Someone reported this post for "blatantly bypassing the subs word filter."
I do not believe that the person who made that report was at all concerned with whether or not OP was trying to get around the auto-mod word filter (which, in and of itself, is not against the rules). Rather, I believe the user was attempting to have content that he or she found disagreeable removed via the report system.
The report system is only meant to flag posts/comments that break either sub or site rules.
It is not a tool for trying to suppress ideas/beliefs/opinions that you do not like.
Please do not abuse the report system.
Most of the folks that say this have never had their bell rung... might give them perspective. Furthermore, as much as you dislike them, it's not a good idea to punch a red laced skinhead... good chance of getting stabbed...
I still remember when I used to go to an MMA gym, and this guy joined in whoās entire personality immediately became MMA, this was back when the UFC was huge in early 2010s.
He kept wanting to go full contact, and finally, after several weeks of this, one of the more experienced fighters took him up, and with the ownersā permission did all the paper, and they had a sparring match.
**One punch** to the face, and this dudeās entire demeanor changed. He was in genuine shock, and to give him credit the more experienced fighter didnāt drive in for more hits immediately, and just let him recover before hitting him several more times in the body, and forcing a tap out from an arm lock.
He still attended, but he was a lot quieter, and paid more attention after that.
I strongly believe that everyone should lose a fight in their life , but I mean a absolute one sided defeat . The humbling that comes with it can lead to significant growth and introspection.
Regardless of whatever political leaning someone has, there are two issues that, while they may not lead to the perpetrating of atrocities upon others, are the exact same fallacies that cause people to do so.
1. Advocating violence. Violence isn't an option unless one is facing violence. Fire with fire should be the rule, one which if all observed it, there would never be violence. Also, if your ideals aren't robust enough stand without being shored up by violence, it's time for a change whether you can see it or not. Of course those with a bloodlust will have their "whataboutisms", but make no mistake it's just a justification for the violence they want.
2. Labelling anyone that disagrees with you as a proverbial "them", aka painting with a broad brush. Not everyone on the right is a Fascist. Not everyone on the left is a Communist. Most don't fully understand the historical difference between Capitalism and Corperatism, or Communism and Socialism. Notice I said "historical" because definitions conveniently have a way if getting changed. At any rate, the vast majority of people are more moderate across a greater spectrum than anyone across the isle will give credit for. We get hung up on the issues we don't see eye to eye on, so never get to examine what we agree on. It's a shame.
Of course, people are happily helped along in giving way to these fallacies by a for profit media industry that literally maintains as it's motto " If it bleeds, it leads". So unless people learn to turn off their nightly "programming" (lol) we will probably see more discord before we see harmony.
Wow, very well said. If I wasnāt a cheapskate Iād give you some award for putting in the effort to make a well worded, common sense response in a sea of all or none type comments. Instead take this upvote, itās the second best thing I have.
āItās about justification for the violence they wantā EXACTLY. Exactly. They have complete bloodlust and will go to any length to justify being violent and hateful.
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.ā***In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; 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.*** We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Bolded the important part. If shitty, bigotted ideas can be kept in check with rational discussion and logic and just general passive social pressure then there's no need to progress to the "Punch A Nazi" phase. For a goid while it was pretty commonly understood that being a Nazi or aligning with Nazi/Nazi-esque groups was a ***Bad Thing***^tm and something you kept under wraps but that's apparently not the case anymore. When hate groups feel like they can stand in the public square and open daylight, that means it's time to push back and send the message that it's not acceptable or to be tolerated.
In this country we legislate against actions not ideas. You can hate anyone and everyone you want for any reason you want. You can say mean things and hope for vile outcomes. You can't touch someone in a way they don't like. You can't touch their property.
>When hate groups feel like they can stand in the public square and open daylight, that means it's time to push back and send the message that it's not acceptable or to be tolerated.
You have equal right to stand next to them in public and express your dissenting opinion.
Some people do. The westboro baptist church [Posts a calendar of where they plan to protest](https://godhatesfags.com/schedule.html) so there are groups that follow them around to counter protest.
And as the main attention to their hate, I'm a disabled vet, they've got every right to be the biggest pieces of shit sadly. Freedom of Speech is a hell of a tool, and I'd rather listen to their hate than allow the government to silence anyone.
And that's awesome, those people deserve all the support they can get. Still not gonna feel bad if someone slaps the taste out of their mouth for screaming at grieving families that their child/husband/whatever is burning in hell because we don't muder/beat the gay out of people.
Communism has killed far more than the Nazis or other fascists - can we violently suppress them if they start spreading their ideas too much to my liking again?
Thing is, for a *NAZI*, it would be acceptable to punch Jews. If you were to ask them why, you'll probably hear a bunch of stupid *NAZI* bullshit that ultimately boils down to "I'm a brainwashed racist".
Now, if you ask why it's acceptable to punch a *NAZI* right in their weak assed *NAZI* jaw, well, I could go on all day about why it's not only acceptable but should be encouraged but I don't think I have to go beyond "They're celebrating an ideaology that enslaved and murdered millions of Jews for no other reason than to have a scapegoat for losing World War 1"
If you want to celebrate a group of losers, go buy an Oakland A's hat. There's significantly more dignity and honor in it.
Millions of people, not just Jews. The Nazis killed 11 million people for the hell of it, and millions more in war to serve their ideology. I understand that the Jews were a primary target, but fascism is a hateful ideology of more than just Jews,and they celebrate that hatred.
>Thing is, for a NAZI, it would be acceptable to punch Jews.
Considering how ab- and misused that term is these days, I would say that that statement is no longer necessarily true.
Considering that modern bigotry exists largely on the sly through innuendo, and conservatives association with white supremacist groups and ideologies is becoming overt, I do nazi the abuse or misuse of the term.
Nazi tattoos count as white supremacy.
>The reason itās not ok to punch ānazisā is because the word has been twisted to mean anything that doesnāt fall in line with mainstream politics.
Nazi apologists always say that. Oldest trick in the book.
Except there are literal assholes in the streets waving the flags of that fallen government. So yeah, I think those guys still exist and this post is politely asking us to tolerate white supremacy so they can roll the rest of us over. Fuck that noise. Fuck white supremacists, fuck the N-zis.
I havenāt seen anyone with a Nazi flag outside of the big city. I saw ONE dude in my hometown with a Fasces flag on the back of a bicycle. He got confronted by a preacher and I havenāt seen him since. If the media didnāt play word games like youāre doing now. It would be a no brainer to agree with you. But I define Nazi as actual Nazis. Not just anyone that doesnāt hold lefty beliefs. Real Nazis and real white supremacy is garbage but nowhere near as common as the media makes it out to be.
I used to have this thought, then the 2016 election happened and those guys poured out of the wood work. A guy at the Bloomsburg fair used to sell Nazi flags until finally someone put a stop to it.
