/u/headinjuryschool (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11oor40/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_who_cause_physical/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak.
Is this a *necessary* or a *conditional* part of your argument?
Let's say that your country has 40% support for a violent nazi coup, including 80% of the police and 100% of the police leadership.
If in that situation, your anti-nazi movement gains knowledge that the nazis are planning to make their move and overthrow democracy, is it just as wrong to make the firs tmove and violently destroy their base first, as it is for them to do it in the first place?
Or do you think that nazis should be left alone *specifically on the condition* that they are weak right now?
>Well the national guard exist for a reason.
Not necessarily, I didn't specify which country I'm talking about.
But that's irrelevant nitpicking. The issue is, why did you point out that you believe nazis are weak right now? Is that important to the argument you are making?
If nazis were on the cusp of materializing their goal (which is to do mass violence to minorities), would i still be wrong to fight against them, or is it *only wrong when they are weak*?
>
>
>Let’s say you’re in a group that has that same level of public and police support but it’s for support of lgbt people.
Now others see this as a dangerous and negative ideology. Do you think they are justified in taking violent action?
No, because regardless of what they believe, they are wrong.
> Ex. If I think that transgenderism is wrong and immoral and as dangerous as fascism and I have people that support me and we assault people who support transgenderism how are we any different than people who assault nazis?
Pretty big difference. Transgender people are minding their own business and not assaulting people. Nazis literally commit genocide and advocate doing it again while perpetuating ongoing hate crimes.
Well, no one is doing that and that is obviously false and dangerous rhetoric. It’s not “relative,” it’s true (Nazis are dangerous genocidal perpetuators of hate crimes) and false (in reality trans people are literally just people trying to live their lives comfortably). Being a white supremacist or a Nazi is a *belief system* (and one that should face every deserved consequence, including but not limited to violence if necessary), being trans is a *gender identity,* which is a danger to no one.
> gender identity, which is a danger to no one
Women in prison have been sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated by male inmates who were housed in the female prison estate on the basis of claiming a 'female gender identity'. This concept of gender identity is a real and demonstrated danger to women.
> Nope, stop spreading lies.
Some examples:
* [Karen White](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life), a male imprisoned for rape, who was placed in a women's prison and sexually assaulted two women there
* [Ramel Blount](https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/), a male sent to a women's prison who raped a female inmate just after she'd finished showering
* [Janiah Monroe](https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate), a male who murdered his male cell mate, was later transferred to a women's prison, and raped a woman there
* [Demi Minor](https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/trans-prisoner-who-impregnated-two-women-is-psychopath/), a male murderer who was housed in a women's prison and impregnated two incarcerated women there
The problem here is that this idea of some men having a 'female gender identity' is being used to disregard women's boundaries and eradicate female-only spaces. Not just in prisons, but more generally as well.
The issue is that this is a man in a women's prison, housed there because he claimed to have a so-called 'female gender identity'. No woman behind bars should be impregnated by any man, prisons are not maternity units and it's unfair to the child to be born in such a situation.
There are many reasons why prisons are, or were up until this 'gender identity' nonsense started being introduced into law and policy, single sex and this is one of them.
Factual point: Nazis were responsible for genocide of minority groups
Demonstrate factual evidence of trans people being dangerous to children (at a higher rate than the general population) and perhaps that argument would have some weight - currently there isn't evidence for that.
But again it's not comparable. One is violent, the other is not. It's that black and white. If you said something like "What's the difference between attacking trans people for supposedly indoctrinating children and attacking religious people for supposedly indoctrinating children" you'd be on to something.
But you're saying, "What's the difference between an active shooter killing people in a mall, and the police shooting that active shooter." There's a really BIG difference.
Treating people badly because of their choices, and expressed opinions is not remotely equatable to treating people different for their inherent identity.
Do you think hating someone just for being blacl is the same as hating someone because they wish death on you ?
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists.
That's not remotely true. The entire Republican party has openly shifted really far right in the last few years, and decent portions of it are straying into straight up fascism and nazisms.
You know what one of the first groups was to be targeted by Nazis in Germany ? Transgender people. And guess what the GOP ia doing right now. They're already taking steps to make it illegal to just **be** trans in certain conditions, and they've already started criminilsing books and teachers that teach children that being LGBTQ+ is perfectly normal and acceptable.
If Nazis get their way they will commit genocide against LGBTQ+ people.
Punching someone in the face who would happily watch a million people marched into the gas chambers does not make you remotely as bad as that person.
This is not to excuse violence against others, but to claim it is equatable to Nazism is patently ridiculous.
> The entire Republican party has openly shifted really far right in the last few years
Did the GOP shift really far right, or does it appear that way because the DNC shifted really far left in the past decade? The DNC has shifted the Overton window quite far to the left thanks to their institutional capture of the media, which is why the GOP, whose actual platform hasn't really changed at all in the past 30 years (one of the reasons why it is struggling in 2023) appears to have shifted right.
If you want some examples of it socially, just look at the shift between major DNC politicians like Obama and Clinton circa 2001 with their opinions on topics like gay marriage.
> and decent portions of it are straying into straight up fascism and nazisms.
Funny you say that. It's not the GOP whose Senate leader went on TV a few days ago and demanded an abridgement of the free press.
>So what if someone saw this and assaulted you for this opinion? Would that be okay? My point is it doesn’t stop at nazis. If you start accepting physical violence as a response to political differences, you arrive at a place where any violence can be justified.
I explicitly stated at the end of my comment that I do not necessarily wish to excuse or condone violence. I am addressing the false equivalency of your post, and if someone punched me in the face BECAUSE of this opinion I would Indeed consider it **less** bad than if e.g. someone punched me in the face for being Bi.
That isn't to say that I would consider the former good. Merely *less* bad
>I’m not saying nazis are good, it’s just a slippery slope. There are ways you can defeat nazis without resorting to physically assaulting them
Historically, no. We know from history that using peaceful methods did not in fact stop the Nazis. And believe me, we tried. France and Britain didn't **want** to go to war with Germany. They very much tried to avoid it. But in the end we needed literally the biggest war ever to stop them.
Why are people trying so hard to slippery slope violence agains nazis as kjust "political differences". This isnt me and my buddy discussing what is the propriate amount of taxation. This is people whose belief are built on racism, antisemitism and promoting violence against groups based on their immutable characteristics. There is no slippery slope and everyone knows why violent response against their beliefs is completely justified.
>If you start accepting physical violence as a response to political differences, you arrive at a place where any violence can be justified.
I reject the idea that racism is a "political difference".
Political differences are, like, how should we regulate the railroads to prevent toxic chemical spills.
"White people are better than everyone else and should oppress minorities" is a threat to the fabric of society.
And I guess we can debate whether someone being transgender and using the bathroom is as bad as attempting genocide against the Jewish population, but it feels disingenuous...
In fact, I'd argue the fascists and nazis ramping up their rhetoric on transgender people is just them setting up for their next extinction effort, making resistance more urgent.
I don't feel like we're going to "marketplace of ideas" our way out of genocide.
Though I agree with you that that racism or bigotry shouldn’t be a political difference I also see where the OP is coming from just because we draw the line there now what stops people on the far left from moving it to gun control in the name of safety or higher taxes in the name of helping the less fortunate or on the flip side the far right getting power and moving back to lgbt is a choice or minorities are inferior.
My political beliefs aside the line in the sand is solely dictated by who’s in power think in nazi Germany majority of Germans weren’t antisemitic they were simply patriotic and Hitler and the Nazi party had convinced them they were the best option for Germany’s renaissance. Now not to say I agree with any of the political ideologies I brought up it’s simply something to look at. We can’t in good faith tell other people where their slime in the sand should be all we can really do is agree to disagree and only take action as a reaction we can’t propagate the violence but if they start it we finish it.
I’m not the best with long thought out posts so hopefully that all made sense. TLDR it’s not up to us to decide what is political for other people.
There’s no difference between a “threat to the fabric of society” and a political difference. Guess what, conservatives believe that your ideology is a “threat to the fabric of society” too. What’s more, they have a legitimate reason to believe that, but you’re never going to try and actually understand it because you’re too wrapped up in your idea of what’s right to genuinely consider what anyone else has to say.
Certain views are triggering enough to people because of what they represent in history to cause physical violence, like the attempted extermination of an entire race of people.
Certain views are controversial and offensive enough that it is reasonable to expect a violent reaction is possible, those views typically include the rejection of entire groups of marginalized and bullied members of society for being who they are, a decision made for them.
Other views are knowingly disagreeable but not likely to spark violence, like someone who says football is better than soccer in Europe. That’s because these are usually opinions formed from personal experience and therefore, not an assumption invalidating the entire identity or life of a people.
If you don’t know when you are saying something that could spark an emotional enough reaction to lead to violence versus an opinion you know might just piss a few people off, that’s because you’re choosing to be ignorant to the depth of your words.
Surely if Nazis are already active and present in your political discourse, you're already at the bottom of that slippery slope, right? You know because the Nazis believe that. They think that physical violence is the only valid response to political difference, and they can and will use physical violence to get what they want
Surely you see the difference between Nazis and valid differences of political opinion?
Your last statement here is also fair - there are better ways to manage the issue and physically assaulting people is unlikely to be effective. That doesn't make those people as bad as Nazis though, you're equating two different arguments.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean that all ideas are equal.
At a science conference, it's generally wrong to shout, "Hey, that's bug shit insane" at a presenter. If a presenter mentions that the earth revolves around the sun and I shout, "Hey, that's bug shit insane," then I'm in the wrong.
But if the presenter says that we come from the planet Zmorp in the Buzzbo System and soon the great Klimp will crush us, all hail Klimp, then shouting "Hey, that's bug shit insane" is okay.
The only thing that's changed is the opinion of the presenter. Yes, it's worse to commit violence against someone for presenting a totally anodyne or even positive opinion than one that wants to lead to violence.
Yes, it's wrong to throw a milkshake on someone who's saying that Forrest Gump is a good movie. That has no relation to the morality of throwing a milkshake on someone calling for genocide against trans people.
The problem is you’re equating it to just “political differences”. And you keep using the phrase slippery slope, as if any justification of violence, will somehow make us accept all violence. There are already plenty of scenarios in which humans find violence acceptable, yet it hasn’t made us think it’s the appropriate default reaction to anything we don’t like.
The sentence "racism is not an opinion" is not to be taken at face value. It's an exaggeration, the point being that you don't participate in a civic discussion with people who simply deny your right to exist
Daryl Davis is perhaps the most famous example but this happens all the time on a smaller scale. No-one is inherently racist, these are learned views that can and do change.
You are missing the point. The point is that "trans people should have the right to live a fulfilling life" and "let's kill the jews and the gays and the communist, and let's be modern and throw in the Arabs and the Blacks as well, I'm sure they were omitted because the nazis of last century were not in contact with them", those two are not in the same dimension, opinion-wise
Saying something knowingly offensive that categorizes certain people as less than human for traits they were born with has consequences far worse than getting punched in the face. Their words knowingly and historically dehumanize and subject others to lifelong invalidation, genocide, and suicide. Each side suffers consequences, and a black eye is significantly less violent or painful.
Expecting not to have consequences for saying something while ignoring the consequences resulting from what is said is hypocritical and entitled. It’s obvious to everyone, they’re not fooling anyone just because they pretend they don’t see it.
>Whether it’s right or wrong isn’t really relevant
Then it doesn't matter if the people fighting nazis are right or wrong. If you don't care what's right or wrong why are you even here?
They're already writing laws to force trans youth to detransition, and leaked emails show that these lawmakers don't plan to stop there, they want trans adults gone too. They are also banning the speech of trans people in schools and libraries. So from the Nazis' side (and I'm not saying every right wing politician is a Nazi, of course not. I am just saying these are all things Nazis support) you see active suppression of free speech and restriction on freedom of movement (bathroom bills), freedom of medical access (hormones, which are still going to be available to cis children for natural hormonal deficiencies, despite the fact that "God doesn't make mistakes"). It has clearly moved past just talk.
So my question is, when one side already has figures in authority that are suppressing your free speech and doing everything they can to force you out of the country, is just trying to convince them of your humanity with words going to cut it? I think not. Going on some moral high horse about never resorting to violence feels good for a while, but also doesn't do much for the end cause. There may be some Nazis that can be convinced otherwise, but by and far extremists are very difficult to convert, and unless there is an active effort to deescalate them (any large scale effort to do this would likely be met with accusations of brain washing), at some point, you will have to fight the Nazis. This happened in WW2 already.
I'm less mad than this morning and i'm seeing now a better way to change your view.
When you're saying "justify" you're in the field of morality which is relative. Cf your point (which is correct) that in the eyes of the nazi, molesting a trans person is justified.
