There are clearly times when violence is justified.

If you go out and attack JY's cat (which is not a nazi), if you go out and threaten my family. Violence becomes justified on the basis of protecting others from harm.

Note: there was a lot of violence in Germany before the Nazis came to power, look at how they went about murdering political opponents and critics. Attacking newspapers, and all together being dicks to anyone who stood up to them.

Please learn a bit of history of how they came to power, so we don't have to repeat it.

Is saying "I want to a punch a nazi" really going to result in an increase in violence in the world? reeeeallly?

I'm loaded with mennonite heritage and identify as a pacificst who believes almost every war in history has been stupid.
And even I'd punch a nazi if they started spewing garbage to my face. (Unless they were capable of beating me in a fight)

@Ogion

violence is only ok in self defense of physical or incited violence. that's pretty simple.

that very same article i read a few years back, and it really does straw man most pro-gun Americans. Most Americans don't want a gun so they get to shoot someone, they want a gun so that they had to, in protecting their life and family, could shoot someone.

it also does correctly mention the point of Ghandi using non-violence against the government tyranny, but most pro-gun owners don't want to overthrow the government with guns. many more are worried about one day the government turning tyrannical, and they'd have to defend themselves FROM the government.

still, it's not a bad article, and i agree with everything it says. i just think it has a warped view of pro-gun advocates.


@DO

Meine Katze ist ein guter Bürger von Deutschland und ein süßes Baby

@Flum

don't martyr the bastard, that's exactly what you'll do. one of the key facets of the alt-right is their ability to point at the far left and say:

"look at how violent they're being, to my first amendment rights!"

that's sure as hell enshrining them to their supporters.

Look, James plays the "all Germans are Nazis" card.

So, the American Revolution wasn't justified since it wasn't a defense against violence, but a tax protest, basically

And certainly attacking Nazis once they started beating people up would be justified at that point. Given the fact that the supremacists came armed, that really suggests that you think the black bloc was in fact justified in responding to the incitement of the white supremacists.

The far left already has no credibility. I don't care.

If he posted something like "everyone should go out and punch a nazi" I would probably support the ban.
I feel like this is different.

James, they'll say that anyway. We could have a bunch of silent nuns protesting and getting out in the hospital and they'll still claim they're attacked. You have to get past the notion that the facts matter to these guys.

It was pretty common for nuns to beat students with belts and devices if the children were misbehaving.

Nuns would totally woop some nazi ass with paddles and shit

@Ogion

No, my cat is just really really morally shitty

And the American Revolution we had protests, but the actual fighting occurred when the British marched on Concord and tried to seize militia arms.

And if the Antifa had been protesting their peacefully, and the white supremacists were the ones who incited the violence then I'd be backing the peaceful protestors. The problem is the videos coming out of Charlottesville show two belligerent groups colliding with one another, and I've seen some where the antifa crowd clearly starts throwing things first and where on guy throws something on fire at the white supremacists, and I saw one where the white supremacists started hitting people with clubs

I can agree however that the white supremacists were the ones with the murderer which is a whole other level of wrong

Look, you just have to read the announcements to know that the fascists were ready and preparing to attack people. That's unequivocal and it is something they do pretty much every time. The antifa just took the bait because they're ready to attack at the drop of the hat

Meanwhile the protestors were uniquivovally attacked by the supremacists without provocation or really any retaliation. There is no question on that point.

Furthermore, by the standards you enuciated the black bloc were far more justified than the revolution. So the British took some guns. That's nowhere near pushing to kill tons of people of color and liberals.

Furthermore the antifa argue they were there to protect the protestors who otherwise would have been (and were attacked). So, preemptive violence to protect? Is that ok by you?

Once you start accepting violence you've got some tricky line drawing to do

It is ynequivocal that the supremacists where the ones inciting violence. Without supremacists threatening protestors, antifa wouldn't need to show up.

Actually, it isn't clear at al that violence is ever justified. I'm not sure that case has been made yet

@JY, if the nazis came out with rhetoric* saying that all non-white people in the US should be killed, or removed by whatever means. Then the Antifa would claim their violence was justified.

The difference here is not who started a particular piece of violence, but whose rhetoric* is inherently repugnant and should be wiped from existence -and if you can figure out a way of getting rid of that rhetoric* without violence, i will 100% support you. Note: i am not saying we should kill or harm anyone, I am claiming that racist, fascistic rhetoric is an illness which should be cured if possible.

*I don't know if this is what they actually stand for. I am taking an extreme position for the sake of illustrating the arguement.

Also, even if it gets me silenced,

If actual Nazi's from WWII show up and start protesting and carrying clubs I will attempt to Turn Undead with my holy symbol.