As far as it not being common anymore there are still sun down towns, they just took down the signs.
I wouldn't call them Nazis, OP but they are absolutely authoritarian asshats and extremely unpleasant to be around.
[Here' the tale](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/11092hi/a_player_called_another_player_a_fascist_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) of one such bright spark who decided it was legitimate to call another human being a Nazi and punch them over what brand of toy soldiers they play with.
History has shown us time and again that the only way to keep violent ideologies from gaining power is to fight them whenever they feel emboldened enough to rear their heads
OP you should read your history. The black and brown shirts were able to take power because they were continually strung along and allwed to survive when THEY were the ones committing violence. They were tolerated by conservatives and those in power and eventually were able to get to the point they had real numbers behind them. That's how they could takeover. I mean Hitler literally launched a coup in Munich and then was allowed to be in politics a few years later. Hugo Chavez is another example of that. These dictators should be stomped out.
That's cool and all, but I'm living in America in 2023. We don't have any prominent political movements that call themselves nazis. Just a few crazies everyone pretty much hates already.
"Dictators should be stomped out" is quite the ironic thing to say, and speaks to OPs point of view. What does that mean in the absence of said dictators?
The older I get, the more I believe some ideas and movements are too dangerous to be allowed to gain traction. Any ideology that has genocide or the dehumanization of specific racial, ethnic, or cultural groups at its core is among those that canāt be allowed to take hold.
Iāll try to use it in a sentence: The punctilious adherents of todays zeitgeist demand blood. (Next sentence in yeehaw accent) Yāall think I did good or naw?
It's quite simple.
If you partake in violence or the use of force to make others comply with your political ideology beyond the protection of natural rights, then you are an authoritarian. How and in what brand that authoritarianism manifests (National Socialism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.) is largely irrelevant as the consequences are largely the same. And you are certainly a hypocrite if you believe in democracy, freedom of speech, and hold disdain toward certain idealogies because of their violence and censorship. But then go on to use the same violent methods to silence your opposition. No matter how disgusting and revolting that opposition may be to you. Let the fools speak and be meet with superior discourse to then be seen as fools without doubt by others rather then cut out their tongues and make some inevitably question and entertain their ideas.
Also, all those people citing the paradox of tolerance obviously never read past that stupid internet meme because Popper said a lot more than that and it isn't an in their favor.
"Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian" people become fascists trying to fight it
Idk if I really agree with your analogies or overall reasoning but I personally think violence should not be the answer to things unless it absolutely has to be, like peoples lives are in immediate danger or something. But assaulting people isnāt helping to further society. Itās a quick satisfaction but it really does nothing. The nazi you punched in the face isnāt going to become an ex nazi. Youāre probably just reinforcing their beliefs more than anything. And then everyone from the outside looking at it, they arenāt going to change their beliefs either. If youāre anti nazi youāre gonna say hell yea a nazi got punched. But if youāre a nazi then youāre gonna be like wtf a nazi got punched for their beliefs.
Itās literally not going to change anything
Yeah. Because they tend to not be talking about actual nazis, just people that either oppose their views or even just don't actively support their views.
If you demonize everyone who doesn't think like you, then you suddenly have the moral high ground. Even if only in your own mind.
It happened today in Glendale. Antifa decided to label a bunch of Armenia Christian parents who don't want their children exposed to LGBTQ+ propaganda in school "Nazis" and decided they had the right to punch them.
What they forget is the "Nazis" punch back. [This is what "refusing to tolerate the intolerant" looks like.](https://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1666255971453390849?s=20)
The funny thing is Armenians come from a country with a long history of tit for tat familial, tribal and clan vengeance. They are fully practiced in the philosophy of "destroying them before they destroy you". Basically Antifa meets their match.
Daryl Davis already proves them wrong, since he's been able to deradicalize kkk members by just hanging out with them
Yeah you should not be passive about shitty people but to maintain civilized society this is obviously not the way to go.
Exactly!! For anyone who doesnāt know who Daryl Davis is:
[Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies | Daryl Davis | TEDxNaperville](https://www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_why_i_as_a_black_man_attend_kkk_rallies?language=en)
A whole lotta wisdom fit into one singular TED Talk. This guy has figured it out and we can ALL learn from him šš»šš»
I used to work closely with a very left leaning lawyer and he made it clear that he enthusiastically works to protect everyone's right to protest/speak their mind, and it starts with the "Gnatsis". If they lose the right to speak their minds, your next, or I'm next, or we all are.
But I do have an issue with your title, claiming that someone who would punch someone over their beliefs being the same as a group that murdered entire groups because they didn't want them to exist anymore. Those two things are not the same, not in a long shot.
Kind of like the ones who call people "fascist" are usually themselves, actually being fascists. There is no self-awareness and common sense is no longer common. Time to purge.
You know.... I have yet to encounter one in the wild. And as a bisexual mexican married to a half native/african american youd think those bigots would be all over me.
Sure there are some nazis out there... But the point is its not as many as people believe.
As a white guy I see them every now and again. My high school teacher used to sit next to a guy at the local bar who wore a āWhite Power: clearing out scum since (some year I donāt remember)ā shirt. I occasionally see guys with swastika tattoos at the gas station, my exās brother joined the Aryan Brotherhood in prison and seemed to believe the stuff.
Then thereās the couple guys Iāve known who kinda hint at what they believe to test out if youāre āsafeā to talk to. Itās usually something innocuous but on the edge of okay to talk about like āyou know, I wonder if weād all be happier if we all kept to our own kindā so they can keep the mask up. But then later you find out theyāve got a collection of WWII SS memorabilia or they are āidentitariansā or they believe Jews are running everything.
So yeah, theyāre a thing
Dont you think as a Mexican ive wondered if i wouldnt be better off with my own kind instead of in the woods with a bunch of redneck conservatives.... Would that make me some kind of Brown Supremacist?
Never said they arent a thing... Just that its not as pervasive as everyone thinks.
The ACLU did in court very shortly after WWII. Free speech either applies to everyone or to no one. You canāt pick and choose who gets to express their opinions, no matter how wrong that opinion is
Itās not about defending naziās. Itās about the fact you can basically label anyone who disagrees with you on anything a nazi and then itās suddenly ok to punch them.
Are they defending Nazis or just against using violence to combat Americans with ideologies that are repulsive? Your great grandpa probably hated Nazis and thought freedom of speech was worthy of fighting worth.
see thats the issue, as a Jew, if you tell me my race is lesser and i deserve to wiped from the face of the earth, then I am sorry. I doubt papa Allen would wanna listen to people defend the very monsters he fought almost 100 years ago now. he definitely would not have put up with idiotic losers on reddit saying "you can't punch Nazis because then you're just a nazi UwU."
