Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Fighting against military occupation is not particularly unlawful. German occupation of Poland was illegal.
Keep in mind that there's a difference between fighting lawful combatants and fighting people who simply agree with them.
Here's a good metaphor: imagine if the US army decided that it should kill random civilians in the Middle East simply for agreeing with the actions of ISIS. That'd be wrong, am I correct? Or, should we go after their families?
edited 12th Feb '17 3:40:06 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
Well, yes, but I'm not talking about killing anyone. I'm talking about decking them.
I mean, it'd still be wrong because unlike the person who decked Richard Spencer, they're citizens in uniform and have a specific code of military justice set up specifically to protect their rights and the rights of the people in the country they're committing war crimes in occupying at the time.
You're also kind of hanging yourself by your own logic insofar as the US occupation of Iraq, as far as the international system is concerned, is no more legal than the German occupation of Poland.
If an Iraqi citizen decked another Iraqi citizen for explicitly supporting and (making money off of) advocating the policies of Daesh or similar organizations, would that be objectionable?
edited 12th Feb '17 3:42:10 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.I like the way my friend put it: you shouldn't punch a Nazi until they've crossed the line where they deserve to be shot.
When a Nazi invades or occupies your country or orders peaceful protestors shot at or the court system dismantled or stuff like that, anything is fair game in the name of self-defense. Till then, we have a variaty of "punching" options that don't involve violence. The courts, the media, the dissent of blue states, those defenses are still intact...so far.
That doesn't mean I have any sympathy for any Nazis that do get decked though.
edited 12th Feb '17 3:57:44 PM by Elle
Being overly soft on peddlers of hate after the Civil War is precisely why we're in this mess in the first place. As I've said before, Trump's victory is the culmination of a sentiment that has existed within the United States since its inception. He and his supporters aren't really Nazis, so much as they are Confederates. They've spent over a century working to undermine our government in their favor, and the GOP's Southern Strategy was their opportunity.
The Civil War never truly ended. It just got quieter.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@Tactical Fox 88 : Oh, Fuck. Oh, FUCK. If the NSA, CIA, and SIGINT in general are freezing out this regime...this is going nowhere good, fast.
edited 12th Feb '17 5:24:42 PM by ViperMagnum357
Given how badly Trump has ignored the various intelligence agencies so far, I'm kind of not surprised.
RE: Punching Nazis; Yeah, here's the issue. Just decking a guy is viscerally satisfying. It's wonderful to see such shit going down. BUT IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. If anything, it gives them fuel for their arguments. Arguing whether or not they deserve it is pointless in the end, because it doesn't shut them up, doesn't prove them wrong, doesn't make them a laughingstock in the eyes of the mainstream public. If anything, seeing them goes down makes them look sympathetic to many, seeing as these attacks happened when they were just talking. Hell, the question is the wrong fucking question in the first place.
Stop debating whether or not punching Nazis is ok. Start debating whether or not it actually helps you achieve the long term goal. Start discussing what does help us achieve the long term goal, because newsflash, punching guys you don't like doesn't change the laws or the views of the society we live in.
I think it was those couple of times last week??? But people are still heavily debating the morality of such an action. I lean towards not moral myself, as we aren't currently in a war and neither instance was a case of self defense or defense of another person; the Nazis in question appear to have been taken by surprise, and in Spencer's case it seems like it was one of those black bloc types that did it. I'm not sympathetic to these guys but a thing doesn't become ok just because they're done to the enemy.
Also yeah, that sure is a thing happening in California. Unfortunately they literally cannot afford to shut the water off and fix it because the other option will potentially lead to eroding the entire hillside or overflowing the dam since they've actually had some more than decent rain this year.
I don't approve of unlawful assault either. But arguing that it will "make them look like they have a point" isn't right. The Right Wing won this round thanks to the electoral college AND right wing people who have nothing bad done to their side feeling like they are "persecuted" because they can''t persecute anyone else. Since the right wing government is nice and cozy with white supremacists already the nazi punching isn't gonna effect that.
That was a general statement about the mainstream public thinking they might have a point. Anyone who posts here is unlikely to think that. But they can definitely take a few unlawful assaults and spin them endless in their favor.
Let's face it, the right has got the media game down, even in this age of rapidly changing technology. Democrats and other folks on the left need to up the media game.
Back in the 30s, before we entered WWII, people thought that Captain America and Superman punching nazis was amazing. They saw punching nazis as a patriotic duty
So while you talk about how it's immoral to do it, I'm gonna keep cheering on the people who are attacking those monsters. Maybe it's because my grandfather was in a concentration camp, but I don't think that nazis deserve to be talked to with respect. I think they deserve to be hit, mocked, ridiculed, and kicked out on the streets.
I'm pretty sure that the confederates got beaten physically plenty, the problem was the refusal to properly challenge their ideas and educate their population away from such ideas.
It takes more than physical violence to defeate an ideology, physical violence is certainly required at times.
Fascism wasn't defeated by punishing every Nazi we could find, it was defeated by punching the Nazis until they were stopped from punching us, then we taught them to not be Nazis.
We need to second part, we have to educate people away from Fascism, not just keep hitting them in the hopes that we can beet the Nazi out of them.
The second part of defeating fascism is regularly ignored by the Anarchy brigade, I suspect because they don't actually care about defeating fascism, they just want to feel morally superior while punching someone, the same way prisoners who shank rapists do.
Morality can be tied to productivity, if one is doing something counter productive and thus harmful it's more likely to be immoral than if someone is doing something productive and thus helpful.
edited 12th Feb '17 7:55:17 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Smokey: Whether or not they deserve it isn't the question, because obviously they do. But what Ace of Spades said is true in that it just proves their "point" that they are the ones being persecuted. Then they go complaining about it on Twitter or Facebook or what-have-you, and in the eyes of not only the right, not only the alt-right, but possibly even the uninitiated who haven't really chosen a side, for lack of a better term, we come out looking like the bad guys.
Besides, Captain America and Superman are comic books. AFAIK, no one back then had actually punched a nazi. And if they did, there was nowhere they could go to tell a mass audience about it in an instant while going "bawww woe is me".
edited 12th Feb '17 6:26:40 PM by PhysicalStamina
i'm tired, my friendThere was an article that made a good point that tolerance is not a moral concept as much as a peace treaty. In theory you want to live alongside diverse individuals and buy/sell with them and exchange pms and cups of sugar rather than gunfire.
Therefore, its not hypocritical to shun or suppress an idea directly advocating destruction of that peace and promising a future of exploitation.
On the practical end, it's not like people wave the Stars and Bars as a welcoming sign. I find no problem in a systematic removal of Nazism and Neo-Confederate legacies from our discourse. As for punching though, I'd stick to propaganda wars. More permanent if delayed satisfaction.

As it is, I still think (part of) the point stands. When the law is explicitly stacked against you, and more likely to side with the white supremacist who believes that you do not have a reason to exist because the highest judicial office in the country is organized by a white supremacist...why should you have any faith in the rule of law?
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.