nazi). In the other thread someone was calling trump supporters fascists, so the slippery slope can be pretty real.

Trump supporters are fascists. Some of them might be unwitting fascists, but every one of them helped to bring about fascism in America.

You can cry "slippery slope" to the heavens all you want but that's where we are. Denying it at this point is just grasping at any bit of normalcy you can - it doesn't change a thing.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 10:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Kubrick posted:

Shbobdb believes that it is justified to commit violence against fascists (or people he thinks are fascists? Or maybe just idiots that just voted for Trump? Whatever, let god sort 'em out).

Now Kilroy is stating that someone can be an unwitting fascist.

You guys are starting to freak me out a bit.

Exactly what percent of this country do you feel like it morally ok for you to assault based on your own private criteria?

I think I'm being overbroad with what I'm calling a "fascist" here, and I retract it. Donald Trump is a fascist. The GOP is a fascist organization on the whole, and many of its members in national politics are fascists. A lot of GOP voters are fascists, but while voting for a Republican means you are supporting fascism, it doesn't make you a fascist. (It certainly doesn't help, though.)

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 10:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Total Meatlove posted:

If you vote for a Republican, and the reasons for that vote align with the nakedly fascist ideals of that party, then you're a fascist.
If you vote for a Republican who does not support the party as a whole, but whose election will enable the nakedly fascist party to enact nakedly fascist policies, then you're ambivalent to fascism, a oval office, and with the distinction being fag paper thin, who cares?

Kubrick posted:

I don't think you are being overbroad at all. I think a vast majority Trump supporters and political allies hold fascist or fascist-adjacent ideas. They certainly hold ideas like authoritarianism and xenophobia. Many would consider that grounds enough for the label of "fascist". I think they are scum, and am actively resisting them, but I still don't think it's ok for me to hurt them based on their thoughtcrimes.

I don't know about "vast majority" but we're basically in a agreement. Originally I said that voting for a Republican ipso facto means you are a fascist. That's the part I'm taking back - not that voting for a Republican - any Republican - doesn't enable fascism somehow (it does) or raise the prior probability of you being a fascist quite a lot (most definitely does).

And since we're not in a literal civil war yet, we can treat differently our actual enemies, and the people who don't meet the criteria of "fascist" but who are helping them to power.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 19:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Kubrick posted:

But if someone thinks that motherfucking Shithead Spencer, with his duck-rear end haircut, talking about Pepe on a street corner is an extermination-level event that demands the immediate reassessment of a person's belief in the freedom of speech and the rejection of indiscriminate violence, then I worry.

Hey just to clear something up: Spencer didn't get punched by that guy because he was, right there and then, talking about Pepe or some poo poo. The guy who punched Richard Spencer knew he was Richard Spencer.

Maybe you already know that, but your post kinda makes it seem like you think he got punched for the mere act of talking about Pepe. That is definitely not the case.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 19:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

If you're worried about what the national media is going to do and planning your strategy around that, you've already lost.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 21:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

The Kingfish posted:

There are people itt who have posted that the GOP is fascist and its voters are fascist sympathizers at best.

Unwittingly supporting fascists is not quite the same as being a fascist sympathizer.

The Kingfish posted:

But, I suspect that there are people on my facebook who would react to a traditionally conservative spokesperson getting punched the same way they reacted to Spencer getting punched. That sort of thing could be the start of something really bad.

It would be the start of Republicans being afraid to say Republican things in mixed company out of fear of being assaulted. That's bad if you're a Republican, and good if you're literally anyone else interested in a healthy civic society.

Republicans are anti-democratic, do you not understand this? If you want democracy you have to do whatever you need to do to protect democracy against those who want to destroy it. If you forced to make a choice between democracy and freedom of speech, you choose democracy.

We're already at "really bad". As I mentioned, it's true that breaking down these norms is bad news because it's very hard to build them back up. That's why you're not supposed to tolerate Nazis in the first place but it's too late for that and they're on the loose. The right has spent the last 40 years breaking down these norms, and now they've got their wish. You're making a slippery slope argument, and we're just pointing out that we're already sliding headlong down that slope - best to face the fact of it. Meanwhile you want to pretend we're still standing on solid ground.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2017 01:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:26

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

The Kingfish posted:

So you're arguing this on grounds of effectiveness rather than morality? I agree then.

I think you underestimate how anti-democratic the Republican party has become, but I don't think it's time to go out and punch Republicans, because Republican != Nazi, yet.

Keeshhound posted:

This is the part where we find out how few people are familiar with the history of antifa-fascist conflicts back in the 80s and 90s, isn't it.

How about you enlighten us, then?

# ¿ Jan 27, 2017 02:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Legality of assaults

«‹›2 »