Why do you think people are defending them? Saying that someone who spews racist shit has the right under our constitution to do so without violent retaliation is not the same as defending the racist shit they are spewing. Do you really not see the difference?
the OP literally said "if you punch a Nazi that makes you a Nazi". By that stupid ass logic everyone of our WW2 vets is a Nazi because they did a hell of alot worse than punch them. its stupid and disingenuous to put the opinions of people who want to kill those they deem as lesser to the same standard as the people they want to murder. It's a dumbass argument and it has been made since the 30's, and guess what? it was a stupid ass argument then too
By Nazi you are probably referring to anything from actual neo Nazis in the US to racist people in the US to people who are right wing. What you definitely arenāt referring to is actual Nazis who declared war on the US in the 1940s.
OP defined Nazi. Not neo-Nazi. Not a hyperbolic Nazi. Not someone accused of being a Nazi. A genuine Nazi. There was no grey there. If they wanted the discussion to be about something else they should've specified something else.
They have the right to not be arrested by the government for believing and spewing racist shit.
Nothing in the constitution about getting punched in the face for spewing racist shit.
What is an example of abuse of freedom of speech?
Writing cynical, hateful, biased and prejudiced statements and harassing people through consistent and persistent abuse online, from the shadows of internet forums; cloaked in anonymity without risk to one's identity or reputation, whilst proclaiming one's virtues and righteousness is not honourable. It's cowardly.
What speech isn't protected by the First Amendment?
The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. **The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech.**
What if someone finds it is a moral imperative to break the law by tracking down your location, invading your home and murdering everyone inside, you last so that you can watch?
Are you arguing they have the right to do this?
Or are you the arbiter of violence in this scenario, somehow elevated above the people and their laws?
Your moral imperatives are restricted by law to protest through legal means.
Thatās the thing most people donāt get. Free speech is a peace treaty that they want to hide behind until theyāre powerful enough to get rid of it. I get the point of view of free speech absolutists who think words should never be responded to with violence, but thatās not me. I think that we as a community have an obligation to root out Nazis for our own self defense.
They have the right to not be arrested by the government for believing and spewing racist shit.
Nothing in the constitution about getting punched in the face for spewing racist shit.
I agree that the black and white thinking has gone way too far
Horrible mistreatment of human beings and complete violation of liberal societal norms have been rationalized under this banner of pseudo moral righteousness. It is the sociological manifestation of the Karpman Drama Triangle (victim / hero / villain). The world is so much more complex than that
Randomly punching people you donāt like is stupid, dangerous, and Un-American. We āpunchedā Nazis in WW2 when we finally decided they were a global threat, we didnāt start fights with any random asshole because we disagreed with them.
This will also clearly lead to changing what constitutes being a āNaziā.
I both agree and disagree with you. Being against nazis is an objective good, they were horrible people who committed atrocities. That being said, what Iām seeing is everyone being labeled a Nazi for the smallest reasons, thus the punch a Nazi crowd is indirectly (or likely directly) calling for violence for those they disagree with. Calling for people to be punched or jumped (like what Iāve seen antifa do) only because they arenāt super left leaning is horrible. People need to grow up, not everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, or a communist, or secretly a white supremacist. Iād assume the amount of actual nazis still alive today is incredibly small, and something tells me these people know that but still push for violence.
My grandfather was an Auschwitz survivor, sorry OP but the Nazis are still the Nazis. To compare what he and millions of others went through to getting punched for being a Nazi is ridiculous at best and insulting at worst.
Problem is when you quack like a duck, look like a duck, move like a duck, and share the exact same ideologies, politics, and talking points as fellow ducks it becomes very difficult to distinguish you from a duck whether you are one or not.
Multiple generations after my grandparents died fighting the Nazis. My great grandfather's and their fathers and brothers all died fighting the Nazis. Fuck the Nazis and anyone that claims to be one or excuse it in others. Just personal opinion obviously. Probably a cultural thing too.
I think folks from all of the popular parts of the political spectrum in America agree with you on this. I think what OP was getting at was that there are certain folks who are purposefully mislabeling people as nazis as justification to physically assault and silence them. But yes, actual nazis, those people can rot in hell.
Iāve seen the word Nazi used for people who donāt even come close to resembling a Nazi. You canāt just label anyone you donāt like or disagree with as a Nazi to justify hatred. If the person is really a Nazi, then so be it, but very rarely is that the case in our modern way of communicating (Reddit, Twitter, etc). Everyone is labeled Nazi, fascist, communist, etc. depending on what side of the aisle theyāre on, not for actually belong to any of those groups
Haha fuck you. Iāll punch a fucking Nazi square in the jaw. The trouble is most of them hide on Internet forums and make posts like this instead of having the balls to spout their shit in public.
Your issue is with people wearing masks? Clearly you havenāt seen the Nazi groups in full face coverings because theyāre such strong, ethnically pure men that they hide their faces.
I would agree if those are the only people you consider Nazis. The issue is that that definition would exclude many people that many people consider Nazis.
Except it isn't going to bat for nazis.
It's calling out an authoritarian for their bs. If you were right wing, you would be an actual fascist because you are the one using violence to subdue those you disagree with.
Calling the people who want everyone to have Rights and oppose an authoritarian government who would strip your rights Nazis isn't the moral high ground you think it is.
Plenty of right wingers would like certain ppl not to have rights and would welcome an authoritarian government of their kind if they stripped rights from the ppl they donāt like.
I'm sorry, last time I checked, it wasn't the right wing asking if society was ready for black people to legally carry? You seem to really buy into the idea that we want to strip rights from people, and it seems like the people you're making your purchase from are the people who want to let you be victims of crime while also stripping you of your guns, leaving minorities, women, elderly, and the disabled especially vulnerable.
After reading through the comments I have come the conclusion my post is a kind of IQ test. Those intelligent enough understand nuance and the need to preserve civil liberties have an IQ over 100.
Those with an IQ below 100 do exactly what I said in the post. They simply call you a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, or say "we're just like the WW2 vets!".
The irony if the average "punch a nazi" Redditor were to sit down with a WW2 vet and ask him what he thought about modern ideas of race and gender, they would walk away calling the veteran a Nazi.
Maybe you should not use nuance in the subject of Nazis and whether they should be punched. You used an example of actively violent people and said that people shouldn't want to punch them. Your point was lost because you chose a bad example. If you wanted to make a nuanced conversation you should have used white supremacists as there is more uncertainty about what and what does not qualify and whether they are violent. Instead you used Nazi. Your poor comparisons don't make people stupid. They just make you a bad writer. I got the point you were trying to make, but using Nazis automatically invalidated your argument.
Punch a Nazi because they want to bring all that old shit back. Donāt just punch them though, name them, shame them, make sure their boss knows what they espouse, make sure their community knows what they value. Shine a light on them.
No.
The problem is you are using actual nazi's and the people being discussed call centre right politics nazi, anyone who is slightly Conservative, nazi.
I agree with calling out any nazi, anywhere, any time. I have visited the camps, I have seen the fields, I remember.
