Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violence begets violence

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Odd_Canuck View Post
    If the neo-nazis of Today were exactly the same as the nazis of 75 years ago, there are all kinds of laws related to people who are engaged in war with the US that could apply.

    As it is, they're not nazis, they're just a bunch of idiots obsessively spouting hate based on religion and race.
    More of an in-between. They are actively trying to get control of the government and idiots have proven they are capable of being opportunistic and getting into positions of power without much issue.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
      You do realize that assault as a crime does not have anything to do with actual physical contact. Regardless of the court's ruling to the contrary, I consider anyone that publicly advocates for genocide (even if he couches it in fancy dressing to make it sound better; "peaceful genocide" is an oxymoron) as attempting assault on the targets of that genocide, because they're trying to create apprehension of imminent violence or offensive contact. Assault doesn't have to have the intent to carry out the action, just the intent to cause the feeling of apprehension in the target.
      See, this is where I think we reach an impasse. You believe that "verbal assault" is equal to and equivalent to physical assault. And I simply I disagree, profoundly. Just as an example, if someone is physically assaulted they have the right to respond with lethal force for the purposes of self-protection.

      So with a hypothetical example, someone is at a Nazi rally. The speaker is advocating genocide. The victim is subjected to this verbal assault and yells at the speaker to stop speaking. The speaker refuses and keeps speaking (continuing the verbal assault). The person rushes over and punches the Nazi, but still the Nazi keeps advocating genocide (continuing the verbal assault). He kicks the Nazi, and yet the Nazi still continues to advocate for genocide (and therefore assault the victim).

      If this had been a physical assault, with the Nazi actually punching and attacking the victim, at this point the victim would be well within his rights to pull out a gun and shoot, since even after asking him to stop and using other, less lethal levels of violence, the assault did not stop. So at this point, should the victim be able to shoot the Nazi to get him to quit speaking?

      Obviously no. Verbal assault is clearly not the same thing as physical assault. You shouldn't treat them the same way or be able to respond to them in the same way.

      I generally don't like talking too much about myself in internet forums, but my father is a Jew (so I'm half-Jewish). I've encountered neo-Nazi's before and been the subject to various epitaphs, the likes of which I don't believe any human being deserves. I've also been the subject of physical assault, including a few one-sided beatdowns which I don't enjoy remembering. In my experience, there is no doubt that verbal assault and physical assault are two completely different things and people should not respond to them in the same way.

      If I was told that I had to either listen to one of Richard Spencer's rants for an hour, or have someone work me over with a two-by-four for thirty minutes, I'd pick listening to Spencer in a heartbeat. No contest. Not even a close one. I imagine most people would make the same choice. People might get upset at what a racist Nazi says, but that kind of "verbal violence" is nowhere near the same as being on the receiving end of actual physical violence.


      In the end, this is what I have gotten from your arguments: that if someone is saying something that constitutes verbal violence against you or other people, it's okay for you to retaliate with physical violence. Likewise, it's acceptable to use physical violence to silence someone if you believe they are using a platform to spread beliefs that constitute verbal violence.

      And again, all I can do is profoundly disagree.


      Ultimately there is a very narrow set of specific circumstances in which using lethal force in retaliation to physical violence is acceptable. You can't simply respond to any sort of physical attack with lethal force. Likewise there is a very narrow set of specific circumstances in which using physical force in retaliation to verbal violence is acceptable. But simply advocating genocide (or anything else that could bring harm to a great number of people) is not one of the circumstances that makes it allowable to retort with physical violence.

      And certainly, when dealing with adults who have the ability to walk away or put their hands over their ears or shout back to drown out the things being said to them, you don't get to use violence and then claim you were protecting helpless people. Likewise, you can't attack someone who isn't currently engaging in any sort of assault for the specific goal of silencing them simply because you feel that their use of a given platform could potentially help spread of their beliefs and opinions.

      So in ending, as long as you feel verbal violence should be treated the same as carrying out physical violence, and that it's okay to physically attack people solely because you don't want them to relay their beliefs to others, I think we're just going to keep talking in circles, because those ideas are profoundly anathema to me.
      Last edited by AnubisXy; 01-30-2017, 07:30 PM.

      Comment


      • I'd just like to note that if you are capable of differentiating between different levels of violent speech, you should also be capable of differentiating between violent and nonviolent speech. So the argument for treating the act of screaming at a helpless child differently than you treat the act of advocating for genocide can also be made for treating hate speech differently than anti-abortion rhetoric (just as an example). At that point, the "once you start using violence to stifle hate speech you open the Pandora's box of using violence to stifle any kind of speech" argument falls flat, because we are all rational beings capable of recognizing that there is a difference between acceptable discourse and verbal assault. Ultimately, we're just disagreeing over where the line is.
        Last edited by Charlaquin; 01-30-2017, 07:40 PM.


