I'd rather punch a commie. bolshevik commies were responsible for the deaths of *TENS OF MILLIONS* of innocent people. Yet commies still persist to this day. Like antifia. Openly communist. Yet they're supported by the left and mainstream media.
No. It's never ok to result to violence when someone is just sharing their ideas, no matter how offensive they are. When one side results to violence, the other side will respond in kind and rise up to be just as violence. All hitting him did was justify in his eyes how right he is and how right his views are because the other side hit first, thus making them barbaric. If you really hate someone, don't hit them unless they themselves have resulted to _physical_ violence. This is about communication, and hitting someone is the quickest way to get them to never listen to your side of the issue.
+Wolfgang Romine Okay but let's be real, if Neo-Nazis could listen to reason, then they wouldn't be Nazis. There's no form of logic that can make that belief system acceptable. So how exactly do you get through to people like that? And while Spencer may not have committed any violent acts himself (that we know of), his ideology has been used by many others as reason to terrorize, brutalize, and murder millions of people. At what point does he become a guilty party? Are we supposed to sit around and wait for him and his kind to hurt and/or kill more people before we act? I'm not faulting you for your beliefs. I make it a point to advocate for nonviolence as often as I can. But this issue is definitely a grey area for me.
TheNotAdam a lot of sjws and feminist have dogmatic beliefs as well and will not listen to reason so could I also harm them? And same with Islam islam has been used by many people and organizations such as isis to kill others in the name of god this is clearly a harmful ideology I mean the Quran clearly calls for the killing of non believers so would you also say the same thing if a Muslim promoting islam got punched due to his beliefs being used to hurt others?
Vulpes Inculta Exactly. Muslims and the religion of Islam are incompatible with the society of the West. For the sake of our own safety we can't ignore what they actually believe just for the sake of "not being racist".
I haven't understood this debate so far, but you explained it very well and rationally. I don't agree with any physical violence, however, a person cannot spout this much controversial hate and then be surprised when he gets backlashes! Loved the video!
Karma is the baddest bitch you will ever face. You can't spout bs ideals that hurt so many people and still does to this day and expect to have any sort of decorum headed your way.
i dont know why, but striking anyone in the face when you/your immediate friends or family arent the immediate direct targets of hate doesnt sit well for me
I would like to agree with this. If their ideas are so bad it is a simple matter to challenge them. Punching someone for speaking or thinking is not a challenge to those possitions it is an instigation of more violence.
That only works when the person you are is disagreement with is using logic. There is no logic when someone advocates for violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
They don't that's not the point. The onlookers are the point. Frankly ridicule and mockery are much more effective in combating these ideas. Making them laughingstocks was a staple of talk shows in the 80's and 90's and folks didn't take them seriously. They and their ideas were stupid and widely mocked. They didn't have much traction because who wants to be seen as stupid? Taking these ideas seriously is a mistake. Treating these ideas, and the people who espouse them, like clowns is a powerful preventative.
TheNotAdam A large problem with this whole idea is that the bar for being called and actually considered a Nazi are as low as being called and considered a witch in the 17th century. It is common for groups of people to label a person or group with different (perhaps more conservative) ideas as a Nazi while their ideas are no where close to actual Nazism, Neo-Nazism, White Nationalism, Racism, or perhaps not even Nationalism. Orderly, calm, considered discussion is the only way to combat Nazism. Failing that mockery and not taking them seriously will at least marginalize them.
dieCG You being a victim of people with similar ideas does not give you any ground to say what is just and unjust or who should or shouldn't get punched. You have no right to enact violence on anyone (unless in defense against ongoing violence). Violence against this man and others like him only serves to strengthen their position and weaken their opposition's position. You have to drop your emotional baggage and think strategically. What is the best way to diminish the influence of bad/harmful ideas? I would say understanding. You understand the bad ideas and communicate why they are bad and offer alternatives.
I think your on the right track here. I don't think violence is right unless it's necessary for defending life. However, I can totally understand someone losing control when faced with the kind of hate spewed by Spencer and his ilk.
