Subscribe via RSS Feed

When Is It OK to Punch Nazis? Always.

[ 443 ] January 23, 2017 |
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Ramon A. Clef

    That Thomas Kincaide one made my wife laugh so hard she choked.

    • My work here is done!

      • random

        Yeah definitely +1 for that one.

      • efgoldman

        My work here is done!

        But… but… a woman’s work is never done!
        Says so right here.

  • Jordan

    If you have anal sex the baby comes out the butt. That’s right: anal baby. Period.

    MRA: *nodding*, ya ya, right. You have anal sex, then you get butt baby, then you have butt period. I know it because thats how its happened for all the ladies I know and like.

  • Crusty

    But, but, but, wait, isn’t violence wrong?

    • Ramon A. Clef

      Something can be wrong and hilarious at the same time!

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      If “punching nazis” is wrong, I don’t want to be alt-right.

      • tsam

        /thread

        Well played.

  • elm

    Oh, sure, post your follow-up to Wil Wheaton’s Room comment but not my totes awesome response to that.

  • MPAVictoria

    There is a reason why bspencer is my favourite internet person!

    Bravo!!

    • I did not pay him to write this. (Thanks, Cowboy!!!!! *blush*)

  • ironic irony

    WTF? Anzari’s monolouge wasn’t even hostile (hell, he even said we shouldn’t be calling Trump supporters racists and shit). And this is Spencer’s response to it?

    Someone in the other thread (I believe it was Jim some guy from Iowa) was wondering if Spencer was gonna back down after getting punched.

    I’m gonna go with: nah.

    • delazeur

      Yeah, Anzari’s monologue was conciliatory for my taste. (I am perfectly comfortable calling 63 million Americans bigots.) It’s understandable for a show like SNL, but it’s still a far cry from what Spencer seems to think it was.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        Anzari was trying to avoid the perception of liberal elitism, but he will be accused of it anyway.

  • leftwingfox

    I’ve been mulling over the previous thread this morning, and what it reminds me of is the sort of way kids are often forced to deal with bullying.

    I was assaulted repeatedly in Jr. High. The administration took a “both sides are to blame” view of conflicts, while the kids threatened escalation if they were reported on. When I was being shoved around during a school dance, I snapped, lashed out, and punched the ringleader in the gut. Then ran off an bawled my eyes out.

    There were threats of reprisals, but when they called me out and I showed up to fight, they didn’t. The assaults stopped for about a year.

    There was a second incident where other kids from my scout troop started picking on me during an extended trip. Once again, I told them not to assault me (i.e painful “pranks”) they ignored me and did anyways. I fought back, stormed off, cried. After that, there was a measure of respect in the group, and no more problems with bullying.

    Fighting back against a bully works. It’s not the ideal solution, of course. It can be traumatic for the victim, it teaches that violence is the acceptable solution to some situations, and doesn’t prevent the bullies from moving on to other targets. But the better solutions require a structure in place that is responsive to the problem, and willing to wok against it. Absent those systems, abandoning an effective strategy on moral grounds is an act of surrender.

    In the political sphere, non-violent resistance is still an option. The Worldwide Women’s Marches were important and effective at reminding the world just how unpopular Trump is, and has certainly unbalanced the petulant egomaniac. But as our institutional structures fail to marginalize advocates of systemic violence, or fail to punish perpetrators, and as options to speak out or work peacefully against violent actors are limited, the recourse will be to violence. Because it works.

    The systems of liberal democracy exist to provide better options then violence. If they don’t violence will become inevitable, and eventually necessary.

    • dogboy

      Similarly, someone once said

      We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.

      He also said

      There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair.

    • Origami Isopod

      This is all very well said.

    • delazeur

      Seconding all of this. I had basically the same experiences in elementary and middle school.

      Calls for civility and rational discourse are only meaningful if both sides are already bought into them.

  • tsam

    Yes, always punch nazis. Fucker got off easy as far as I’m concerned.

    • So many people forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own.

      • tsam

        I totally agree with that. I honestly don’t know what the marker is for when it’s time to put them down. I just know that if they gain enough power and weaponry, they will kill. They really want us to know that, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore them.

  • Personally, I think anyone who, in all seriousness, poses the questions of ‘do we need the black race’ and ‘what would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them’ should be prepared to be punched in the face repeatedly. And kicked. And doused with tar and feather and run out of town.

    • Quaino

      But what if someone punches a puppy. You’ve clearly made that OK by turning a blind eye to protecting nazis.

      • Jordan

        I’m pretty sure I read about some german army general who trained his puppy to do “sieg heil”. Although that was a joke meant to demonstrate his independence from hitler he still participated in the whole “slaughter 20 million russians” thing. so hmm.

        • wjts

          The puppy, though, was quite literally just following orders.

          • Jordan

            we all know thats no excuse

      • I never said I would do the punching. I just said that someone who made those remarks should expect to be punched. And kicked. And tar and feathered. And run out of town.

  • Happy Jack

    The puncher was wearing black with a mask. I don’t think liberals should be encouraging anarchists and window smashers. Where and how does this end?

    • Gee Suss

      With Spencer alone in a cabin, old and sad, writing screeds that no one reads.

      • Jordan

        oh fuck off

        • Gee Suss

          Wait, what did I say? Spencer=Nazi, not beloved BSpencer

          • Jordan

            DAMMIT!

            I suppose that demonstrate the need for the change, because of idiots like me.

    • Jordan

      1) we aren’t all liberals

      2) it ends with not-punching non-nazis. Its not hard.

    • Gator90

      Dude punched out a Nazi, and you’re worried about fashion?

      • Origami Isopod

        This asshole was going off about Chelsea Manning being released the other day. Fuck him.

    • random

      I’m against anarchy and window-smashing. Unlike Richard Spencer those windows aren’t trying to kill your whole family.

    • Warren Terra

      Whatever you think of Starbucks and corporate culture, they, and especially the windows of local franchises, never advocated for genocide.

    • Where and how does this end?

      With us liberals marching quietly into the showers?

  • BiloSagdiyev

    Woody Allen clip relevant today.

    • mpavilion

      Haha, perfect

    • LeeEsq

      I was thinking about this clip in regards to the Richard Spencer sucker punch incident. Mel Brooks and Woody Allen had different views about how to handle Nazis and other bigots. Brooks believed that portraying bigots as morons that nobody would want to be would work. Allen favored a more direct approach.

  • mtraven
    • leftwingfox

      Meh, short of linking to an article by David Brooks with somewhat similar arguments, this feels more like a fake news site than satire to me.

      • tsam

        Note the last line of the article.

        Gawken is a satirical publication.

        • leftwingfox

          Yeah, I just think it’s dumb satire.

          • tsam

            But a bit on the nose, as it were. See Bspencer’s post at the bottom of this thread.

  • Chip Daniels

    I’ll just go with the cliche that civility isn’t a suicide pact.

    When someone states clearly “I want to kill you” there doesn’t seem to be any point to civility.

    • libarbarian

      Moralistic answer to questions about practicality are so fucking tiresome.

  • drahthaar

    No.

    It wasn’t that long ago that the ACLU fought for the right of the Nazi’s to march in Skokie. That is what liberal, patriotic Americans do: they work to allow everyone to express their political opinions.

    Liberal, patriotic Americans also shout at Nazis and protest against them and ridicule them.

    Running up to someone on the street and cold-cocking someone whose political views you find abhorrent is what cowards do.

    Have you people lost your fucking minds?

    Set aside right and wrong for just a moment and consider where your views lead: Why isn’t it okay to beat the crap out of Muslims? Don’t they want to destroy this country? Why not bomb an abortion clinics? They kill babies there. [No, obviously, I do not believe this, but there are millions of people in this country who do.]

    If you will reflect for just a minute you will realize that there are millions of people in this country in the armed forces, in police departments, and owners of private arsenals who find liberal views abhorrent. Do you want to fight it out in the streets with them?

    • Philip

      Set aside right and wrong for just a moment and consider where your views lead: Why isn’t it okay to beat the crap out of Muslims? Don’t they want to destroy this country? Why not bomb an abortion clinics? They kill babies there. [No, obviously, I do not believe this, but there are millions of people in this country who do.]

      This is garbage. One of these groups by definition actually believes I should be put in an oven, while the other does not. It’s not ok to beat up Muslims because most Muslims are not genocidal monsters. Every Nazi is a genocidal monster. Any adult should be able to understand the difference.

      ETA: Also,

      Running up to someone on the street and cold-cocking someone whose political views you find abhorrent is what cowards do.

      “Genocide is good” is not a political position. Fuck off.

      • yet_another_lawyer

        So it’s okay to beat up the bad Muslims but not the good Muslims? When do you plan on starting and how are you going to separate them?

        • Philip

          It’s ok to beat up people literally calling for a campaign of extermination against millions of people. God above, do you people also think there’s no such thing as a war crime because “HOW DO YOU SEPARATE THE BAD SOLDIERS FROM THE GOOD SOLDIERS?”

          • yet_another_lawyer

            By the logic in this thread, there would be no such thing as a war crime because the enemy is “bad.” If Spencer takes up arms against the United States, fine– the military can deal with him. Instead, he was peacefully participating in an interview and talking about a cartoon frog.

            • MPAVictoria

              “Instead, he was peacefully participating in an interview and talking about a cartoon frog.”

              Peacefully chatting about killing me and mine. As one does.

            • random

              Instead, he was peacefully participating in an interview and talking about a cartoon frog.

              These hate-groups picked the cartoon frog in the first place because they knew you’d dismiss and excuse them, then talk about the need to defend their ‘freeze peach’.

              If Spencer takes up arms against the United States, fine– the military can deal with him.

              The guy controlling the military would send them to help Spencer.

        • veleda_k

          Well, do they believe in exterminating all other religions? Because that would be a sign that they’re bad.

          (Seriously, are you comparing Islamophobia to one Nazi getting clocked, and at the same time implying that there are good Nazis as well as bad? What the fuck?)

    • DocAmazing

      If you will reflect for just a minute you will realize that there are millions of people in this country in the armed forces, in police departments, and owners of private arsenals who find liberal views abhorrent. Do you want to fight it out in the streets with them?

      You may not have a choice in the matter. Figure that out now and save yourself time later.

      • libarbarian

        You own a gun? You psychologically prepared to kill another human being?

        If you are going to talk like that, I hope the answer to both is “yes”. Otherwise, you’re just talking shit.

        • DocAmazing

          If you aren’t prepared to literally defend yourself from violence if order fails to protect you, you will be its victim. That’s just historical fact. Ask the Deacons for Defense or the Black Panthers.

          • urd

            You went with the talking shit option, I see.

    • Chip Daniels

      Civility requires that there be boundaries, an acceptable range of views that can be tolerated.

      One of the most effective strategies of oppression is to use the tools of democracy against itself.

      “I want to repeal Obamacare” is within the bounds and should be protected.

      “I want government forces to go to your house and kill you and your family” is not.

    • yet_another_lawyer

      And I’ll second that: An attack like this can very easily end up with someone dead, either the attacker or the victim. One of the reasons the norm against political violence is so strong is that human life is fragile and the corpses can pile up even if that’s what nobody intended to happen. Had Spencer been punched and taken a bad fall, it would have been murder. If Spencer had a gun and reacted quickly enough, the attacker would be dead and it would have likely been justified self-defense. This is not a road any of us should want to go down.

      • MPAVictoria

        “One of the reasons the norm against political violence is so strong”

        Hahahahahahahaaha!

        • Origami Isopod

          No shit. Spot the middle-to-upper class white dude.

      • Chip Daniels

        That’s all very true and well said, however-
        Isn’t there a legal principle of “Fighting words” whereby certain forms of expression are not protected speech?

        That’s kind of what I’m thinking of, where some things are so incendiary that we should rightfully cleave them apart from conventional political disagreement.

        • yet_another_lawyer

          Current law does not have the notion that somebody with “bad” political belief can legally be assaulted.

          To the extent that the narrow “fighting words” or “incitement” doctrines was extended to “it’s okay to beat up people who have ‘bad’ political beliefs,” the majority opinion would almost certainly be written by the current four conservative SCOTUS justices plus 1-2 Trump appointees. I don’t find this prospect particularly appealing.

      • Brett

        Someone still might end up dead, if the puncher is unlucky enough to be identified (or if somebody else is misidentified as the puncher).

      • Snuff curry

        the corpses can pile up even if that’s what nobody intended to happen

        the corpses can pile up even if that’s what nobody intended to happen


        THE CORPSES CAN PILE UP EVEN IF THAT’S WHAT NOBODY INTENDED

        Stop fucking lying

    • MPAVictoria

      “Punching people with horrible beliefs is EXACTLY the same as punching people with good believes! There is no difference between good and bad you morons!”

      • drahthaar

        Sigh.

        In case you have not received word of the recent inauguration of Commander Cheeto, there are literally tens of millions of people in this country who do not share your political views.

        There are millions of people who think that abortion means killing babies. Period. Yes, they are wrong. But if it’s dandy to hit people for mouthing Nazi idiocies, then surely it is acceptable to shoot people who kill babies?

        I can’t believe in 2017 I am having this discussion with an adult.

        • MPAVictoria

          “I can’t believe in 2017 I am having this discussion with an adult.”

          Same. You are basically saying that advocating for the execution of myself, my partner, most of my family and all of their’s counts as “regular” political speech. Well fuck you it doesn’t.

          • drahthaar

            Someday I hope that you will be embarrassed by writing things like this.

            Consider this for just a second: Yes, we all know that Spencer has a long and sordid history of saying or publishing horrible things. But if you watch the interview, it was fairly innocuous. I suppose there is a tiny chance that the masked guy was standing there before the interview and said “Hey, that’s that guy Spencer who has previously called for genocide, so here’s my chance to strike a blow for justice.”

            I’d submit that there was just some random violent asshole walking down the street and he saw Spencer being interviewed and thought “Hey there is a Trump supporter” or someone in the crowd said “Hey, that guy is a racist.” and that was enough to cause the random violent asshole to spring into action.

            The idea that this should be judged as a carefully calibrated reaction to Spencer’s history of statements is just silly.

            Not only that – what’s worse people advocating for the execution of you, your partner and most of your family or people who kill innocent little babies? Hmmm? They are not talking about killing them, they are actually killing them.

            And saying, “But those people are WRONG” is a laughable defense.