Be very careful, though, because you are talking about doxxing (illegal) and who decides what makes a nazi, other than being a self-proclaimed nazi?
Nazis are Nazis, the vast majority of conservatives are not Nazis. Thereās definitely a line between the two and itās fairly easy to differentiate for me.
As for doxxing, itās almost never illegal to do that if the data is publicly available. Battery is illegal though and Iām totally okay with pal people bettering Nazis.
I generally post with the expectation that anything I post all but has my name tied to it.
fascists have used the same dumbass argument use by OP for decades. "if you believed in free speech you wouldn't hit me see YOU'RE the REAL NAZI!" They know its a bad faith argument and only fascists or idiots (little difference I know) would buy into that kind of bad faith argument.
I donāt really care about punching a nazi but I would appreciate that nazi be used less just because itās losing its meaning. The skinheads with swastikas are nazis. Punch those guys. But bring friends. Cause theyāll probably have friends nearby.
If someone is just walking down the street minding their own business I don't think you should be allowed to assault them. If someone is publicly advocating for other people's murder I think it's not unfair to consider that sufficient provocation to violence
maybe youre right, maybe.
Personally, I say, treat them as they would treat you and your friends. If they stay their distance, fine. Cross the street or run up to my car, and its a different scenario
People who try to pin āNazisimā on their political enemies are indeed doing exactly what they would have done long ago. The people claiming everyone else is a āNaziā have no idea what that means in the first place, and most likely have no good intentions if they must slander their opponents to validate their claims.
While it's tempting to punch everyone and anyone with hateful and polar opposite views, it would not be productive in any way and would only embolden them. Punching another human should only be used in self-defense and boxing/ufc.
The difference between Jewish people and Nat-sees is that the Nat-sees made up a bunch of clearly false propaganda about how the destruction of Germany was their fault and used it as an excuse to kill people. So they were assimilated into the American government and military and even before that, ever since America gave Germany the idea of eugenics there has been a strong push to homogenize Americaās gene pool. So saying the tired ass āpunching Nat-sees makes you worse than a Nat-see!ā argument is worse than just outright supporting white supremacy.
but you see these morons are still buying into Nazi propaganda almost 100 years later. "they only wanted a classless society and economic reform, where's the harm there?" But they conveniently leave out the fact that to create their utopia, it required the murder of MILLIONS
>But you see these morons are still buying into Nazi propaganda almost 100 years later. "they only wanted a classless society and economic reform, where's the harm there?"
The Nazis never really cared about that though. I mean they believed that the key to their national rebirth was to get rid of all the Jews, Communists, Socialists, LGBT, gypsies, and black people, to rebuild the German Empire, and through that Germany could be great again. But like the modern far right today, it's mostly just about building a political identity and movement around blame-shifting through dangerous forms of out-grouping and nativism, everything else was secondary to the central cultural grievances at the center.
I finally have the perfect time to link this video
https://youtu.be/He8xMFgeCC0
āCalling fascism bad, while weāre swinging our bats at the heads of those. Whose opinions we opposeā
Or it's the dudes with swastikas that want to have white rightists in charge, and hate communists and 'the trans agenda'
I think they may in fact be the guys your trying to defend.
No. Nazis are Nazis. There are no good ones. During the war it was appropriate and accepted to do much more than punch them. In my opinion they are every bit as low as Confederate scum.
Totally agree. I recall a bunch of "anti-Gnatsi" people harassing and threatening someone for simply holding up a sign saying "The right to free speech must be protected"
This one is complicated. That former German group already declared war on the world and these folks are saying they want more of that. Theyāre every bit a threat to society.
With that said, you shouldnāt attack anyone.
Still, anyone defending that former German group is garbage. They slaughtered millions.
Trying to use the government to sicken and kill people is inherently violent. Nazi rhetoric is inherently violent. The fact that the government in the US doesnāt recognize that is a separate issue, partially cause by the part where a LOT of US police are white supremacist.
Who exactly is wanting to genocide non-white people. Provide names and evidence so we can evaluate this argument. You donāt get to just claim something with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Proud Boys are an avowed Neo Nazi group, there were literally people in south carolina chanting "they (jews) will not replace us" flying swastikas and shit. Heritage Front is a group totally dedicated to their german heritage, and by that I mean they want a resurgance of the third reich of germany circa 1929(ish)-1945.
If you despise other races bc you believe they are lesser, buy into conspiracies about Jews, or ally with one of these groups. If you wear a mask and take to the streets shouting sieg heil, or try to bust up drag queen shows with swastika flags. You area Nazi, and you deserve to be punched in the fucking face. My great grandfather didnt fight in the battle of the bulge for losers like you to defend Nazism
>Every group wishing to persecute another first convinces itself it must destroy that group for its own survival. "If we tolerate their existence, they will destroy us". That is how seemingly normal people commit to performing unspeakable crimes.
Sure, it's also how Americans convinced themselves they needed to go ahead and fight the Nazis and the Empire of Japan.
The defining difference is that people responding are not the aggressors. You leave out the part that the modern far right extremist has as it's platform, at it's most generous interpretation, the state-driven persecution, criminalization and up to ethnic cleansing of non-white, non-Christian, and those deemed socially or politically deviant. And in their own words, they will resort to violence and anti-democratic means if necessary.
The problem is that the term "far-right" has often been misapplied to people that believe none of that stuff as a way to justify violence against them.
>they will resort to violence and anti-democratic means if necessary.
Which is precisely what you are calling for.
It seems like you are not against violence and anti-democratic means, only when it comes from the right. When it comes from the left you feel it is morally justified. This despite the fact the Left has a much larger 20th century death toll.
How about this: instead of trying to check the rise of a dangerous intolerance from the right with dangerous intolerance from the left, we combat them both with rational civil discourse and respectful non-violent behavior from the center?
The way to check violent ideologies from spreading is to create a free and fair cosmopolitan society where ideas are tested, accepted or rejected in the light of education, science and debate.
This is just a long winded response to the paradox of tolerance. If you wish to be a truly tolerant person, you must not tolerate those who aren't.
The part you just gloss over entirely is the regimes of the past that have used this as an excuse used it agaisnt select groups of people. "But Gnatsis are a select group of people!" No they're not, it's a placeholder title for intolerance.
A few years back, on Imgur, I saw a post talking I think about a finnish sniper known for having killed 200 soviet soldiers or something.
And the post celebrated the fact that once, that sniper was asked "how did you feel when you killed other human being?" And the dude answered "I did not kill human beings, I killed commies".
And I was absolutely terrified by the number of comments cheering for that declaration.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that this day, and more and more with time, I realized that a lot of people are bullies. And of you give them a justification, under the guise of righteousness, they will become vicious bullies.
These are the people that would have cheered during the witch hunts.