TheNotAdam I don't know the answer for you. I'm not sure I know the answer for myself. I know for my grandfather there was never a time when it would be okay. He was a conscientious objector in WWII. I don't think I could follow his lead entirely. I think fighting the Nazis was necessary, they were killing and oppressing people. This dick was just spewing words. Disgusting words, but only words. And punching him didn't stop those words, it actually drew more attention to them.
I'm Glad you came out and said no despite the temptation to say otherwise. Now to people who believe it is ok let me say this little statement I have prepared here "The problem I have with this is that you can call anyone a nazi if they are one or not, then use that as an excuse to enact violence on them which is a problem. How I see it if you support any violence purely on what someone has said then you support all violence on anyone who is accused of saying that same thing. I don't know about you but i wouldn't feel comfortable in a world were anyone on the right is now a nazi (whether you are one of those people who say that or not there are people who do say that) and can be punched without consequence and i would hope most people reading this would feel the same way despite where they fit on the political scale. I just felt i should get my 5 cents out there (or was it 10 cents ... or a penny ) and let my opinion be known." Thank you for your time ^^ good day good afternoon and goodnight ^^
i practice Tae Kwon Do, and our main values include using what we are taught, and teach others, only in self defense. so, basically my values do not alone me to punch(kick, etc.) someone unless they attack me first.
I think we confuse "Freedom of Speech" with "Inciting Violence" which is actually not protected speech. If you incite violence you deserve violence in return. Simple as that.
"Non-violent protest only really works when the people you're trying to send a message to recognize basic standards of decency." Yeah, that's not how non-violent protest works. "Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." -Mahatma Gandhi The point of non-violence is that when property is destroyed, people are attacked, and the ability of regular citizens to go about their lives is disrupted by violent protests, this generates a need for social support on the part of those targeted or affected by the violence. The second you use violence you lose.
It depends on the situation, if I'm being attacked I will defend myself. If I'm being extremely insulted it also may happen. Violence is an answer, but not the best one!
The issue is punching Richard Spencer is inflicting actual violence on someone for having beliefs that are racist. I have never seen proof of Richard Spencer being a nazi so I'm not sure I would even give him the label of "nazi". His core beliefs are centered around how "diversity is bad" and that "we need to have non-racist segregation", which is an extremely damaging belief but at the end of the day his words aren't actual punches and kicks. Why would you endorse punching a man for having damaging beliefs? I believe religion to be damaging, should I go out and punch some religious people? Absolutely not. If you're going to say it's okay to punch Richard Spencer then what keeps his supporters from inflicting actual violence on the people against them? I have a feeling if it was Richard Spencer punching a liberal because he considered their ideas to be toxic and not the other way around people wouldn't even be asking if it's okay to be beating people. I'll say this again to make sure nobody gets the wrong message, Richard Spencer has some awful ideas but in no way are ideas ever deserving of being beaten.
The ideology of islam absolutely believes in the genocide of homosexuals, yet I would never punch a Muslim. Please give me proof Richard Spencer has even advocated for genocide , I have never seen him do that. I have seen him advocate for racial segregation, but never genocide.
+32Megabytes You hopefully saw the clip. The man is a Neo Nazi. But that's beside the point. My point is this: people in Spencer's camp have already been using his ideology to brutalize, terrorize, and murder millions of people. He may not have committed any violent acts (that we know of), but his words make others feel entitled to do so. I'm sure no one would care if a neo Nazi got beat up after trying to attack someone. But since Spencer is participating I. Their movement, at what point does he become a participant in their crimes?