            [And to be crystal clear here, again, I do not believe this but millions of people do.]

            • Origami Isopod

              Someday I hope that you will be embarrassed by writing things like this.

              Sure, Grandpa.

              On a serious note, please shove your sanctimony up your ass until you choke on it.

              • drahthaar

                Hey, I’m in San Franciso near Montgomery and Pine Streets.

                Wanna come over and hit me in the head?

                • MPAVictoria

                  No. The difference is you are not advocating and working towards the execution of myself and everyone I love. See how that works?

                • tsam

                  Well, are you a nazi? You think we need to “dispose of” black people?

                • Origami Isopod

                  This was addressed on the previous thread, bucko. Try to keep up.

            • MPAVictoria

              The wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “there is actually zero difference between good & bad things. You imbecile. You fucking moron”

            • random

              But if you watch the interview, it was fairly innocuous.

              No it wasn’t, he was trying to recruit people to kill my kids.

            • Matty

              Given that, if you watch the video, it looks like people are protesting Spencer specifically, I think the chances that he got hit in the face for being Nazi-organizer and would-be genocidaire Richard B. Spencer and not for being J. Random Trump supporter are a little higher than you seem to be thinking.

              Second, what if he were being interviewed specifically on genocides he would like to see happen. Would it be acceptable to punch him them? What if he were introducing two other genocide enthusiasts, to help them form a network to better plan for and lobby to exterminate a group of people including my friends, family and neighbors (and yours, in all likelihood!)? Is it just that, at the moment the elbow met his face, he was gloating about how nice it was to finally get his due and how fun those little frogs were rather than speculating about which races were surplus to requirements?

              • drahthaar

                Even after America got involved in WWII German Bund members were not, generally speaking, beaten in the streets. Yes, many lost their citizenship and some were imprisoned.

                But even when facing actual Nazis it did not become normalized to beat up people holding abhorrent views.

                • MPAVictoria

                  “Even after America got involved in WWII German Bund members were not, generally speaking, beaten in the streets”

                  False.

                  “But even when facing actual Nazis it did not become normalized to beat up people holding abhorrent views.”

                  False.

                • Matty

                  You know, I can’t speak to the German-American Bund specifically (not my area of expertise), but this idea that there weren’t people getting punched in the streets over fascism in the lead-up to WWII is illiterate. You’d do well to acquaint yourself with Charles Coughlin and the Christian Front, and William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts and, more importantly, the opposition to them. You might also look in to conflicts between union members and the American Legion.

                  An environment where random political streetfights are part of daily life is, even for those of us who don’t feel particular angst over Spencer or any other prominent Nazi publishes and organizer catching an elbow, scary and far from ideal, but pretending it’s new and uniquely terrible is a comforting lie.

        • Philip

          An antifa was shot by a white supremacist at UW the same day Spencer was punched in his stupid face. It’s remarkably telling which of these people are more concerned about vis à vis normalizing violence.

        • Warren Terra

          There are millions of people who think that abortion means killing babies

          This is manifestly untrue, for the very reason you cite.

          The same social group that denounces abortion is heavily armed and given to macho posturing. And yet – thankfully – the actual murder of abortion providers is rare. Heck, these people almost never even let themselves get arrested to impede what they claim to believe is widespread murder.

          That shooter at the DC “pizzagate” restaurant may be deranged, but at least he was sincere. He actually believed the vile nonsense, and he stepped up. If even a tiny fraction of the anti-woman political movement really believed abortion was murder we’d see a lot more direct action.

          From this, we can infer that even they don’t really think abortion is murder. They just find it a convenient stick with which to abuse women, particularly poor and minority women they can scorn as harlots.

          • Philip

            +1. Anyone who genuinely believed the US is murdering millions of babies would be morally obligated to violent insurrection.

          • drahthaar

            No millions of people believe exactly that. But most are also lazy and cowards.

            There are millions of people who believe that the Federal Government is a tyrannical force that is seizing people’s land by act/taxes/regulation. Only a few dozen of them showed up at Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

            Closer to home, I don’t doubt that Apple and other large American companies hire subcontractors who employ people to work long hours for very little pay and live in horrible conditions. But I have my iPhone 7, just like everybody else.

          • kvs

            There was quite an extended period of violence against abortion providers in the ’90s along with a doxxing campaign. Which is part of the reason there aren’t many abortion providers now.

            The murders have mostly stopped though there have been a number of bombings and arson attempts since 2000 as well.

        • yet_another_lawyer

          I think this is America’s darkest hour I have been alive for. Even during the worst of the Bush 43 years, the notion of simply assaulting your political opponents was never seriously entertained by the left. If we’ve reached the point where it’s just dueling partisan groups cheering on their “team’s” respective street violence, then we are truly lost. Trump will, eventually, pass. Cheering on street violence against “bad” people indicates a deeper rot.

          • MPAVictoria

            “the notion of simply assaulting your political opponents was never seriously entertained by the left. If we’ve reached the point where it’s just dueling partisan groups cheering on their “team’s” respective street violence, then we are truly lost. Trump will, eventually, pass. Cheering on street violence against “bad” people indicates a deeper rot.”

            The fact that you view Nazis as just regular political opponents and not as an existential threat demonstrates to everyone here your lack of historical understanding on this issue.

            • Philip

              Seriously. “I wish to build a state apparatus of murder in order to liquidate the Jewish population of the world” does not make someone my political opponent! It makes them my literal mortal enemy because they want to put me in a fucking oven.

            • drahthaar

              Okay, you’re trolling now, right?

              People who advocated for massive illegal surveillance, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. did so because “Islamic Terrorism” was an existential threat to America.

              It is not and was not, of course.

              And some loser like Spencer clearly is not an existential threat.

              So you’re joking, yes?

              • Abbey Bartlet

                And some loser like Spencer clearly is not an existential threat.

                Are you familiar with the current White House or

              • MPAVictoria

                So we have to wait UNTIL Nazis are strong before we stop them? Fuck you.

                • drahthaar

                  Oh, okay so you have now sobered up enough to realize that Spencer and his ilk are not an existential threat now. Glad you finally realized that.

                  I think the best way to prevent them from getting strong is to prevent casual violence from becoming the currency of political discourse.

                  So far, today, you’ve done quite a bit to legitimize the tactics and ideology of fascists. You might want to take a break.

                • The left in 1930s Britain didn’t wait until fascists were strong before deploying violence against them. As a result, they never obtained power there. By contrast, you may have noted that actual fascists occupy positions of power within our government right now. Maybe to you that doesn’t qualify as an existential threat, but to those of us who are minorities, it does.

                  But, I mean, if you want to ignore the lessons of history, go right ahead. What was done to Spencer in no way legitimises him or his tactics, though. In fact, it’s quite the reverse. He’s a laughing stock on the Internet and he’s in hiding.

                  Nonviolence does not work in all circumstances. Fascists do not respond to rational argument. They can be cowed by violence. This is a net good for society.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            I think this is America’s darkest hour I have been alive for. Even during the worst of the Bush 43 years, the notion of simply assaulting your political opponents was never seriously entertained by the left.

            You think liberals applauding a Nazi being punched is why this is America’s darkest hour? Are you on crack?

            • Origami Isopod

              Bubbles of privilege are a helluva drug.

            • yet_another_lawyer

              No, “this” referring to the overall situation– not just Trump being POTUS, but the cheering of simple political street violence becoming a bipartisan vice. We’ve had bad presidents before, but nobody who has brought out the worst in everybody the way Trump has. I’m glumly afraid that it’s only a matter of time before we have video of a “bad” person being murdered and then the debate is whether it’s okay to murder a “bad” person rather than simply assault him.

              • Abbey Bartlet
                • delazeur

                  +1

              • kvs

                It’s darker now than when the FBI decided to throw the election to a creamcicle and his white supremacist friends? Or when the news media decided to do Russia’s work?

          • tsam

            I think you’re grossly underestimating the threat neo-nazis represent. I might be wrong, but historically speaking, it’s a bad thing to let them gather in numbers and gain a voice in governments.

          • so-in-so

            Just wait.

            It’s only begun. And it won’t be people on the left driving the darkness.

          • Darkrose

            I think this is America’s darkest hour I have been alive for.

            Must be nice to be white.

        • Chip Daniels

          There are millions of people who think that abortion means killing babies.

          Except they don’t.
          If they actually, truly, honestly believed there was a holocaust of innocents happening, they would use actual violence.

          If you witnessed newborn babies being clubbed to death, would merely write strongly worded letters and vote strategically?

          This is where the rhetorical rubber meets the road.

          When we say that Spencer wants to slaughter innocents, that isn’t some rhetorical flourish intended to dress up an argument.

          It is the literal truth.He really, seriously, would like to kill people.

          I do get the other side here. I also know that is trivially easy for comfortable people like me to airily discuss violence when I know it really isn’t coming for me.
          So yeah, we need to be careful here.

          But people who advocate genocide should be made to feel at least a little bit fearful, hesitant to say those things.

          Civil society does require taboos, Things Which Must Not Be Said.

    • DocAmazing

      We really, really need to get past “when I hear the word revolver, I reach for my culture”.

    • delazeur

      Fuck off. Fellow travelers aren’t welcome here.

    • Nick056

      Set aside right and wrong for just a moment and consider where your views lead: Why isn’t it okay to beat the crap out of Muslims? Don’t they want to destroy this country?

      Comparing “Nazi” and Muslim” is ridiculous, and the people who do so are morons. We don’t shift moral reasoning to keep them grinning.

      This is a little like the Elane Photography argument that requiring a wedding photography business to accommodate gay customers is like requiring a black person to photograph a KKK rally. People might say it, but it’s stupid because “gay person” and “KKK member” are not the same, and making the comparison at all is just another expression of bigotry.

      • Brien Jackson

        And to that end, there’s a theoretical difference between some fascists who maybe have illeiberal, authoritarian goals but aren’t necessarily interested in genocide and NAZIS.

    • kvs

      The ACLU defended the first amendment rights of the Nazis against the Village of Skokie government. There’s a difference between government censorship and private citizens’ freedom of association.

    • Chetsky

      Have you people lost your fucking minds?

      As someone who deep down inside applauds cold-cocking Spencer, even while his more rational brain finds it very troubling, here’s the problem I see with your position:

      You’re right that if we don’t allow all viewpoints to be freely aired, we’re doing a disservice to democracy, and legitimizing others silencing us and our allies. Yes, you’re right.

      BUT. BUT. When the viewpoint is literally eliminationist and literally argues for the silencing of others’ voices (not figuratively — literally) there is a legitimate position that the right reaction is violence. There’s that famous saying about the people demanding a democratic election *one time*.

      It’s one thing to argue one’s position from a point of view that respects the right to exist of your opponent. But if you can’t even respect your opponent’s right to exist, then just exactly why should your opponent respect your own?

      Oh, and also, for those who are thus threatened, what are we supposed to do? Allow him to recruit his minions, until the day when he’s actually strong enough to carry out his eliminationist threats, and THEN we can cry about how the public forum wasn’t enough?

      This seems relevant.

  • Philip

    Edit: hm, reply broke

  • Proud to–as always–be in disagreement with this jerk:

    • JustinVC

      I can’t believe we’re even having this debate. It would be one thing if there was a divergence between political philosophy (in support of free speech and against mob violence for exercising those rights) and brute self interest. But there isn’t, for the reasons you very much express.

      He also thinks that killing people for disagreeing with on sports is wrong, and that it is not okay to detonate nuclear weapons in large cities. Are you proud to be for those things? The idea that because awful people happen to disagree with you, you’re right, is such a lousy form of both rhetoric and logic. And while Cooke is wrong on a whole host of things, he’s very much right here.

      • delazeur

        BSpencer’s position here goes well beyond disagreeing with whatever Cooke says, as anyone capable of reading the original post can see.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      Rightists are always afraid that the Left will come for them after they are done with the Nazis

  • mjosa

    Preferable to punching hippies, IMO.

    • tsam

      Infinitely. Your argument is valid.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      So strange to me that this blog exults in Left punching but recoils at Nazi punching.

      • But it doesn’t. Idiot.

        • so-in-so

          I guess NoMore couldn’t handle being in agreement with so many commenters here.

      • veleda_k

        Oh please.

  • tsam

    How much does Spencer look like Ralph Fiennes in his Amon Goeth costume?

    Just sayin’

  • Abbey Bartlet

    It is not “okay” to punch Nazis.

    It is mandatory.

  • sky

    “Spencer” is not my maiden name.

    So, are you saying Spencer is a Nazi name, and that you weren’t born a Nazi, but married into the party?

    If I were a Spencer, I would be disappoint.

  • Bitter Scribe

    That “Is Black Genocide Right?” essay turns out to be an example of the “White Girl Bleed a Lot” school of “journalism”: String together random incidents of violence by blacks against whites, in this case in South Africa, and use them as evidence that blacks are subhuman.

    The credit line at the end: Colin Liddell is a Tokyo-based journalist.

    I’ll bet he is.

  • JustinVC

    No, it is not okay to punch Nazis who are doing nothing more than exercising basic free speech rights. How on earth did we go from Skokie to this?

    • MPAVictoria

      Counter Point- It very much is okay. And it works.

      • JustinVC

        Yes, we really should be restricting the concept of viewpoint-based civil rights in the age of Trump. Because when these rules are turned into legal principles, it’s going to benefit liberals and not nazis.

        In what alternative reality do you live in?

        • MPAVictoria

          Are you from some alternative timeline where WW2 never happened?

          • JustinVC

            Do you think punching Hitler – which I can pretty much guarantee happened at one point – stopped world war II?

            Do you think that because Nazis are bad, it must automatically mean that punching them are good?

            • Philip

              Hitler literally said the only thing that could have stopped Nazism was violent opposition. Jesus h Christ.

            • MPAVictoria

              “Do you think punching Hitler – which I can pretty much guarantee happened at one point – stopped world war II?”

              Yes. And in fact he agreed with me!

              “Only one thing could have stopped us – if our adversaries had, from the first day, smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our movement.”

              So I take it you retract your idiotic question?

              • JustinVC

                Even if Hitler made that point – he didn’t, as you are misquoting him, and even if you weren’t misquoting him, it doesn’t support the point (it would support a far more gruesome point, one that I would hope we all could abhor, morally), I still wouldn’t agree with it factually.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Then like pacifists who oppose necessary endeavors like World War 2, your very survival is just free riding on others picking up for your warped sense of privilege.

