Ethical considerations of Punching Neo Nazis.

Skism · Post by **Skism** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 19:11

NO I am not seriously advocating that you do this

but apparently a whole bunch of people think it is okay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rh1dhur4aI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql7BaOrTvYA

http://www.avclub.com/article/tim-heide ... get-248860

http://kotaku.com/nazi-gets-punched-in- ... 1791469552

^ the comments section of those two was scary there are comments saying that if you are defending his free speech then you are a bigot!

So Chris Ray Gun et al made a song: Punch a Nazi song

Its quite a catchy song too it rhymes well, and its definitely got a point to it.

Anyway leading ethicists have weighed in:

https://mic.com/articles/160203/is-it-e ... .Wfjji12V0

- its unethical because it feeds them - another source (that I cannot find) said its unethical period and where shocked it was a question.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 19:59

Not read the links, but no, it isn't ok, because it only does what they want to do.

Want to really piss them off? get a big butch homosexual who doesn't mind and ask him to kiss them when they are shouting at him, then film it and put it on YouTube.....

I have a friend who is an ex boxer and would fit the bill, except he really doesn't do confrontations. His partner has embraced every flouncy gay stereotype there is, so wouldn't really do for this sort of thing either.

Lovely chap, except he likes season 5 of Babylon 5, so is also clearly a damned soul with no hope of redemption.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 20:03

It's unethical, because it goes beyond the boundaries of "opinion" and it's immoral because it imposes one's will upon another for the purposes of inflicting harm or aggression.

I don't care what they "think." I only care what they "do." Most of them, in my opinion, know little about Nazism, and just want to act out and associate themselves with some sort of "righteous cause." Some... just like to "hate" for its own sake, I'd imagine. Some are Nationalists who couldn't find a home anywhere else and some didn't get enough toys as a child...

PS - In high school, my friends and I used to pretend to be "Nazis" in our "sculpting/pottery" class, which we had to take two of 'cause we never took our art elective courses and had to double-up in our Senior year... Anyway, we did it to get a rise out of the teacher, who was pretty darn strange to begin with. I still don't know if she ever took us seriously, but she sure acted like it.

Skism · Post by **Skism** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 22:12

Morkonan wrote:It's unethical, because it goes beyond the boundaries of "opinion" and it's immoral because it imposes one's will upon another for the purposes of inflicting harm or aggression.

I don't care what they "think." I only care what they "do." Most of them, in my opinion, know little about Nazism, and just want to act out and associate themselves with some sort of "righteous cause." Some... just like to "hate" for its own sake, I'd imagine. Some are Nationalists who couldn't find a home anywhere else and some didn't get enough toys as a child...

PS - In high school, my friends and I used to pretend to be "Nazis" in our "sculpting/pottery" class, which we had to take two of 'cause we never took our art elective courses and had to double-up in our Senior year... Anyway, we did it to get a rise out of the teacher, who was pretty darn strange to begin with. I still don't know if she ever took us seriously, but she sure acted like it.

What did you do make Nazi pottery and talk to each other like Gestapo?

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 22:44

Punching them is not gonna accomplish anything. While I can't exactly say that I feel a lot of sympathy for Richard Spancer, I still think that violence in this case was unjustified. That is not the way we handle our differences in a democracy (or at least it shouldn't be).

Skism wrote:[...]
^ the comments section of those two was scary there are comments saying that if you are defending his free speech then you are a bigot! [...]

Youtube comments are the pest. The are on the same level as 4chan on a bad day. Pick a right leaning video and you will find people calling for the execution of all right leaning people, pick a left leaning video and you will find people calling for the execution of all left leaning people. I never understood why youtube was that bad, probably because there is more or less no moderation.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 23:11

No, it's not ethical, and it wouldn't be even if their neo-Nazi credentials had gone beyond suspicion to the grounds of proof. Engage them in debate by all means, but throwing a punch pretty much means you've lost the argument.

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue, 28. Mar 17, 23:23

pjknibbs wrote:No, it's not ethical, and it wouldn't be even if their neo-Nazi credentials had gone beyond suspicion to the grounds of proof. Engage them in debate by all means, but throwing a punch pretty much means you've lost the argument.

Unless the argument is 'who has the best punch', which is about all I know about boxing.

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 13:14

This...are we....are we actually able to come to a consent on something?

Or did I just jinx it?

philip_hughes · Post by **philip_hughes** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 13:43

PUNCH THEM ALL

jynx.

Bishop149 · Post by **Bishop149** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 16:19

clakclak wrote:This...are we....are we actually able to come to a consent on something?

Or did I just jinx it?

Aaha! I will weigh in and (partially) play devils advocate then.

We can obviously agree that punching people based on their political views is not acceptable behaviour in a civilised society*.
I'd imagine that we can also agree that a historical act of large scale and horrendous violence against Fascists was probably, on balance, the right thing to do.

So the question then becomes when is that line is crossed. Do we have to wait until a Popularist Fascist movement has managed to seize control of our entire country? Or might it be wise to have acted somewhat earlier?
Is it realistic to expect purely non-violent opposition to be effective against an ideology with violence enshrined in its very core?
Much debated that last one, in both directions. . . . . history would tend to suggest not.

So whilst punching some pasty little goit with a frog obsession off the internet might be a bit much, waiting for him to be leading the Nuremberg rally is likely not enough.
So my answer to the poll would be: Depends . . . . on quite a lot.

The following is much quoted, although it's authenticity is much debated:

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler

*Although I do have a more than a little sympathy for it when the person being punched is advocating we dismantle that civilised society . . . . call it an immediate and direct lesson in the value of what they wish to destroy.