TheNotAdam when he commits an actual crime. That is the moment an individual is complacent. As for the rest, I’m sure you are terrified by the superficial similarities between some extreme ideas and the actual Nazis. They have as much in common as a Rhodesian and a Kenyan, sure there are both similar looking, but culturally they are not the same. Neonazis might look like Nazis, but real Nazis would hate them because they aren’t Nazis.
its never ok to punch anyone even if you really want to or they deserve it. it doesnt get you anywhere it just creates more hate and misunderstanding. it makes you no better then them. you want to prove you are better then by using your words and try to create some understanding and its ok to disagree with someone but not to attack them because of it. this is just my opinion
+Heather :P:PXD Here's my question, if words must always be the tool you use to oppose someone (which is perfectly valid, definitely not faulting you for saying that), how do you get through to someone who is incapable of listening to reason? Because let's face it, people who listen to reason aren't really the ones becoming Neo-Nazis. So how do you get through to people like that?
You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. The most persuasive argument I've found is to move on and live better than my opponent. Envy is a powerful motivator. As long as neo-Nazis consider their opponents worse off than them, they see no reason to change.
If someone is physical or sexual harassing you or someone you know you mother fucking punch or further hurt them but unless the person is putting you in harms way just ignore them or run.
I always loved your earpiece thingy majiggy...yah- also great video you're really good speaker. I'm a boy in 7th grade and I get really shy when presenting a project or something like that-also your sooo cool. that's it 👏😁
Well if he's advocating for an ideology that puts my rights here in America at risk and therefor putting me in danger I think acting in self-defense n punching the guy is perfectly justifiable
Assault is a good way of saying that you aren't smart enough to argue their points on intellectual grounds. I know you said at the end it wasn't okay, but you certainly defended the assault strongly enough. Long time subscriber, currently unsubscribed. I'm not trying to threaten you by unsubscribing, I know your subscribers are far more liberal than anything else and so you're appealing to your fan base. But I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
Everett Logan not smart enough? Or maybe your arguments make no difference because nazis have no interest in hearing your logic or your arguments. Their ideology is upheld regardless of what anyone has to say. Sometimes you have to speak on their terms to get the message across.
Oh, the Nazi message has not only been heard, but seen. Most of my family was killed off by Nazis. I know exactly what their message is. And my message back is a fist to their fucking faces.
Everett Logan ever tried talking to someone who litterally calls themselves neo nazi? Cause they dont respond to logic or reason. A punch in the face will probably limit his will to try and spread his ideology or proudly waddle around carrying swastika's
No, just let them talk and eventually they will talk themselves into a corner, they have bad ideas and are easy to beat in a debate. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You're no better than a person with a hateful ideology if you support violence against them (when they are simply talking) supporting someones right to speak doesn't mean you like what hey are saying or what they stand for.
So violence for political ends is ok as long as it's directed toward people you deem sufficiently bad? Remind me again what separates you from a terrorist again.
these are my exact thoughts on the topic. i wouldn't punch a nazi but i'm not gonna be mad if someone else does. and the whole "you're only legitimizing what they're saying!" argument is ridiculous. as if the nazis were soooo legitimate after they were defeated (with violence) in WW2. they weren't. obviously.
Punching people for a political stance, regardless of their stance, is the equivalent of physically forced censorship. If censorship of political ideas that oppose your own is allowed, so to, is censorship of all your political ideas. This video should be censored.
And this is why there are laws concerning hate speech(at least I hope you have them in America...) Where I live(Sweden) if someone is publicly encouraging violence against an ethnic group, people of a certain sexual orientation or political conviction, then they can go to jail or get a severe fine. A couple of years back it was a Muslim preacher who encouraged persecution of Jews. He got fined and hung out in media. The people of his community threw him out. This is how it should be done
I went into this video fully expecting it to be completely against any form of anti-fascist violence, but to my suprise, it wasn't! Good on ya Adam. Bash the fash.