                • Philip

                  Although let’s not smear pacifists. Plenty of Quakers joined up as medics to help fight the Nazis even though they could not themselves do the shooting.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Tbc, I don’t necessarily regard that as pacifism in the absolute regard. Those people were looking for ways to reconcile their views to the fight, while also clearly recognizing that the fight was necessary and looking for a sort of moral loophole to do their part to support it.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      When the Nazis marched on Skokie, they weren’t also in the White House.

      • JustinVC

        So? Is there a rule you can put down where civil rights change based on the viewpoint of the speaker and the viewpoint of the President?

        • Chetsky

          Civil rights? Civil rights? Your civil rights END when you start publicly advocating for me and my kind to be PUT TO DEATH. As Abbey Bartlet put it, this isn’t 1977. The Nazis are at the right hand of power. Or didn’t you notice?

          Again, I think thisb is relevant. When your enemy merely *oppresses* you, perhaps nonviolent resistance makes sense. When he argues and organizes for your elimination, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense.

          It is ALWAYS right to punch a Nazi.

          Also, as somebody pointed out: there is a *difference* between a fascist/authoritarian and a Nazi. Or more precisely, between a fascist, and an eliminationist.

    • Roberta

      Skokie has to be the biggest red herring raised in this thread. Skokie was about the government restricting Nazi speech. I’m against that (though Nazism isn’t just another ‘viewpoint’, and pretending it is makes liberals a fucking joke).

      But I am all for a Jewish person coming out of his house and punching the Nazis marching through Skokie. I’m all for non-Jews punching Nazis. I’m all for any private citizen punching Nazis.

      With respect to the government, we still have enough consistent rule of law that there’s at least an argument that banning Nazi speech threatens other speech. There’s an argument that your freedom protects mine, that we’re all part of the same contract. There’s an argument that (1) the state isn’t to be trusted in drawing a line between Nazi speech and other speech, and (2) that if by law all speech is permitted, including Nazi speech, then non-Nazi speech will have to be permitted.

      But if you’re talking private citizens? Nope. There is no contract anymore. Nazis have ripped it up. I’m not going to hold up my end of the bargain when they won’t. And we damn well have to (re)create a social norm that sharply divides Nazi speech from other speech.

      “But this will mean people can punch liberals/BLM/abortion providers/communists!” Newsflash, they already are.

      “But how can you be a good principled person who condones punching Nazis if you don’t condone punching liberals/BLM/abortion providers/communists???” Because they’re not Nazis.

      • JustinVC

        The irony – the Nazis relied on mob violence – appears missed, but if the government isn’t to prosecute assault in that case, it itself is restricting speech.

        • tsam

          And their victims relied on norms and law and civility and debate to stop them. I’d let them speak for themselves, but a whole bunch of entire family lines are gone forever.

        • Roberta

          Who said anything about the government not prosecuting, if this heroic puncher is identified and caught?

          But I sure wouldn’t turn them in if I knew. It should be treated as on par with an act of civil disobedience: socially supported, legally treated with the absolute minimum of severity.

          • tsam

            This. If I were the guy who smacked that fuck in his ear (AND OMG I WISH I WAS) I’d be perfectly fine with accepting the legal consequences. There’s a higher purpose to what this person did.

      • drahthaar

        The ACLU championed the right of the Nazi’s to march and speak in Skokie. It is not a red herrring.

        “But this will mean people can punch liberals/BLM/abortion providers/communists!” Newsflash, they already are.

        And one of the things that separates moral from immoral people is that they recognize that beating someone for their views is WRONG. It does not depend on whether or not you agree with those views.

        • Philip

          That you believe “killing every Jew and every African American” is a “view,” on the same level as, say, tax policy, speaks volumes about you. None of them good.

          • Origami Isopod

            The most generous interpretation I can think of is that, to drahthaar, this is all a cute intellectual game. Their life is not on the line, nor are the lives of anyone they care for (if such people exist). So, yes, to them it’s just a “view.”

            The least generous interpretation is that drahthaar is a neo-Nazi ratfucker.

      • Brien Jackson

        The Skokie argument is also incredibly and ironically jingoistic: Plenty of other liberal democracies, that are in many ways more liberal than the United States, restrict the right to express Nazi beliefs in public, including at the threat of government sanction. The entire notion of free speech absolutism is very American, and is neither synonymous with nor required for classifying as a liberal democracy.

        • Right. There are more important rights for a democracy than absolute free speech. Indeed, a case could be made that free speech absolutism is not intrinsically helpful to democracy. Are we really more democratic than modern-day Germany? Canada? Sweden? Norway? Some of these places restrict, say, Holocaust denial.

          I’m not a free speech absolutist. It’s easier for people who are middle-class cis/het white liberals to be free speech absolutists than it is for people who are members of marginalised groups. If large enough people start talking about killing my family, I have bigger concerns than their right to free speech.

          • tsam

            The speech I’m looking to express is that Nazis need to understand that some of us WILL kill them. They’d best stick to writing insane shit on the internet, or they will be put down. They need to understand that we’re not going to do this shit again. We need to understand that we’ve been really lucky to have a 40 years of relatively peaceful times in American protests and a relatively weak hard right. Those days are almost certainly over now.

            • Brien Jackson

              Hell, 70 years ago we had to drop big ass bombs that killed quite a few mostly innocent people to vanquish the fucking Nazis to the ratholes they belong in. If shooting some of them in the streets is what it takes this time that’s a huge step up from a utilitarian standpoint!

              • tsam

                ..and a humanitarian one

          • xq

            It’s easier for people who are middle-class cis/het white liberals to be free speech absolutists than it is for people who are members of marginalised groups.

            That depends on how friendly those in charge of speech restrictions are to those marginalized groups.

            • This is true to a certain extent, but it also depends to a rather large extent on what the restrictions themselves are. Countries that criminalise Holocaust denial, for example, probably aren’t going to go deploying those restrictions against minorities regardless of whether the government in power is right-wing or left-wing. Then again, countries like Canada and modern-day Germany also haven’t had leaders like Cheez Whiz Ceaușescu in power. But it’s also possible that their restrictions against hate speech are why they haven’t had such a leader.

              It’s a tricky issue, and there’s no easy solution, but on the whole I stand by the position of “advocating genocide should not be protected speech.”

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          I am agreeing with you wholeheartedly and it is scaring me.

          • Brien Jackson

            Punching Nazis brings people together. We should have more of it!

          • I’m surprised how much I’ve been agreeing with you in these threads as well. Brien may be right that this could be a cause that gets (much of) the left to unite.

            • Brien Jackson

              Not to ruin the good vibes, but just being frank: Sometimes this is why I get annoyed at people like NoMore…: Maybe we disagree on political tactics or policy details, but the last time the left lost track of the relative unimportance of these normal intracoalition disputes…we got Nazis for it! We can disagree with each other, respect our rights to a voice and a vote within the coalition, and simultaneously recognize that we’re still on the same side, and ultimately there are actual evils to be fought. Together.

              • Can’t disagree with any of this either. People are going to have to realise that sometimes it’s necessary to vote for an imperfect politician to keep actual Nazis from obtaining power. It’s a shame more people didn’t realise this last year.

    • Brien Jackson

      You people do realize that the actual endgame of the Nazi-Skokie thing was that the Nazis backed down from marching there because people were going to kill them in the streets, right?

  • VCarlson

    No.

    It’s not OK to punch nazis. Richard Spencer appears to be a terrible person, and he is loudly advocating abhorrent things. Still not OK to run up to him on the street and punch him.

    Yes, all people with an ounce of human compassion and awareness of history find his ideas abhorrent and the apparent acceptance of saying such things out loud and in public horrifying.

    But I’m still with the ACLU defending the nazis marching on this. There are not-insignificant numbers of people who believe Muslims (or liberals, or feminists) are abhorrent for remarkably similar reasons (sad!). Right now, the state power to stomp resides with the friends of the nazis. Do you really want to give them an excuse?

    Richard Spencer has the right to be an asshole in public. I, and everyone else, have the right to point and laugh, and/or point out what a shit he is. Not punch him.

    Philosophical arguments aside, it just plays into the RW “Liberals are the real violent ones” crap. Congratulations. Now they have film to play over and over again, and threads like this one to point at.

    • JustinVC

      I can’t believe we’re even having this debate. It would be one thing if there was a divergence between political philosophy (opposing use of mob violence to prevent the exercise of basic civil liberties) and brute self interest. But there isn’t, for the reasons you very much express.

      • Origami Isopod

        I can’t believe we’re even having this debate.

        Neither can I, but then again some liberals seem to believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

      • twbb

        Yep, every once in a while LGM commenters go off the rails.

    • fd2

      Right now, the state power to stomp resides with the friends of the nazis. Do you really want to give them an excuse?

      The state does not require an excuse. They didn’t need an excuse at NoDAPL to rubber bullet, beanbag, and firehose peaceful protesters. They didn’t need an excuse to deploy tear gas in Ferguson. There are thousands of people ready to invent a pretext to defend any and all violent actions by cops. Punching a nazi, at worst, adds one more bullet to an infinite magazine of ammunition.

      Cops are not restrained by pacifism or by protesting “the right way”. They are restrained by fear of public backlash, and punching a nazi will have very little effect on what is, ultimately, determined not by actions of the protesters but by police choice of targets. The fact that a masked man punched a nazi will not change the fact that the cops cracking down on a march full of white women would provoke public outcry (hence why Saturday’s march had no arrests) and the cops cracking down on a march full of peaceful black protesters will generally not.

      Philosophical arguments aside, it just plays into the RW “Liberals are the real violent ones” crap. Congratulations. Now they have film to play over and over again, and threads like this one to point at.

      Except that they are not “play[ing the film] over and over again”, they are filing takedown requests and doing their best to get the footage removed –

      https://i.imgur.com/gxETOsr.jpg

      because fascist rhetoric depends on power worship and being made to look weak, cowardly and ridiculous erodes their support.

      If a red faced drunk in a bar grabs a beer bottle and advances towards me menacingly, it is not my moral responsibility to wait until he actually cracks it across my head to deal with the matter. Similarly, it is not our responsibility to wait until someone openly advocating genocide of minorities is actually herding them into camps before initiating violence towards them.

  • tsam

    Nazis are murderers. Given enough power and numbers they WILL murder innocents. That’s not hypothetical, they’ve made it clear that those are their stated goals.

    There’s a point where letting them carry on the way they do will cost a shitload of lives. We’re halfway there now. We can put a stop to it or we can let them operate with impunity because we don’t want to look bad for punching one of those fucking animals in the head. Fuck that shit.

    • twbb

      And you think one sociopath whining to the news is the tipping point?

      • Roberta

        It doesn’t have to be the tipping point. It just has to help. Which it’s done already.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alt-right-richard-spencer-punched-anti-donald-trump-protest-meme-pepe-the-frog-inauguration-day-a7541461.html

        He’s scared of it becoming a meme. This is good.

      • tsam

        I have no idea where this “tipping point” is. All I know is that once those pricks are in charge (One of them is in the president’s ear every day now), it’s too fucking late.

        • N__B

          I have no idea where this “tipping point” is.

          Then when you push hard enough on a nazi that he can no longer stand upright.

          • tsam

            You get on your hands and knees behind him and we’ll speed up the tipping point a bit.

      • Chetsky

        Honey chile, that sociopath is YOUR PRESIDENT. ALSO HIS CHIEF ADVISER.

        Crikey.

  • Brett

    I thought it was funny (especially the “Sonic’s rings” version of Spencer getting punched), but the possibility of retaliation concerns me. If (god forbid) they find out who the puncher was (or some innocent person gets accused as the puncher), they could end up seriously hurt or dead.

  • Philip

    Just gonna put a quote from Hitler here, and then a quote from a Holocaust survivor.

    Only one thing could have stopped us – if our adversaries had, from the first day, smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our movement.

    If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests.

    History is pretty clear on what is effective against fascism and what isn’t! Maybe we should learn from it!

    • MPAVictoria

      +100

      Most of the people talking about non-violence here simply do not know anything about the history of Fascism and Anti-Fascism. You cannot have a civilized debate with people who want you and your family dead. The only thing that has ever worked is physically denying them access to public space. If being a Nazis involves being mocked and beaten everywhere you go most people will quit. See what happened to Mosley and his Blackshirts.

      • Brien Jackson

        The fetishization of non-violence in America post-King is really, really, unfortunate. Not least of all because it completely whitewashes the fact that King was able to practice non-violence with success because he was ultimately able to marshal the forces of state violence on his behalf. Non-violence simply doesn’t beat violence. Ever.

        • Origami Isopod

          The fetishization of some non-violence in America post-King is really, really, unfortunate.

          Fixed. Because this country absofuckinglutely glorifies violence… so long as it’s done by “superior” people against “inferior” ones.

          • Brien Jackson

            Touche.

          • Darkrose

            Yes. This.

    • JustinVC
      • Philip

        I’m aware of the other part of the quote, and that they were elevated by conservatives looking to oppose the Left. But hm, wait a second, that sounds familiar. Could it be that conservatives have placed a fascist in the White House, a man whose most senior advisor is an avowed anti-semite?

        Seems a bit late for the “completely ignored and marginalized,” no?

    • Just_Dropping_By

      Except, of course, that fascism was primarily defeated by debate (and ordinary law enforcement tactics — Fritz Kuhn went to jail for tax evasion), not vigilante street violence, in a number of countries even in the 1930s (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc.) and continued to be defeated in the same manner for decades thereafter in numerous other countries.

      • so-in-so

        So, all that marching and flying around making things go “boom” was just for show?

        • JKTH

          With notably rare exceptions, fascism was not defeated using violence.

          • rhino

            Are you shitting me? Remember the second world war? It might have had brief mention in school.

            • “With notably rare exceptions” is one of those sarcastic internets traditions, commemorating Alan Greenspan being a clueless hack. The “notably rare exception” is, in this formulation, always so major that it renders the statement patently absurd on its face.

            • Philip

              “with notably rare exceptions” is an Internet Tradition(tm) making fun of the person ignoring obvious, giant, World War II sized exceptions

              Edit: dammit, too slow

            • so-in-so

              Right, JKTH was seconding my reference to “marching and flying around making things go “boom””, which was a reference to WWII… It did take me a second reading to get to that, the problem of not hearing tone on the internet.