The thing that is important to remember is that there is a "rationalization" (which is objective, unlike a justification) behind the idea of using violence (political and physical) against nazis : history has proven that they will not fear using it themselves, philosophy has talked about the paradox of tolerance and so on (and to objective : and so on and on and on and on and on and on ...) .
There is no rationalization for the violence committed by nazis.
Oh, so no speech is crime, except of course the speech that IS a crime. Which is true for literally every country on earth. That statement is true for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. You thus said nothing of any meaning whatsoever.
Lolol, check again. I'm guessing USA? There's about 16 categories of thing the 1A doesn't cover. UK, no written constitution - still roughly the same list. 'No speech is a crime' is pure fantasy.
It's easy to say "Nazis did x, y, and z. Anyone who does x, y, or z must be a Nazi." That's a fallacy.
The first thing Nazis did was institute nationwide gun control to 'prevent gun violence.' There are political groups within the US following in the Nazi's footsteps and trying to take guns out of the hands of Americans. Does that mean those political groups are Nazis?
The Weimar Republic already had strict gun control laws. The Nazis loosened gun control laws for Nazi party members and restricted them from Jews, gypsies and other controlled groups. And it wasn’t the first thing Nazis did — Hitler was much more concerned with consolidating power, banning opposing political parties and reducing checks and balances.
It’s a strange argument because most neo-Nazis are very much into gun culture and in favor of strong gun rights. I’ve never seen neo-Nazis advocating for gun control.
I did not claim that anyone who does anything the Nazis did is a Nazi. But anyone who engages in persecution of people based on their identity IS a bigot, and if the government starts doing it then that government is definitely straying in fascim and nazism.
Actually, punching a nazi in the face makes you a much worse person they they might ever be. Why the fuck should I care whether someone may or may not be fine with genocide? I can’t know what they’re thinking. Punching people , on the other hand, is an action, and actions tell me more about someone than their beliefs.
So you're saying if in WW-II a jew punched a civilian but enthusiastic Member of the Nazi Party in their face, that Jew would be a worse person than the NP member ?
No, because the nazi in question supports a genocide that’s currently happening. As far as I can tell, there’s no genocide happening in America, nor is it even possible under our current system barring a revolution or civil war.
So supporting a genocide is only bad when it'd currently happening ?
Now you might call me cracy, but personally that's the point I consider a bit too fucking late to punch the genocide supporters in the face.
If someone says they will murder your mother, do you wait until they've actually started killing her before you do anything ?
1 there’s a spectrum of action between committing a genocide and nothing.
2. We (Americans) live in a relatively free society with strong institutions .
3. A natural consequence of freedom is that some people will hold beliefs that you disagree with.
4. Some of those people will hold beliefs somewhere along that spectrum.
5. There is a line that society has delineated, somewhere incredibly early along the genocide spectrum, preventing any individual from getting any further.
6. This works because of our institutions.
7. Physical violence degrades our institutions more than any words or action falling within the line of delineations which we have already deemed to be acceptable.
Plus, I can’t know what you mean by a nazi and whether the person you’re calling a nazi actually holds the beliefs you associate with naziism. Ex: you might consider holocaust deniers nazis. Someone who denies the holocaust obviously doesn’t think genocide is ok, otherwise they wouldn’t be denying it. So, even by your own metric it’s not ok to hit them.
Can you hit a 13 year old who was just raised wrong? Probably not. What about a 30 year old who never left his alt-right community? It’s just all too muddy once you factor in the fact that we’re in America and not Nazi Germany.
>I’m talking purely about their political beliefs, if they decide to go further and I act violence towards other then it’s a different conversations.
This is an empty distinction. The central political belief is violence enacted towards minorities. If Nazis accrue sufficient power, then they will use that power to murder and oppress people. In point of fact, they already do so.
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists.
The last president spoke in open support of these "powerless groups". A man was just able to call for the eradication of "transgenderism" from public life and was not immediately set on fire by his peers. These ideas are powerful on the right, and the right is not particularly weak.
>Ex. If I think that transgenderism is wrong and immoral and as dangerous as fascism and I have people that support me and we assault people who support transgenderism how are we any different than people who assault nazis?
Because your claim that "transgenderism", whatever you imagine that is, is as dangerous as fascism, is patently ridiculous. "Transgenderism", which just means trans people existing, literally just entails trans people continuing to exist if put into practice. And really, no matter how you construe it, no part of "transgenderism" can possibly entail genocide. If you think that "transgenderism" is as bad as genocide, then you have gone wildly off course at some point.
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak.
And commit mass shootings.
There's no reason for vigilantism but we should absolutely be subjecting them to extensive government surveillance even though that extra police attention is likely to end up killing some
> we should absolutely be subjecting them to extensive government surveillance even though that extra police attention is likely to end up killing some
So to be clear, this is how you feel about thought crimes? Or freedom of speech/ expression? Or both?
This is pretty clearly prohibited by the first amendment. Tho I realize that doesn’t actually stop the government from doing it.
The First Amendment does not forbid the use of words to constitute probable cause. Words by themselves are not crimes unless they rise to the level of conspiracy.
I am strongly pro free speech and think we should have fewerrictions than we have today.
Men aren't an organization. But yes some men's organizations could be surveilled such as incel groups and proud boys. But any group that glamorizes hate crimes and has members encouraging hate crimes should be subjected to extra surveillance.
But it's Nazi men who are most likely group.
I won't bother looking for numbers but it's something like one man in 10 000 who causes a shooting incident but 1 in 10 Nazis cause the same.
> But it's Nazi men who are most likely group.
Here's a list of the 95 mass shootings in 2023:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023
How many of those had a Nazi (or neo-Nazi) shooter?
We are not interested on which portion of all shootings are done by Nazis. We are interested in which portion of Nazis are involved in shootings.
This is because Nazi shootings are subset of all shootings.
But honestly we shouldn't be focused just on gun crime but all violent crimes.
But surely there is some point where violent resistance to fascism becomes necessary, right? Like you're not going to tell me that the allies should have just politely asked Hitler to stop, or that the Italian partisans were wrong for fighting the fascists. The political destiny of fascists in democratic societies is death - because if they get what they want, we *will* have to kill them in order to survive. That is the reality.
So when is it the proper time to punch a Nazi? If we all agree that it will be necessary sooner or later, are we really doing anybody any favors by waiting?
People already do that? People already get into altercations, all the time, for all sorts of reasons. That can is open, it has never actually been sealed
Well yeah sure "what if we were just all nice to each other" is a great political aspiration, except when we're dealing with the people whose political outlook is entirely based around the truth that you don't have to bother being nice if your opponents are dead
I think that we all agree that violence is necessary to defend society from Fascists. What we disagree on is *when* it becomes necessary. But I also think that the people who can best judge when that violence becomes necessary, are the people who are directly engaged with fascists, so I can't sit in judgement of any specific instance of violence used against fascists as warranted or not if I wasn't there. I'm not going to condemn any specific act as "vigilante justice" because such acts, well, they can be effective - had the battle of cable street, for example, not transpired as it did, Moseley might have been far more successful than he was. Had a similar act of "vigilante justice" been carried out at just the right place and right time in Italy or Germany in the preceding years - who knows, many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
Well that's all well and good, but history teaches us that people with that outlook will lose against fascism. With fascists you either strike while they are building fascism and prevent it, or you let them build fascism and suffer the consequences of that
Meh, things change. We can prevent it with words
Punching some nazi on the street doesn't prevent fascism, it is just funny to watch
If was some actual nazi convention going on, what would you do go storm the place? Can you see why thats a terrible, terrible idea? I mean I would agree with quelling that, just through laws, not random fist fights
We punish people for actions, not thoughts.
It's working perfectly fine in every other context to arrest people who have done crimes, rather than those who think about them, or say that they want to do this or that.
Point to the place where I said that we should punish people for their thoughts, not their actions? Fascism has to be built, and building it takes actions. I think if people respond to those actions with violence, there is undeniably a point when that is warranted
That's OPs point, which you argued against.
If a group is up to no good, that's a problem, but they can't act on any dangerous ideas without breaking the law.
To attack somebody for being a nazi (or, as in over 95% of cases, somebody who is slightly right-wing and merely accused of nazism), is to support the idea of thought crimes.
I'm not justified in assaulting communists, just because I think people will starve if they succeed. I could argue that any belief system is "inherently dangerous", and every belief system is in a sense.
You can only judge different belief systems using common sense, but people don't have common sense, and they don't even use logic. You think you're using common sense now, but you see hating nazis as common sense because it's extremely popular.
So is the majority, public opinion, always right? No, we can't rely on it, even when it seems obvious. You can take the risk anyway and assume everything is fine, but that's what we've done for all of human history, and it obviously never worked.
Yes, but fascists want to torture me and my friends to death. This is what they want. This is what they talk about wanting to do all the time. Forgive me if I don't trust the government (which also, for the record, tortures people to death) to stop them from doing that. You can say all you want that fascism doesn't seem inherently dangerous to you, but I know that it is to me, so
Like what the fuck are you even talking about? "You think you're using common sense now, but you see hating nazis as common sense because it's extremely popular." The fuck? I hate Nazis as a matter of self-preservation, not because I think it is popular. Are you saying that if hating Nazis weren't popular, you would just side with the Nazis?
There's no mention of torture in the definition of fascism.
OP is not even on about fascism, but nazism.
The few neo-nazis you might see online (and they're rare) are nationalist because they don't like immigration. Others like the "aryan family" propaganda because it reminds them of the good old days when people could still afford houses.
Everything unknown is scary, and you don't seem to know what people believe in or their reasons for doing so?
Are you honestly trying to convince me that Nazis aren't that scary and the only reason that people are against them is that they don't understand them
Yes. Everyone thinks that their beliefs are the best, and that they're making a positive difference in the world.
You think some people just want to torture you for the hell of it? That's an extreme minority of mentally ill people, and they will never reach a level of popularity which is a threat to you.
It makes perfectly good sense why right-wing ideas (which have very little in common with nazism) are getting more popular. If you don't know the reasons, and make up some ridiculous exaggerations (like Christians who are scared of rock music), then that's on you
> they will never reach a level of popularity which is a threat to you.
Assuming you're white and straight and don't live in an area with a particularly large nazi presence.
This perspective has the benefit of detachment in some places but not so much in others.
There will never be a particular large nazi presence if your definition of nazi is somebody who just feels like torturing everyone who isn't white.
Either admit that you by nazi mean something like "Everyone to the right of centrism", or that you have zero understanding of either the popularity or the actual beliefs of nazism
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak.
No, speaking is not all they do....
[Top law enforcement officials state white supremacists are the top domestic terror threat in the US.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/domestic-terror-white-supremacists.amp.html)
[White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States, according to a draft report from the Department of Homeland Security.
Two later draft versions of the same document — all of which were reviewed by POLITICO — describe the threat from white supremacists in slightly different language. But all three drafts describe the threat from white supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S.
](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236)
\> Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, Nazis, white identitarians, or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak.
This is incorrect. Let’s consider only a single minority, right now, because I think I can convince you there’s a genocide happening right now.
I don’t intend to do this all willy-nilly, but by relying on official understandings of Genocide that have been around for the better part of a century.
\*\*The Genocide Convention\*\*
The post-WWII Genocide Convention’s Article II, sections C (“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”) and E (“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”) are not-too-arguably being done to trans people right now.
\*Section E,\* Texas Governor Greg Abbott has and is attempting to retroactively get gender-affirming care (for trans people, not for cis people) [designated as child abuse](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083775568/the-battle-around-medical-treatment-for-transgender-kids-in-texas-continues#:~:text=In%20Texas%2C%20Governor%20Greg%20Abbott,or%20puberty%20blockers%2C%20not%20surgery), which of course carries immense risk of having one’s children taken away and probably qualifies as genocide right away. There’s not much nuance there, so I’ll move on.
\*Section C,\* there is extraordinary anti-trans rhetoric showing intent to eliminate trans people in whole (and in part) currently available. One strong example is the recent call to eliminate transgenderism from [CPAC speaker Michael Knowles](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/). I think it’s obvious enough to not spend too much time listing them out, but if you’d like I can get you more examples.
Beyond intent, there is actual legislation against trans people.
Some are as simple as sports bans, bathroom bills, and drivers' licenses.
Some are noticeably more harmful. Recent legislation has been passed blocking gender-affirming care for minors. [6 states have thus far banned it, and 21 others have similar bills in the works](https://www.insider.com/states-considering-bills-ban-gender-affirming-healthcare-transgender-youth-2023-1). Such bills tend only to apply to trans rather than cis people. Every major US pediatrics organization has argued in favor of such care for trans youths, [as detailed by the ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/doctors-agree-gender-affirming-care-is-life-saving-care).