If that fails, ya I will attack them and assume the dead have arisen

DO:

Since when is it James' Douchebag Squad? Last I checked it was my Edgy Dippers Gang.

@DO

Cry more.

No Prado, you're just one of his pets.

And you know what they say about his pets

So many Nazis on this website

Umm, I joined the site first and have more of a forum presence.

Also, lowering the standard requirements for Nazis to no longer require actually being white supremacists is a dangerous game to play. If that ceases to be a requirement, people will see that and think "Maybe they're not so bad," which is not a point I think any of us want to reach.

@Ogion

"Look, you just have to read the announcements to know that the fascists were ready and preparing to attack people. That's unequivocal and it is something they do pretty much every time. The antifa just took the bait because they're ready to attack at the drop of the hat

Meanwhile the protestors were uniquivovally attacked by the supremacists without provocation or really any retaliation. There is no question on that point."

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM??????

SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2iBQVffAyQ

at 10:25 in that video, the police chief is asked a question

"do you believe they're (alt right) the ones who instigated the rally, er the fighting"

"we did have mutually combative individuals on, in the crowd..."

so dour have magical psychic powers that know better than the police? i mean come on Ogion, NO provocation and NO retaliation? bull. shit.



"Furthermore, by the standards you enuciated the black bloc were far more justified than the revolution. So the British took some guns. That's nowhere near pushing to kill tons of people of color and liberals."

1. the British marched on Concord fully armed and ready to engage in armed conflict, under the authority of the king of England, in an attempt to raid the munition supplies.

2. the white nationalists had a rally, the antifa and protestors showed up, there were fights, a protestor got killed.

you really can't see the difference? holy shit man. echo chamber



"Furthermore the antifa argue they were there to protect the protestors who otherwise would have been (and were attacked). So, preemptive violence to protect? Is that ok by you?"

that's such faulty logic. antifa shows up and attacks people... because they believe that otherwise the unarmed protestors would be attacked

1. i thought you were all "nonviolence" a second ago
2. maybe they were wrong, but you're taking their word as a gold standard
3. no, no violence at political rallies is alright


"Once you start accepting violence you've got some tricky line drawing to do"

accept i haven't accepted violence. not once. the british were passing LAWS that we rebelled against.

some white guy in a street yelling f*** the blacks, while offensive, is less dangerous than laws, that if tyrannical in nature, could end up in armed men with guns, knocking down your door and dragging you to prison.

those are the ultimate ends results of resisting laws. speech has no inherent effect on people, unless it is a direct incitement of violence or chaos.



"It is ynequivocal that the supremacists where the ones inciting violence. Without supremacists threatening protestors, antifa wouldn't need to show up."

1. you have no basis to say that the supremacists would act violently if not faced with non violent protestors. you have no evidence of this. you have not sourced this. you have not quoted a member of the white nationalists saying this.

2. even if the supremacists DO threaten protestors, ANTIFA DONT NEED TO BE THERE. Antifa cause violence, antifa perpetrate violent activities. Remember Eric Clanton?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1tUnHFbmcU

the alt-right aren't the ONLY ones STARTING violence.

what we NEED are police who actually break violence up, and arrest the violent perpetrators (left and right)



"Actually, it isn't clear at al that violence is ever justified. I'm not sure that case has been made yet"

i can't tell whether or not you said never or ever... so i can't really respond to this. violence can be justified in self defense. some of the antifa probably were acting in self defense. some of the alt right probably were acting in self defense. but a WHOLE LOT on each side were willfully entering into violence.





@Orathaic

"@JY, if the nazis came out with rhetoric* saying that all non-white people in the US should be killed, or removed by whatever means. Then the Antifa would claim their violence was justified."

except the thing is, listen to the tapes of charlottesville. listen to richard spencer. listen to these HORRIBLE people:

they're not saying "kill." they're being fucking racist, but they're not actively advocating for murder.

the second they start advocating for murder, they become a terrorist group, and i want the US government dealing with them. civilians shouldn't be doing this.

oh and btw, how do you respond to blm movements when they say "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon"??

when only 963 of 1.1 million cops were in a police shooting last year?



"The difference here is not who started a particular piece of violence, but whose rhetoric* is inherently repugnant and should be wiped from existence -and if you can figure out a way of getting rid of that rhetoric* without violence, i will 100% support you. Note: i am not saying we should kill or harm anyone, I am claiming that racist, fascistic rhetoric is an illness which should be cured if possible."

i agree that hateful rhetoric should be exposed and stopped, however, i have 3 major concerns.

1. the definition of hateful rhetoric is completely arbitrary, and setting the precedent of censorship for ONE type of speech, opens whole new doorways. I know people who've been called racist for "micro-aggressions"

2. if you set the precedent, you'll be sorry when you lose control to the mob. if we have a legal precedent for censoring hate speech, imagine what Trump could do to the NYTs if they get ONE more thing factually false about him. THAT you wouldn't enjoy.