        • urd

          To a certain degree yes, if you asked people in Eastern Europe after the end of WWII.

          In any case, a declared war is a far different thing from going around and beating up those who you find reprehensible and disgusting.

          Tends to set up a precedent where someone might find you to be the person that needs beating up.

          • so-in-so

            To a certain degree yes, if you asked people in Eastern Europe after the end of WWII.

            If they were comfortable living under Nazism, I lack sympathy for them.

            Tends to set up a precedent where someone might find you to be the person that needs beating up.

            Those precedents are already firmly in place. The question is if they think there is too much push-back to do the bating, or they can get away with it. They already know the answer with regard to most black people, now they are pushing to see how far they can go with the rest of us.

            • urd

              Not much on post WWII history I take it? I was referring to the takeover by the USSR which led to another form of government, while not fascism, was just as bad for the people living under it. So while technically fascism was defeated by

              all that marching and flying around making things go “boom”

              I hardly think it was much of an improvement.

              So your solution is to bait them into going even further? Yeah, random violence always improves a situation. It would be one thing if it was coordinated and had an end purpose, but this just seems to be a way for people to get their jollies.

              • Given that the Soviet Union did not try to systematically kill off every single person of Slavic descent, your assertion that the people of Eastern Europe were as poorly off under the Soviets as they would have been under the Nazis is bizarre at best, and outright ignorant at worst. It’s well established that, had he been given his way, Hitler would have wiped every last Slav off the face of the planet. Stalin may have been history’s most prolific mass murderer, but he never had any intention of killing off every last citizen of his country.

                Also, attacks on people who espouse genocide are not “random violence”.

          • Chetsky

            Whaddayez, a single-neuron-disease victim? It isn’t about what I find disgusting or reprehensible. If it were that, we’d be punching every Rethuglican in the country, you moron!

            It’s about Nazis, eliminationists, people who believe that PoC, Jews, and other minorities have no right to *exist*.

            Next you’ll be telling us about how the Civil War didn’t need to be fought.

      • Philip

        This is what the kids these days are calling an “alternative fact”

      • MPAVictoria

        Oh my god you are ignorant.

      • You do realise that the reason Mosley was unable to acquire power in Great Britain is that people physically prevented him from participating in the political process?

        No, of course you don’t realise that. Leave the discussion to people with actual historical knowledge of antifascism, please.

        • urd

          When they show up, please let me know.

      • Warren Terra

        Except, of course, that fascism was primarily defeated by debate (and ordinary law enforcement tactics — Fritz Kuhn went to jail for tax evasion), not vigilante street violence

        This is just staggeringly ignorant. British fascism was absolutely defeated by street violence far more than by debate or by law enforcement.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          But you don’t hear about that because it is inconvenient.

        • DocAmazing

          This was actually Vidal Sassoon’s great moment: before he was a hairdresser, he was a WWII vet who went around kicking BUF asses.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          This is just staggeringly ignorant. British fascism was absolutely defeated by street violence far more than by debate or by law enforcement.

          [CITATION NEEDED]

      • Chetsky

        fascism was primarily defeated

        oboy. That word primarily is doing a lotta work there. And I believe 20m Russian dead wish to have a word with you. They seem pretty angry.

    • Captain Tau

      It’s kind of amazing how ignorant presumably American leftists and liberals are of European history, given that they like to invoke Nahtzees as a bogeyman so often. A major source of popular and elite support for European fascism was the fear of Bolshevism, which had such horrific consequences in Russia. In Germany specifically, the Spartacist uprising, as well as short-lived attempts to establish communist “republics” in some provinces, in the immediate post-war period contributed to a sense of disorder and danger that greatly benefitted the Nazis in their initial rise. Throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, the Sturmabteilung’s street brawls against communists like the Red Front Fighters League made them seem to many Germans a source of stability. The German communist party refused to cooperate with liberals, whom they equated with fascists. Of course, this brilliant strategy ended with the death, torture and/or imprisonment of most German leftists.

      The point being, historically fascists have benefitted immensely from a climate of leftist violence, which they can exploit to appear as a bulwark against it and thus nullify questioning of their own behavior.

      • Philip

        This was true even in countries where there really wasn’t much leftist violence until, you know, fascists started murdering their political opposition. But sure.

  • Origami Isopod

    If you have anal sex the baby comes out the butt.

    Never figured Spicer for an mpreg fan.

  • MPAVictoria

    Do those people talking about “freedom of speech” and “not using violence against those who have politics we disagree with” understand how offence their implication that Nazis beliefs are just regular politics is? These people are agitating, campaigning and supporting the execution of myself (socialist and union member), most of my family (socialists, union members and labour organizers), my partner (black) and my partner’s family (black).

    You are treating these threats to myself and others here as a joke.

    • Origami Isopod

      With a few exceptions, just about everybody concern trolling the punch is highly likely to emerge from the next four years unscathed, or nearly unscathed.

      • urd

        With few exceptions, most people here advocating violence against Neo-Nazis are unlikely to experience the direct results of such incitement.

        • I’m Jewish and queer, and I’m advocating violence against Nazis. Many of the other people in these threads advocating my position, including Origami Isopod and Abbey Bartlet, are also one or both of those. Fuck off.

          • urd

            That’s only part of the equation. It also depends on what social-economic class you are part of, if you are white, etc.

            Please take your simplistic descriptions and fuck off.

            • Actual Nazis did not give the slightest bit of a shit what socioeconomic position Jews held in society or what colour their skin was before hauling them off to the camps, you ignorant fucking asshole.

              • veleda_k

                In case anyone was ever in the slightest danger of taking urd seriously.

              • Brien Jackson

                And to the extent they did, they targeted middle and upper middle class Jews FIRST, with laws against Jewish businesses and Jewish wealth years before the Final Solution was seriously contemplated.

                • ΧΤΠΔ

                  Cf. also: The targeting of “uppity negroes” predating the Civil Rights era.

                • tsam

                  Sure is a lot of convenient ignorance of things like Nuremberg Laws that were instituted in 1935 or so when people need to duck out of sticking up for Nazis.

              • urd

                True, but I’d point out a few things:

                These are Neo-Nazis, not actual Nazis. People keep thinking they are the same; they are not. Both are beyond the pale, vile, and disgusting. Treating them as the same is a mistake.

                Second, I’m sorry are we now living in WWII? While there are still massive issues with antisemitism, the situation is far more complicated than is was during WWII and immediately after it. As an example: certain Jewish groups being very supportive of Drumpf, who himself is supportive of the Neo-Nazis. Please explain this to me.

                Finally, I find it funny that many people up in arms about this seem not at all concerned about groups in Israel now advocating the exact same “final solution” for the Palestinians. Why are you not concerned about these groups and the high degree of influence they appear to have on our government? Shouldn’t they be up for punching as well?

                Appears I’m not the only ignorant fucking asshole here.

                • The fact that you seem to think there is any meaningful difference between neo-Nazis and Nazis tells us everything we need to know about your historical literacy. This is a distinction without a difference.

                  Yes, there are Jews who voted for/support the shitgibbon. What’s your point? The overwhelming majority of Jews didn’t vote for him. Indeed, we’re one of the most consistently Democratic voting blocs out there (IIRC, only African-Americans are more so). There are always collaborators. That doesn’t erase the existential threat that Nazis pose to us.

                  And of course we’re not in WWII yet — but the whole point is making sure we don’t get there. This is exactly why marginalising fascists is so important, and they don’t respond to rational discourse. They respond to violence. If they feel threatened, they will back down. Spencer is now a laughing stock. This is a net good for society, because fascism is about projecting strength, and he looks weak. Nazi Germany didn’t go straight into genocide. They came into power in 1933, and things got systematically worse after that point, but it wasn’t until the 1940s that they began rounding people up into camps. If you don’t see the historical parallels, you’re not paying close enough attention. It is absolutely essential that we prevent things from getting worse, and this means marginalising fascists by any means necessary.

                  I have been a consistent advocate for Palestinian rights. I haven’t brought them up in this thread because… they’re not fucking relevant here. At all. The fact that you’re bringing them up here as if they have any sort of meaningful impact on this discourse is the sort of whataboutery that makes people think you’re a Russian troll.

                • Warren Terra

                  Oh, fnck you. The idea we should have a moment’s consideration for these fnckers because they’re “Neo-Nazis” instead of “Nazis” is just too precious for words. They choose to venerate an emulate the Nazis, for fnck’s sake! You do know the Monty Python “Hilter” sketch was a parody, not an instruction manual?

                • so-in-so

                  It would be funny that someone thought saying “hey, chill, I’m a neo-Nazi, not a Nazi” was a defense, except the idea that anyone intentionally identifying with Nazism is other than reprehensible and beyond the pale of western civilization is both pathetic and frightening. I mean, Nazi has only one meaning in the modern world. It’s meaningless if it isn’t related to the originals.

                • urd

                  The fact that you seem to think there is any meaningful difference between neo-Nazis and Nazis tells us everything we need to know about your historical literacy. This is a distinction without a difference.

                  Wrong. Go back and actually read the bulk of history on a subject, not just the bits that support your pet theories. In this case, failing to understand the difference between the two will cause you to make incorrect predictions on behavior. Which, based on your comments here, is coming through loud and clear.

                  Please don’t tell me you study history for a living…

                • urd

                  It would be funny that someone thought saying “hey, chill, I’m a neo-Nazi, not a Nazi

                  It hardly matters what they call themselves; it matters what drives someone to embrace the Nazi belief system in a world that has already experienced the horrors of such a culture/ideology.

                  It is far more involved than that of course, but to say both groups are essentially the same is to ignore history and cultural context.

                • Philip

                  it may seem that cops are all fucking dumb, bad at IQ tests, etc, but they only pretend to be, to lull crooks into a false sense of security— wint (@dril) August 30, 2016

                • Neo-Nazis want me and my family dead. Nazis want me and my family dead. Any distinction between them is, for my purposes, academic. The fact that you are so hung up on this proves what a cretin you are.

            • Brien Jackson

              Holyfuckingshit!

              • Right? This is like the Platonic ideal of a clueless internet post on politics. It hits so many of the right notes: incomprehensible ignorance of history, blithe anti-Semitism, baffling tone-deafness. All in a few clueless sentences. There should be some sort of corollary to Godwin’s Law for posts like this.

                • Brien Jackson

                  It’s like the most over the top “class not race” parody ever!

                • so-in-so

                  I guess eventually we’ll figure out to stop feeding him.

                • I probably already would have done so, but to be honest, pointing out his idiocy can be cathartic at times. I usually only respond to him these days when he’s making an argument that’s especially idiotic even by his standards, though, because I suspect that everyone who reads this comment section has figured out by now that he never actually writes anything worth reading.

              • urd

                That’s quite the argument, but it’s about what I expect from you.

                • Brien Jackson

                  That’s cool. Clearly I don’t care, and please to not be bringing your leftier-than-thouism around here again. I’d say there’s even odds you’re a Russian troll, honestly. Fuck you and your Holocaust excusing bullshit.

                • That’s cool how you addressed his expression of disbelief and completely ignored his post directly above that contains his actual argument, but it’s about what we expect from you.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Obviously urd believes that the upper class Jews had it coming.

                • urd

                  Brien Jackson, I’ll take my own counsel on my commenting habits, thank you.

                  Then I’d advise against betting on such matters because you appear to be horrible at reading people.

                  Fuck you and your Holocaust excusing bullshit.

                  Where did I excuse, or even discuss, the Holocaust? Feel free to fuck yourself for your weak strawman argument.

                • Right here:

                  That’s only part of the equation. It also depends on what social-economic class you are part of, if you are white, etc.

                  Perhaps it completely flew over your head that the Nazis didn’t give the slightest bit of a shit about Jews’ socioeconomic status or skin colour before they rounded them up into camps, but the rest of us certainly noticed it.

        • LifeOntheFallLine

          What incitement? They’re already as saturated with lethal hate and anger as they’re going to be…just ask those JCCs who had to close from bomb threats since you can’t currently ask Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Clementa Pinckey, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel Simmons, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Myra Thompson…

          • urd

            When Is It OK to Punch Nazis? Always.

            What do you consider that?

            And you know this how? Like stupidity, violence and hate usually doesn’t have a maximum limit.

            While emotionally powerful, listing names does nothing to support you statement.

            This path leads to chaos and more violence. You’d be better off inciting a civil war, at least in that case you might have an end goal of some value.

            • Violence was quite effective at preventing Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts from taking power in Britain during the 1930s, and it also proved quite effective at shutting down concentration camps during the 1940s.

              • urd

                Mosley continued to organise marches policed by the Blackshirts, and the government was sufficiently concerned to pass the Public Order Act 1936, which, amongst other things, banned political uniforms and quasi-military style organisations and came into effect on 1 January 1937.

                On 23 May 1940 Mosley, who was then mostly focused on negotiated peace advocacy, was interned under Defence Regulation 18B along with most active fascists in Britain.

                While I won’t claim violence didn’t help defeat him and his movement, you are certainly cherry picking your facts from history. The British government appears to have taken a very non-violent role in dealing with him. Which I would argue was actually the critical element in his defeat.

                As for the concentration camps being shut down, I assume you are referring to WWII. Funny, I don’t remember seeing any of these “punch a Nazis” discussions actually having an actual goal besides punching a Neo-Nazi. The violence in WWII was to defeat Hitler and the Axis powers. They weren’t going around and shooting random people for the fun of it.

                • It’s a good thing I’m not advocating for the government to take an active role in violence against Nazis then. If I were, then that would certainly have undermined my point. This does not change the fact that physical resistance to Mosley by civilians played a major part in undercutting his effectiveness as a political force in 1930s Britain.

                  The goal of punching Nazis isn’t simply to punch Nazis for the fun of it. It’s to undercut their macho posturing and make them look like clowns. In this respect, Spencer’s being punched has been extremely effective, because it’s become one of the biggest memes of 2017. He is now the laughing stock of the entire Internet. It’s difficult to imagine a more effective strategy for undercutting fascism than emasculating ridicule.

                • urd

                  This does not change the fact that physical resistance to Mosley by civilians played a major part in undercutting his effectiveness as a political force in 1930s Britain.

                  Submitted without a shred of backing evidence.