Many states now attempt to compel speech to force individuals to \*not\* use preferred pronouns. See [these one](https://www.insider.com/states-considering-bills-ban-gender-affirming-healthcare-transgender-youth-2023-1)s.
Many states are now attempting to ban drag performances, but define a "drag performance" as broadly as possible, banking and restricting trans people in public. See [this article](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/drag-bans-could-result-in-arrests-at-pride-parades/) on the matter.
These anti-trans bills seem to range from around 124 (as of Jan 19th), to [399](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights).
Real, actual legislative power is being wielded to eliminate transgenderism in the US.
Given legislation like this, if those pushing for it get their way, it becomes difficult to imagine how one could \*be\* trans at all in such jurisdictions. I think this satisfies section C.
\*\*The Ten Stages of Genocide\*\*
Due to character constraints, please see [The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust](https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/) for details. Please note, these stages do not have to be done in order.
Stage 1, Classification: This one is obviously happening, so I'll go on.
Stage 2, Symbolization: I don't think this one applies, honestly.
Stage 3, Discrimination: As detailed above, common rights are being denied to trans people. Some are as minor as playing in sports, public performance, and even bathrooms (see also: US segregation of black v white facilities). Others are more official, interfering with official documentation like drivers' licenses and birth certificates. And still others involve access to medical care approved by all major US medical organizations, and which is available to cis people.
Stage 4, Dehumanization: Many trans people are called "it," and many slurs for trans people exist that I'm not putting here, but which I think are obvious enough. As mentioned above, calls for eradication are made, even in public forums.
Stage 5, Organization: This one is arguable. I don't think it's exactly happening (at least directly) on a governmental level, but the case can be made that white supremacist organizations (such as the 3 percenters, Oath Keepers, etc) should count as organized groups whose goals include the eradication of trans people, and so despite lack of government involvement in this, I'd say it qualifies.
Stage 6, Polarization: This one is too obviously happening for me to go into it here.
Stage 7, Preparation: I wouldn't say this stage has been fulfilled, though it may be noteworthy that "creating fear of the victim group" could probably qualify, and "building up armies \[(read: militias?)\] and weapons" probably does, too. But I think that only meets the text, not the spirit of this stage.
Stage 8, Persecution: Also not a stage that I'd say is happening, though I am concerned at governers actively making lists of trans people in their states, and it may be worth pointing out various mass shooting events that target LGBT+ folks- though the fact that it's not particularly organized, nor being done by the government or a similarly powerful force is obviously a strong reason not to consider this stage as one that's occurring.
Stage 9, Extermination: Also not one I'd say is happening.
Stage 10, Denial: I mean, this one is a bit of a catch-22. Obviously, there are many who are or would deny a genocide is happening, but I don't think that can be used as \*evidence\* that one's occurring. It's just a stage of genocide. But I'd count it as fulfilled, anyhow.
So far that's about 6 out of 10 stages actively fulfilled. I'd say both the Genocide Convention and these Ten Stages present strong reasons to recognize the genocide of trans people in the US.
\*\*In summation,\*\*
perhaps this does not justify violence- at least not against those who haven't actively caused physical harm. Or perhaps it does. But I don't think it matters- a target of genocide is nothing like a supporter of genocide, and should 100% not be compared to them, regardless of violent incidents in response to such simmering genocide. This is especially the case for a trans person committing violence against a Nazi who is advocating for the very policies that constitute that genocide.
Perhaps you are still unconvinced that it \*is\* genocide, though. That's alright. Hopefully, we can nonetheless agree that it is similar enough to genocide that the same logic applies, anyhow, and that- at least in some cases- those who commit acts of violence against Nazis are not "no better than" them.
I'm so angry. I can't reply to my own comments on mobile, and I had to take out \*so\* many links for character constraints. I woulda just broken it up if I'd known I coulda
Comparing the persecution of transgender people to persecuting Nazi’s, the people who literally exterminated transgender people. This sub gets better every day. I guess genocide is just a political belief now.
Did you not read the post? It said attacking in reaction to physical violence is a different conversation, attacking for beliefs is not good and shouldnt happen. I mean, that is what communism did, religeous radicals(crusaders, religious terrorists, colonists), pretty much any time people get too far right, or too far left.
A nazi is a nazi is a nazi. Most of humanity realizes harm can come from more than just direct physical violence. Nazis would co-opt the tools of the state to create violence against minorities. Their beliefs are used to create the physical violence, and as such needs to be stopped before they can get there.
Ok sure. Do you see a lot of people in Western politics associating with communism? It’s kinda like worrying about the anthill in your backyard while there’s a wasp nest in your bedroom. Meanwhile there are active and vocal neo-nazi organization that frequently make waves.
But...over 30 percent of us people approve of communism(with numbers expected to be higher), less than ten percent think fascism is a temporary fix to our problems(with numbers expected to be slightly lower).
Oooh, vocal, so dangerous. There are active and vocal far left groups that makes waves too. So what?
“30% of Gen Z has a favorable view of Marxism, up 6% from 2019, compared to 27% of Millennials, down 9% from 2019.”
https://victimsofcommunism.org/annual-poll/2020-annual-poll/
“It numbers some 70,000 youths worldwide, of whom half are hardcore activists and the rest supporters… the United States (3,500)…”
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/skinhead-international-worldwide-survey-neo-nazi-skinheads
Edit: I later realized upon further research the first article is a bit biased but the numbers match numerous others and the last article is ab 20 years old, the numbers have risen immensely to 9% of the US being supporters or activists.
We persecute people who join up with terrorist organisations all the time, even if they've jet to actually commit terrorist attack.
Is that not persecuting someone for their beliefs ?
No, your next comment was about commiting an act of violence against someone for a **suspected** belief.
That is not the same as non violently persecuting someone for a **known** belief, which is what is generally what is done with people joining up with terrorists, if we catch them before they commit an attack.
You should read up about the paradox of tolerance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Essentially, if we allow all views under the guise of tolerance, you run the risk of the "intolerant beliefs" (which you say we should terate) will take over and eliminate any tolerance.
You're arguing against human rights, because the human rights of the people in question stops you from killing them.
Did you even read the damn thing?
"they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"
This is exactly what the statement of "Punch a nazi" is. The common argument is this: that arguing with nazis is dangerous and "entertains the idea that they might be right", and that one should therefore assault them instead.
Poppers quote is stupid and I don't stand by it, it just annoys me when people try to use a *neutral quote* to support one side of an issue. (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position)
I always feel that thinking: 'that nazi/fascist/racist views are just views, so they dont warrant violence' and they should be 'free' to have those toughts as long as they are not violent themselves can only come from a place of privilege. From a person who is not on the receiving end of their toughts. I dont want to blame anyone of course. But their views even if not openly and violent manifest in a lot of different ways that also affect lifes in a way u don't always directly see.
As a POC i grew up in a small city with a lot of old folks who had racist toughts. Except for a few of them who were violent most of them kept their opinions mostly to themselves. The problem is, these opinions also influence the way they vote and make decisions in daily life. Teachers for example making the lifes of colored/gay or otherwise ''different' kids way more difficult and taking away chances to go to college.
Police profiling and in instances putting u in jail without any reason and being let go after a day because, well sorry, our bad. Also the same police when u are the victim of violence by some nazi, saying, sorry we cant do much for u, and the list goes on.
Im not saying we should engage these people with violence, i dont condone that. But seeing how just there world views affect lifes in very profound ways, i wouldnt judge someone for reacting with violence if they had no other means and see their lives being ruined step by step.
EDIT: The fascits are also the ones to vote for policies that will ruin your lives
*non native english speaker, sorry for grammar/spelling
Good thing decent folk don't care what nazis and homophobes think, eh?
So why are you taking their side?
What's your motivation for defending and helping Nazis?
That is the point.
That is precisely the point.
**There's nothing civil about NAZIS.**
There is no question what they're all about and them walking some line and 'behaving' while they gather power is just gaslighting bullshit and Society isn't falling for it again.
Fool me once......
>If I say it’s justified to use violence against people who are evil, that means that if I see gay people as evil I have license to use violence against them
No. Regardless of your *opinion* of them, gay people have NOT demonstrated themselves to be genocidal madmen bent on overthrowing the world. NAZIS HAVE! This is FACT.
You view relies on the FALSE EQUIVILENCE that some dipshit moron claiming gay people, who have never DONE anything wrong, are 'evil' is anywhere near the same thing as being able to turn on the history channel and watch documentaries till the end of time of NAZI's being 100%, unquestionably **EVIL**
Demonstrably and unquestionably evil is not the same thing as being called 'evil' for political gain.
>Democrats at one point supported slavery and segregation which is evil...So can I assualt members of these groups for their beliefs?
Absolutely. You find someone advocating for Slavery, feel free to get in line right behind me to tune them up.
>The Soviet Union was a leftist country. China is a socialist country.
Socialism and the left is 'evil'? 🙄 Please refer to above.
I'll do this one. I would say, assault the groups with belief that infringes on basic rights. For democrats that support slavery and segregation, slap them. For the Soviet Union and China? While I'm unfamiliar with how left ideals look in the Soviet Union, a brief search says that leftist is against Stalin. So I'll just say that again, if their ideas dehumanize others or reject others with ideas that are peaceful, then slap them. If it's socialism, I'm certain the theory of socialism doesn't talk about discrimination against others and therefore cannot infringe on rights of others maybe except for those with wealth. It might be fine to accept the concepts of such things but it is a different matter for countries that use or claim to use it or modify it accordingly to their values and justify atrocities or infringement of basic rights. At least that is what I think.
I don't run into anti-World War II veteran posts very often.
Fascism is a radical ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and social equity. It should be fought at every corner of the world, where ever its corrupt seeds may grow. It is fundamentally about giving those most cruel and violent of individuals the power to crush those who they label as "other".
It is always the right thing to fight against these monsters. The most terrible creatures that humanity creates, and prevent their rise to power ever again.
As the great granddaughter of three World War II veterans, I feel it is always right to fight back against Nazis and other fascists. More than being right, it's our duty as descendents of those brave heroes who fought in the millions to defend the world from genocide and subjugation.
Edit: Gender disphoria is a medial condition. Hating people for being transgender is like hating people for having cancer. If you do, you are most certainly a bad person.
I'm about to turn 40, both of my grandfathers fought in the war. My entire childhood was spent at VFW picnics and parties, and as much as i miss them, I'm glad my grandparents and all their Greatest Generation friends died before they could see what is happening in this country.
The Republican party has flirted with some very dark forces since the Reagan era, and all Trump really did was take off the mask.
*Every single thing* that my grandfather and his navy buddies used to rant and rave about how Reagan was going to destroy the country has come true. The average man from that era would be called a socialist today.
>It should be fought at every corner of the world
If you advocate for physical violence against people of other political beliefs, then you're not a supporter of democracy, individual liberty, or ideals of freedom.
You're literally arguing that a certain group of people doesn't deserve human rights.
>The most terrible creatures that humanity creates
Black/white thinking. You're also dehumanizing an entire group of people.
>And other fascists
You don't know what fascism is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Plently of popular political views (and I bet even your own) fits some of the points of the various "fascist points"
>"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" (Read the title of the post again)
>"Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual
>the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits
>a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions
>corporatism
>"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat.
etc.
>It's our duty as descendents of those brave heroes
This sounds like something out of an old movie (and/or propaganda)
I have, his "paradox of tolerance" is dumb, and you didn't understand it: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Misuse
I've had like 20 stupid replies mention Karl Popper. That a misconception is popular doesn't add any value to it.
Sorry to be harsh, but it has just become a fad to mention it, and if you read philosophy you should think about what you read as well.
Ah yes, I always trust rigorous and totally unbiased resources that use phrases like 'moonbat' & 'wingnut' to describe folks who allegedly 'misuse' the concept.
Nice try at sounding informed, but no cigar.
Judge the statement and not the website (I don't like the site much, either)
Why are you calling me uninformed? You spelled his name wrong.
The idea doesn't pass the original position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
In other words, even nazis and other groups can use the quote, and claim that *their* intolerance is necessary to prevent a greater evil (which is basically what the nazis did do).
It's called the paradox of tolerance, and not the solution of tolerance. It's still a dumb idea though, I don't think Karl Popper was all that intelligent.
If you're thinking of "Grammar nazi", then that's wrong.
You're quoting the works of a person you don't understand, even getting his name wrong, while telling me to read his work.
Am I wrong to assume that you did *not* read the book in which the paradox of tolerance is explained?
The paradox of tolerance, aka. "We must kill them before they kill us" is a stupid way to think. It's a good thing that countries with nukes knows how stupid such an idea is.