Violence does not win a debate of ideas. Violence betrays a sense of one's vulnerability that one's opponent has some logic, or truth to their argument that one cannot accept or argue against. If someone is stating something that is so ridiculous, words themselves should be sufficient to prove such ridiculousness. Violence empowers the opponent to claim victimhood, and martyrdom. Violence is not morally justifiable as a rhetorical device. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, I as a vegan, should punch you in the face for supporting the unnecessary suffering, confinement, and deaths of billions of advanced sentient organisms. Of course, such an act would be morally abhorrent, and counterproductive. Rather than violence, I use words, empathy, relationship, and argument to support my views. We live in a society in which violence such as punching a white supremacist is unnecessary to demonstrate one's extreme opposition to such supremacist views. What is to stop others from using your same reasoning to commit acts of violence against yourself, or other individuals who hold similar (and controversial) views? For example, many people believe abortion is literally murder. With your reasoning, rather than argumentation, abortion supporters can be attacked by anti-abortion activists. This reasoning is, of course, unacceptable. R.J., I am shocked and dismayed that you would advance anything other than an absolute rejection of such an act.
+Frost571 Okay, first, get off your high horse. Second, I certainly recognize that violent acts are wrong. But I also recognize that we don't live in a world of moral absolutes. This is one of those instances where the ethics of the situation get a little tricky. Yes, punching someone for their views is wrong, but what's even more abhorrent to me is subscribing to Spencer's ideology. So like I said, punching a Nazi isn't okay, but it's better than being one. Side note: for someone who claims to value logic and reasoning, you certainly committed some fallacies in your diatribe.
"We don't live in a world of moral absolutes." Your reasoning can be used against you. The political bubble which you exist in is the same bubble that others who oppose you live in. If you condone violence to be used by your side, you must also accept violence against you by the other side. Condoning violence against speech and ideas is a dangerous game R.J.
@@mewgami All of the allies only got involved when the Nazis responded with physical belligerence, i.e. whenever the Nazis invaded or straight up declared war on a nation.
@@BarnardClangdeggin I'd agree with you - don't punch people. But this guy is as about as close to "nazi" as you can get. I'm stoked he's all in for Biden and now the Don, lol
The biggest problem with punching NAZIs is that everyone you disagree with can be labeled a NAZI. Sarah Palin, Trump, Laci Green, Anti Feminists, and anyone who isn't a violent communist has been labeled a NAZI at one point or another. Furthermore, Spencer hasn't been violent with anyone so it's not okay to punch him. If you allow this than you could be punched. There's a famous poem called "First they Came for the Socialists" which expresses this point better than I ever could.
Hey RJ, just wanted to say something...I've been a fan of your videos for a while, and agree with you on a lot of things. But I cannot agree with you on parts of this. It is in my own opinion that hate groups and neo-nazis like this should be made illegal, and that white supremacists such as the KKK should be censored and even put on domestic terrorist lists. These people are horrible, and, as I have just as much of a right to free speech as they do, I plan to call them on their bullshit, idiotic, fucked up system of beliefs. I will shout myself hoarse to show people that the hateful rhetoric of these groups is wrong, and have no problem with people protesting against them and shutting down their platform with facts and debate. But here's the thing: All of the cases I have described are of peaceful, legal, and non-physical shut downs of these hate groups. Based on everything I've seen and read on issues like this, as much as punching a Nazi in the face sounds great, it will not be helpful. All it will serve to do is enable the "alt-right", along with some less moral Republicans, to point towards liberals and use instances like this, along with various protests turned riots, and label us on the left as "violent" and "extreme". Let me put this frankly. VIOLENCE ONLY BREEDS MORE VIOLENCE. By supporting violent behavior, YOU ARE PART OF THIS PROBLEM. *None of us*, regardless of political beliefs, benefit from this form of "protest", and despite the fact that I AM a fairly liberal person, I will never support using violence to fuel a movement. Why? That delegitimize it, both now and in the future. And yes, that is REGARDLESS of how high those people were morally in comparison to their opponents. A good example would be women's suffrage: the movement was obviously important, and we look back at those who fought for it as heros. However, because some of the famous figures from that movement used "the ends to justify the means" in a way, it gives the movement a dark side, one that cannot be ignored. Namely, the fact that many suffragettes used racism and xenophobia to justify voting rights for women. Now, you have every right to your viewpoint on this, and I agree with many of your points; however, due to the fact that I will always have the whole "violence is never the answer" stance, along with the fact that I personally have much more respect for peaceful protestors and those using our legal system to bring justice, I have to disagree with you a bit on this video.