                  So you think it really undercuts their macho posturing? Will you be saying when a Neo-Nazi, who was punched, comes back and shoots up a mall? A church? Who are you to risk other people’s lives based on your poorly supported theory of how Neo-Nazis, not just Spencer, will react? Some of them are quite unbalanced; I can see your call to violence going horribly wrong and the innocent paying the price.

                  Arrogance.

                • LifeOntheFallLine

                  Of course the listing of names was to pre-emptively answer your “What happens when” question.

                  They’re already doing these things without provocation. They’re already murdering undesirables for the offenses of wearing a hoodie, listening to loud music, welcoming them into their church, not giving them the sex they feel entitled to.

                  You say that violence has no upper limit and you’re mostly right, but if these people can be prevented from forming a critical mass in open society then that will be a good thing. Because right now they’re mostly only lurking on Internet boards jerking each other off and coming out to graffiti playgrounds, schools and synagogues in the middle of the night. But if they’re given uncontested physical access to public space they will escalate because they always escalate.

                  Better to punch Richard Spencer is his face now than sweeping up window glass later.

                • Philip

                  Submitted without a shred of backing evidence.

                  So you think it really undercuts their macho posturing? Will you be saying when a Neo-Nazi, who was punched, comes back and shoots up a mall? A church? Who are you to risk other people’s lives based on your poorly supported theory of how Neo-Nazis, not just Spencer, will react? Some of them are quite unbalanced; I can see your call to violence going horribly wrong and the innocent paying the price.

                  Arrogance.

                  You can’t possibly be this stupid, can you? Do you seriously not know what a Nazi is?

                • I fail to see any meaningful distinction between a Nazi who wants me and my family dead and a neo-Nazi who wants me and my family dead, but the fact that you do see one tells us everything we need to know about your ethical priorities.

                  Nazis will be violent regardless of whether they get sucker-punched or not. If they’re going to be violent either way, we might as well sucker-punch them.

        • Brien Jackson

          LOL, because everyone knows how much Nazis tolerated people resisting and disagreeing with them amirite?

        • Chetsky

          OH fuck off, you fucking fascist apologist.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      Two things:

      (1) Do you think that you are entitled to track down Spencer today and shoot him in the back of the head while he’s sitting in a restaurant eating dinner? If not, how are you drawing the line on use of violence?

      (2) I would expect that there are probably hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, Americans who receive individual death threats each year — not generalized statements about hypothetical systematic violence in the future — but specific “I’m gonna kill you if you come around here again” threats. Do you think the recipients of those threats are all entitled to go out and beat up (or kill?) whomever made those threats against them?

      • MPAVictoria

        “(1) Do you think that you are entitled to track down Spencer today and shoot him in the back of the head while he’s sitting in a restaurant eating dinner? If not, how are you drawing the line on use of violence?”

        No one shot him while he was quietly eating dinner. No one shot him at all. Some brave soul punched him in the face while he was spreading his hateful propaganda.

        “(2) I would expect that there are probably hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, Americans who receive individual death threats each year — not generalized statements about hypothetical systematic violence in the future — but specific “I’m gonna kill you if you come around here again” threats. Do you think the recipients of those threats are all entitled to go out and beat up (or kill?) whomever made those threats against them?”

        I mean you don’t? If someone is making what you consider to be a sincere death threat against you you wouldn’t act? Really?

        Let me ask you a question now; do you think advocating for the murder of myself and my family should be treated as ordinary political speech?

        • drahthaar

          It’s brave to sucker punch someone on the street? You are a pathetic coward.

          • tsam

            It’s still a million times braver than racism, bigotry, sexism and calls for genocide.

          • MPAVictoria

            Do you think advocating for the murder of myself and my family should be treated as ordinary political speech?

            • urd

              And it’s a good idea to advocate random violence as a way to with deal with such speech?

              Free speech means having to deal with vile, evil, and hateful things.

              • Yes, it is a good idea. SASTQ. Street violence against Nazis self-evidently causes them to cower. This is a net good for society and I highly endorse it. Spencer is in hiding right now as a direct result of being attacked. He should be in hiding. Nazis should be afraid to show themselves in polite society. This is how it was before Hair Furore’s election and that is how it should be made again.

                I do not value the idea of free speech for its own sake. There are things that are far more important, such as democracy.

                • urd

                  I’m glad I don’t live in your world. Soft authoritarianism is still authoritarianism.

                  You think you can have a healthy democracy without free speech? You’re fucking kidding, right?

                • I direct you to modern-day Germany and Canada, amongst others. These places criminalise Holocaust denial or various other forms of hate speech. They still look like democracies to me.

                • urd

                  I will have to look more closely at Canada, but I think you will be dismayed that such laws haven’t stopped extremists in that country either. And you need to review the German laws, because it is not as cut and dried as you make it.

                  So your point is we should put restrictions on speech, beyond the extreme forms that are already illegal, and we will have what, exactly? Canada and Germany are having issues with right wing extremists, so it isn’t clear that banning speech like you want solves the problem. But it does restrict speech.

                  Well done!

                • “Having issues with right-wing extremists” is in no conceivable universe the same thing as “being ruled by right-wing extremists”. Would you like to take a gander at what the difference is between the positions of right-wing extremists in Germany and the United States right now?

            • Chetsky

              I think it’s telling that these moral cretins are unwilling to answer your question.

              • urd

                You want an answer? Fine. I go by what the law allows. If such speech is currently not against the law, then have the law changed.

                Until then, you are merely supporting random violence which will solve nothing.

                I think it’s telling that you insult those that don’t agree with you.

                • You’re one to chide people for insulting others.

                  And your slavish devotion to the law above practical resistance to fascism is noted.

                • urd

                  You’re one to chide people for insulting others.

                  What insult was contained here? In any case, if someone is going to result to insults I reserve the right to respond in kind, but I don’t initiate.

                  I see no practical resistance to fascism here; I see a lot of keyboard warriors taking about being violent against repulsive people, with no strategy, no end goal. So my devotion to the law in this case is rooted in the alternative being awful.

                • I didn’t say the insult was contained in that specific post. However, you’ve insulted people repeatedly throughout this thread, and I didn’t insult you once until your absolutely loathsome implication that Clinton voters (whom you repeatedly subjected to blanket condescension for months) deserved the Drumpf administration. I don’t give a fuck if you think that’s an insult or not; given the election outcome is a literal existential threat to my personal safety, I really have no concern whatsoever for your feelings or tone policing after that.

                  If anyone were advocating for punching Nazis to be the only form of resistance, your straw man might actually be closer to the truth. It’s a good thing that people here advocate a variety of tactics for resisting fascism and that punching Nazis is only one of them. You might try reading a front page post here sometime. You might actually learn something. I realise it’s pretty hopeless now, but you may surprise me.

                • urd

                  Please. I’ve not initiated the insults, and I’ve never wished death on those I was disagreeing with. I don’t really care, but I will call you out on your bullshit in making it sound like I’m some horrible person throwing out insults while everyone else is the picture of decorum. You can get of your high horse about my insulting people on this thread and in general, especially with your track record.

                • I realise you’re allergic to facts, but I’m not the one who initiated the complaints about insults here. You are. I have also never wished death upon anyone I disagreed with. I really don’t give a fuck what you think about my insults; however, you don’t get to throw out as many as you have throughout this comment section and then complain when others insult you in kind without others calling you on your rank hypocrisy. I have in no way ever attempted to paint myself as the picture of decorum, either. I certainly am not. However, I did not insult you once until your repeated blanket insults towards Clinton voters eroded the last remaining patience I had towards you. The fact that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for this is not my problem.

    • veleda_k

      Look, the extermination of Jewish and black people (among others) is just an unpopular political opinion. Like, should Jews be murdered en masse? Opinions differ! Let’s have a spirited public debate about it.

      (UGH!)

      • urd

        In light of some of the current discussions regarding the Palestinians living in Israel, you might want to tread carefully here…

        • Brien Jackson

          LOL.

          • urd

            A witty, relevant response. As always.

            • Brien Jackson

              Do what you want cuz a Nazi is free, you are a Nazi!

              • urd

                You really seem to have an issue with self control.

                You might want to do something about it before you do something in real life you can’t undo…

    • LifeOntheFallLine

      Exactly. These people would gladly see me (white) dead for the dread crime of having a Black wife and child who they would also very much like to see dead.

      We can’t Care Bear stare our way out of this one. The idea we should bring Tenderheart Bear while the other side is recruiting Dylann Roof is – for some people – a deadly one.

      • urd

        Then advocate for a civil or revolutionary war and a change in government; for that is what you are really asking for – but afraid to come out and say. Because what you want is illegal under current laws.

        • Oh no, it’s illegal! How will we ever fix society if people don’t obey all the laws? Apparently urd has never heard of civil disobedience.

          • urd

            Yes I have; but most do not consider random, violent acts to be part of any successful, and lasting, civil disobedience movement.

            • It’s a good thing attacks on people who advocate genocide are not random acts of violence then. They are, indeed, very specifically targeted acts of violence, which can be quite effective.

              • urd

                Nope, still random attacks. Unless you are telling me people are organizing on who to attack, and their is an end goal that is reasonable to expect from the attacks, it’s just random people targeting the same type of person.

                And you have still failed to show it’s effectiveness for anything but chaos and discord.

                You can dress it up however you want, but all you are really accomplishing is terror. If you are okay in stooping to their level, then have fun.

                • Targeted attacks on people who advocate genocide are not in any conceivable sense of the word random. Indeed, they could not possibly be less random. The principle is simple: if you advocate for genocide, you get sucker punched. This could not possibly be any less random.

                  As Philip points out, you seem to be ignoring South Africa. Not to mention Britain itself, in which, as I pointed out, physical resistance to Mosley and his blackshirts was a major factor in preventing them from obtaining political power.

                  And in no conceivable universe are we “stooping to their level”, you clueless fucking idiot. They are advocating genocide. We are advocating sucker-punching people who advocate genocide. Your stance is bothsidesdoitism at its most transparently absurd.

                • urd

                  Sure they are.

                  The principle is simple: if you advocate for genocide, you get sucker punched.

                  I take it you would advocate for the various Israelis who support genocide for the Palestinians to be punched?

                  The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa did not employ random violence; it was part of a strategy that also used non-violent means. As far s your British example, it’s no more valid the 10th time than the first. I’ve already exposed why you are cherry picking facts to suit your position.

                  Yes, you are, you arrogant, imbecilic jackass. They go around beating people because of who they are, you are advocating people go around beating Neo-Nazis because of who they are. What they advocate has no bearing on your right to beat them up because those are WORDS not actions. Learn the difference.

                • Yes, I would be perfectly fine with that.

                  If anyone were advocating for violence to be the only tactic used in resisting Nazis, then you might have a sliver of a point there. Luckily for us, none of us have been advocating that.

                  It’s also a good thing I didn’t say that violence against fascists in Britain was the only thing that kept them from obtaining power. Regardless, as much as you try to deny it, it was a contributing factor.

                  I’m not advocating genocide, you fucking imbecile. Nazis are. Are you too fucking stupid to see the difference, or are you being deliberately obtuse? The fact that you are directly comparing me to people who literally want me dead proves to anyone with two functioning synapses what a repulsive, ignorant fuckhead you are. Actions are not the only important factor in determining ethics, as anyone who’s matured beyond a second-grade understanding of the world would know. Goals are just as important. My goals are to prevent genocide. Nazis’ goals are to carry it out. Other than that, we’re exactly the same!

                  On behalf of all Jews everywhere, go fuck yourself, you repulsive shit.

                • urd

                  Yes, I would be perfectly fine with that.

                  Fair enough; at least you are consistent.

                  It’s also a good thing I didn’t say that violence against fascists in Britain was the only thing that kept them from obtaining power.

                  No, but you clearly felt it was the deciding factor when it was nothing of the sort.

                  So you feel, if the speech is bad enough, you have the right to take violent action?

                  Actions are not the only important factor in determining ethics, as anyone who’s matured beyond a second-grade understanding of the world would know. Goals are just as important.

                  False. It seems you failed the second grade. Unless actions are taken in furtherance of a goal, they still do not hold the weight of actions. Using your logic, people could be arrested for actions they never took. People could be executed. For all the talk of how much you hate fascism, living in the world your argument describes wouldn’t be any better.

                  On behalf of all Jews everywhere, go fuck yourself, you repulsive shit.

                  On behalf of humanity that still believes a person is punished based on laws and actions, find help.

                • No, but you clearly felt it was the deciding factor when it was nothing of the sort.

                  It certainly was a deciding factor, much as you wish to pretend otherwise.

                  So you feel, if the speech is bad enough, you have the right to take violent action?

                  Did I stutter? Yes, if people advocate genocide, others have the right to take violent action against them. If people don’t do that, you get Rwanda.

                  False. It seems you failed the second grade. Unless actions are taken in furtherance of a goal, they still do not hold the weight of actions.

                  There is a clear goal in hate speech: to incite racial violence. Which has occurred in this country. Cf.: Dylann Roof. And it certainly has occurred elsewhere. Again: Rwanda. Your ignorance of history is astounding.

                  Using your logic, people could be arrested for actions they never took. People could be executed. For all the talk of how much you hate fascism, living in the world your argument describes wouldn’t be any better.

                  Your slippery slope bullshit isn’t any more convincing here than it was the dozens of other times you’ve deployed it. Criminalising hate speech does not lead to fascism, or else Germany would have reverted to Nazi control. Furthermore, no one is advocating for people to be executed based purely on speech (even the people in this thread who have advocated killing fascists haven’t advocated having the government do it), so you remain every bit as dishonest here as you have been.

                  On behalf of humanity that still believes a person is punished based on laws and actions, find help.

                  Laws aren’t the only way to punish people, nor should they be. Social pressure is an invaluable tool for maintaining social norms when the government fails to do so, and I don’t know if you noticed, but fascists are in government right now. Unfortunately, Nazis have no shame, so simply censuring them won’t work. They do respond to violence, and if violence prevents them from killing me and my entire family, you’re fucking well right I’m going to advocate violence against them. Much as you in your bubble of privilege refuse to accept this, this is literally a matter of life and death for me. If keeping myself alive requires punching a few Nazis in the face, you’d fucking well believe that I’m going to advocate punching a few Nazis in the face. The fact that you’re demonstrating far more concern for the poor persecuted Nazis than you are for my own personal safety demonstrates yet again what a cretin you are.

                  And you still compared me, a Jew, to Nazis, and are completely unrepentant for having done so, so I reiterate: Go fuck yourself, you loathsome sack of shit.