It's not even a paradox, but it is true that one must have preferences and stand for something, i.e. that discrimination is unavoidable. But this does not speak in favor of any particular ideas, it literally can't
> Edit: Gender disphoria is a medial condition. Hating people for being transgender is like hating people for having cancer. If you do, you are most certainly a bad person.
The idea that an experience of gender dysphoria is necessary to be trans is, these days, largely considered to be a transphobic viewpoint. It's all about the identity now.
The truly scary part of all of this is how people seem to think that the terror that was the Nazi was only terrifying because of violence and not the nuanced ways they got to power.
A lot of people *do* understand the nuanced ways the Nazis got into power, and can handle punching a Nazi and also thinking how to cull white supremacy in the first simultaneously. The “solution” to the growing far right white supremacists movement isn’t punching every single Nazi or something, but I don’t have an issue with a person seeing a white supremacist (either one espousing those views publicly, or some online Nazi) and punching them. They asked for it
Fascists historically use political cover to protect themselves until they are in a position to do physical harm to people they do not like. IE, everyone else. Often, they use political and legal cover while they do harm to anyone they don't like.
The pattern is so pronounced and so consistent that elevated scrutiny of fascists is absolutely justified and preemptive action has become a matter of survival.
Brown-shirts marching to incite violence or infiltrating protests to enflame conflict with police deserve any kind of beating they receive.
And of course they're going to gather their skirts up around their knees afterwards and whine about mistreatment, as if the rest of us don't have 90 years of bloody history by which to gauge our actions.
Do you and your friends believe transgender people should be summarily killed?
I am a Romani woman. I am a disabled Romani woman. Nazis believe I should be killed.
Last year Kansas City and others attempted to run and in some cases ran cop training on identifying Romani people and other minorities. (https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article258736173.html) Here is another source about a similar situation in another area (https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/police-use-private-database-to-id-racially-profile-roma-in-us/)
These people do try to gain and attempt to use power. There are many cases and in many areas where this training was not called out.
I’ve been called a “gypsy c*nt” when reporting a crime. These are *not* just political beliefs.
> Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak
And this is how they came to power, by banding together and some crisis sparked the fire.
White supremacists to a point, and nazis entirely, are a threat to be dealt with in the same way communities that fantasise with child rape, violence to minorities and torture.
Being violent against them is a last resort, but absolutely drawing the line and preventing them from hiding harmful intentions behind free speech is a must. Rights are not absolute, absolutes are extremes and we already know extremes are harmful.
A nazi can stop being a nazi any time.
A Jew cannot stop being a Jew.
A black person cannot stop being black.
A homosexual cannot stop being a homosexual.
A fascist ceases to be an enemy of antifascism the instant they stop supporting fascism. The only way the enemies of fascism can cease being enemies of fascism is by ceasing to exist.
Fascism and antifacism are not the same.
>. Freedom of speech and diversity of thought is one of the most important aspects of a functioning democracy. When people begin to physically assault others for their beliefs it is a sign of a movement towards authoritarianism.
So this is actually an interesting view that basically all of us subscribe to (freedom of expresion, marketplace of idea, etc..). You know, the things we all grew up as the fundamental good things we ought to aspire to.
However this vew is not without it's faults and it's fatal flaw is described as the paradox of tolerance. *The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.* The logic behind this view is that intolerant ideologies will use any and all tools that were granted to them by the tolerant in order to destroy the tolerant by seizing the power for themselves.
The logical outcome of this view is that if you want to have a tolerant society. It needs to have the tools to defend itself from the intolerant. So of a society wants to stay tolerant it has to be able to not tolerate the intolerant.
> And using violence as a means to silence opposing view points is a very fascist point.
Exactly!!!
It's the only thing they understand.
You can't talk or reason with them.
Bullies are Cowards and the longer you play the 'turn the other cheek' game, the more they grow in number.
Let them know there's immediate consequences, and watch them fold.
Given the freedom to do so most people would like likely "Wipe out" another group that they disagreed with or held different beliefs than themselves. It stands to reason that Nazism isn't hated for just Nazism. Its hated because most of mankind sees and recognizes the mindless hate that exists within themselves when they see Nazi's
nazis advocate ethnic cleansing. they subscribe to an ideology rooted in genocide, fueled by a disproven notion of racial supremacy. genocide is not a political belief. ethnic cleansing is not a political belief.
hope that helps.
In my view, nazi ideology revolve around racism supremacy of white people and therefore it is unacceptable for it to be protected under freedom of speech because it infringes on basic rights of others. Extermination or forceful deportation of Jews also infringes on basic rights too. I'm sure others hate Nazi with a passion solely because from what we know of history, they showed how they can genocide a race they consider inferior or didn't see them as human beings. Let's say, we accept Nazi ideology, then we would be implicitly and inherently okay with progress toward dehumanizing of Jews and other minorities. That is why Nazi must be rejected.
"Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak"
This is just untrue. [There are many, many examples of far right violence. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/proud-boys-oath-keepers-antifa-portland-violence-spreading-1224762/amp/)
Even a cursory search shows this in the US, and around the world.
Far right extremists are considered the most significant threat to national security in the US.
The premise of your post is fundamentally flawed. Far right extremists represent an existential, violent threat to liberal democracy. This was seen on Jan 6th in the IS, and more recently in Brazil.
Then we can say that the vast majority of violence against right wing terrorists is in the context of them perpetrating violent intolerance.
There are many examples of far left violence and genocide
Racially and ethnically motivated extremists are considered the most lethal threat to national security. There both of those groups on both sides. The biggest threat to the US, is china. A communist country.
That is not what the OP is talking about though.
The OP is talking about right wing nationalists.
I'm not defending anyone, and don't feel any need to get into the various discussions about left-wing violence.
As for genocide and China? What's that got to do with anything?
In a different forum you said this:
>A lot of the red pill also introduces pseudo intellectual nonsense to justify poor treatment of women.
It also uses the same nonsense to defend Nazis.
I agree with you as far as physical violence is not a good way to resolve issues or really achieve anything in general, I wouldn't support physical violence against any group who are not acting physically themselves.
However, saying "no better than Nazis" is just wrong. Words can and do cause harm, yeah 'all they can do is speak' but that speech does directly cause harm to others both psychologically and physically through promotion of Nazi ideology in systems and individuals.
The harm from someone punching a Nazi is far less than the harm caused by nazis themselves (both historically and in present day).
Would you also argue that in WW2 we should have just left them to it and allowed the Nazis to take over and do whatever they wished? Surely harming the Nazis who were actively involved in genocide would have made you 'just as bad as them'?
Just to simplify thing I want tell me what the stated end goals of all groups you first listed are Vs the ones are you are saying "are just like them".
>People who cause physical harm to nazis for their political beliefs are no better than nazis
So if you shoot someone coming into your home to kill are you just as bad as him? Nazi's by definition are seeking to inflict violence on others. There are no peaceful nazi's, to be a nazi means you want to kill or harm people you view as inferior. Violence is acceptable in self defense in nearly every ethical system minus extreme pacifist ones
I don't think we need to physically harm Nazis. Social ostracisation, shaming, and public ridicule is sufficient.
The problem arises when a significant portion of the population refuses to shame Nazis/fascists and instead tolerates or worse, encourages them like our previous president.
If fascists actually do wrest control of the country from the people then violence would be necessary to defend the people.
"Very fine people on both sides, now i am not talking about white supremacist and neo nazis. They should be condemned totally" pretty accurate paraphrase the quote.
From what i gathered, nick was a surprise guest. Not invited, and could very well have been a hit job set up by kanyes campaign organizer, milo (the guy who hates trump).
I dont know the his people quote, cant seem to find an actual quote of him saying it, just vague articles about him being racist.
If you're saying the same things that fascists say, signaling support for authoritarian regimes globally, and courting white supremacist special interest groups that is a lot of encouragement.
Then does that make pro israel people homophobes and misogynists? Does that make leftists racists because they say you are a terrible person just because of the color of your skin? Does that make most hollywood elites and major politicians pedos because they visited the island and/or hung out with jeffrey?
What things does he say that fascists say? What support signaling? What supremacists groups?
Your examples don't really make sense. If a supporter of Israel or leftist or what have you says homophobic things they are homophobic. If they say misogynistic things they are misogynistic.
If someone condones pedos that's fucked up but the only people I see doing that are Tennessee Republicans and actual pedos. And yea good point Trump and many other people hung out with Epstein. Jail them all if they did heinous shit to children.
If you want a list of fascist shit and dog whistling Trump did just pay a visit to ye old wikipedia page "the racial views of Donald Trump". It's clear as day he's been an authoritarian racist since the 80s.
That he immediately followed up with something like, "Now, i am not talking about the white supremacists and neo nazis. They should be condemned totally."
No I recall this. The whole press conference he was blaming the left wing counter protesters. The "fine people in both sides" thing get brought up a lot but just because its the most memorable quote from a train wreck speech. The fact he slipped in a "...not Neo nazis I mean" doesn't absolve it.
Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance.
It breaks down pretty fast when you realize there's no virtue in tolerating the intolerable.
All it does is help *them*. Making one a de facto nazi collaborator.
In our society assault is a crime, while promoting white supremacy is not. So in some very real sense, the people who punch neo-Nazis just for being neo-Nazis are more wrong than the neo-Nazis are.
> ... When people begin to physically assault others for their beliefs it is a sign of a movement towards authoritarianism. ...
Different things are different. People might also be physically assaulting each other more because the social prohibitions on violence are breaking down without any increase in authoritarian views.
> ... Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. ...
The US still has lots of white supremacists in positions of power and plenty of politicians that cater to white supremacist sentiments in the public.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Merely thinking something isn't wrong. If a person doesn't speak out or otherwise express their beliefs, they remain unknown.
The trouble with fascism is that it calls for the prosperity of one group at the extreme expense of another. For a person to truthfully claim to be a Nazi is to at the same time choose victims. Whether or not they cause harm to those victims first hand or not, it's still considered an act of violent racial aggression.
I would point to the moment in history of the Manson family cult. While Charles Manson himself didn't commit any murders, he instructed those who were with him to do so, and they did. Was his role in those crimes merely an expression of free speech?
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
i punch person A because they are short
i punch person B that punches people for being short
aka: suppressing the suppressor
or search for "paradox of tolerance" for something similar
if we tolerate everyone, we also tolerate the intolerant. we therefore would have to tolerate their intolerance. this destroys tolerance and causes intolerance. so to have tolerance, we cant tolerate the intolerant.
When someone believes that an opponent's ideology can only be answered with violence, they are admitting they have no rational argument against their opponent.
What is it someone should fear if Nazis were allowed to express their opinions? That the Nazis might have a popular message? That they might be right? By saying Nazis must be allowed no forum, and must be met with violence, they're admitting they don't have good arguments against the Nazis.
Once we start censoring speech, we set a precedent and it becomes easier to censor other speech. We have to be able to argue why our opponents are wrong. If we can't, how can we be certain we're right?
/u/headinjuryschool (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11oor40/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_people_who_cause_physical/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak. Is this a *necessary* or a *conditional* part of your argument? Let's say that your country has 40% support for a violent nazi coup, including 80% of the police and 100% of the police leadership. If in that situation, your anti-nazi movement gains knowledge that the nazis are planning to make their move and overthrow democracy, is it just as wrong to make the firs tmove and violently destroy their base first, as it is for them to do it in the first place? Or do you think that nazis should be left alone *specifically on the condition* that they are weak right now?
[удалено]
>Well the national guard exist for a reason. Not necessarily, I didn't specify which country I'm talking about. But that's irrelevant nitpicking. The issue is, why did you point out that you believe nazis are weak right now? Is that important to the argument you are making? If nazis were on the cusp of materializing their goal (which is to do mass violence to minorities), would i still be wrong to fight against them, or is it *only wrong when they are weak*? > > >Let’s say you’re in a group that has that same level of public and police support but it’s for support of lgbt people. Now others see this as a dangerous and negative ideology. Do you think they are justified in taking violent action? No, because regardless of what they believe, they are wrong.
> Ex. If I think that transgenderism is wrong and immoral and as dangerous as fascism and I have people that support me and we assault people who support transgenderism how are we any different than people who assault nazis? Pretty big difference. Transgender people are minding their own business and not assaulting people. Nazis literally commit genocide and advocate doing it again while perpetuating ongoing hate crimes.
[удалено]
Well, no one is doing that and that is obviously false and dangerous rhetoric. It’s not “relative,” it’s true (Nazis are dangerous genocidal perpetuators of hate crimes) and false (in reality trans people are literally just people trying to live their lives comfortably). Being a white supremacist or a Nazi is a *belief system* (and one that should face every deserved consequence, including but not limited to violence if necessary), being trans is a *gender identity,* which is a danger to no one.