+L 013 If hate groups were made illegal, there wouldn't be a need for this debate at all. That said, you touched on a similar point that my video also sought to raise, at what point does a "thought crime" cross the threshold of being dangerous? Because the same justification you would use to jail hatemongers is the same one I use for not caring that Spencer got punched. Sure, he may not have committed any violent acts (that we know of), but his ideology is being used to justify other acts of violence and murder. So at what point does he become a guilty party?
TheNotAdam Well, if what I was talking about were to be drafted into law, it would obviously be a lot more complex. Sort of like how in Germany many Nazi symbols are illegal (for obvious reasons). Also, many movements have made the case for declaring groups like the KKK to be domestic terrorists (the FBI even has a page about the group: www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-threat ) It wouldn't be as much about "thought crimes" as it would be making it harder for hate groups to spread their messages [I know a friend of mine has ranted to me multiple times about how many white supremacists websites are not blocked], along with putting groups that are known to be violent on watch lists (ie the domestic terrorist lists I mentioned before). Still, you do have a good point-dealing with supremacists is difficult, and it would take various legislation, as well as social movements and plain education, to get rid of their influence. Honestly, my biggest problem is that many of these hate groups go unchecked by the government, and I find it a bit ridiculous that some of those in power in our country are more concerned with Planned Parenthood than white supremacists.
There was a part where you said that we know that being a nazi is a violent and dangerous ideology and that it's justification for violence but you have to be so careful because they could very easily replace the word nazi with Islam and have an equally valid argument. I denounce any violence used to silence others regardless of how insane their ideology may be
you can't hit people just because they disagree. if you have a problem with somebody use your big boy words. doesn't matter how much of a dick the person is being. unless they are being an immediate physical threat to you or those around you this is in fact assault. and i will extend the olive branch that the guy who got punched certainlt seems like a dick. but we still cant just invoke violence wherever we see fit.
+Richard Holland Words clearly don't work on Neo-Nazis, which is the first problem I see with this thinking. I'm sure they've debated countless people who presented countless reasons to not be a Neo-Nazi, and clearly that didn't work. Second, debating someone gives merit to their ideas by default, since you're recognizing that the other person presents a good enough point that there can even be a debate in the first place.
TheNotAdam you can spew that kinda crap all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is both wrong and illegal to attack someone who doesn't pose a threat to you. imagine a world where we can just attack anybody we see fit, it would be barbaric anarchy. we live in a civilised society and such behavior doesn't fly regardless of how bad you want it to. you can be an adult and use your words to counter/debunk them and make them look as stupid as they are. if they're as bad as you say, that shouldn't be too much of a challenge. you are never justified in attacking an innocent person. i like your page and most of your videos but you're wrong on this one. have a good night.
@@TheNotAdam Winning people over to your side isn't the sole reason for a debate. Another goal could be to persuade the fence sitters who may be listening.
Morally? I'd say yes with a but. Legally, it is obviously a no. The but is - if they are attacked too many times, there is the distinct risk that they will become seen as victims and that is a dangerous status to give them, as they will use it to gain sympathy and attempt to legitimise their horrific views.
Absolutamente Nadie Have to disagree. Nazism isn't just an ideology, it's fundamentally evil. I view it as no different from any number of heinous crimes and I think tackling it, including with violence, is morally justifiable - just as intervening in an attempted murder with physical violence is justifiable. That said, I oppose it because it makes these evil fucks the victim and they will use that to their advantage - just because something is right or justifiable doesn't make it the correct thing to do.
+phoenix0879 I say we already run that risk by even giving them a spot in the marketplace of ideas in the first place. At least with punching them, people see that the consequences of being a Nazi are potentially painful. But let's face it, you run into potential issues no matter how you attempt to deal with this problem. Turns out this is actually a very tricky ethical question…
TheNotAdam Yep, there's no easy answer. Mind you, that's true of life in general - there are few simple choices. I still have to go with no punching though, because I think giving them access to the sympathy card makes their efforts to spread their views a lot easier than trying to convince people through discussion that the ideas they hold are valid. All of that said, I fully understand and sympathise with those who feel a punch to the jaw is the appropriate response.