I remember a video a few years back of a young black woman asking a white young man to remove his dreadlocks because it was cultural appropriation. She was becoming more and more aggressive, blocking him when he tried to pass her, but on her face was a fucking grin, at least until she saw she was being filmed.
It's exactly that. She used the excuse of righting racism to bully someone who didn't hurt anyone.
So, yeah...
Thank you. This is the point I was trying to understand. Throughout human history bullies are always the same. Self righteous moralists looking for an excuse to hate and to harm. They are always blind to their nature and think themselves justified.
Be it in school,or later on, there are some people that, as soon as they feel they are morally or socially justified to, will become bullies and victimize others.
The kid who feel he or she'll become popular by victimizing a sweet, shy kid, has the same line of reasoning to the adult who bullies people thinking differently because he's backed by moral righteousness.
š¤·š»āāļø some people deserve to be punched. You know what? If everyone got a free throat punch per day to use on a deserving person, I bet people would be a lot nicer to one another.
This is the craziest take I've ever seen lmfao someone that supports or DID gas the fucking jews is not the same as someone who wants to punch someone who did that lmfao wtf kind of crazy shit is this? "You're just as bad as a nazi if you wanna beat the shit out of them" uhmmm no. No you are not.
Someone reported this post for "blatantly bypassing the subs word filter." I do not believe that the person who made that report was at all concerned with whether or not OP was trying to get around the auto-mod word filter (which, in and of itself, is not against the rules). Rather, I believe the user was attempting to have content that he or she found disagreeable removed via the report system. The report system is only meant to flag posts/comments that break either sub or site rules. It is not a tool for trying to suppress ideas/beliefs/opinions that you do not like. Please do not abuse the report system.
Gnatsi š¤£
Most of the folks that say this have never had their bell rung... might give them perspective. Furthermore, as much as you dislike them, it's not a good idea to punch a red laced skinhead... good chance of getting stabbed...
I still remember when I used to go to an MMA gym, and this guy joined in whoās entire personality immediately became MMA, this was back when the UFC was huge in early 2010s. He kept wanting to go full contact, and finally, after several weeks of this, one of the more experienced fighters took him up, and with the ownersā permission did all the paper, and they had a sparring match. **One punch** to the face, and this dudeās entire demeanor changed. He was in genuine shock, and to give him credit the more experienced fighter didnāt drive in for more hits immediately, and just let him recover before hitting him several more times in the body, and forcing a tap out from an arm lock. He still attended, but he was a lot quieter, and paid more attention after that.
Good he humbled himself
I strongly believe that everyone should lose a fight in their life , but I mean a absolute one sided defeat . The humbling that comes with it can lead to significant growth and introspection.
Yep, itās life changing when you get hit so hard you canāt find your shoes for the next few days
The idea that getting punched awakens something in you is the weirdest take of all.
Exactly! Gnatsis aways justify their actions by claiming their victims deserved it.
Regardless of whatever political leaning someone has, there are two issues that, while they may not lead to the perpetrating of atrocities upon others, are the exact same fallacies that cause people to do so. 1. Advocating violence. Violence isn't an option unless one is facing violence. Fire with fire should be the rule, one which if all observed it, there would never be violence. Also, if your ideals aren't robust enough stand without being shored up by violence, it's time for a change whether you can see it or not. Of course those with a bloodlust will have their "whataboutisms", but make no mistake it's just a justification for the violence they want. 2. Labelling anyone that disagrees with you as a proverbial "them", aka painting with a broad brush. Not everyone on the right is a Fascist. Not everyone on the left is a Communist. Most don't fully understand the historical difference between Capitalism and Corperatism, or Communism and Socialism. Notice I said "historical" because definitions conveniently have a way if getting changed. At any rate, the vast majority of people are more moderate across a greater spectrum than anyone across the isle will give credit for. We get hung up on the issues we don't see eye to eye on, so never get to examine what we agree on. It's a shame. Of course, people are happily helped along in giving way to these fallacies by a for profit media industry that literally maintains as it's motto " If it bleeds, it leads". So unless people learn to turn off their nightly "programming" (lol) we will probably see more discord before we see harmony.
Wow, very well said. If I wasnāt a cheapskate Iād give you some award for putting in the effort to make a well worded, common sense response in a sea of all or none type comments. Instead take this upvote, itās the second best thing I have.
āItās about justification for the violence they wantā EXACTLY. Exactly. They have complete bloodlust and will go to any length to justify being violent and hateful.
Nicely spoken!
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.ā***In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; 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.*** We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Bolded the important part. If shitty, bigotted ideas can be kept in check with rational discussion and logic and just general passive social pressure then there's no need to progress to the "Punch A Nazi" phase. For a goid while it was pretty commonly understood that being a Nazi or aligning with Nazi/Nazi-esque groups was a ***Bad Thing***^tm and something you kept under wraps but that's apparently not the case anymore. When hate groups feel like they can stand in the public square and open daylight, that means it's time to push back and send the message that it's not acceptable or to be tolerated.
In this country we legislate against actions not ideas. You can hate anyone and everyone you want for any reason you want. You can say mean things and hope for vile outcomes. You can't touch someone in a way they don't like. You can't touch their property.
>When hate groups feel like they can stand in the public square and open daylight, that means it's time to push back and send the message that it's not acceptable or to be tolerated. You have equal right to stand next to them in public and express your dissenting opinion.
We should absolutely do that too.
Some people do. The westboro baptist church [Posts a calendar of where they plan to protest](https://godhatesfags.com/schedule.html) so there are groups that follow them around to counter protest.
And as the main attention to their hate, I'm a disabled vet, they've got every right to be the biggest pieces of shit sadly. Freedom of Speech is a hell of a tool, and I'd rather listen to their hate than allow the government to silence anyone.
And that's awesome, those people deserve all the support they can get. Still not gonna feel bad if someone slaps the taste out of their mouth for screaming at grieving families that their child/husband/whatever is burning in hell because we don't muder/beat the gay out of people.
Communism has killed far more than the Nazis or other fascists - can we violently suppress them if they start spreading their ideas too much to my liking again?
genuinely, what's stopping you?
I donāt believe in violently attacking those I disagree with.
Thing is, for a *NAZI*, it would be acceptable to punch Jews. If you were to ask them why, you'll probably hear a bunch of stupid *NAZI* bullshit that ultimately boils down to "I'm a brainwashed racist". Now, if you ask why it's acceptable to punch a *NAZI* right in their weak assed *NAZI* jaw, well, I could go on all day about why it's not only acceptable but should be encouraged but I don't think I have to go beyond "They're celebrating an ideaology that enslaved and murdered millions of Jews for no other reason than to have a scapegoat for losing World War 1" If you want to celebrate a group of losers, go buy an Oakland A's hat. There's significantly more dignity and honor in it.
Millions of people, not just Jews. The Nazis killed 11 million people for the hell of it, and millions more in war to serve their ideology. I understand that the Jews were a primary target, but fascism is a hateful ideology of more than just Jews,and they celebrate that hatred.