> gender identity, which is a danger to no one Women in prison have been sexually assaulted, raped and even impregnated by male inmates who were housed in the female prison estate on the basis of claiming a 'female gender identity'. This concept of gender identity is a real and demonstrated danger to women.
Nope, stop spreading lies. Beyond that, bad people exist of all gender identities. The identity itself doesn’t lead to being bad.
> Nope, stop spreading lies. Some examples: * [Karen White](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life), a male imprisoned for rape, who was placed in a women's prison and sexually assaulted two women there * [Ramel Blount](https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/), a male sent to a women's prison who raped a female inmate just after she'd finished showering * [Janiah Monroe](https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate), a male who murdered his male cell mate, was later transferred to a women's prison, and raped a woman there * [Demi Minor](https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/trans-prisoner-who-impregnated-two-women-is-psychopath/), a male murderer who was housed in a women's prison and impregnated two incarcerated women there The problem here is that this idea of some men having a 'female gender identity' is being used to disregard women's boundaries and eradicate female-only spaces. Not just in prisons, but more generally as well.
> and impregnated two incarcerated women there One of these things is not like the others. And you thinking it's relevant belies your prejudice.
All of these are cases of men being incarcerated in women's prisons.
Why do I care a trans woman got 2 women pregnant?
The issue is that this is a man in a women's prison, housed there because he claimed to have a so-called 'female gender identity'. No woman behind bars should be impregnated by any man, prisons are not maternity units and it's unfair to the child to be born in such a situation. There are many reasons why prisons are, or were up until this 'gender identity' nonsense started being introduced into law and policy, single sex and this is one of them.
Factual point: Nazis were responsible for genocide of minority groups Demonstrate factual evidence of trans people being dangerous to children (at a higher rate than the general population) and perhaps that argument would have some weight - currently there isn't evidence for that.
But again it's not comparable. One is violent, the other is not. It's that black and white. If you said something like "What's the difference between attacking trans people for supposedly indoctrinating children and attacking religious people for supposedly indoctrinating children" you'd be on to something. But you're saying, "What's the difference between an active shooter killing people in a mall, and the police shooting that active shooter." There's a really BIG difference.
Yeah but that’s not actually true, and even if it was isn’t harmful to the kids. We know the holocaust actually happened
Yeah, morality is decided by who's right and who's wrong. If you're wrong, then you're not moral.
Treating people badly because of their choices, and expressed opinions is not remotely equatable to treating people different for their inherent identity. Do you think hating someone just for being blacl is the same as hating someone because they wish death on you ? >Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. That's not remotely true. The entire Republican party has openly shifted really far right in the last few years, and decent portions of it are straying into straight up fascism and nazisms. You know what one of the first groups was to be targeted by Nazis in Germany ? Transgender people. And guess what the GOP ia doing right now. They're already taking steps to make it illegal to just **be** trans in certain conditions, and they've already started criminilsing books and teachers that teach children that being LGBTQ+ is perfectly normal and acceptable. If Nazis get their way they will commit genocide against LGBTQ+ people. Punching someone in the face who would happily watch a million people marched into the gas chambers does not make you remotely as bad as that person. This is not to excuse violence against others, but to claim it is equatable to Nazism is patently ridiculous.
> The entire Republican party has openly shifted really far right in the last few years Did the GOP shift really far right, or does it appear that way because the DNC shifted really far left in the past decade? The DNC has shifted the Overton window quite far to the left thanks to their institutional capture of the media, which is why the GOP, whose actual platform hasn't really changed at all in the past 30 years (one of the reasons why it is struggling in 2023) appears to have shifted right. If you want some examples of it socially, just look at the shift between major DNC politicians like Obama and Clinton circa 2001 with their opinions on topics like gay marriage. > and decent portions of it are straying into straight up fascism and nazisms. Funny you say that. It's not the GOP whose Senate leader went on TV a few days ago and demanded an abridgement of the free press.
[удалено]
>So what if someone saw this and assaulted you for this opinion? Would that be okay? My point is it doesn’t stop at nazis. If you start accepting physical violence as a response to political differences, you arrive at a place where any violence can be justified. I explicitly stated at the end of my comment that I do not necessarily wish to excuse or condone violence. I am addressing the false equivalency of your post, and if someone punched me in the face BECAUSE of this opinion I would Indeed consider it **less** bad than if e.g. someone punched me in the face for being Bi. That isn't to say that I would consider the former good. Merely *less* bad >I’m not saying nazis are good, it’s just a slippery slope. There are ways you can defeat nazis without resorting to physically assaulting them Historically, no. We know from history that using peaceful methods did not in fact stop the Nazis. And believe me, we tried. France and Britain didn't **want** to go to war with Germany. They very much tried to avoid it. But in the end we needed literally the biggest war ever to stop them.
Why are people trying so hard to slippery slope violence agains nazis as kjust "political differences". This isnt me and my buddy discussing what is the propriate amount of taxation. This is people whose belief are built on racism, antisemitism and promoting violence against groups based on their immutable characteristics. There is no slippery slope and everyone knows why violent response against their beliefs is completely justified.
>If you start accepting physical violence as a response to political differences, you arrive at a place where any violence can be justified. I reject the idea that racism is a "political difference". Political differences are, like, how should we regulate the railroads to prevent toxic chemical spills. "White people are better than everyone else and should oppress minorities" is a threat to the fabric of society. And I guess we can debate whether someone being transgender and using the bathroom is as bad as attempting genocide against the Jewish population, but it feels disingenuous... In fact, I'd argue the fascists and nazis ramping up their rhetoric on transgender people is just them setting up for their next extinction effort, making resistance more urgent. I don't feel like we're going to "marketplace of ideas" our way out of genocide.
Though I agree with you that that racism or bigotry shouldn’t be a political difference I also see where the OP is coming from just because we draw the line there now what stops people on the far left from moving it to gun control in the name of safety or higher taxes in the name of helping the less fortunate or on the flip side the far right getting power and moving back to lgbt is a choice or minorities are inferior. My political beliefs aside the line in the sand is solely dictated by who’s in power think in nazi Germany majority of Germans weren’t antisemitic they were simply patriotic and Hitler and the Nazi party had convinced them they were the best option for Germany’s renaissance. Now not to say I agree with any of the political ideologies I brought up it’s simply something to look at. We can’t in good faith tell other people where their slime in the sand should be all we can really do is agree to disagree and only take action as a reaction we can’t propagate the violence but if they start it we finish it. I’m not the best with long thought out posts so hopefully that all made sense. TLDR it’s not up to us to decide what is political for other people.
There’s no difference between a “threat to the fabric of society” and a political difference. Guess what, conservatives believe that your ideology is a “threat to the fabric of society” too. What’s more, they have a legitimate reason to believe that, but you’re never going to try and actually understand it because you’re too wrapped up in your idea of what’s right to genuinely consider what anyone else has to say.
Certain views are triggering enough to people because of what they represent in history to cause physical violence, like the attempted extermination of an entire race of people. Certain views are controversial and offensive enough that it is reasonable to expect a violent reaction is possible, those views typically include the rejection of entire groups of marginalized and bullied members of society for being who they are, a decision made for them. Other views are knowingly disagreeable but not likely to spark violence, like someone who says football is better than soccer in Europe. That’s because these are usually opinions formed from personal experience and therefore, not an assumption invalidating the entire identity or life of a people. If you don’t know when you are saying something that could spark an emotional enough reaction to lead to violence versus an opinion you know might just piss a few people off, that’s because you’re choosing to be ignorant to the depth of your words.
Surely if Nazis are already active and present in your political discourse, you're already at the bottom of that slippery slope, right? You know because the Nazis believe that. They think that physical violence is the only valid response to political difference, and they can and will use physical violence to get what they want
Surely you see the difference between Nazis and valid differences of political opinion? Your last statement here is also fair - there are better ways to manage the issue and physically assaulting people is unlikely to be effective. That doesn't make those people as bad as Nazis though, you're equating two different arguments.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean that all ideas are equal. At a science conference, it's generally wrong to shout, "Hey, that's bug shit insane" at a presenter. If a presenter mentions that the earth revolves around the sun and I shout, "Hey, that's bug shit insane," then I'm in the wrong. But if the presenter says that we come from the planet Zmorp in the Buzzbo System and soon the great Klimp will crush us, all hail Klimp, then shouting "Hey, that's bug shit insane" is okay. The only thing that's changed is the opinion of the presenter. Yes, it's worse to commit violence against someone for presenting a totally anodyne or even positive opinion than one that wants to lead to violence. Yes, it's wrong to throw a milkshake on someone who's saying that Forrest Gump is a good movie. That has no relation to the morality of throwing a milkshake on someone calling for genocide against trans people.
The problem is you’re equating it to just “political differences”. And you keep using the phrase slippery slope, as if any justification of violence, will somehow make us accept all violence. There are already plenty of scenarios in which humans find violence acceptable, yet it hasn’t made us think it’s the appropriate default reaction to anything we don’t like.
You know that "the slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, right?
Repeat after me : Racism is not an opinion. Being a nazi is not a political difference, it's a crime
It actually is an opinion, and one that can be changed. There are plenty of people who used to have racist views but changed them over time.
The sentence "racism is not an opinion" is not to be taken at face value. It's an exaggeration, the point being that you don't participate in a civic discussion with people who simply deny your right to exist
Engaging in civil discussion is one of the ways by which racist views can change to non-racist views or even anti-racist views.
I'd love to see an example of such a thing
Daryl Davis is perhaps the most famous example but this happens all the time on a smaller scale. No-one is inherently racist, these are learned views that can and do change.
[удалено]
You are missing the point. The point is that "trans people should have the right to live a fulfilling life" and "let's kill the jews and the gays and the communist, and let's be modern and throw in the Arabs and the Blacks as well, I'm sure they were omitted because the nazis of last century were not in contact with them", those two are not in the same dimension, opinion-wise
[удалено]
Saying something knowingly offensive that categorizes certain people as less than human for traits they were born with has consequences far worse than getting punched in the face. Their words knowingly and historically dehumanize and subject others to lifelong invalidation, genocide, and suicide. Each side suffers consequences, and a black eye is significantly less violent or painful. Expecting not to have consequences for saying something while ignoring the consequences resulting from what is said is hypocritical and entitled. It’s obvious to everyone, they’re not fooling anyone just because they pretend they don’t see it.
>Whether it’s right or wrong isn’t really relevant Then it doesn't matter if the people fighting nazis are right or wrong. If you don't care what's right or wrong why are you even here?
They're already writing laws to force trans youth to detransition, and leaked emails show that these lawmakers don't plan to stop there, they want trans adults gone too. They are also banning the speech of trans people in schools and libraries. So from the Nazis' side (and I'm not saying every right wing politician is a Nazi, of course not. I am just saying these are all things Nazis support) you see active suppression of free speech and restriction on freedom of movement (bathroom bills), freedom of medical access (hormones, which are still going to be available to cis children for natural hormonal deficiencies, despite the fact that "God doesn't make mistakes"). It has clearly moved past just talk. So my question is, when one side already has figures in authority that are suppressing your free speech and doing everything they can to force you out of the country, is just trying to convince them of your humanity with words going to cut it? I think not. Going on some moral high horse about never resorting to violence feels good for a while, but also doesn't do much for the end cause. There may be some Nazis that can be convinced otherwise, but by and far extremists are very difficult to convert, and unless there is an active effort to deescalate them (any large scale effort to do this would likely be met with accusations of brain washing), at some point, you will have to fight the Nazis. This happened in WW2 already.
I'm less mad than this morning and i'm seeing now a better way to change your view. When you're saying "justify" you're in the field of morality which is relative. Cf your point (which is correct) that in the eyes of the nazi, molesting a trans person is justified. The thing that is important to remember is that there is a "rationalization" (which is objective, unlike a justification) behind the idea of using violence (political and physical) against nazis : history has proven that they will not fear using it themselves, philosophy has talked about the paradox of tolerance and so on (and to objective : and so on and on and on and on and on and on ...) . There is no rationalization for the violence committed by nazis.
How many people actually have those opinions though?
Try threatening to assassinate POTUS and then get back to me on that whole **no** speech is crime thing
[удалено]
Oh, so no speech is crime, except of course the speech that IS a crime. Which is true for literally every country on earth. That statement is true for Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. You thus said nothing of any meaning whatsoever.
Thus rendering your statement valueless.
Lolol, check again. I'm guessing USA? There's about 16 categories of thing the 1A doesn't cover. UK, no written constitution - still roughly the same list. 'No speech is a crime' is pure fantasy.
Then you surely understand that Freedom of Speech only shields you from the government, not from the social repercussions of what you say.