Masterbagger · Post by **Masterbagger** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 16:29

Nazis have the reich to defend themselves.

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 16:37

Bishop149 wrote:
clakclak wrote:This...are we....are we actually able to come to a consent on something?

Or did I just jinx it?
Aaha! I will weigh in and (partially) play devils advocate then.

We can obviously agree that punching people based on their political views is not acceptable behaviour in a civilised society*.
I'd imagine that we can also agree that a historical act of large scale and horrendous violence against Fascists was probably, on balance, the right thing to do.

So the question then becomes when is that line is crossed. Do we have to wait until a Popularist Fascist movement has managed to seize control of our entire country? Or might it be wise to have acted somewhat earlier?
Is it realistic to expect purely non-violent opposition to be effective against an ideology with violence enshrined in its very core?
Much debated that last one, in both directions. . . . . history would tend to suggest not.

So whilst punching some pasty little goit with a frog obsession off the internet might be a bit much, waiting for him to be leading the Nuremberg rally is likely not enough.
So my answer to the poll would be: Depends . . . . on quite a lot.

The following is much quoted, although it's authenticity is much debated:

"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler

*Although I do have a more than a little sympathy for it when the person being punched is advocating we dismantle that civilised society . . . . call it an immediate and direct lesson in the value of what they wish to destroy.

If we are going down that road punching them is not going to be good enough. To stop them with violence you have to imprison or kill them. Which again makes punching (unless we are talking repeated punches to vital body parts) the wrong choice, because it is a very inefficient way to kill multiple people. (not to mention you'd most likely break your hand).

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Wed, 29. Mar 17, 23:51

Skism wrote:...What did you do make Nazi pottery and talk to each other like Gestapo?

Actually... yes. Sort of.

We also did other things..

For instance, we were forbidden to create "ash trays" in class, since the teacher wasn't going to stand for anyone promoting smoking. A good thing, really. But, we thought we'd have some fun.

My own creation, which "totally isn't an ashtray" was described by me, when the teacher asked:

"Oh, no, it's not an ashtray! See, this is where the sacrificial pit is when these figures sacrifice a person to the devil. This part is what the bodies fall into. Here's the alter where they hold the victim, I mean the sacrifice, down... "

That's almost word-for-word what I told the teacher, who then hurried away with a worried look on her face.

I also made a large clay boot as a "flowerpot" and put a swastika on the heal-strap part...

Look, we were adolescents and the teacher told us stuff that we could not do! What did she expect?

(I've always been a god-fearing man and think the Nazis and Holocaust were terrible people/things, but being a teenager ain't easy and I am not proud of all the things I did... Well, proud of some, not so proud of others.

)

Bishop149 · Post by **Bishop149** » Thu, 30. Mar 17, 12:12

clakclak wrote:If we are going down that road punching them is not going to be good enough. To stop them with violence you have to imprison or kill them. Which again makes punching (unless we are talking repeated punches to vital body parts) the wrong choice, because it is a very inefficient way to kill multiple people. (not to mention you'd most likely break your hand).

If there are a lot of them the punching on a piecemeal basis would be ineffective indeed. :roll I'd like to think however that the Richard Spencers of this world are still relatively rare.

He should have been locked up long ago TBH, and in most western countries there are laws in place under which he could have been. Not the USA however, the first amendment trumps all.
The US has always had a problem with discriminating "free speech" from "hate speech" and many would argue this is a good thing. Perhaps it is, however it operates under a few rather naive assumptions. Chiefly that there will always be enough people speaking up against it to drown it out. . . . or that all forms of speech are equally powerful.

e1team · Post by **e1team** » Thu, 30. Mar 17, 21:27

You can't punch just anyone one you please. I mean I don't support racism or anything but uou only should act violently if uou are threatned. Everyone is entitled to his/ her opinion. As long as it doesn't threaten other's life you have right to hurt the person. I know some of my views will get me into trouble with some people, but throughout my life I always acted tolerantly towards other peoples' opinions.

Chips · Post by **Chips** » Thu, 30. Mar 17, 21:42

e1team wrote:You can't punch just anyone one you please. I mean I don't support racism or anything but uou only should act violently if uou are threatned.

You should only "act violently" if you are attacked and have no other means available and/or other methods are riskier than fighting.

Threatening is so wide ranging as to be awful choice of words. Here is what I mean. You push an old man, repeatedly, saying "give me your wallet now" to him. He refuses, and says to you "if you don't stop I'll punch you".

By your statement you may, at this point, launch into a full on assault of the old man you were being aggressive towards... because, you know, he just threatened you.

So do you really mean "threaten", or do you mean "self defence as a last resort".

e1team · Post by **e1team** » Thu, 30. Mar 17, 22:11

Well yea, I meant self defence obviously. Thanks

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Thu, 30. Mar 17, 22:35

When thinking about how many times I've been in an physical interpersonal conflict... Uh, all I can say is that we called it the "Madness Season." (Paraphrased and definitely not Friedman's darn book I could never grow to like.)

In short - I was going to jump in and proudly proclaim I have never been an aggressor in such a situation. That is, to my great shame, not the case. But, certainly, such things have not occurred in several decades, so at least I have that going for me on my moral scorecard.

I've been tempted, but I learned from experience that regret is something to be avoided, even if it means my pride or dignity might suffer.

"Youth" cares a great deal about pride and personal dignity, but I've outgrown those self-perceptions. I hope.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Ethical considerations of Punching Neo Nazis.

Do you think it is ethical to punch suspected Neo Nazis?

Ethical considerations of Punching Neo Nazis.

Re: Ethical considerations of Punching Neo Nazis.