Look, I am morally against this "white nationalist" but I don't think that you should punch him just because you think that "he promotes violence with his words", there's lots of people that will argue that liberals promote violence as well, but as long as they're not physically hurting you, you don't have the right to hurt them. Be the bigger person, change comes slowly by showing how you are better, not by punching conservatives in the face, no matter what. That was stupid, violent and totally unnecessary
+Absolutamente Nadie Okay but Nazis have been using violence, intimidation and murder as a tactic for decades. Does that mean it's never okay to fight back? Or are there circumstances where that would be acceptable?
TheNotAdam there are circumstances where it is acceptable, but that's only if they start violence first. He wasn't physically harming anyone. For example, there's a lot of people here in RU-vid that say horrible threatening things, should we punch them or physically hurt them for being dicks? No! You can't punch everyone that says something offensive because most of this people think that what we say is offensive. If everybody started just punching everyone else in the face there wouldn't be any talk and nobody could make something good, prove them wrong with words and dialogue, if you physically harm them they can play the victim and that's bad for us
@@chromeuserisme3551 no it's not. A word isn't the same as an action. Of course if someone advocates for violence they should probably be in jail but it doesn't give you the right to attack them, unless they've directly attacked you. This isn't justice, this is some kind of mob "justice" .
"Yeah, but attacking nazis will only make them feel *more* attacked and harden their stance!" That's bullshit. Nazis will feel attacked no matter what; they already feel attacked for imaginary reasons, and they will keep feeling attacked for those reasons. Their beliefs are not logical. Doing nothing will do that - absolutely nothing. It will not weaken their stance, it will not make them feel less attacked because they will keep making up reasons to feel attacked as long as it "justifies" their cause. Peoples' mere existence is an attack to them. The only thing that will stop them is showing them that they cannot perpetuate violent ideology without any repercussions. "If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests." -Franz Frison, Holocaust survivor
When one advocates violence against another in any situation, I think they’ve lost whatever argument they were trying to make. It doesn’t matter how abhorrent the ideas of the person you oppose; you cannot stoop to that level. The real concern then becomes this; that you will label anybody you wish to enact justified violence upon a “Nazi”.
Nothing will rid the world of violence, it is unfortunately a natural part of humanity. But nazis cannot be reasoned with, so violence is the only answer.
I certainly don't feel any pity for Richard Spencer, but I think it's never a good idea to get your message across through violence, and I can't condone it at all. You're potentially entering a spiral of violence, and also give your opponents an excuse to make themselves look like victims. Peaceful protest all the way!
+Momo I definitely see where you're coming from, and tend to agree in the vast majority of circumstances. That said, how do you get through to people who clearly don't subscribe to logic, reason, or compassion?
Honestly, I'm a bit conflicted myself, because I think Richard Spencer and his cronies probably deserve worse than just being punched in the face, I just don't think that violent behaviour is going to have any long-lasting positive effects. How do you get through to them? Not at all, most likely. I think the best idea for now is to stand up for what you believe in and don't let these despicable people take up too much space, by speaking up against injustice and discrimation and showing them the majority does not agree with them.
i saw a page from a book he wrote where he says "does the human race need the black race? if not ,what would be the best most efficient way to dispose of them?through such questions enlightenment is sure to follow" . Gave me chills.
Oh my god I was just in the midst of writing a passionate paragraph about my will for peace for all people to never hate and discriminate WHEN THE CITY ALARM WENT OFF BECAUSE MY TOWN WAS BOBMED 4 TIMES this is surreal, I'm so scared I'm literally shaking
TheNotAdam thanks❤ Also, update; no casualties. We were able to intercept 3\4 missiles and the last one fell in an open area. The news say it was ISIS.