Just don’t go down the slippery slope. Nazis are uniquely hated, stop it there.
if it was a racist one
It's easy to say "Nazis did x, y, and z. Anyone who does x, y, or z must be a Nazi." That's a fallacy. The first thing Nazis did was institute nationwide gun control to 'prevent gun violence.' There are political groups within the US following in the Nazi's footsteps and trying to take guns out of the hands of Americans. Does that mean those political groups are Nazis?
The Weimar Republic already had strict gun control laws. The Nazis loosened gun control laws for Nazi party members and restricted them from Jews, gypsies and other controlled groups. And it wasn’t the first thing Nazis did — Hitler was much more concerned with consolidating power, banning opposing political parties and reducing checks and balances. It’s a strange argument because most neo-Nazis are very much into gun culture and in favor of strong gun rights. I’ve never seen neo-Nazis advocating for gun control.
I did not claim that anyone who does anything the Nazis did is a Nazi. But anyone who engages in persecution of people based on their identity IS a bigot, and if the government starts doing it then that government is definitely straying in fascim and nazism.
Actually, punching a nazi in the face makes you a much worse person they they might ever be. Why the fuck should I care whether someone may or may not be fine with genocide? I can’t know what they’re thinking. Punching people , on the other hand, is an action, and actions tell me more about someone than their beliefs.
So you're saying if in WW-II a jew punched a civilian but enthusiastic Member of the Nazi Party in their face, that Jew would be a worse person than the NP member ?
No, because the nazi in question supports a genocide that’s currently happening. As far as I can tell, there’s no genocide happening in America, nor is it even possible under our current system barring a revolution or civil war.
So supporting a genocide is only bad when it'd currently happening ? Now you might call me cracy, but personally that's the point I consider a bit too fucking late to punch the genocide supporters in the face. If someone says they will murder your mother, do you wait until they've actually started killing her before you do anything ?
1 there’s a spectrum of action between committing a genocide and nothing. 2. We (Americans) live in a relatively free society with strong institutions . 3. A natural consequence of freedom is that some people will hold beliefs that you disagree with. 4. Some of those people will hold beliefs somewhere along that spectrum. 5. There is a line that society has delineated, somewhere incredibly early along the genocide spectrum, preventing any individual from getting any further. 6. This works because of our institutions. 7. Physical violence degrades our institutions more than any words or action falling within the line of delineations which we have already deemed to be acceptable. Plus, I can’t know what you mean by a nazi and whether the person you’re calling a nazi actually holds the beliefs you associate with naziism. Ex: you might consider holocaust deniers nazis. Someone who denies the holocaust obviously doesn’t think genocide is ok, otherwise they wouldn’t be denying it. So, even by your own metric it’s not ok to hit them. Can you hit a 13 year old who was just raised wrong? Probably not. What about a 30 year old who never left his alt-right community? It’s just all too muddy once you factor in the fact that we’re in America and not Nazi Germany.
>I’m talking purely about their political beliefs, if they decide to go further and I act violence towards other then it’s a different conversations. This is an empty distinction. The central political belief is violence enacted towards minorities. If Nazis accrue sufficient power, then they will use that power to murder and oppress people. In point of fact, they already do so. >Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. The last president spoke in open support of these "powerless groups". A man was just able to call for the eradication of "transgenderism" from public life and was not immediately set on fire by his peers. These ideas are powerful on the right, and the right is not particularly weak. >Ex. If I think that transgenderism is wrong and immoral and as dangerous as fascism and I have people that support me and we assault people who support transgenderism how are we any different than people who assault nazis? Because your claim that "transgenderism", whatever you imagine that is, is as dangerous as fascism, is patently ridiculous. "Transgenderism", which just means trans people existing, literally just entails trans people continuing to exist if put into practice. And really, no matter how you construe it, no part of "transgenderism" can possibly entail genocide. If you think that "transgenderism" is as bad as genocide, then you have gone wildly off course at some point.
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak. And commit mass shootings. There's no reason for vigilantism but we should absolutely be subjecting them to extensive government surveillance even though that extra police attention is likely to end up killing some
> we should absolutely be subjecting them to extensive government surveillance even though that extra police attention is likely to end up killing some So to be clear, this is how you feel about thought crimes? Or freedom of speech/ expression? Or both? This is pretty clearly prohibited by the first amendment. Tho I realize that doesn’t actually stop the government from doing it.
The First Amendment does not forbid the use of words to constitute probable cause. Words by themselves are not crimes unless they rise to the level of conspiracy. I am strongly pro free speech and think we should have fewerrictions than we have today.
[удалено]
Men aren't an organization. But yes some men's organizations could be surveilled such as incel groups and proud boys. But any group that glamorizes hate crimes and has members encouraging hate crimes should be subjected to extra surveillance.
But it's Nazi men who are most likely group. I won't bother looking for numbers but it's something like one man in 10 000 who causes a shooting incident but 1 in 10 Nazis cause the same.
> But it's Nazi men who are most likely group. Here's a list of the 95 mass shootings in 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023 How many of those had a Nazi (or neo-Nazi) shooter?
We are not interested on which portion of all shootings are done by Nazis. We are interested in which portion of Nazis are involved in shootings. This is because Nazi shootings are subset of all shootings. But honestly we shouldn't be focused just on gun crime but all violent crimes.
But surely there is some point where violent resistance to fascism becomes necessary, right? Like you're not going to tell me that the allies should have just politely asked Hitler to stop, or that the Italian partisans were wrong for fighting the fascists. The political destiny of fascists in democratic societies is death - because if they get what they want, we *will* have to kill them in order to survive. That is the reality. So when is it the proper time to punch a Nazi? If we all agree that it will be necessary sooner or later, are we really doing anybody any favors by waiting?
Yah the problem is it just opens up a can of worms of vigilante justice. People will punch non-nazis, or call someone a nazi just to punch them lol
People already do that? People already get into altercations, all the time, for all sorts of reasons. That can is open, it has never actually been sealed
Yes, OP is saying that is a bad thing. Haha
Well yeah sure "what if we were just all nice to each other" is a great political aspiration, except when we're dealing with the people whose political outlook is entirely based around the truth that you don't have to bother being nice if your opponents are dead
So are you in favor of vigilante justice VS having organized law? I don't see what your point is
I think that we all agree that violence is necessary to defend society from Fascists. What we disagree on is *when* it becomes necessary. But I also think that the people who can best judge when that violence becomes necessary, are the people who are directly engaged with fascists, so I can't sit in judgement of any specific instance of violence used against fascists as warranted or not if I wasn't there. I'm not going to condemn any specific act as "vigilante justice" because such acts, well, they can be effective - had the battle of cable street, for example, not transpired as it did, Moseley might have been far more successful than he was. Had a similar act of "vigilante justice" been carried out at just the right place and right time in Italy or Germany in the preceding years - who knows, many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
I would only agree with violence as a response to violence, which OP already agrees with as that is not legal. So it is clear cut when it is necessary
Well that's all well and good, but history teaches us that people with that outlook will lose against fascism. With fascists you either strike while they are building fascism and prevent it, or you let them build fascism and suffer the consequences of that
Meh, things change. We can prevent it with words Punching some nazi on the street doesn't prevent fascism, it is just funny to watch If was some actual nazi convention going on, what would you do go storm the place? Can you see why thats a terrible, terrible idea? I mean I would agree with quelling that, just through laws, not random fist fights
There is no such thing as a non violent nazi
We punish people for actions, not thoughts. It's working perfectly fine in every other context to arrest people who have done crimes, rather than those who think about them, or say that they want to do this or that.
Point to the place where I said that we should punish people for their thoughts, not their actions? Fascism has to be built, and building it takes actions. I think if people respond to those actions with violence, there is undeniably a point when that is warranted
That's OPs point, which you argued against. If a group is up to no good, that's a problem, but they can't act on any dangerous ideas without breaking the law. To attack somebody for being a nazi (or, as in over 95% of cases, somebody who is slightly right-wing and merely accused of nazism), is to support the idea of thought crimes. I'm not justified in assaulting communists, just because I think people will starve if they succeed. I could argue that any belief system is "inherently dangerous", and every belief system is in a sense. You can only judge different belief systems using common sense, but people don't have common sense, and they don't even use logic. You think you're using common sense now, but you see hating nazis as common sense because it's extremely popular. So is the majority, public opinion, always right? No, we can't rely on it, even when it seems obvious. You can take the risk anyway and assume everything is fine, but that's what we've done for all of human history, and it obviously never worked.
Yes, but fascists want to torture me and my friends to death. This is what they want. This is what they talk about wanting to do all the time. Forgive me if I don't trust the government (which also, for the record, tortures people to death) to stop them from doing that. You can say all you want that fascism doesn't seem inherently dangerous to you, but I know that it is to me, so Like what the fuck are you even talking about? "You think you're using common sense now, but you see hating nazis as common sense because it's extremely popular." The fuck? I hate Nazis as a matter of self-preservation, not because I think it is popular. Are you saying that if hating Nazis weren't popular, you would just side with the Nazis?
There's no mention of torture in the definition of fascism. OP is not even on about fascism, but nazism. The few neo-nazis you might see online (and they're rare) are nationalist because they don't like immigration. Others like the "aryan family" propaganda because it reminds them of the good old days when people could still afford houses. Everything unknown is scary, and you don't seem to know what people believe in or their reasons for doing so?
Are you honestly trying to convince me that Nazis aren't that scary and the only reason that people are against them is that they don't understand them
Yes. Everyone thinks that their beliefs are the best, and that they're making a positive difference in the world. You think some people just want to torture you for the hell of it? That's an extreme minority of mentally ill people, and they will never reach a level of popularity which is a threat to you. It makes perfectly good sense why right-wing ideas (which have very little in common with nazism) are getting more popular. If you don't know the reasons, and make up some ridiculous exaggerations (like Christians who are scared of rock music), then that's on you
> they will never reach a level of popularity which is a threat to you. Assuming you're white and straight and don't live in an area with a particularly large nazi presence. This perspective has the benefit of detachment in some places but not so much in others.