3. censorship creates a counterculture, which poisons the youth. censorship does not expose evil ideas for what they are. the best way to destroy evil ideas in a western society, is mass peaceful protests. the SECOND those protests turn violent, the worse it will get.


hell, we've seen violence condemning speech on both sides for over a year now. how is that working out?


"*I don't know if this is what they actually stand for. I am taking an extreme position for the sake of illustrating the argument."

this is another problem. the alt right is a weird amorphous blob of supporters right now. you have edgy teenagers to legitimate eugenic-level racists out there. it's a fucking mess.



@ghug

"No Prado, you're just one of his pets.

And you know what they say about his pets"

what an amazing and well thought out argument with no ad hominems or defamation whatsoever.

THIS is why your side ran away with the 2016 election?'

WHAT? your arrogance and pretentious attitude disenfranchised most American voters, and the working class voted in a celebrity over your pick?

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



@DO

"So many Nazis on this website"

Calling everyone a Nazi, desensitizes people to that word, making them less critical of claims of actual naziism. if someone comes up to me, and tells me "so and so is a Nazi"

i legitimately have no idea whether or not such a serious accusation is true. THAT is how bastardized that word has become.

so thanks for emboldening and defacto supporting Naziism @DO

it may have killed my relatives... but, uh, thanks for making it worse.

Hey, cry more

@JY "@Ogion

"Look, you just have to read the announcements to know that the fascists were ready and preparing to attack people. That's unequivocal and it is something they do pretty much every time. The antifa just took the bait because they're ready to attack at the drop of the hat

Meanwhile the protestors were uniquivovally attacked by the supremacists without provocation or really any retaliation. There is no question on that point."

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM??????

SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2iBQVffAyQ

at 10:25 in that video, the police chief is asked a question

"do you believe they're (alt right) the ones who instigated the rally, er the fighting"

"we did have mutually combative individuals on, in the crowd..."

so dour have magical psychic powers that know better than the police? i mean come on Ogion, NO provocation and NO retaliation? bull. shit.



"Furthermore, by the standards you enuciated the black bloc were far more justified than the revolution. So the British took some guns. That's nowhere near pushing to kill tons of people of color and liberals."

1. the British marched on Concord fully armed and ready to engage in armed conflict, under the authority of the king of England, in an attempt to raid the munition supplies.

2. the white nationalists had a rally, the antifa and protestors showed up, there were fights, a protestor got killed.

you really can't see the difference? holy shit man. echo chamber



"Furthermore the antifa argue they were there to protect the protestors who otherwise would have been (and were attacked). So, preemptive violence to protect? Is that ok by you?"

that's such faulty logic. antifa shows up and attacks people... because they believe that otherwise the unarmed protestors would be attacked

1. i thought you were all "nonviolence" a second ago
2. maybe they were wrong, but you're taking their word as a gold standard
3. no, no violence at political rallies is alright


"Once you start accepting violence you've got some tricky line drawing to do"

accept i haven't accepted violence. not once. the british were passing LAWS that we rebelled against.

some white guy in a street yelling f*** the blacks, while offensive, is less dangerous than laws, that if tyrannical in nature, could end up in armed men with guns, knocking down your door and dragging you to prison.

those are the ultimate ends results of resisting laws. speech has no inherent effect on people, unless it is a direct incitement of violence or chaos.



"It is ynequivocal that the supremacists where the ones inciting violence. Without supremacists threatening protestors, antifa wouldn't need to show up."

1. you have no basis to say that the supremacists would act violently if not faced with non violent protestors. you have no evidence of this. you have not sourced this. you have not quoted a member of the white nationalists saying this.

2. even if the supremacists DO threaten protestors, ANTIFA DONT NEED TO BE THERE. Antifa cause violence, antifa perpetrate violent activities. Remember Eric Clanton?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1tUnHFbmcU

the alt-right aren't the ONLY ones STARTING violence.

what we NEED are police who actually break violence up, and arrest the violent perpetrators (left and right)



"Actually, it isn't clear at al that violence is ever justified. I'm not sure that case has been made yet"

i can't tell whether or not you said never or ever... so i can't really respond to this. violence can be justified in self defense. some of the antifa probably were acting in self defense. some of the alt right probably were acting in self defense. but a WHOLE LOT on each side were willfully entering into violence.





@Orathaic

"@JY, if the nazis came out with rhetoric* saying that all non-white people in the US should be killed, or removed by whatever means. Then the Antifa would claim their violence was justified."

except the thing is, listen to the tapes of charlottesville. listen to richard spencer. listen to these HORRIBLE people:

they're not saying "kill." they're being fucking racist, but they're not actively advocating for murder."