                • urd

                  And you still compared me, a Jew, to Nazis, and are completely unrepentant for having done so, so I reiterate: Go fuck yourself, you loathsome sack of shit.

                  Considering you just reinforced my view that your worldview is only sightly better than that offered by fascism, I am unrepentant. Do you think it is impossible for a Jewish person to have some of the same values as the Nazis did? If so, I direct your attention to what is going in Israel right now.

                  You don’t get a pass on your words, or your incitement to violence, because of your linage.

                  And your insults and ranting do nothing to bolster your case.

                • No, I don’t think that, and I should think the fact that I have repeatedly spoken out about Israel’s actions and explicitly called it an apartheid state should speak volumes as to my mindset. That doesn’t make it any less offensive to compare someone of my heritage to Nazis. It’s the same reason critics of Israel (at least the ones who aren’t anti-Semitic sacks of shit like you’re revealing yourself to be) almost always use “apartheid” rather than, well, “Nazi”.

                  Your belief that advocating provoked political violence is in any way comparable to fascism shows how utterly ignorant you are about history and politics. And yes, I said provoked. All violence against Nazis, particularly from Jews or other groups the Nazis committed genocide against, are provoked. By explicitly claiming the mantle of those who committed genocide against eleven million people, they are explicitly identifying themselves with those responsible for said genocide. It is impossible for violence against a Nazi to be unprovoked.

                  I really don’t give a fuck what you think about my insults. The fact that you’re bothered by them just makes me more likely to continue them, particularly since I didn’t insult you even once until your implication that Clinton voters deserved the Short-Fingered Vulgarian administration. After that point, I really couldn’t give the slightest bit of a fuck about any tone argument you have to offer.

                • urd

                  I find it interesting with your poor cites from history, and foolish beliefs on the workings of politics, that you seek to judge me on my knowledge in these areas. Look to put your own house in order first.

                  I really don’t give a fuck what you think about my insults. The fact that you’re bothered by them just makes me more likely to continue them

                  You give yourself too much credit. They don’t bother me; if anything it shows me that you have lost your temper and ability to intelligently discuss the matter.

                  Rationalize your childish outbursts in whatever fashion works for you.

                • Given that you just commented on my tone without responding to any of my actual arguments, I’d say it’s having a bigger effect on you than you’d like to let on.

                  But sure, I’ll admit I’m a bit irritated. Again: you basically just called me a Nazi. If you don’t understand why I’m irritated, then you understand nothing whatsoever about people.

                • urd

                  Given that you just commented on my tone without responding to any of my actual arguments, I’d say it’s having a bigger effect on you than you’d like to let on.

                  Hardly; there was nothing new to respond to. Frankly, I’m growing bored as you are simply re-starting the same things and getting more insulting with each post. It loses its charm after a bit.

                  Admittedly, I’m not holding up my end of the discussion, so shame on me as well.

                  I understand why you’re a bit irritated; it can’t be easy to have your martyrdom questioned.

                • You have not even once attempted to address the fact that Nazis’ history of genocide makes violence against Nazis provoked, nor have you acknowledged how absolutely loathsome it is to compare a person of Jewish heritage to people who literally committed genocide against six million members of their race.

                  I really have no interest in being perceived as “a martyr”. I have an interest in making sure that I can continue to live safely, and that is threatened by the current administration in a way that is entirely unprecedented in my lifetime. The distinction appears lost on the likes of you, though.

            • Philip

              Damn, I’ll be sure to let South Africa know they’re actually still ruled by the apartheid government.

        • Chetsky

          No, nobody’s advocating for a revolution, becuase IT HASN’T GOT THAT FAR YET. Instead, what people are pointing out, is that part of preventing it getting that far, is to stifle it now. And that stifling it by “convicing arguments” is like spitting in the wind.

          As someone said, once they start herding people into camps, it’s a little late to start fighting back — by that time, the eliminationists *will* have the levers of state power.

          The POINT is to make it clear that certain discourse is out-of-bounds.

          And again: Answer MPAVictoria’s question: is such discourse in-bounds, or out-of-bounds.

          Stop being a coward.

          • urd

            Really, because from some of the comments here, it sounds like it has gone past that stage.

            You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s time for the revolution to come and blood to be spilled, or the rule of law needs to be followed. Make a choice and don’t hide behind bullshit excuses and weak justifications.

            And I will answer you again; if the law permits it is in-bounds. If you don’t like it, change the law.

            • Civil disobedience is a completely foreign concept to you, I see. There is middle ground between BURN EVERYTHING DOWN and OBEY ALL LAWS. Your inability to grasp this is noted.

              • urd

                An answer was asked for, and I gave one. I am under no obligation to give you one you like.

                And I am very aware of civil disobedience, what is being advanced here is hardly that. Stop trying to dress up petty violence as such.

                • Your answer makes no logical sense, and what we are advocating is civil disobedience. Just because it isn’t civil disobedience you approve of doesn’t make it any less civil disobedience. Were the ANC’s violent actions in South Africa not civil disobedience? And again, no one is advocating a campaign of solely violence, but simply for targeted violence (the fact that you refuse to recognise that it is targeted does not make it any less targeted) to be one tactic amongst many of the arsenal we use.

                • urd

                  what we are advocating is civil disobedience

                  Bullshit. You are adovating punching people you THINK are neo-nazis. I didn’t know you could spot them just like that.

                  Were the ANC’s violent actions in South Africa not civil disobedience?

                  Yes they were, because they were part of a larger plan, as I said before.

                  I see no plan here, just weak justification for why it is okay to punch vile people who have broken no laws. Let me know when you actually have a plan and an end goal.

                • Where did I advocate for punching people I merely think are neo-Nazis? This entire discussion is about someone everyone here knows to be a neo-Nazi being punched in the face.

                  If a person starts advocating genocide in public, punch them in the face. If they haven’t, don’t. It’s pretty simple.

                  And there is a plan here, much as you keep denying it. I’m not going to go reiterate all the steps that, say, the ANC took to bring down apartheid, but unlike you, some of us are capable of learning from history. The goal here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is to marginalise fascism in a country where fascists actually control the government. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to see the value of the goal here does not make it any less important.

                  And, again, your concern for the rule of law above your concern for the safety of marginalised people in this country is noted. The rule of law doesn’t provide the slightest bit of protection when the people enforcing it are fascists.

                • urd

                  This entire discussion is about someone everyone here knows to be a neo-Nazi being punched in the face.

                  So there is some perfect way to make sure they are neo-nazis? That’s part of the problem with this whole concept; who is to determine they are a neo-nazi? You? A committee? A leaked news source?

                  The reason I don’t accept the “plan” you put forth is because it is sheer fantasy. You can’t use the ANC strategy in South Africa as an example because you have stated no other elements of the plan that would be used in addition to punching neo-nazis. You have given no evidence as to why this would make fascism go away, except to cite times when the government stepped in. None of this describes a plan, merely wishful thinking that justifies people punching others they hate.

                • Nazis usually make it pretty easy to identify them by the fact that they’re the ones advocating genocide. Maybe you have trouble figuring it out, but it’s not exactly a challenge. If it results in a few people who advocate genocide but don’t actually consider themselves Nazis being punched, I can’t say that really bothers me either. If you try to incite genocide, I don’t really care what you call yourself. You still deserve to be punched in the face.

                  I’m not going to educate you on historical resistance tactics. I don’t give a fuck. There are plenty of front-page posts on this blog with discussions on other forms of resistance. I’ve participated in some of them. You’d rather sit here and punch down at people who are in existential danger as a result of Nazis rather than providing any useful blueprint for resistance. I’m happy to educate people who have demonstrated themselves to be reliable allies with a good-faith interest in learning. Neither of these characteristics applies to you, and there’s no reason for me to waste any further effort on you when (1) you haven’t demonstrated any capability for listening to or learning from the words of oppressed people thus far and (2) I’ve already pointed out the existence of plenty of discussions of other forms of resistance on this blog. That’s more effort than you deserve, honestly.

                • urd

                  azis usually make it pretty easy to identify them by the fact that they’re the ones advocating genocide.

                  Yeah, you’re missing a lot of them then if that is what you are going off of. And how effective is it if you only punch some of them? How will that drive any type of message home?

                  I’m not going to educate you on historical resistance tactics.

                  Please don’t, since you don’t have a good idea on how they really work.

                  And the “people who are in existential danger” bit has already been debunked. Please don’t use the phrase where it isn’t warranted. There are many people all over the world who do face such a situation; it does not apply to the current discussion.

                • It’s not necessary to punch all of them. It’s necessary to punch all of the ones who have the audacity to espouse genocide in public. If they learn that espousing genocide in public will reliably get them punched, they will stop espousing genocide in public. The Nazis were around before Drumpf got elected, but they hid on Stormfront and /pol/ and didn’t pose an existential threat in the way they currently do. People who hide behind a computer screen are not a threat in the way that people who actually control the levers of power in government.

                  And you’re one to accuse others of historical ignorance when you’ve consistently ignored how unchecked hate speech can and has incited violence and even genocide. I’ve cited multiple examples of this happening, and you’ve had no response. You’ve also consistently demonstrated your own historical ignorance of resistance tactics throughout this thread by making blanket statements about the ineffectiveness of violence in resistance movements and then claiming that the exceptions people have pointed out don’t count because violence wasn’t the only tactics they used, as though anyone at all has been advocating for violence against Nazis to be the only form of resistance. And so on.

                  “Existential danger” has in no way been debunked. A synagogue in my hometown (which has a major Jewish population) got swastika graffiti a few weeks ago. This has happened throughout the country. An actual white supremacist is Cheeto Shitgibbon’s chief adviser. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the danger this administration to women and minorities proves how out of touch you are with reality. Nazi Germany didn’t go straight into genocide after they came into power, and if people like you hadn’t been so fucking complacent, they may never have been able to do so.

  • Abbey Bartlet
  • Chip Daniels

    I get tired of the constant appeals to unilaterally disarm, of the fervent desire for a high toned intellectually rigorous public debate, of the insistence that we bring a spork to a gunfight.

    Political fights are often nasty, personal, ugly things.
    The Progressive Era, the New Deal, McCarthyism, the 60’s counterculture, feminism, gay rights.
    All these movements had moments of ugliness to them, and the ugliness was critical to their winning.

    I remember the tail end of the 60’s, and how ugly it was, how personal.
    I also remember how the constant barrage eventually caused people to scrape off the “Love It Or Leave It” bumper stickers, in embarrassment since that faction had become socially toxic.Not just politically toxic, but socially unacceptable.
    People who expressed Wallace type of views were mocked, ridiculed, exiled from respectable society, and yeah, it was ugly and hurtful.

    And necessary.

    • so-in-so

      Guess what – they’re back!

    • drahthaar

      There is an enormous difference between nasty, personal, ugly, ridicule and cold-cocking someone in the street.

      Yes, absolutely do everything possible to show Nazism, Fascism, racism, etc. are ignorant and immoral beliefs.

      But when you embrace hitting people just for saying abhorrent views, you are embracing the ideology of Fascism.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Truly, we are the real racists.

        • urd

          Probably not, but you do yourself no favors by taking on some of their characteristics.

          • Ah yes, the old “intolerance of intolerance is just the same as intolerance” canard. It’s just as bullshit now as it was every previous time it was brought up. I do not tolerate people who advocate genocide. That does not make me intolerant. Quite the contrary; blithely accepting them as a part of polite society as you seem to believe people should be doing is makes you the best possible ally people like them could hope to have.

      • MPAVictoria

        The wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “there is actually zero difference between good & bad things. You imbecile. You fucking moron”

        • drahthaar

          And I guess you see no problem with individuals across this great land of ours deciding which words are bad enough to merit a beating?

          • MPAVictoria

            “And I guess you see no problem with individuals across this great land of ours deciding which words are bad enough to merit a beating?”

            I think it is clear to those of us who are threatened that Nazis are bad and that punching Nazis is good. I think the fact that you see them as regular political opponents whose views are within acceptable political discourse says something bad about you.

          • Brien Jackson

            Whatever you decide won’t stop fascists and Nazis from deciding that anyway.

          • Chetsky

            Answer the question, you coward:

            Let me ask you a question now; do you think advocating for the murder of myself and my family should be treated as ordinary political speech?

      • Chetsky

        Do you REALLY think that Spencer will stop, b/c Jon Stewart ridicules him?

  • Philip

    People had to give their lives for the existence of the fucking weekend, and a lot of ostensibly left people in here are telling us tactical violence against literal Nazis is bad. Unbelievable.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      Liberals are constitutionally incapable of understanding or successfully resisting fascism.

  • MPAVictoria

    deleted

    • Abbey Bartlet

      FYI–if you edit your post and just erase all the text, it deletes it.

      • MPAVictoria

        good to know! thank you

  • urd

    Wonderful.

    And what will you say to those who end up paying for such reckless advice?

  • This humorous Tumblr post seems highly relevant to this thread, and I endorse its sentiments.

    • MPAVictoria

      This was very good.

  • VCarlson

    Richard Spencer is not the problem. The fact that Richard Spencer was being interviewed by a mainstream news organization like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is.

    The fact that Donald J Trump openly advocated for war crimes like stealing oil, torture, and beating up on the “other” and the “news” media just said “oh, isn’t that cute” and continued to give him the free attention he so desperately craved, and enough people were fine with that to get him into (or even close to) the White House is the really big problem.

    How do we stop them? I happen to believe violence only begets more violence. I am looking for ways to effectively stop the Richard Spencers of the world from spreading their poison.

    • Violence does generally beget violence, but in some cases it is necessary to prevent further violence. As pointed out above, one major reason that fascism did not take root in the United Kingdom is that street violence was employed to prevent its doing so. I also take exception with the idea that an attack on an actual genocide-espousing Nazi can in any way be preemptive. Nazis made certain that no violence against them would ever again be preemptive by killing eleven million people in a campaign of systematic genocide. An attack on a Nazi is an act of self-defence.

      I am a strong advocate of nonviolence where it is effective. However, it is not always effective. One place it is not effective is against fascists. Bullies only understand violence, so it should be deployed against them.

      • urd

        And yet you’ve provided little evidence to back this up.

        • You’re the last person to be demanding evidence from anyone, but you may find it illuminating to read leftwingfox’s response at 11:51 am. Humiliating bullies is one of the few guaranteed ways to make them back down.

