Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violence begets violence

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

  • Originally posted by AzraelFirestorm View Post
    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.
    I do admire Hellboy's reaction times when it comes to the subject




    In reality, that's something I thought about a lot.

    I had not the luck to meet my grandpa, cancer got him before I was even around, but something came through. See, he fought Nazis and Fascists when the rest of the country disagreed with him. When the neighbours sold him to the Fascist police and he got out when his family corrupted the officers to let him go? He went back fighting. When the Nazis beat down my great-grandmother to get to him? He left the town and went back fighting.. After getting out a prisoner's camp? Still went back fighting. He was also enough of a wise man to explain my father why he did what he did and let him decide if that was the right thing to do on his own. I do like to think I get the point as well.

    Violence is not a good thing. I'd never do it if given the choice. But, while I Free Speech is a big deal for me, I can't avoid thinking that when a rethoric is undeniably based on things like hate, hurting others or denying other people their right to live a peaceful life because of whatever reason motivates such rethoric, then the ones that follow it should be stopped before the damage is done.

    If you ask me, if there's the chance I can avoid bad stuff to happen and avoid sufference for those that never asked for it only by punching a Nazi (or a variant) today, I'd say it's a fair price. I'd compromise my own morality anytime if that avoids other people getting hurt. There's a point after what you preach becomes so toxic it has no right to be.

    "Freedom of Speech" is something that comes only after an even more fundamental right: the "Freedom to Be". If you don't grant the latter to everyone, you lose the benefits of the former
    Last edited by Cinder; 04-17-2017, 07:30 PM.


    Cinder's Comprehensive Collection of Creations - Homebrew Hub
    Currently writing: "Dark Era: The Forest That Weeps".

    Hopes to write about monsters, shapeshifters and soulless abominations someday. If you have criticism that can help me improve, I'm always here

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cinder View Post
      I do admire Hellboy's reaction times when it comes to the subject




      In reality, that's something I thought about a lot.

      I had not the luck to meet my grandpa, cancer got him before I was even around, but something came through. See, he fought Nazis and Fascists when the rest of the country disagreed with him. When the neighbours sold him to the Fascist police and he got out when his family corrupted the officers to let him go? He went back fighting. When the Nazis beat down my great-grandmother to get to him? He left the town and went back fighting.. After getting out a prisoner's camp? Still went back fighting. He was also enough of a wise man to explain my father why he did what he did and let him decide if that was the right thing to do on his own. I do like to think I get the point as well.

      Violence is not a good thing. I'd never do it if given the choice. But, while I Free Speech is a big deal for me, I can't avoid thinking that when a rethoric is undeniably based on things like hate, hurting others or denying other people their right to live a peaceful life because of whatever reason motivates such rethoric, then the ones that follow it should be stopped before the damage is done.

      If you ask me, if there's the chance I can avoid bad stuff to happen and avoid sufference for those that never asked for it only by punching a Nazi (or a variant) today, I'd say it's a fair price. I'd compromise my own morality anytime if that avoids other people getting hurt. There's a point after what you preach becomes so toxic it has no right to be.

      "Freedom of Speech" is something that comes only after an even more fundamental right: the "Freedom to Be". If you don't grant the latter to everyone, you lose the benefits of the former
      Couldn't have articulated it better. It's a tough subject, to be sure. Violence ISN'T a good thing, but I stand behind this argument completely. It and it's perfectly complimentary Hellboy reference. My morality is something I'd gladly compromise to protect my fellow human beings from needless suffering, at the hands of the hateful or in general.


      (They/Them/Their) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/borderland

      Comment


      • I don't think you have to consider it a compromise of your morality. Unless you follow a very strict absolutist ethical philosophy, there's nothing wrong or compromising about a moral code that accepts "ranking" of good and bad actions. If your moral principles say punching someone - despite violence being immoral - is better than not punching them, then you punch them and deal with the consequences.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
          I don't think you have to consider it a compromise of your morality. Unless you follow a very strict absolutist ethical philosophy, there's nothing wrong or compromising about a moral code that accepts "ranking" of good and bad actions. If your moral principles say punching someone - despite violence being immoral - is better than not punching them, then you punch them and deal with the consequences.
          That seems to be a logical argument. Honestly, I've personally used what I would perceive as justifiable violence already. It's not uncommon for the bullied to punch back. Whether Nazi, homophobe, sadistic asshole, or whatever label the truly offending (and offensive) party uses to identify their douchebag selves, fighting fire with fire isn't an inherently bad thing to me. It's just not an inherently good thing, either.


          (They/Them/Their) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/borderland

          Comment


          • Yeah.

            I don't mean to aim this at anyone in particular, or mean it as a negative thing, but I think most people operate on something I call pragmatic unexamined utilitarianism. Or more simply, they judge morality on the basis of maximizing good impacts of what they do, and minimizing bad impacts of what they do. Most people don't study philosophy in-depth enough to really get into defining a specific ethical framework and interpretation they adhere to (and lots of those that do kinds suck at it, see: Kant). While I hesitate to call any sort of morality "natural" it's also a key determination in the biological definition of altruism (though that is phrased as benefit to other instead of good, and harm to self instead of bad, and is modified heavily by relation to the subject of your action).