Yes, i'm sure some of them are saying publically 'get rid of' not kill. And i'm sure some of those *mean* kill if that's the easiest way... But it is a sad time when anyone feels comfortable going out in public showing their racist views off.

@"the second they start advocating for murder, they become a terrorist group, and i want the US government dealing with them. civilians shouldn't be doing this."

I'm sure there are agencies doing just that, and Trump's administration probably isn't going to stop them. And i'm sure there are specific agencies targeting the terrorist elements.

@"oh and btw, how do you respond to blm movements when they say "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon"??

when only 963 of 1.1 million cops were in a police shooting last year?""

This is a tough one. See here you have two unequal sides, the BLM who feel all cops are bastards, and the state, who feel police are necessary for the control of the population and protection of property. Two very unequal sides. I don't feel that protests against police brutality infringe on people's freedoms. I don't think the police are particularily at risk - being that they are empowered to oppress and repress people.

(The contrast between two more 'equal' groups, like antifa and neo-nazis is notable). But i take your point. If the state is to censor groups, BLM will be next. And clearly that does harm people's freedoms, and democracy in general.

How and ever, i don't think i advocated that. I said 'if you can think of any way...'

Clearly the antifa have a solution. It is being at all neo-nazi marches, and being loud and violent so that neo-nazis feel scared. This of course does not count as censorship (at least not government censorship, which is what the first amendment protects you from).

I don't know if that is a good solution. I think the justice system will not do a good job of restoring the peace, and we need a system of restorative justice. Like when someone robs your car, and gets given community service cleaning up your yard or community, and gets a chance to know you are a real person who was harmed, rather than jail time with hardned criminal to make new contacts and (upon release - when they can't get a job) new skills to break bigger and better laws...

I don't know how a pre-emptive restorative justice system could work - sounds more like education than justice tbh. But something needs to happen.

Sorry, far too much copied and pasted there.

Only meant to reply to the bit that started @orathaic.

"what an amazing and well thought out argument with no ad hominems or defamation whatsoever."

It's funny to me that Mr. "My Cat Is A Nazi" can't distinguish between a joke and an argument.

@orathatic

haha you don't have to copy the @Ogion part man

"This is a tough one. See here you have two unequal sides, the BLM who feel all cops are bastards, and the state, who feel police are necessary for the control of the population and protection of property. Two very unequal sides. I don't feel that protests against police brutality infringe on people's freedoms. I don't think the police are particularily at risk - being that they are empowered to oppress and repress people."

to tell you the truth, i'm being a bit unfair myself. i should say SOME at BLM protests shouting this. i was roommates with a BLM supporter last year in college, and he was a perfectly nice guy who was willing to talk without getting upset

the problem are the violent fringe elements. however, BLM sympathizers take their protests in the form of riots which destroy other black businesses, and the Dallas sniper.

i'm all for protests, but peacefully is better than violently.



"(The contrast between two more 'equal' groups, like antifa and neo-nazis is notable). But i take your point. If the state is to censor groups, BLM will be next. And clearly that does harm people's freedoms, and democracy in general.

How and ever, i don't think i advocated that. I said 'if you can think of any way...' "

sorry if i implied that you advocated that, i know you didn't Ora, it's just a common go-to i hear nowadays. and frankly, i think the best way is to create a movement that shuns these groups, and immediately denounces the extremes on its own side. that's why part of the reason why i was so pissed at Trump's first statement. it was AWFUL.



"Clearly the antifa have a solution. It is being at all neo-nazi marches, and being loud and violent so that neo-nazis feel scared. This of course does not count as censorship (at least not government censorship, which is what the first amendment protects you from).

I don't know if that is a good solution. I think the justice system will not do a good job of restoring the peace, and we need a system of restorative justice. Like when someone robs your car, and gets given community service cleaning up your yard or community, and gets a chance to know you are a real person who was harmed, rather than jail time with hardned criminal to make new contacts and (upon release - when they can't get a job) new skills to break bigger and better laws...

I don't know how a pre-emptive restorative justice system could work - sounds more like education than justice tbh. But something needs to happen."


well this is very layered, our criminal justice system first needs remanagement and oversight. the militarization of cops is not new. every cop i've ever met has been nice except for one, who was an absolute authority stricken ass. the question is where do we begin

some say we start reforming the police and jail systems, then we move onto culture, others say we need to look at wiping out crime violence and securing the borders, and then move onto the prison-industrial complex (or whatever that's called).

frankly i think sweeping reform is needed, to making bail more affordable and drugs legal, to more rigid focusing on gang violence and the driving forces behind it, and also massive welfare reform, because our current system is terribly implemented, and horribly inefficient with large expenses