          • urd

            Oh really? And why is that?

            Humiliating bullies is one of the few guaranteed ways to make them back down.

            Back down against the person they initially targeted. It is also well known they find other, easier, targets. And the violence they dish out is usually more.

            • If it happens to them once, maybe. This is why it needs to happen repeatedly. The goal is to make Nazis no longer feel welcome in polite society. Or at least, that’s my goal; you don’t seem to give a shit about it. That has certainly been accomplished in the past; as has been pointed out several times, Nazis ultimately opted not to march in Skokie because they realised that doing this would put them in personal danger. Reestablishing the sort of society where this is the rule would be a net good. You may not give a shit about that, but as it is a literal matter of life and death for me it is by far my biggest concern – certainly more important than rote bullshit about how terrible it is for those poor genocide advocates to be punched in the face.

              • urd

                Sigh…they have already been through periods of not being accepted in polite society. And what exactly did that do? Some would argue it made them even more virulent, violent and aggressive.

                So no, I find your plan flawed and dangerously mis-informed on how current neo-nazi groups work.

                • “Some would argue” that without supplying the slightest bit of evidence to back it up, perhaps. Given that no one was punching prominent Nazis in the face during the run-up to Drumpf’s election, I think it’s something that could be worth trying again.

  • so-in-so

    It’s interesting that a post about punching Nazis bring to light a whole crew of never-before-seen concern-trolls. Wonder how that works.

  • MPAVictoria

    I will note that not one person has responded to my simple question. Do you think advocating for the murder of myself and my family should be treated as ordinary political speech? I, and many other people on this thread, do not.

    • drahthaar

      First I will note that you have avoided answering lots of questions upthread.

      But I will answer your question: If someone is proposing that you and your family should be murdered, if it is a credible threat then there are criminal penalties to address the situation.

      If someone is standing on a street corner saying, “I think that all muslims/blacks/jews/steelers fans should be rounded up and shot”, then Yes, that is ordinary protected political speech.

      • MPAVictoria

        “First I will note that you have avoided answering lots of questions upthread.”

        Which?

        “If someone is standing on a street corner saying, “I think that all muslims/blacks/jews/steelers fans should be rounded up and shot”, then Yes, that is ordinary protected political speech.”

        Of course though Spencer isn’t just randomly saying this on a speech corner. He is organizing and planing to make it happen. Thank you for admitting you are a piece of shit though.

        • drahthaar

          Here’s just one of the questions you avoided:

          “(1) Do you think that you are entitled to track down Spencer today and shoot him in the back of the head while he’s sitting in a restaurant eating dinner? If not, how are you drawing the line on use of violence?”

          No one shot him while he was quietly eating dinner. No one shot him at all. Some brave soul punched him in the face while he was spreading his hateful propaganda.

          —-

          After you answer that for real, I note that you think I am a piece of shit. Cool. You could call me “subhuman” or “swine” next. That is the path you are on.

          • MPAVictoria

            “You could call me “subhuman” or “swine” next. That is the path you are on.”

            No I won’t because I am not a Nazi. See how this works?

            • drahthaar

              I notice that you still didn’t answer the question posed to you upthread.

              • MPAVictoria

                I did. No one shot this guy. And no one is talking about shooting him.

                • drahthaar

                  Are you really and truly so fucking stupid that you can’t recognize the purpose of a hypothetical question?

                • Are you really so fucking stupid that you need people to explain the difference between sucker punching a guy and shooting him in the back of the head? Being okay with one doesn’t magically make you okay with the other. If someone advocates shooting the guy in the head, then sure, it’ll be a relevant question. Thus far, as far as I’m aware, no one (at least here) has.

                • drahthaar

                  Responding to CassandraLeo

                  First, thank you for taking a stab at answering the question that MPA Victoria has ducked several times.

                  And, yes, I am not terribly bright apparently since I would like you to explain the difference to me between hitting someone in the head and shooting them in the head in this context.

                  If someone’s views are so vile that they represent an existentialist threat to your very existence (as MPAV hyperventilatingly argued above) then why in the world is it enough to just land a glancing blow and let them walk away? Spencer is alive and well and right now spreading his brand of hatred just like he was a couple of days ago.

                  And if you will look down to Mr. Loomis’ post that started the whole “It’s cool to punch Nazis” theme, you will see that there were folks there advocating use of metal (not wooden) baseball bats on people like Mr. Spencer. Mr. Loomis himself advocated kicking him a few times in the ribs. So this isn’t some wild-eyed hypothetical I have just created. The distance between “It’s okay to punch people who say bad things” to “It’s okay to kill people who say bad things” is actually a pretty short one an its already been well trod in this very blog.

                • My position is simple. If you express hate speech, then you get subjected to nonlethal violence. If you start actually trying to carry out a genocide, then you get subjected to lethal violence. And Spencer may still be alive, but he’s also in hiding and he’s a laughing stock on the internet. That’s a pretty good outcome, I’d say.

                • drahthaar

                  Again, for Cassandra Leo –

                  If by “in hiding” you mean pumping out scores of tweets just like he as always done, then you are right. He’s even more internet famous today than he was before.

                  I see that you are advocating only “nonlethal violence” against people like Spencer. So whacking his knees with a baseball bat is cool, just don’t hit him in the head where you might kill him?

                • I was very clear about my meaning. I‘m not exactly sure why you need me to clarify. I’m not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.

                  “Famous”, yes, for being punched in the face. This is not exactly a public relations triumph for him. He’s also flat-out said that he is not willing to go out in public right now, if I’m not mistaken. That severely undercuts the macho image that underscores all fascist ideology. On what conceivable planet is that not a victory?

                • Gator90

                  Either drahthaar is trolling the thread for perverse amusement, or he/she is an actual Nazi sympathizer.

                  Nobody intelligent enough to spell that many words correctly could honestly fail to perceive the distinction between lethal and non-lethal violence. (But just on the off chance that you really don’t get it, drahthaar, I’ll give you a hint — it’s a big fucking difference. That’s why the Holocaust is kind of, you know, a thing.)

                • drahthaar

                  For Gator90

                  If the line being drawn is that “non-lethal” beatings are permissible, that means it’s okay to bust his kneecaps. Done. Anything short of death is fine and dandy.

                  All of this reminds me of Mr. Woo’s and Mr. Cheney’s defense of torture because waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and beatings did not cause “permanent harm” or “organ failure.”

                  Congratulations, you are peas in a pod.

                • We’re not advocating to have the government attack Nazis. It is not my fault that you cannot see the distinction.

                • Gator90

                  drahthaar: You’re having too much fun. Perverse troll or actual Nazi sympathizer? I’m leaning toward the latter.

            • drahthaar

              This is priceless.

              “You are a swine” – why that is the way Nazi’s talk.

              “Go fuck yourself you piece of shit” – well that is reasoned discourse worthy of protection.

              • Origami Isopod

                Clutch those pearls a little harder, you sanctimonious product of anal-gland expression.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Since I don’t recognize that handle at all prior to this thread, let alone participating with this vigor, I’m going to assume that the fuckwad is a Nazi troll.

                • veleda_k

                  I was thinking the same thing, Brien.

                • urd

                  Since I don’t recognize that handle at all prior to this thread, let alone participating with this vigor, I’m going to assume that the fuckwad is a Nazi troll.

                  This person doesn’t agree with me…he must be a troll!

                  Pathetic.

                • It’s more “this person is posting constant apologetics for Nazis, so he’s probably a Nazi”, but thanks for playing.

                • urd

                  It’s more “this person is posting constant apologetics for Nazis, so he’s probably a Nazi”, but thanks for playing.

                  Really? Well which is it? Am I a slave to the rule of law or posting apologetics for Neo-Nazis?

                  You really need to make up your mind.

                • Learn to read. I didn’t call you an apologist for Nazis. I called drahthaar an apologist for Nazis. But fine, you’re also an apologist for Nazis. Happy?

                  They are not mutually exclusive accusations. The Nazis had a rule of law. Evil, repulsive laws, but laws nonetheless. Your deference to law above all other principles indicates a severe ethical deficiency that is frequently found in followers of authoritarian systems. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

          • MPAVictoria

            Also hard to claim the moral high ground when you just admitted that working to kill myself and my family is acceptable political action.

          • McAllen

            Comparing a Jewish woman who thinks you are a piece of shit to Nazis who think Jewish people are subhuman is repulsive, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

            • Origami Isopod

              The self-righteous high dudgeon and condescension with which drahthaar has been conducting themselves today — serving, of course, to thinly veil the poverty of their arguments — does not indicate much capacity for shame.

              • McAllen

                If I had been on the fence about whether punching Spencer was OK this thread would have pushed me to support it, just based on who’s arguing for it and who’s arguing against it.

                • Concurred. The sheer ignorance and flat-out insensitivity of the people arguing against it has also been quite a major reinforcement to my position.

                • so-in-so

                  Add that to the fact that we get two posts on punching Nazis and a several brand new names pop up to tell us repeatedly we are liberalling all wrong. Seems suspicious.

                • Origami Isopod

                  There are a few exceptions to that for me, but overall I agree with you.

        • drahthaar

          Here’s just one of the questions you avoided:

          “(1) Do you think that you are entitled to track down Spencer today and shoot him in the back of the head while he’s sitting in a restaurant eating dinner? If not, how are you drawing the line on use of violence?”

          No one shot him while he was quietly eating dinner. No one shot him at all. Some brave soul punched him in the face while he was spreading his hateful propaganda.

          —-

          After you answer that for real, I note that you think I am a piece of shit. Cool. You could call me “subhuman” or “swine” next. That is the path you are on.

          And here’s a bonus question for you: As I cam out of BART this morning, there was a guy sitting in the tunnel yelling about “All the fucking white people should die.” And “I’m going to rape you all in the ass.” Would it have been okay for me to punch him in the face? Does it matter to you that he is a deranged, homeless guy? What if he was clean cut and giving an interview? Okay then?

          • MPAVictoria

            “Would it have been okay for me to punch him in the face?”

            No. Unless he was the well known face of an fascist organization and was giving a speech/interview trying to raise recruits so he could come and kill me and my family. Then yes. Punch him.

            • drahthaar

              I see. Okay to punch well know fascists. Not okay to punch lesser known fascists. Got it.

              • MPAVictoria

                Or even don’t punch people who you don’t know to be fascists but punch those who you do know to be fascists?

              • tsam

                Here–I’ll give you something to cry about.

                No fascist has a right to live. As long as their core ideology consists of ridding society of people who are just trying to get by in life, then they have no business being alive. The historical record makes that painfully clear.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Gonna admit: If someone shoots Spencer in the head, I’m not gonna lose a second’s sleep over it.

                • tsam

                  Me either. And I ain’t no fucking chickenhawk either.

                • rhino

                  I will contribute to his legal defence, in fact.

                  Death to fascists.

                • urd

                  With that viewpoint, you might find yourself getting punched in the face.

                  But you’d be okay with that, right?

                • Shorter urd: advocating for people to be killed because they want to commit genocide and actually advocating for genocide are exactly the same thing.

                  (e: that might not actually be shorter, but it’s definitely more honest)

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  For the record, I’m okay with urd getting punched in the face.

                • tsam

                  Who’s gonna do it? You?

                • “If you meet urd on the side of the road, punch him.” -Buddhist proverb (maybe)

                • Origami Isopod

                  You know those punching machines in really old cartoons, with a wheel full of mechanical arms and a boxing glove on the end of each? And the character is strapped into the seat and gets punched over and over by the rotating arms? I’d be all for urd’s useless ass getting strapped into the seat.

                • N__B

                  You know those punching machines in really old cartoons,

                  Has Acme run out of anvils?

                • urd

                  For the record, I’m okay with urd getting punched in the face.

                  You’re more than welcome to come and try it.

                • urd

                  Shorter urd: advocating for people to be killed because they want to commit genocide and actually advocating for genocide are exactly the same thing.

                  (e: that might not actually be shorter, but it’s definitely more honest)

                  Yeah, about as honest as your British fascism example…

                • You seem to think that advocating for people to be punched in the face for advocating genocide is comparable to advocating for people to be punched in the face for advocating the deaths of people who advocate genocide, so it logically follows that you think that advocating genocide and advocating for the deaths of people who advocate genocide are also comparable. I’m not surprised that you’re trying to walk back the implications of your statement, though. You always have been a dishonest little shit.

          • Sure, I’ll bite.

            “(1) Do you think that you are entitled to track down Spencer today and shoot him in the back of the head while he’s sitting in a restaurant eating dinner? If not, how are you drawing the line on use of violence?”

            There is a doctrine of sufficient force. The object is not to kill him, but to demonstrate that some behavior is not acceptable in society. Hitting him demonstrates that in a way that killing him does not. If nazis get punched enough, then they’ll stop spouting their genocidal crap.

            In fact, at this point, killing him could be counter-productive as we don’t need him being martyred.

            Now, were he to scale up to actually escorting people to death camps, then absolutely, kill him.

            So yes, there is a difference between the two scenarios, for clear reasons.

            In the meantime, fuck ’em, they’re nazis.

            • Chetsky

              This. This.

              drahthaar: the outcome was *excellent*. Spencer wasn’t kneecapped (you cretin) — he was sucker-punched. He’ll survive, with no significant damage, except to the things that matter: his ego, his public image, and his aura of power.

              It’s great, BTW, to see how much of an apologist you are for Nazis. Clarifies things.

              ETA: somebody asked upthread whether you were a fool or a Nazi. We gots our answer.

            • urd

              And I’m sure you’re expert enough in the use of force to hurt someone, but not kill them.

              You obviously have no clue how easy it can be to kill someone with one blow and not even intend to. Let me know when you’ve actually been involved in real combat.

              • I’m not saying it would be a good thing if someone accidentally killed a Nazi while merely intending to sucker-punch them, but you’re demonstrating far more moral concern here about that unlikely possibility than you’ve ever demonstrated about the literal genocide they’ve explicitly said they want to perpetuate against my people (and have carried out in the past). So, you know, congratulations on being a cretin.

                • urd

                  Oh, so now physical violence is equal to someone talking about wanting to commit genocide?

                  My moral concern, in this situation, is with actions and not words.

                • No, they are not equal. I’ve been quite clear in my stance that nonlethal physical violence against people who advocate genocide is more acceptable than advocating genocide.