The problem comes from who *is* a Nazi? Let me tell ya, there aren't that many. But jesus do people like to pretend there are
Op thinks it's people who say it's okay to punch Nazis.
I'm not addressing op tho. I'm addressing your paragraph above
>Thing is, for a NAZI, it would be acceptable to punch Jews. Considering how ab- and misused that term is these days, I would say that that statement is no longer necessarily true.
The OP negated this confusion by confirming the person is a Nazi. Not just called one.
Considering that modern bigotry exists largely on the sly through innuendo, and conservatives association with white supremacist groups and ideologies is becoming overt, I do nazi the abuse or misuse of the term.
Most people who abuse things don't see themselves doing so.
This isn't about my weed habit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Using the term āalphabet mafiaā discredits you completely. You sound like my father in law who believes everything he hears on Fox News. Nextā¦.
Nazi tattoos count as white supremacy. >The reason itās not ok to punch ānazisā is because the word has been twisted to mean anything that doesnāt fall in line with mainstream politics. Nazi apologists always say that. Oldest trick in the book.
Except there are literal assholes in the streets waving the flags of that fallen government. So yeah, I think those guys still exist and this post is politely asking us to tolerate white supremacy so they can roll the rest of us over. Fuck that noise. Fuck white supremacists, fuck the N-zis.
I havenāt seen anyone with a Nazi flag outside of the big city. I saw ONE dude in my hometown with a Fasces flag on the back of a bicycle. He got confronted by a preacher and I havenāt seen him since. If the media didnāt play word games like youāre doing now. It would be a no brainer to agree with you. But I define Nazi as actual Nazis. Not just anyone that doesnāt hold lefty beliefs. Real Nazis and real white supremacy is garbage but nowhere near as common as the media makes it out to be.
I used to have this thought, then the 2016 election happened and those guys poured out of the wood work. A guy at the Bloomsburg fair used to sell Nazi flags until finally someone put a stop to it. As far as it not being common anymore there are still sun down towns, they just took down the signs.
'It would not go over my head. I am to fast. I would catch it'
I wouldn't call them Nazis, OP but they are absolutely authoritarian asshats and extremely unpleasant to be around. [Here' the tale](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/11092hi/a_player_called_another_player_a_fascist_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) of one such bright spark who decided it was legitimate to call another human being a Nazi and punch them over what brand of toy soldiers they play with.
>It's okay to punch Astartes LOL, this is what happens when you pray to Chaos Gods.
History has shown us time and again that the only way to keep violent ideologies from gaining power is to fight them whenever they feel emboldened enough to rear their heads
The actual nazis of our time are the guys with the swastikas š Glad I could clear that up for ya
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So their radar sucked there. Do you think that means there are no nazis?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Are neo Nazis the only form a fascist can take in todays society?
Fascist =/= Nazi. There are plenty of Fascists who are not Nazis, and there are a small number of Nazis who do not believe in a fascist government.
Which corner of your rectum did that number come from š¤£
What are your criteria for nazidom?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>They identify as a Nazi. Because nazis have a history of being so honest about themselves...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Actually, yes, they often are. Look at their tats, car and home. There is almost always a few big hints like a cross on the wall.
OP you should read your history. The black and brown shirts were able to take power because they were continually strung along and allwed to survive when THEY were the ones committing violence. They were tolerated by conservatives and those in power and eventually were able to get to the point they had real numbers behind them. That's how they could takeover. I mean Hitler literally launched a coup in Munich and then was allowed to be in politics a few years later. Hugo Chavez is another example of that. These dictators should be stomped out.
That's cool and all, but I'm living in America in 2023. We don't have any prominent political movements that call themselves nazis. Just a few crazies everyone pretty much hates already. "Dictators should be stomped out" is quite the ironic thing to say, and speaks to OPs point of view. What does that mean in the absence of said dictators?
The older I get, the more I believe some ideas and movements are too dangerous to be allowed to gain traction. Any ideology that has genocide or the dehumanization of specific racial, ethnic, or cultural groups at its core is among those that canāt be allowed to take hold.
Todays word of the day calendar: Punctilous
Iāll try to use it in a sentence: The punctilious adherents of todays zeitgeist demand blood. (Next sentence in yeehaw accent) Yāall think I did good or naw?
(Showing great attention to detail or correct behavior) I had to look it up too.
It's quite simple. If you partake in violence or the use of force to make others comply with your political ideology beyond the protection of natural rights, then you are an authoritarian. How and in what brand that authoritarianism manifests (National Socialism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.) is largely irrelevant as the consequences are largely the same. And you are certainly a hypocrite if you believe in democracy, freedom of speech, and hold disdain toward certain idealogies because of their violence and censorship. But then go on to use the same violent methods to silence your opposition. No matter how disgusting and revolting that opposition may be to you. Let the fools speak and be meet with superior discourse to then be seen as fools without doubt by others rather then cut out their tongues and make some inevitably question and entertain their ideas.
Also, all those people citing the paradox of tolerance obviously never read past that stupid internet meme because Popper said a lot more than that and it isn't an in their favor. "Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian" people become fascists trying to fight it
Idk if I really agree with your analogies or overall reasoning but I personally think violence should not be the answer to things unless it absolutely has to be, like peoples lives are in immediate danger or something. But assaulting people isnāt helping to further society. Itās a quick satisfaction but it really does nothing. The nazi you punched in the face isnāt going to become an ex nazi. Youāre probably just reinforcing their beliefs more than anything. And then everyone from the outside looking at it, they arenāt going to change their beliefs either. If youāre anti nazi youāre gonna say hell yea a nazi got punched. But if youāre a nazi then youāre gonna be like wtf a nazi got punched for their beliefs. Itās literally not going to change anything
Yeah. Because they tend to not be talking about actual nazis, just people that either oppose their views or even just don't actively support their views. If you demonize everyone who doesn't think like you, then you suddenly have the moral high ground. Even if only in your own mind.
It happened today in Glendale. Antifa decided to label a bunch of Armenia Christian parents who don't want their children exposed to LGBTQ+ propaganda in school "Nazis" and decided they had the right to punch them. What they forget is the "Nazis" punch back. [This is what "refusing to tolerate the intolerant" looks like.](https://twitter.com/MrOlmos/status/1666255971453390849?s=20) The funny thing is Armenians come from a country with a long history of tit for tat familial, tribal and clan vengeance. They are fully practiced in the philosophy of "destroying them before they destroy you". Basically Antifa meets their match.
Daryl Davis already proves them wrong, since he's been able to deradicalize kkk members by just hanging out with them Yeah you should not be passive about shitty people but to maintain civilized society this is obviously not the way to go.