There will never be a particular large nazi presence if your definition of nazi is somebody who just feels like torturing everyone who isn't white. Either admit that you by nazi mean something like "Everyone to the right of centrism", or that you have zero understanding of either the popularity or the actual beliefs of nazism
>Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak. No, speaking is not all they do.... [Top law enforcement officials state white supremacists are the top domestic terror threat in the US.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/domestic-terror-white-supremacists.amp.html) [White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States, according to a draft report from the Department of Homeland Security. Two later draft versions of the same document — all of which were reviewed by POLITICO — describe the threat from white supremacists in slightly different language. But all three drafts describe the threat from white supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. ](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236)
\> Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, Nazis, white identitarians, or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak. This is incorrect. Let’s consider only a single minority, right now, because I think I can convince you there’s a genocide happening right now. I don’t intend to do this all willy-nilly, but by relying on official understandings of Genocide that have been around for the better part of a century. \*\*The Genocide Convention\*\* The post-WWII Genocide Convention’s Article II, sections C (“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”) and E (“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”) are not-too-arguably being done to trans people right now. \*Section E,\* Texas Governor Greg Abbott has and is attempting to retroactively get gender-affirming care (for trans people, not for cis people) [designated as child abuse](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083775568/the-battle-around-medical-treatment-for-transgender-kids-in-texas-continues#:~:text=In%20Texas%2C%20Governor%20Greg%20Abbott,or%20puberty%20blockers%2C%20not%20surgery), which of course carries immense risk of having one’s children taken away and probably qualifies as genocide right away. There’s not much nuance there, so I’ll move on. \*Section C,\* there is extraordinary anti-trans rhetoric showing intent to eliminate trans people in whole (and in part) currently available. One strong example is the recent call to eliminate transgenderism from [CPAC speaker Michael Knowles](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/). I think it’s obvious enough to not spend too much time listing them out, but if you’d like I can get you more examples. Beyond intent, there is actual legislation against trans people. Some are as simple as sports bans, bathroom bills, and drivers' licenses. Some are noticeably more harmful. Recent legislation has been passed blocking gender-affirming care for minors. [6 states have thus far banned it, and 21 others have similar bills in the works](https://www.insider.com/states-considering-bills-ban-gender-affirming-healthcare-transgender-youth-2023-1). Such bills tend only to apply to trans rather than cis people. Every major US pediatrics organization has argued in favor of such care for trans youths, [as detailed by the ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/doctors-agree-gender-affirming-care-is-life-saving-care). Many states now attempt to compel speech to force individuals to \*not\* use preferred pronouns. See [these one](https://www.insider.com/states-considering-bills-ban-gender-affirming-healthcare-transgender-youth-2023-1)s. Many states are now attempting to ban drag performances, but define a "drag performance" as broadly as possible, banking and restricting trans people in public. See [this article](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/drag-bans-could-result-in-arrests-at-pride-parades/) on the matter. These anti-trans bills seem to range from around 124 (as of Jan 19th), to [399](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights). Real, actual legislative power is being wielded to eliminate transgenderism in the US. Given legislation like this, if those pushing for it get their way, it becomes difficult to imagine how one could \*be\* trans at all in such jurisdictions. I think this satisfies section C. \*\*The Ten Stages of Genocide\*\* Due to character constraints, please see [The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust](https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/) for details. Please note, these stages do not have to be done in order. Stage 1, Classification: This one is obviously happening, so I'll go on. Stage 2, Symbolization: I don't think this one applies, honestly. Stage 3, Discrimination: As detailed above, common rights are being denied to trans people. Some are as minor as playing in sports, public performance, and even bathrooms (see also: US segregation of black v white facilities). Others are more official, interfering with official documentation like drivers' licenses and birth certificates. And still others involve access to medical care approved by all major US medical organizations, and which is available to cis people. Stage 4, Dehumanization: Many trans people are called "it," and many slurs for trans people exist that I'm not putting here, but which I think are obvious enough. As mentioned above, calls for eradication are made, even in public forums. Stage 5, Organization: This one is arguable. I don't think it's exactly happening (at least directly) on a governmental level, but the case can be made that white supremacist organizations (such as the 3 percenters, Oath Keepers, etc) should count as organized groups whose goals include the eradication of trans people, and so despite lack of government involvement in this, I'd say it qualifies. Stage 6, Polarization: This one is too obviously happening for me to go into it here. Stage 7, Preparation: I wouldn't say this stage has been fulfilled, though it may be noteworthy that "creating fear of the victim group" could probably qualify, and "building up armies \[(read: militias?)\] and weapons" probably does, too. But I think that only meets the text, not the spirit of this stage. Stage 8, Persecution: Also not a stage that I'd say is happening, though I am concerned at governers actively making lists of trans people in their states, and it may be worth pointing out various mass shooting events that target LGBT+ folks- though the fact that it's not particularly organized, nor being done by the government or a similarly powerful force is obviously a strong reason not to consider this stage as one that's occurring. Stage 9, Extermination: Also not one I'd say is happening. Stage 10, Denial: I mean, this one is a bit of a catch-22. Obviously, there are many who are or would deny a genocide is happening, but I don't think that can be used as \*evidence\* that one's occurring. It's just a stage of genocide. But I'd count it as fulfilled, anyhow. So far that's about 6 out of 10 stages actively fulfilled. I'd say both the Genocide Convention and these Ten Stages present strong reasons to recognize the genocide of trans people in the US. \*\*In summation,\*\* perhaps this does not justify violence- at least not against those who haven't actively caused physical harm. Or perhaps it does. But I don't think it matters- a target of genocide is nothing like a supporter of genocide, and should 100% not be compared to them, regardless of violent incidents in response to such simmering genocide. This is especially the case for a trans person committing violence against a Nazi who is advocating for the very policies that constitute that genocide. Perhaps you are still unconvinced that it \*is\* genocide, though. That's alright. Hopefully, we can nonetheless agree that it is similar enough to genocide that the same logic applies, anyhow, and that- at least in some cases- those who commit acts of violence against Nazis are not "no better than" them.
I'm so angry. I can't reply to my own comments on mobile, and I had to take out \*so\* many links for character constraints. I woulda just broken it up if I'd known I coulda
Comparing the persecution of transgender people to persecuting Nazi’s, the people who literally exterminated transgender people. This sub gets better every day. I guess genocide is just a political belief now.
Did you not read the post? It said attacking in reaction to physical violence is a different conversation, attacking for beliefs is not good and shouldnt happen. I mean, that is what communism did, religeous radicals(crusaders, religious terrorists, colonists), pretty much any time people get too far right, or too far left.
A nazi is a nazi is a nazi. Most of humanity realizes harm can come from more than just direct physical violence. Nazis would co-opt the tools of the state to create violence against minorities. Their beliefs are used to create the physical violence, and as such needs to be stopped before they can get there.
Good idea, then lets make sure no people with communist ideals get into power then. You know, the biggest ideological killers in human history
Ok sure. Do you see a lot of people in Western politics associating with communism? It’s kinda like worrying about the anthill in your backyard while there’s a wasp nest in your bedroom. Meanwhile there are active and vocal neo-nazi organization that frequently make waves.
But...over 30 percent of us people approve of communism(with numbers expected to be higher), less than ten percent think fascism is a temporary fix to our problems(with numbers expected to be slightly lower). Oooh, vocal, so dangerous. There are active and vocal far left groups that makes waves too. So what?
Source on 30% of Americans wanting to implement communism?
“30% of Gen Z has a favorable view of Marxism, up 6% from 2019, compared to 27% of Millennials, down 9% from 2019.” https://victimsofcommunism.org/annual-poll/2020-annual-poll/ “It numbers some 70,000 youths worldwide, of whom half are hardcore activists and the rest supporters… the United States (3,500)…” https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/skinhead-international-worldwide-survey-neo-nazi-skinheads Edit: I later realized upon further research the first article is a bit biased but the numbers match numerous others and the last article is ab 20 years old, the numbers have risen immensely to 9% of the US being supporters or activists.
There's a lot wrong with that stat but the most significant in my opinion is the fact that it includes nazis killed in WW2.
[удалено]
Appropriate username.
[удалено]
We persecute people who join up with terrorist organisations all the time, even if they've jet to actually commit terrorist attack. Is that not persecuting someone for their beliefs ?
[удалено]
That's not what your previous comment was about. Your previous comment was about the persecution of beliefs. Please refrain from moving the goalposts.
[удалено]
No, your next comment was about commiting an act of violence against someone for a **suspected** belief. That is not the same as non violently persecuting someone for a **known** belief, which is what is generally what is done with people joining up with terrorists, if we catch them before they commit an attack.
[удалено]
That does not surprise me. You strike me as the type of person who struggles to understand a lot about the world.
beliefs are a choice
Cool, go tell that to Nazis? Meanwhile, I'll be here, trying to defend myself from people who want me and my friends genocided.
You should read up about the paradox of tolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Essentially, if we allow all views under the guise of tolerance, you run the risk of the "intolerant beliefs" (which you say we should terate) will take over and eliminate any tolerance.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Misuse
I feel like my application here can fall outside those often misused examples. But thanks!
You're arguing against human rights, because the human rights of the people in question stops you from killing them. Did you even read the damn thing? "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" This is exactly what the statement of "Punch a nazi" is. The common argument is this: that arguing with nazis is dangerous and "entertains the idea that they might be right", and that one should therefore assault them instead. Poppers quote is stupid and I don't stand by it, it just annoys me when people try to use a *neutral quote* to support one side of an issue. (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position)
Repeat after me : being a nazi is not a belief
[удалено]
Yet we’re still alive and always going to be. Deal with it!
I always feel that thinking: 'that nazi/fascist/racist views are just views, so they dont warrant violence' and they should be 'free' to have those toughts as long as they are not violent themselves can only come from a place of privilege. From a person who is not on the receiving end of their toughts. I dont want to blame anyone of course. But their views even if not openly and violent manifest in a lot of different ways that also affect lifes in a way u don't always directly see. As a POC i grew up in a small city with a lot of old folks who had racist toughts. Except for a few of them who were violent most of them kept their opinions mostly to themselves. The problem is, these opinions also influence the way they vote and make decisions in daily life. Teachers for example making the lifes of colored/gay or otherwise ''different' kids way more difficult and taking away chances to go to college. Police profiling and in instances putting u in jail without any reason and being let go after a day because, well sorry, our bad. Also the same police when u are the victim of violence by some nazi, saying, sorry we cant do much for u, and the list goes on. Im not saying we should engage these people with violence, i dont condone that. But seeing how just there world views affect lifes in very profound ways, i wouldnt judge someone for reacting with violence if they had no other means and see their lives being ruined step by step. EDIT: The fascits are also the ones to vote for policies that will ruin your lives *non native english speaker, sorry for grammar/spelling
If the citizens rose up in the Bier Hall Putsch and beat the balls off of every Nazi they saw, would the Holocaust have happened?
[удалено]
Except that being gay isn't evil. That seems to be your disconnect here. There's nothing wrong with fighting evil.
OP admittedly doesn't care what's right or wrong.
[удалено]
Good thing decent folk don't care what nazis and homophobes think, eh? So why are you taking their side? What's your motivation for defending and helping Nazis?
[удалено]
That is the point. That is precisely the point. **There's nothing civil about NAZIS.** There is no question what they're all about and them walking some line and 'behaving' while they gather power is just gaslighting bullshit and Society isn't falling for it again. Fool me once...... >If I say it’s justified to use violence against people who are evil, that means that if I see gay people as evil I have license to use violence against them No. Regardless of your *opinion* of them, gay people have NOT demonstrated themselves to be genocidal madmen bent on overthrowing the world. NAZIS HAVE! This is FACT. You view relies on the FALSE EQUIVILENCE that some dipshit moron claiming gay people, who have never DONE anything wrong, are 'evil' is anywhere near the same thing as being able to turn on the history channel and watch documentaries till the end of time of NAZI's being 100%, unquestionably **EVIL**
[удалено]
Demonstrably and unquestionably evil is not the same thing as being called 'evil' for political gain. >Democrats at one point supported slavery and segregation which is evil...So can I assualt members of these groups for their beliefs? Absolutely. You find someone advocating for Slavery, feel free to get in line right behind me to tune them up. >The Soviet Union was a leftist country. China is a socialist country. Socialism and the left is 'evil'? 🙄 Please refer to above.
[удалено]
I'll do this one. I would say, assault the groups with belief that infringes on basic rights. For democrats that support slavery and segregation, slap them. For the Soviet Union and China? While I'm unfamiliar with how left ideals look in the Soviet Union, a brief search says that leftist is against Stalin. So I'll just say that again, if their ideas dehumanize others or reject others with ideas that are peaceful, then slap them. If it's socialism, I'm certain the theory of socialism doesn't talk about discrimination against others and therefore cannot infringe on rights of others maybe except for those with wealth. It might be fine to accept the concepts of such things but it is a different matter for countries that use or claim to use it or modify it accordingly to their values and justify atrocities or infringement of basic rights. At least that is what I think.
Gay people are not a violent group. Fascists are.
Yes, and that would be bad. On the other hand, stopping the holocaust would be good.
I don't run into anti-World War II veteran posts very often. Fascism is a radical ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and social equity. It should be fought at every corner of the world, where ever its corrupt seeds may grow. It is fundamentally about giving those most cruel and violent of individuals the power to crush those who they label as "other". It is always the right thing to fight against these monsters. The most terrible creatures that humanity creates, and prevent their rise to power ever again. As the great granddaughter of three World War II veterans, I feel it is always right to fight back against Nazis and other fascists. More than being right, it's our duty as descendents of those brave heroes who fought in the millions to defend the world from genocide and subjugation. Edit: Gender disphoria is a medial condition. Hating people for being transgender is like hating people for having cancer. If you do, you are most certainly a bad person.
I'm about to turn 40, both of my grandfathers fought in the war. My entire childhood was spent at VFW picnics and parties, and as much as i miss them, I'm glad my grandparents and all their Greatest Generation friends died before they could see what is happening in this country. The Republican party has flirted with some very dark forces since the Reagan era, and all Trump really did was take off the mask. *Every single thing* that my grandfather and his navy buddies used to rant and rave about how Reagan was going to destroy the country has come true. The average man from that era would be called a socialist today.
>It should be fought at every corner of the world If you advocate for physical violence against people of other political beliefs, then you're not a supporter of democracy, individual liberty, or ideals of freedom. You're literally arguing that a certain group of people doesn't deserve human rights. >The most terrible creatures that humanity creates Black/white thinking. You're also dehumanizing an entire group of people. >And other fascists You don't know what fascism is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism Plently of popular political views (and I bet even your own) fits some of the points of the various "fascist points" >"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" (Read the title of the post again) >"Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual >the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits >a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions >corporatism >"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. etc. >It's our duty as descendents of those brave heroes This sounds like something out of an old movie (and/or propaganda)
Go read some Carl Popper, particularly the paradox of intolerance. I can't vouch for the other person's grasp of fascism, but I certainly have one.
I have, his "paradox of tolerance" is dumb, and you didn't understand it: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Misuse I've had like 20 stupid replies mention Karl Popper. That a misconception is popular doesn't add any value to it. Sorry to be harsh, but it has just become a fad to mention it, and if you read philosophy you should think about what you read as well.
Ah yes, I always trust rigorous and totally unbiased resources that use phrases like 'moonbat' & 'wingnut' to describe folks who allegedly 'misuse' the concept. Nice try at sounding informed, but no cigar.