        Onyx Path Forum Moderator

        My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

        Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
          I'd just like to note that if you are capable of differentiating between different levels of violent speech, you should also be capable of differentiating between violent and nonviolent speech. So the argument for treating the act of screaming at a helpless child differently than you treat the act of advocating for genocide can also be made for treating hate speech differently than anti-abortion rhetoric (just as an example). At that point, the "once you start using violence to stifle hate speech you open the Pandora's box of using violence to stifle any kind of speech" argument falls flat, because we are all rational beings capable of recognizing that there is a difference between acceptable discourse and verbal assault. Ultimately, we're just disagreeing over where the line is.
          Well, and arguing over whether violence is acceptable when you have many other entirely non-violent options available to you.

          It's like using lethal force - you can't just shoot someone without trying to de-escalate the situation unless your life is literally on the line. You can't use it if you had the option to simply leave the area but chose to remain and decided to escalate the situation yourself. You (shouldn't) be able to chase someone down and wait until they make a perceived move against you and then shoot them. There are specific times and places in which the use of lethal force is acceptable, and if you choose to use it outside of those times and places, you've crossed the line.

          Likewise, using physical force in retaliation to verbal assault carries similar caveats and limitations. If you and other people have the option to leave the area, and instead choose to remain and then escalate things by attacking someone, you've crossed the line. If you had the option to scream or shout or otherwise drown out what that person was saying, but chose to use physical violence, again you've crossed the line.

          And certainly, using physical violence to silence someone because you don't want them to be able to voice their views to other people is indefensible IMO, regardless of what sort disgusting thing they were going to say.
          Last edited by AnubisXy; 01-31-2017, 02:21 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Odd_Canuck View Post
            "You might become violent later so I'm going to beat the crap out of you now!"

            If the neo-nazis of Today were exactly the same as the nazis of 75 years ago, there are all kinds of laws related to people who are engaged in war with the US that could apply.

            As it is, they're not Nazis, they're just a bunch of idiots obsessively spouting hate based on religion and race.
            Thing is, Canuck, The elderly OG Nazis tend to use the young NeoNazis as bodyguards/goon squads and when you combine that with the fact one of the fathers of the american neo-nazi movement was a mole in the Nuremberg prosecution that leaked info to the Nazi's defense lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if the neo-nazis were more of a direct continuation of the OG nazis than people think.

            Also, you Canadians don't get to talk about Nazis since you guys have never deported or prosecuted any of the 5000 Nazis that fled to your frozen homeland after the war (same article I linked to above)...


            My Savannah Setting can be found here

            My heroes as monster tamers rules can be found here

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The young man in the cafe View Post
              Also, you Canadians don't get to talk about Nazis since you guys have never deported or prosecuted any of the 5000 Nazis that fled to your frozen homeland after the war (same article I linked to above)...
              I make note of the fact that I'm forbidden to talk about this topic and leave.


              Odd_Canuck is not a topical medication or food product and is not to be taken internally or seriously.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Odd_Canuck View Post
                I make note of the fact that I'm forbidden to talk about this topic and leave.
                Wait... I'm sorry, come back. Look you can talk about this if you promise to help put some pressure on your government to punish those nazi grandpa before they die, Okay?


                My Savannah Setting can be found here

                My heroes as monster tamers rules can be found here

                Comment


                • Let's not be setting conditions for others to be allowed to participate in the discussion. This is a public forum.


                  Onyx Path Forum Moderator

                  My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

                  Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

                  Comment


                  • Sorry for cranky and possibly dickish approach in few last days here. I was suffering from insomnia and it probably made me quite unbearable.
                    Anyway, I think that the reason why I'm so against preemptive violence as a form of self defence is cultural. I know, easy way out, but hear me out! Our definition of self defence doesn't include preemptive actions - this is best shown by looking at legal definition for self defence here.
                    Threats that "allow you" to respond with force and violence have to be immediate (right here, right now), lawless and "real" (not in your imagination, not based on your prognosis, not based on what you have heard). Anything that doesn't tick these things is not self defence. In addition, you can only respond with force appropriate to the threat and potential damage it posed - we are not allowed to use lethal force unless lethal force was used against us, and breaking someone's leg because they punched you fist might end up not being considered self defence. So yeah, someone planning to kill your mother is not a valid target for self defence until they actually try to do that. If you know that someone is planning to kill your mother, well...call the police. Preemptive violence is still considered violence.
                    As for the kid situation - I find it...weird that people would rather punch first, instead of taking care of the child and taking it somewhere safe. Then again, we have laws that heavily discourage people from using hate speech in public spaces, because well, it's punishable by law to sprout hate speech and use verbal violence. Like, if you are on a bus and people start doing that shit to you, you can just ask the bus driver to remove them from the vehicle. Nobody wants trouble, so one time warning will usually shut people up. Pretty much only major problem are soccer fans who tend to travel in groups and under influence of alcohol, and people prefer to get out of their way instead of picking a fight.
                    So...yes. I put verbal violence in different category than physical one. I think we need to agree to disagree here. I'm sorry if you consider this cruel.