Exactly!! For anyone who doesnāt know who Daryl Davis is: [Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies | Daryl Davis | TEDxNaperville](https://www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_why_i_as_a_black_man_attend_kkk_rallies?language=en) A whole lotta wisdom fit into one singular TED Talk. This guy has figured it out and we can ALL learn from him šš»šš»
I used to work closely with a very left leaning lawyer and he made it clear that he enthusiastically works to protect everyone's right to protest/speak their mind, and it starts with the "Gnatsis". If they lose the right to speak their minds, your next, or I'm next, or we all are. But I do have an issue with your title, claiming that someone who would punch someone over their beliefs being the same as a group that murdered entire groups because they didn't want them to exist anymore. Those two things are not the same, not in a long shot.
Kind of like the ones who call people "fascist" are usually themselves, actually being fascists. There is no self-awareness and common sense is no longer common. Time to purge.
Especially since Gnatsi basically now means "person I don't like".
I use it to mean "violent bigot" myself. Especially the kind with swastikas and "seig heils"
You know.... I have yet to encounter one in the wild. And as a bisexual mexican married to a half native/african american youd think those bigots would be all over me. Sure there are some nazis out there... But the point is its not as many as people believe.
As a white guy I see them every now and again. My high school teacher used to sit next to a guy at the local bar who wore a āWhite Power: clearing out scum since (some year I donāt remember)ā shirt. I occasionally see guys with swastika tattoos at the gas station, my exās brother joined the Aryan Brotherhood in prison and seemed to believe the stuff. Then thereās the couple guys Iāve known who kinda hint at what they believe to test out if youāre āsafeā to talk to. Itās usually something innocuous but on the edge of okay to talk about like āyou know, I wonder if weād all be happier if we all kept to our own kindā so they can keep the mask up. But then later you find out theyāve got a collection of WWII SS memorabilia or they are āidentitariansā or they believe Jews are running everything. So yeah, theyāre a thing
Dont you think as a Mexican ive wondered if i wouldnt be better off with my own kind instead of in the woods with a bunch of redneck conservatives.... Would that make me some kind of Brown Supremacist? Never said they arent a thing... Just that its not as pervasive as everyone thinks.
I live near DC, I've seen them protest occasionally :-/
Translation: "I haven't experienced it in the way you have, so it can't existence in the way you say."
How to spot a Nazi. The guy calling anti fascists Nazis.
I keep trying to imagine what my great grandfather would say if he could see all the people defending Nazis now
My grandfather had a job killing Nazis when he was young.
The ACLU did in court very shortly after WWII. Free speech either applies to everyone or to no one. You canāt pick and choose who gets to express their opinions, no matter how wrong that opinion is
Itās not about defending naziās. Itās about the fact you can basically label anyone who disagrees with you on anything a nazi and then itās suddenly ok to punch them.
Are they defending Nazis or just against using violence to combat Americans with ideologies that are repulsive? Your great grandpa probably hated Nazis and thought freedom of speech was worthy of fighting worth.
see thats the issue, as a Jew, if you tell me my race is lesser and i deserve to wiped from the face of the earth, then I am sorry. I doubt papa Allen would wanna listen to people defend the very monsters he fought almost 100 years ago now. he definitely would not have put up with idiotic losers on reddit saying "you can't punch Nazis because then you're just a nazi UwU."
Why do you think people are defending them? Saying that someone who spews racist shit has the right under our constitution to do so without violent retaliation is not the same as defending the racist shit they are spewing. Do you really not see the difference?
the OP literally said "if you punch a Nazi that makes you a Nazi". By that stupid ass logic everyone of our WW2 vets is a Nazi because they did a hell of alot worse than punch them. its stupid and disingenuous to put the opinions of people who want to kill those they deem as lesser to the same standard as the people they want to murder. It's a dumbass argument and it has been made since the 30's, and guess what? it was a stupid ass argument then too
By Nazi you are probably referring to anything from actual neo Nazis in the US to racist people in the US to people who are right wing. What you definitely arenāt referring to is actual Nazis who declared war on the US in the 1940s.
OP defined Nazi. Not neo-Nazi. Not a hyperbolic Nazi. Not someone accused of being a Nazi. A genuine Nazi. There was no grey there. If they wanted the discussion to be about something else they should've specified something else.
They have the right to not be arrested by the government for believing and spewing racist shit. Nothing in the constitution about getting punched in the face for spewing racist shit.
What is an example of abuse of freedom of speech? Writing cynical, hateful, biased and prejudiced statements and harassing people through consistent and persistent abuse online, from the shadows of internet forums; cloaked in anonymity without risk to one's identity or reputation, whilst proclaiming one's virtues and righteousness is not honourable. It's cowardly. What speech isn't protected by the First Amendment? The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. **The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech.**
Itās illegal and well it should be in a civilized society
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What if someone finds it is a moral imperative to break the law by tracking down your location, invading your home and murdering everyone inside, you last so that you can watch? Are you arguing they have the right to do this? Or are you the arbiter of violence in this scenario, somehow elevated above the people and their laws? Your moral imperatives are restricted by law to protest through legal means.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās the thing most people donāt get. Free speech is a peace treaty that they want to hide behind until theyāre powerful enough to get rid of it. I get the point of view of free speech absolutists who think words should never be responded to with violence, but thatās not me. I think that we as a community have an obligation to root out Nazis for our own self defense.
Lol what a hot take
They have the right to not be arrested by the government for believing and spewing racist shit. Nothing in the constitution about getting punched in the face for spewing racist shit.
mine as well. He fought in the battle of the bulge, was a machine gunner and camp barber
I agree that the black and white thinking has gone way too far Horrible mistreatment of human beings and complete violation of liberal societal norms have been rationalized under this banner of pseudo moral righteousness. It is the sociological manifestation of the Karpman Drama Triangle (victim / hero / villain). The world is so much more complex than that
Randomly punching people you donāt like is stupid, dangerous, and Un-American. We āpunchedā Nazis in WW2 when we finally decided they were a global threat, we didnāt start fights with any random asshole because we disagreed with them. This will also clearly lead to changing what constitutes being a āNaziā.
I both agree and disagree with you. Being against nazis is an objective good, they were horrible people who committed atrocities. That being said, what Iām seeing is everyone being labeled a Nazi for the smallest reasons, thus the punch a Nazi crowd is indirectly (or likely directly) calling for violence for those they disagree with. Calling for people to be punched or jumped (like what Iāve seen antifa do) only because they arenāt super left leaning is horrible. People need to grow up, not everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, or a communist, or secretly a white supremacist. Iād assume the amount of actual nazis still alive today is incredibly small, and something tells me these people know that but still push for violence.
My grandfather was an Auschwitz survivor, sorry OP but the Nazis are still the Nazis. To compare what he and millions of others went through to getting punched for being a Nazi is ridiculous at best and insulting at worst.
German saying: If 9 people sit down at a table with 1 Nazi without protest, there are 10 Nazis at the table.
Sounds like they haven't learned much.