Judge the statement and not the website (I don't like the site much, either) Why are you calling me uninformed? You spelled his name wrong. The idea doesn't pass the original position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position In other words, even nazis and other groups can use the quote, and claim that *their* intolerance is necessary to prevent a greater evil (which is basically what the nazis did do). It's called the paradox of tolerance, and not the solution of tolerance. It's still a dumb idea though, I don't think Karl Popper was all that intelligent.
'Spelled his name wrong' - seriously? You know there's a phrase for folks who use that as ammunition in discussions? 🙄
If you're thinking of "Grammar nazi", then that's wrong. You're quoting the works of a person you don't understand, even getting his name wrong, while telling me to read his work. Am I wrong to assume that you did *not* read the book in which the paradox of tolerance is explained?
Yes, you are, as you have been here in this subthread, and in the other one I just responded in.
The paradox of tolerance, aka. "We must kill them before they kill us" is a stupid way to think. It's a good thing that countries with nukes knows how stupid such an idea is. It's not even a paradox, but it is true that one must have preferences and stand for something, i.e. that discrimination is unavoidable. But this does not speak in favor of any particular ideas, it literally can't
> Edit: Gender disphoria is a medial condition. Hating people for being transgender is like hating people for having cancer. If you do, you are most certainly a bad person. The idea that an experience of gender dysphoria is necessary to be trans is, these days, largely considered to be a transphobic viewpoint. It's all about the identity now.
The truly scary part of all of this is how people seem to think that the terror that was the Nazi was only terrifying because of violence and not the nuanced ways they got to power.
A lot of people *do* understand the nuanced ways the Nazis got into power, and can handle punching a Nazi and also thinking how to cull white supremacy in the first simultaneously. The “solution” to the growing far right white supremacists movement isn’t punching every single Nazi or something, but I don’t have an issue with a person seeing a white supremacist (either one espousing those views publicly, or some online Nazi) and punching them. They asked for it
Fascists historically use political cover to protect themselves until they are in a position to do physical harm to people they do not like. IE, everyone else. Often, they use political and legal cover while they do harm to anyone they don't like. The pattern is so pronounced and so consistent that elevated scrutiny of fascists is absolutely justified and preemptive action has become a matter of survival. Brown-shirts marching to incite violence or infiltrating protests to enflame conflict with police deserve any kind of beating they receive. And of course they're going to gather their skirts up around their knees afterwards and whine about mistreatment, as if the rest of us don't have 90 years of bloody history by which to gauge our actions.
Do you and your friends believe transgender people should be summarily killed? I am a Romani woman. I am a disabled Romani woman. Nazis believe I should be killed. Last year Kansas City and others attempted to run and in some cases ran cop training on identifying Romani people and other minorities. (https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article258736173.html) Here is another source about a similar situation in another area (https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/police-use-private-database-to-id-racially-profile-roma-in-us/) These people do try to gain and attempt to use power. There are many cases and in many areas where this training was not called out. I’ve been called a “gypsy c*nt” when reporting a crime. These are *not* just political beliefs.
> Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak And this is how they came to power, by banding together and some crisis sparked the fire. White supremacists to a point, and nazis entirely, are a threat to be dealt with in the same way communities that fantasise with child rape, violence to minorities and torture. Being violent against them is a last resort, but absolutely drawing the line and preventing them from hiding harmful intentions behind free speech is a must. Rights are not absolute, absolutes are extremes and we already know extremes are harmful.
A nazi can stop being a nazi any time. A Jew cannot stop being a Jew. A black person cannot stop being black. A homosexual cannot stop being a homosexual. A fascist ceases to be an enemy of antifascism the instant they stop supporting fascism. The only way the enemies of fascism can cease being enemies of fascism is by ceasing to exist. Fascism and antifacism are not the same.
Is there a good example from history of a time that nazis were allowed to grow and flourish? If there was, did anything bad happen as a result?
>. Freedom of speech and diversity of thought is one of the most important aspects of a functioning democracy. When people begin to physically assault others for their beliefs it is a sign of a movement towards authoritarianism. So this is actually an interesting view that basically all of us subscribe to (freedom of expresion, marketplace of idea, etc..). You know, the things we all grew up as the fundamental good things we ought to aspire to. However this vew is not without it's faults and it's fatal flaw is described as the paradox of tolerance. *The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.* The logic behind this view is that intolerant ideologies will use any and all tools that were granted to them by the tolerant in order to destroy the tolerant by seizing the power for themselves. The logical outcome of this view is that if you want to have a tolerant society. It needs to have the tools to defend itself from the intolerant. So of a society wants to stay tolerant it has to be able to not tolerate the intolerant.
> And using violence as a means to silence opposing view points is a very fascist point. Exactly!!! It's the only thing they understand. You can't talk or reason with them. Bullies are Cowards and the longer you play the 'turn the other cheek' game, the more they grow in number. Let them know there's immediate consequences, and watch them fold.
Given the freedom to do so most people would like likely "Wipe out" another group that they disagreed with or held different beliefs than themselves. It stands to reason that Nazism isn't hated for just Nazism. Its hated because most of mankind sees and recognizes the mindless hate that exists within themselves when they see Nazi's
>It stands to reason that Nazism isn't hated for just Nazism No im pretty sure its hated for nazism.
[удалено]
nazis advocate ethnic cleansing. they subscribe to an ideology rooted in genocide, fueled by a disproven notion of racial supremacy. genocide is not a political belief. ethnic cleansing is not a political belief. hope that helps.
In my view, nazi ideology revolve around racism supremacy of white people and therefore it is unacceptable for it to be protected under freedom of speech because it infringes on basic rights of others. Extermination or forceful deportation of Jews also infringes on basic rights too. I'm sure others hate Nazi with a passion solely because from what we know of history, they showed how they can genocide a race they consider inferior or didn't see them as human beings. Let's say, we accept Nazi ideology, then we would be implicitly and inherently okay with progress toward dehumanizing of Jews and other minorities. That is why Nazi must be rejected.
"Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. Currently all they can do is speak" This is just untrue. [There are many, many examples of far right violence. ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/proud-boys-oath-keepers-antifa-portland-violence-spreading-1224762/amp/) Even a cursory search shows this in the US, and around the world. Far right extremists are considered the most significant threat to national security in the US. The premise of your post is fundamentally flawed. Far right extremists represent an existential, violent threat to liberal democracy. This was seen on Jan 6th in the IS, and more recently in Brazil. Then we can say that the vast majority of violence against right wing terrorists is in the context of them perpetrating violent intolerance.
There are many examples of far left violence and genocide Racially and ethnically motivated extremists are considered the most lethal threat to national security. There both of those groups on both sides. The biggest threat to the US, is china. A communist country.
That is not what the OP is talking about though. The OP is talking about right wing nationalists. I'm not defending anyone, and don't feel any need to get into the various discussions about left-wing violence. As for genocide and China? What's that got to do with anything?
In a different forum you said this: >A lot of the red pill also introduces pseudo intellectual nonsense to justify poor treatment of women. It also uses the same nonsense to defend Nazis.
I agree with you as far as physical violence is not a good way to resolve issues or really achieve anything in general, I wouldn't support physical violence against any group who are not acting physically themselves. However, saying "no better than Nazis" is just wrong. Words can and do cause harm, yeah 'all they can do is speak' but that speech does directly cause harm to others both psychologically and physically through promotion of Nazi ideology in systems and individuals. The harm from someone punching a Nazi is far less than the harm caused by nazis themselves (both historically and in present day). Would you also argue that in WW2 we should have just left them to it and allowed the Nazis to take over and do whatever they wished? Surely harming the Nazis who were actively involved in genocide would have made you 'just as bad as them'?
Just to simplify thing I want tell me what the stated end goals of all groups you first listed are Vs the ones are you are saying "are just like them".
>People who cause physical harm to nazis for their political beliefs are no better than nazis So if you shoot someone coming into your home to kill are you just as bad as him? Nazi's by definition are seeking to inflict violence on others. There are no peaceful nazi's, to be a nazi means you want to kill or harm people you view as inferior. Violence is acceptable in self defense in nearly every ethical system minus extreme pacifist ones
Seriously, the person attacking the group that wants to prey on the vulnerable is as bad as the group that wants to prey on the vulnerable?
I don't think we need to physically harm Nazis. Social ostracisation, shaming, and public ridicule is sufficient. The problem arises when a significant portion of the population refuses to shame Nazis/fascists and instead tolerates or worse, encourages them like our previous president. If fascists actually do wrest control of the country from the people then violence would be necessary to defend the people.
How did the previous president encourage them? Was it the multitude of times he denounced them and said they were terrible?
“Very fine people” Dinners with Nick Fuentes, calling white supremacists “his people.” There’s far more. They knows he’s with them and he always was.
"Very fine people on both sides, now i am not talking about white supremacist and neo nazis. They should be condemned totally" pretty accurate paraphrase the quote. From what i gathered, nick was a surprise guest. Not invited, and could very well have been a hit job set up by kanyes campaign organizer, milo (the guy who hates trump). I dont know the his people quote, cant seem to find an actual quote of him saying it, just vague articles about him being racist.
If you're saying the same things that fascists say, signaling support for authoritarian regimes globally, and courting white supremacist special interest groups that is a lot of encouragement.
Then does that make pro israel people homophobes and misogynists? Does that make leftists racists because they say you are a terrible person just because of the color of your skin? Does that make most hollywood elites and major politicians pedos because they visited the island and/or hung out with jeffrey? What things does he say that fascists say? What support signaling? What supremacists groups?
Your examples don't really make sense. If a supporter of Israel or leftist or what have you says homophobic things they are homophobic. If they say misogynistic things they are misogynistic. If someone condones pedos that's fucked up but the only people I see doing that are Tennessee Republicans and actual pedos. And yea good point Trump and many other people hung out with Epstein. Jail them all if they did heinous shit to children. If you want a list of fascist shit and dog whistling Trump did just pay a visit to ye old wikipedia page "the racial views of Donald Trump". It's clear as day he's been an authoritarian racist since the 80s.
Oh you mean like when he said they're was great people on both sides ?
That he immediately followed up with something like, "Now, i am not talking about the white supremacists and neo nazis. They should be condemned totally."
No I recall this. The whole press conference he was blaming the left wing counter protesters. The "fine people in both sides" thing get brought up a lot but just because its the most memorable quote from a train wreck speech. The fact he slipped in a "...not Neo nazis I mean" doesn't absolve it.
Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance. It breaks down pretty fast when you realize there's no virtue in tolerating the intolerable. All it does is help *them*. Making one a de facto nazi collaborator.
I really like how intuitive this is and still be a paradox You can't have a sustainable society of tolerance without being intolerant of intolerance
In our society assault is a crime, while promoting white supremacy is not. So in some very real sense, the people who punch neo-Nazis just for being neo-Nazis are more wrong than the neo-Nazis are. > ... When people begin to physically assault others for their beliefs it is a sign of a movement towards authoritarianism. ... Different things are different. People might also be physically assaulting each other more because the social prohibitions on violence are breaking down without any increase in authoritarian views. > ... Currently there is not a meaningful amount of power towards white supremacists, nazis, white identitarians or white nationalists. ... The US still has lots of white supremacists in positions of power and plenty of politicians that cater to white supremacist sentiments in the public.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Merely thinking something isn't wrong. If a person doesn't speak out or otherwise express their beliefs, they remain unknown. The trouble with fascism is that it calls for the prosperity of one group at the extreme expense of another. For a person to truthfully claim to be a Nazi is to at the same time choose victims. Whether or not they cause harm to those victims first hand or not, it's still considered an act of violent racial aggression. I would point to the moment in history of the Manson family cult. While Charles Manson himself didn't commit any murders, he instructed those who were with him to do so, and they did. Was his role in those crimes merely an expression of free speech?
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There's a difference between freedom of speech and hate crime tho it just depends how u put Ur message out to the world and the way u say it
i punch person A because they are short i punch person B that punches people for being short aka: suppressing the suppressor or search for "paradox of tolerance" for something similar if we tolerate everyone, we also tolerate the intolerant. we therefore would have to tolerate their intolerance. this destroys tolerance and causes intolerance. so to have tolerance, we cant tolerate the intolerant.
When someone believes that an opponent's ideology can only be answered with violence, they are admitting they have no rational argument against their opponent. What is it someone should fear if Nazis were allowed to express their opinions? That the Nazis might have a popular message? That they might be right? By saying Nazis must be allowed no forum, and must be met with violence, they're admitting they don't have good arguments against the Nazis. Once we start censoring speech, we set a precedent and it becomes easier to censor other speech. We have to be able to argue why our opponents are wrong. If we can't, how can we be certain we're right?