                    As for the "Canadians don't get to talk about this", em, yeah, you know that US grabbed nazi scientists like Wernhrer von Braum and not only didn't punish them for stuff like using slave labor and involvement in concentration camps, but made them American and gave them tons of love?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                      Let's not be setting conditions for others to be allowed to participate in the discussion. This is a public forum.
                      My apologies.


                      My Savannah Setting can be found here

                      My heroes as monster tamers rules can be found here

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by WHW View Post
                        Sorry for cranky and possibly dickish approach in few last days here. I was suffering from insomnia and it probably made me quite unbearable.
                        Anyway, I think that the reason why I'm so against preemptive violence as a form of self defence is cultural. I know, easy way out, but hear me out! Our definition of self defence doesn't include preemptive actions - this is best shown by looking at legal definition for self defence here.
                        Threats that "allow you" to respond with force and violence have to be immediate (right here, right now), lawless and "real" (not in your imagination, not based on your prognosis, not based on what you have heard). Anything that doesn't tick these things is not self defence. In addition, you can only respond with force appropriate to the threat and potential damage it posed - we are not allowed to use lethal force unless lethal force was used against us, and breaking someone's leg because they punched you fist might end up not being considered self defence. So yeah, someone planning to kill your mother is not a valid target for self defence until they actually try to do that. If you know that someone is planning to kill your mother, well...call the police. Preemptive violence is still considered violence.
                        As for the kid situation - I find it...weird that people would rather punch first, instead of taking care of the child and taking it somewhere safe. Then again, we have laws that heavily discourage people from using hate speech in public spaces, because well, it's punishable by law to sprout hate speech and use verbal violence. Like, if you are on a bus and people start doing that shit to you, you can just ask the bus driver to remove them from the vehicle. Nobody wants trouble, so one time warning will usually shut people up. Pretty much only major problem are soccer fans who tend to travel in groups and under influence of alcohol, and people prefer to get out of their way instead of picking a fight.
                        So...yes. I put verbal violence in different category than physical one. I think we need to agree to disagree here. I'm sorry if you consider this cruel.

                        As for the "Canadians don't get to talk about this", em, yeah, you know that US grabbed nazi scientists like Wernhrer von Braum and not only didn't punish them for stuff like using slave labor and involvement in concentration camps, but made them American and gave them tons of love?
                        I know all about project paperclip, I get it, we Americans aren't innocent in this either by any means.


                        My Savannah Setting can be found here

                        My heroes as monster tamers rules can be found here

                        Comment


                        • EDITED: I changed my mind.
                          Last edited by Gurkhal; 01-31-2017, 03:38 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WHW View Post
                            As for the kid situation - I find it...weird that people would rather punch first, instead of taking care of the child and taking it somewhere safe.
                            In the real life example I drew that from, the guy did try to get to the kid peacefully first, but one of the three men physically stood in the way to stop him, which is when it escalated to physical force. It wasn't a desire to punch first, it was a choice of "punch" (actually knee the man in the balls and shove him into one of this compatriots to create enough of a pause to grab the kid and run) or not be able to get to the kid at all.

                            I'm sorry if you consider this cruel.
                            I don't necessarily consider it cruel, but as you talk about your cultural perspective I would ask that you take ours into consideration. We don't have the anti-hate laws you do to protect us, so hate groups are free to say horrific things to people without repercussion. We have (slightly and variable) more lenient self-defense laws. We are taught as a cultural matter that we need to be ready to defend ourselves because the law isn't there to protect us in specific fashions that hate-groups know exactly how to exploit. Many of us have had to learn the hard way that even when the law is supposed to protect us or our friends, the people responsible for enforcing the law sometimes think like that hate-groups (and yes, these are rare bad apples, but trying to get rid of them is extremely hard to do from the outside) and will bend the rules for them*.

                            So, as you're asking us to look at your cultural perspective, look at the cultural perspective some of us have to deal with in return. Try to see how some of our readiness to move to physical force is motivated by things that you can really understand even if it's not the cultural you were raised in.

                            * - There was a patrol officer near my highschool (which was an area with a number of schools clustered together, including multiple religious private schools), that was notorious for believing straight kids over LGBTQ kids. If he came across a gay kid being attacked and the gay kid fought back, he'd automatically say the gay kid clearly started it first and the straight kids were defending themselves. And this was awhile ago. Nobody had cellphone cameras. Most of those kids were still deep in the closet (a lot of them were at religious schools as noted were common there). There weren't lots of cameras watching every street. It took two years of mostly anonymous complaints by the few people willing to make them before this cop just got quietly transferred somewhere else. Things are much better now, but how many of those kids grew up never sure if they should call the cops because they might just get a cop like that?

                            Comment


                            • Well, one thing's for sure, whether you think it's okay to punch a Nazi, sooner or later, they're going to be punching someone.

                              They seem a lot more organized. Maybe it's just being able to notice these things but they have their speakers and recruiters in colleges, setting up organizations and trying to spread their beliefs.

                              Comment


                              • For the record, when it comes to dealing with Nazis, I'm down for any Nazi punching, any time.
                                Face punch now or hole punch later.


                                (They/Them/Theirs)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X