The problem with your argument is that inciting violence and riots is already against the law. But even with those you don't have a legal to punch in the face. You sort of dodged why throwing the first punch is ok. Using the WWII defense is invalid, because citizens can't just declare on a group and get away with breaking the law. And when does it end? Do people get punch anyone they accuse of being a Nazi, even when they are not? What about communists? Far more people have died under communist regime genocides than Nazis. Can I punch anyone who is a communist or even Stalin Communist? But instead of addressing that, you just jumped back to rhetorical discussions.
The WW2 argument is further disproven when you consider the fact that the Allies didn't throw the first punch or declare was on Germany until after they had formally declared war on or suddenly invaded allied nations.
Reasonable argument. I just don't believe in promoting violence is ever the right thing to do even if Milo is a neo nazi, or whatever the public is portraying him as. Do see that I'm not saying he isn't one, just know it doesn't categorize him as the class of Nazi that caused the death of roughly eleven million people in the past. So why do people act like Milo committed a crime for his ideology. For the most part he seems to be a person that'll debate with you instead of punching you even if his belief is on the other side of the globe towards yours. And debating isn't about agreeing to the other side, or beating them up if they won't agree. In fact that wouldn't change my opinion and I definitely don't think it'll change his. I really do love your explanation, again I just don't agree with violence or promotion of it. The act of violence towards Milo is considered a crime, and everybody printing the picture that it is okay to hurt him because he is a _nazi_ isn't justified. I seriously don't want to see somebody going to prison for killing him.
That's some poor logic. Just because our culture accepts something happening in a movie doesn't mean that we should accept it in real life. And to those who support this act, my question is what did this accomplish in the grand scheme of things? Sure, we might have intimidated some Nazis a little bit, but if anything we just alienated moderates and Republicans who now see liberals as the radical ones. Even if it's not right, that's what happened.
I don't really feel bad for the individual getting punched in that situation, but I think it erodes the discourse and could escalate violence as a way of communication in a way we probably don't want to see happening. It also causes the loss of moral high ground that is important in winning over moderate/undecided folks.
+Calluna Lepus Even with punching, I don't see an issue claiming the moral high ground over people who advocate for genocide. And as far as eroding communication goes, I don't think there was much civil communication going on between the two sides anyway...
I agree to some degree. However, a lot of white people are a lot more racist than they realize which, IMO, is why someone like Trump was able to get the traction he got to win an election. One of the ways the civil rights movement was able to make the headway it did was the contrast between the violence of white supremacists and peaceful demonstrators. It showed white people who probably didn't consider segregation racist at the time just how ugly their side was. They lost all claim to plausible deniability. That's my theory anyway. I don't know how much water it holds. If you refrain from violence in the face of hatred and violence you force complacent people to look at themselves and consider whether they can continue to hold the views they do and still think of themselves as good people. If both sides use the same methods, they can continue to lie to themselves by telling themselves that both sides are equally bad.
I don't think the question should be "Is it okay?" The questions should be: When is it okay? When is it productive? When is it *necessary?* And lastly... How proactive do we want to be? Let's not forget that a whole WORLD WAR was fought over the ideas these people are promoting.
If the nazis could, they would punch every single person that doesn't fit into their stupid ideology without hesitating. And yes I don't think punching people in the face is the right way but as you said it won't make me sleep worse at night. I'm German and I know what the stereotype for Germany is & to hell with that! The world is moving right so badly, we should all stand together prouder and stronger than ever before to fight that exactly!
If he was on a public platform and talking, no you can't hit him, he has his right to free speech. But if he's out on the street talking his poison, you reap what you sow. I had 2 uncles who fought the Nazis in Europe. They dispatched the Nazis and my uncles were awarded medals for their actions.
I have been asking that very same question myself for at least three solid years now. Corruption, in my country, is blatantly the norm of the day for the current government. The first corruption scandal came to light in just a week into the new government's legislature, in March 2013, that is, and they haven't stopped popping up ever since. :O