                  Your distinction between words and actions is meaningless. Do you think the Rwandan genocide just happened out of nowhere? It was incited in large part by words.

                • urd

                  So the Rwandan genocide was committed by words? Oh, that’s right; it was actions that ended up causing it.

                  And as I’ve said before, which you continue to conveniently ignore, is that there are always actions that lead up to larger goals. While ignoring the rhetoric of genocide didn’t help, it was the lack of action against the early stages that allowed the genocide to occur.

                  You still seem to have a poor grasp between words and actions.

                • Did I say that the Rwandan genocide was “caused by words”? No. Events have more than one root cause, but if you wish to be that reductive and simplistic about it, the Rwandan genocide was caused by millions of people killing millions of other people in a systematic act of genocide. However, those millions of people almost certainly wouldn’t have been incited to a flurry of violence without systematic provocation through repeated hate speech. This is not rocket science, and your response to this reveals your sheer ignorance of history.

                  And I’m not the one arguing for ignoring the intermediate steps that lead to genocide. Indeed, I’m advocating specific steps to make sure this does not happen. Meanwhile, you’ve been criticising one of those steps (punching Nazis in the face) without providing a single constructive solution of your own. I can only conclude that you don’t give the slightest bit of a shit whether a genocide recurs – which, from the attitude you’ve demonstrated towards Jews in this comment section, would already have been obvious even without the clarification.

              • As I said before: fuck ’em, they’re nazis.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      We need to regulate and restrict right wing hate speech. It is that simple. Freedom of speech absolutism is foolhardy.

      • MPAVictoria

        Here in Canada we do. The sky has not fallen.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          It is just sad that we will probably have to go through a powerful homegrown fascist movement before we learn the lessons that Continental Europe and Canada have already minded.

          • urd

            learn the lessons that Continental Europe

            The same Continental Europe that is moving back towards fascism in certain places?

        • urd

          Hasn’t got rid of the fascists either.

          • They’re not in power in Canada, are they? ‘Cause I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they are in power here.

            • urd

              No, but they appear to moving towards that.

              Canada over the past couple of decades has been following the worst excesses of the US; sadly this also appears to be the case in their politics.

              • The same country that just elected Justin Trudeau? That Canada? That’s the country you’re worried about “moving back to fascism”? Not the one that just elected Donald Trump? Christ, every time I think your priorities can’t get any further skewed, you prove me wrong.

  • Lord Jesus Perm

    It’s telling that Richard Spencer getting punched in the face is what got a bunch of hit dogs to holler, but here we are.

    As long as (some) liberals treat genocide as a mere difference of opinion and not an existential threat, we’re going to have people continuing to put on Superman capes for an open and unapologetic racist.

    • “Mere” (and for that matter “opinion”) are words that haven’t been coming out of Murc’s mouth (just to name one person who certainly is not a troll, whose participation in this group of threads I’m assuming—correct me if I’m wrong—you’d describe as a hit dog hollering or a liberal putting on a Superman cape) and wouldn’t have come out of mine if I had been participating more than the smidgen I have.

    • drahthaar

      As long as (some) liberals treat idiots rambling on about genocide when there is no realistic threat that said idiots have any capability to actually carry out a genocide as a mere difference of opinion and not an existential threat, we’re going to have people continuing to put on Superman capes for an open and unapologetic racist.

      FTFY.

      • I’m not sure if you noticed, but an actual white supremacist is Tangerine Torquemada’s Karl Rove. If you think that neo-Nazis have no access to the levers of power in this country, you are completely delusional.

        • Philip

          But that would mean America isn’t protected by magic democracy pixie dust!!

        • drahthaar

          If you don’t think there is a difference between Steve Bannon and Spencer in terms of access to the levers of power, you are the one who is completely delusional.

          • I suppose it flew completely over your head that Bannon and Spencer are fellow travellers. Spencer doesn’t need a position in government to be an existential threat to society. He’s already represented by people who have said positions.

            • drahthaar

              Spencer is an actual existential threat to society?

              hahahahaha

              But bonus points to you for using “fellow traveller” unironically and in the sense that paranoid red-baiters used the term when rooting out commies.

              • Right back at you. Spencer invented the term “alt-right”. Bannon described Breitbart as “a platform for the alt-right” and he is now Herr Gropenführer’s chief political advisor. The fact that you are too much of a fucking moron to see the connection and the threat this poses to people like me says more about you and your priorities than I could possibly say myself. Take your Nazi apologetics and shove them up your ass.

      • This appears to rest on the assumption that there is no way that neo-nazis could ever come to power and carry out their program in this country. Because unless we make that assumption, waiting until said idiots actually have the capacity to carry out a genocide before treating them as a threat seems a tad complacent. I mean, the regime we have now is already white supremacist and a serious threat to many.

      • Brien Jackson

        There’s not a chance in God’s blue hell I’m going to wait until Nazis have the capability to perpetrate genocide before I violently resist that goal. Fuck you right the fuck off.

        • urd

          I find it likely you would use any excuse to condone violence.

          Fuck off indeed.

  • As I suggested on a previous thread, Spencer already has the protection of the law. He doesn’t need well-meaning liberals agonizing over whether it was ok for someone to punch him in the face. There are laws against assault, should he choose to press charges. If his concern is that running to the authorities to protect him doesn’t make him look alpha enough, I really have no sympathy. Nor do I personally condemn the assailant, although, should he be charged, he should pay the penalty of the law. The rule of law must prevail.

    But the rule of law is also based on violence. You just try to get the state’s use of legal violence to be as just as possible (and it’s far from being so in this country, as BLM reminds us). If those neo-Nazis who were threatening to march through Spencer’s hometown with guns to intimidate the local Jews were to follow through on their threat I would not want the police to wait for Kristalnacht to be reenacted before making it clear that they would use violence on the neo-nazis to stop it.

    I generally abhor violence, but certain realities must be faced. Non-violent campaigns of political resistance have worked when uses of state violence to repress them tarnished the “liberal democratic” self-images of the states responsible (United States and the UK in India). They would not have worked against the Nazis in Europe for reasons that should be obvious. And they would not work against the likes of Spencer here if they were ever to get into power. The trick is to make sure they never do because once they do there will be plenty of violence.

    Is street violence effective against far right movements? It’s said that it was effective against Owsald Mosley in the 1930’s and the National Front in the 1970’s (both in the UK). On the other hand, there were plenty of street fights between Nazis, Communists and Social Democrats in Germany in the early 1930’s, and in that case the willingness of other parties to form their own paramilitary wings did not prevent the rise of the Nazis to power. So I wouldn’t rely heavily on street thuggery to clip the wings of far-right political movements.

    • urd

      As I suggested on a previous thread, Spencer already has the protection of the law. He doesn’t need well-meaning liberals agonizing over whether it was ok for someone to punch him in the face.

      I think this misses the point. Some people here are having an issue with advocating punching any and all Neo-Nazis in the face.

      And you can justify such actions however you want, but random acts of violence encourage more violence and never offer a permanent, lasting solution.

      Even in this thread, you now have people escalating to the level of advocating for the death of all fascists. If nothing else, it shows that people have let their passions overrule their minds on the subject, with disastrous results.

      • kvs

        Antifascists aren’t in search of permanent, lasting solutions. Those don’t exist which is why they’re committed to remaining vigilant.

        Nazis certainly were hard at work on crafting final solutions, though.

  • JdLaverty

    I think that one of the reasons Richard Spencer is a Nazi is that he didn’t get his ass kicked on a regular enough basis when he first started promoting violent fascism. I certainly believe in freedom of speech and rule of law, however I also think people like spencer should be frequently reminded (with the back of a hand if need be) that their racist screeds are not socially acceptable.
    This video made me very happy.

    • Gizmo

      This is one of the most entertaining threads that I’ve seen in a while. All of these upstanding folks making exceptions to the accepted norms of non-violence. I’ve concluded that I’m one of them, too. I approve.

      One salient fact about Nazis is that they are believers in, and historical practitioners of, political violence. Punching Spencer on a street corner in front of a camera, while not within law, is political expression of the type that Nazis generally approve of. I suspect thats whats makes this whole thing so entertaining. Spencer and his ilk don’t often get pushback in a language they understand.

      The Nazi’s weren’t mere political opponents. It took war to stamp that ideology out.

  • (((Malaclypse)))

    I say this all the time on death penalty threads: the point is not about whether murderers deserve to die (or Nazis deserve to be punched). The point is about what sort of person we want to be, and what sort of actions we want to be responsible for, rather than what they did.

    • so-in-so

      Clearly, a a lot of people are okay with being “person who punches Nazis”.

      Less worried about than the number of cops who are okay with being “cop who shots unarmed black person”. Or “politician who tells millions they get no health care”.

    • Brien Jackson

      If the Nazi is locked away in a jail cell in state custody, I do not think he should be punched or otherwise physically assaulted.

    • tsam

      Finding myself being in the morally dubious position of being the most radical crazy bastard in this discussion, I’m perfectly comfortable with being known as a guy who’s willing to erase someone who wants to erase a race or religion or ideology. That’s the kind of person I want to be–I would be proud if I saved even one innocent life. I’m not going to claim I’m right about this, maybe I’m not. I wouldn’t know if I were. But I do know that The Holocaust is in living memory. There are still survivors, and still people who lost limbs, hearing, eyesight, mental health, and friends and family in the fight to stop those subhuman fucks. What kind of gratitude does it show to wring my hands about the life of someone who is capable of and openly advocates for committing those kinds of atrocities again?

      • so-in-so

        Scratch a holocaust denier you ALWAYS find someone who thinks it was a good idea. This guy doesn’t even deny anything, he just things it’s a pity we stopped it.

      • Brien Jackson

        Nazis aren’t subhuman. That’s just the thing; I don’t base my endorsement of violence against them based on the identity that they’re fundamentally less than me. NAzis are people who have made the choice to believe that other people ought to be exterminated simply by fact of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I endorse violence against Nazis as a means to protect the innocent people Nazis would choose to exterminate.

        • tsam

          Good point. I might be telling myself that they’re subhuman to feel better about openly talking about killing them. There’s still a part of me that doesn’t like hearing that come out of my own mouth. But if things got so bad that a bunch of innocent people get murdered, and I did nothing (even if it’s nothing more than taking a few of them with me to hell), well, I’d rather be dead than live with that.

  • EBT

    So, am I still in permanent moderation for saying it’s OK to punch Nazis?

    • Warren Terra

      So far as I know, all comment moderation here is automated – you can spew the most hateful nonsense and it’ll get posted immediately. An attentive front-pager might remove it later, but manually, and without it ever being moderated.

      The moderation triggers I know of, here and elsewhere, are usually the use of too many hyperlinks in one comment (more than two?) or the use of certain words – possibly some profane words, but also words frequently used in overenthusiastic marketing campaigns on the internet. Some sites will moderate comments if they’re of truly epic length, or even reject comments if you’re making too many too often.

      • Philip

        Yeah, considering some of the shit our less, er, subtle trolls have spewed, I don’t think even racial slurs trigger auto-moderation here.

  • sullivan2day

    Hilarious. bspencer was probably howling in anger whenever a protester got roughed up at a Trump rally, but it is fine to punch someone you disagree with!

    • tsam

      What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

    • Philip

      I’m gonna take a page out of MPAVictoria’s book and just match these people with dril tweets now.

      maybe sometimes both sides… are good and bad at the same time??? im sorry if im doing this wrong. it is difficult to write— wint (@dril) October 20, 2014

  • Darkrose

    Spencer is apparently afraid to go outside now.

    Welcome to my world you nazi motherfucker.

  • Captain Tau

    (Reposting from the other thread because it’s equally relevant here)

    Richard Spencer is a Nazi. Not because he himself describes his political philosophy as Nazism, or because he advocates invading other countries and/or committing genocide, but because he believes in an ethno-state for his people. Therefore, he should be randomly physically attacked for his political views.

    Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali, two of the all time greatest American heroes, believed for at least substantial portions of their respective lives in the creation of an ethno-state for their people, therefore they are also Nazis who should have been subjected to random physical attacks.

    Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin believed in the creation and existence of an ethno-state for their people, so therefore they are also Nazis.

    The mainstream political position in Japan is that Japan should be a Japanese ethno-state, so therefore the vast majority of Japanese citizens and politicians are Nazis. If you see a Japanese tourist or diplomat walking down the street, feel free to randomly attack them.

    Franklin Roosevelt presided over a US with an immigration policy (as per the Johnson-Reed act of 1924) based on preserving racial homogeneity (which is Richard Spencer’s main policy proposal.) Therefore, Franklin Roosevelt was a Nazi.

    Abraham Lincoln supported the transformation of the US into a white ethno-state, like Richard Spencer, through the voluntary mass emigration of blacks for the vast majority of his political career. Therefore, Abraham Lincoln was a Nazi.

    George Washington presided over an immigration policy codified in the 1790 Naturalization Act that limited naturalization to “free white persons of good character”. Therefore, George Washington was a Nazi.

    • Captain Tau

      And, regarding the “black genocide” thing:

      1) Spencer didn’t write the piece in question, wasn’t editing alternativeright.com at the time of its publication, or for that matter ever subsequently endorse its content, so it’s nonsensical to attribute its argument, whatever the quality, to him. As he said on twitter, it’s really not his style.

      2) If you had actually read the article in question, you would have realized that Liddell wasn’t writing a case for black genocide, but rather attempting to raise awareness of racially motivated hate crimes against white South Africans through a (clumsy) ludicrous and satirical premise. Much as how in A Modest Proposal Jonathan Swift wasn’t actually suggesting that cannibalism was the solution to Irish poverty.

      3) Liddell followed this article with one asking “Is White Genocide Right?”, so I guess by your evidentiary standards Richard Spencer must also consider whites an inferior people worthy of destruction. I mean, the very title calls for white genocide, right?

      • dl

        [punches Captain Tau]

    • kvs

      This is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read in the thread. If only because when libeling FDR as a Nazi, you should probably go for the most obvious comparison: his administration put people in concentration camps because of their ethnicity.

      • bw

        It isn’t libel to Captain Tau because he’s proud to be a Nazi.

  • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial

    I changed my name to “Punch Nazis” a couple of days ago because punching Nazis is a cause I believe in with all my widdle heart.

    Of course you do, because you lean authoritarian, and of course you also announced this to the world, because you have narcissistic tendencies.

    bspencer’s gonna b-spencering, #stayathomefeminist