            The point I'm trying to make is that the wide-spread belief in justification for bad actions as morally acceptable stems from the generalized concept that doing minor harm for a greater good. Which is why so many of us also feel comfortable punching Nazis.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
              The point I'm trying to make is that the wide-spread belief in justification for bad actions as morally acceptable stems from the generalized concept that doing minor harm for a greater good. Which is why so many of us also feel comfortable punching Nazis.
              ​Unfortunately, the definition of 'Nazi' in some minds has decayed to 'person that doesn't agree with me on something' with little regard to what they actually were and what they represented, and all too often is being used to justify the person's own Nazi-like behavior of using violence to shut down opposing views.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EvilTyger View Post
                ​Unfortunately, the definition of 'Nazi' in some minds has decayed to 'person that doesn't agree with me on something' with little regard to what they actually were and what they represented, and all too often is being used to justify the person's own Nazi-like behavior of using violence to shut down opposing views.
                Not that I don't think there are a few assholes using "they're a nazi" as justification to punch people, but that's not what happened in the case being discussed here, Richard Spencer. He is, in fact, a neo-nazi, or at the very least, a white supremacist (I don't care if he wants to call it "identitarian" or whatever, if you advocate in favor of ethnic cleansing for the sake of creating a homeland for the sake of the "dispossessed white race" you are engaging in white supremacist advocacy). We can argue all day about whether or not his being a white supremacist justifies punching him in and of itself, but arguing he's just a "person who disagrees with me on something" is disingenuous.


                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


                • Yes.

                  I revived the thread with the, 'They're going to hit someone' comment because of the recent actions at Berkeley, where a neo-Nazi punched a protester. Said Neo-Nazi is also part of a larger student organization attempting to spread the word at campuses across the nation.

                  Comment


                  • There seems to be this disturbing tendency to try rebranding the advocation of the persecution of people as a "freedom." Like say the religious "freedom" bills being pushed in various places around the States. Probably more palatable to the people who think about voting for those things that the uncomfortable thought that the "freedom" being advocated is the marginalization socially, economically, medically,etc of historically persecuted groups. If you find yourself wanting to toe the letter, not the spirit of concepts of free speech to such degrees of absurdity then you don't really advocate for free speech at all. I can't respect people that take it that far.


                    “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

                    Comment


                    • As a non-Christian person of faith in the US, every time I hear of "religious freedom" legislation, I know that it's bullshit because if does anything to protect my religion's beliefs or practices, it will be completely coincidental, and usually such bills infringe on my religion more than they offer protections for it.

                      I'll consider giving a shit about the "War on Christmas" when I don't lose multiple days of vacation time a year because my holidays aren't automatic days off for everyone. But that is one of the core problems in the US. The response to try to make society more respectful to everyone is to treat it as an attack on the majority.

                      Comment


                      • There's also a lot of anti-intellectualism around the world. 'Don't listen to some fancy university professor, it's the freedom act, it's good for freedom, if you're against it, you're against freedom.'

                        But this is, again, another derailment from people punching Nazis and Nazis punching people.
                        Last edited by nofather; 04-20-2017, 08:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • I don't know much about Richard Spencer, but seems to me most people being attacked by antifa folks are just regular old cultural conservatives or classical liberals, definitely can't condone punching them. Secular Talk has an interesting video on this topic:



                          Honestly, even if there are some Nazi's it's really not a problem like it was back in the day, when they tried to take over the world and were supported by big-business/military. If we are going to be allowed to punch people it is best to go after the threats of the 21st century rather than the early 20th.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by the_1990 View Post
                            I don't know much about Richard Spencer, but seems to me most people being attacked by antifa folks are just regular old cultural conservatives or classical liberals, definitely can't condone punching them. Secular Talk has an interesting video on this topic:



                            Honestly, even if there are some Nazi's it's really not a problem like it was back in the day, when they tried to take over the world and were supported by big-business/military. If we are going to be allowed to punch people it is best to go after the threats of the 21st century rather than the early 20th.
                            The sort of neofascists that people are currently punching are not the people of the 20th century. Which I feel sort of odd to point out because it's a matter of chronological obviousness. Likewise the nature of these things in terms of different countries is what is being confronted. Not the ghost of an evil who has unfortunately maintained some legacy.

                            And side note. My earlier comment was not a derailment, it was comment directly to the various actions and reactions currently playing out in the U.S. and elsewhere over this very issue.


                            “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by the_1990 View Post
                              If we are going to be allowed to punch people it is best to go after the threats of the 21st century rather than the early 20th.
                              Would you care to elaborate further on what the punchable threats of the 21st century are?
                              Last edited by Caitiff Primogen; 04-26-2017, 02:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • I'm also curious about how the "punchable" threats of the 21st century compare to the political movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries that spawned the specific Nazi movement.

                                I think a lot of us worried about Nazis now are worried because it seems like the geopolitical stage is primed for a similar situation that opened the door for the Nazis to take power in Germany and all the consequences that had.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X