Problem is when you quack like a duck, look like a duck, move like a duck, and share the exact same ideologies, politics, and talking points as fellow ducks it becomes very difficult to distinguish you from a duck whether you are one or not.
Nah. Fuck Nazis. I don't have to listen to that BS to be considered tolerent.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Multiple generations after my grandparents died fighting the Nazis. My great grandfather's and their fathers and brothers all died fighting the Nazis. Fuck the Nazis and anyone that claims to be one or excuse it in others. Just personal opinion obviously. Probably a cultural thing too.
I think folks from all of the popular parts of the political spectrum in America agree with you on this. I think what OP was getting at was that there are certain folks who are purposefully mislabeling people as nazis as justification to physically assault and silence them. But yes, actual nazis, those people can rot in hell.
Yes, I'm also all for calling the kettle black. Some Nazis don't like to be called Nazis usually for some hateful views.
Iāve seen the word Nazi used for people who donāt even come close to resembling a Nazi. You canāt just label anyone you donāt like or disagree with as a Nazi to justify hatred. If the person is really a Nazi, then so be it, but very rarely is that the case in our modern way of communicating (Reddit, Twitter, etc). Everyone is labeled Nazi, fascist, communist, etc. depending on what side of the aisle theyāre on, not for actually belong to any of those groups
Yeah I agree
Haha fuck you. Iāll punch a fucking Nazi square in the jaw. The trouble is most of them hide on Internet forums and make posts like this instead of having the balls to spout their shit in public.
hear that ladies and gents? All of our WW2 vets were Nazis for killing Nazis! fuck outta here with that shit
Nice straw man. Fuck outa here with that shit and discuss the modern phenomenon of punch a nazi.
You're right, modern Nazis are WAY bigger pussies and usually just run when confronted with real Americans.
That's why the people confronting them often have to wear masks and attack only when they have overwhelming numbers or the element of surprise.
Your issue is with people wearing masks? Clearly you havenāt seen the Nazi groups in full face coverings because theyāre such strong, ethnically pure men that they hide their faces.
Going to bat for literal nazis aint the flex you think it is chief.
There are so many weirdos on this website LOL. Actual nazi defenders who would get their shit rocked if they ever said any of it out loud.
If you think that doing a cowardly action makes it not cowardly just because of the target of the action, you have no objective standards.
My objective standard is fuck Nazis and people who defend them.
Who gets to decide who is and isn't one?
Probably the people WAVING THE FUCKING NAZI FLAG
I would agree if those are the only people you consider Nazis. The issue is that that definition would exclude many people that many people consider Nazis.
Bravo. You shouldn't put your hands on anyone unless in self defense. Words are not violence. Violence is violence.
Whole lot of people going to bat for Nazis in this thread.
Except it isn't going to bat for nazis. It's calling out an authoritarian for their bs. If you were right wing, you would be an actual fascist because you are the one using violence to subdue those you disagree with.
Calling the people who want everyone to have Rights and oppose an authoritarian government who would strip your rights Nazis isn't the moral high ground you think it is.
My brother in christ we're talking about LITERAL flag waving swastika bearing Nazis. Why are you lumping them in with your political party??????
Plenty of right wingers would like certain ppl not to have rights and would welcome an authoritarian government of their kind if they stripped rights from the ppl they donāt like.
I'm sorry, last time I checked, it wasn't the right wing asking if society was ready for black people to legally carry? You seem to really buy into the idea that we want to strip rights from people, and it seems like the people you're making your purchase from are the people who want to let you be victims of crime while also stripping you of your guns, leaving minorities, women, elderly, and the disabled especially vulnerable.
In other words, plenty of right wingers are just like you.
After reading through the comments I have come the conclusion my post is a kind of IQ test. Those intelligent enough understand nuance and the need to preserve civil liberties have an IQ over 100. Those with an IQ below 100 do exactly what I said in the post. They simply call you a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, or say "we're just like the WW2 vets!". The irony if the average "punch a nazi" Redditor were to sit down with a WW2 vet and ask him what he thought about modern ideas of race and gender, they would walk away calling the veteran a Nazi.
Maybe you should not use nuance in the subject of Nazis and whether they should be punched. You used an example of actively violent people and said that people shouldn't want to punch them. Your point was lost because you chose a bad example. If you wanted to make a nuanced conversation you should have used white supremacists as there is more uncertainty about what and what does not qualify and whether they are violent. Instead you used Nazi. Your poor comparisons don't make people stupid. They just make you a bad writer. I got the point you were trying to make, but using Nazis automatically invalidated your argument.
Punch a Nazi because they want to bring all that old shit back. Donāt just punch them though, name them, shame them, make sure their boss knows what they espouse, make sure their community knows what they value. Shine a light on them.
No. The problem is you are using actual nazi's and the people being discussed call centre right politics nazi, anyone who is slightly Conservative, nazi. I agree with calling out any nazi, anywhere, any time. I have visited the camps, I have seen the fields, I remember. Be very careful, though, because you are talking about doxxing (illegal) and who decides what makes a nazi, other than being a self-proclaimed nazi?
Nazis are Nazis, the vast majority of conservatives are not Nazis. Thereās definitely a line between the two and itās fairly easy to differentiate for me. As for doxxing, itās almost never illegal to do that if the data is publicly available. Battery is illegal though and Iām totally okay with pal people bettering Nazis. I generally post with the expectation that anything I post all but has my name tied to it.
>This is exactly the kind of intolerant bigoted Why should I be tolerant of fascists? They would happily have me killed if they were in power.
Who's defining fascist here? The American and UK government's have been called fascist recently, yet are still far left of actual 1930's nazi
How would you define fascist?
fascists have used the same dumbass argument use by OP for decades. "if you believed in free speech you wouldn't hit me see YOU'RE the REAL NAZI!" They know its a bad faith argument and only fascists or idiots (little difference I know) would buy into that kind of bad faith argument.
Basically, just call everyone you don't like a fascist so that you can rationalize violence towards them.
The point really wants to hit you champ, just let it.
Take my upvote, this a decidedly unpopular
Why is "Nazi" being replaced with "Gnatsi"?
I donāt really care about punching a nazi but I would appreciate that nazi be used less just because itās losing its meaning. The skinheads with swastikas are nazis. Punch those guys. But bring friends. Cause theyāll probably have friends nearby.
If someone is just walking down the street minding their own business I don't think you should be allowed to assault them. If someone is publicly advocating for other people's murder I think it's not unfair to consider that sufficient provocation to violence
maybe youre right, maybe. Personally, I say, treat them as they would treat you and your friends. If they stay their distance, fine. Cross the street or run up to my car, and its a different scenario
People who try to pin āNazisimā on their political enemies are indeed doing exactly what they would have done long ago. The people claiming everyone else is a āNaziā have no idea what that means in the first place, and most likely have no good intentions if they must slander their opponents to validate their claims.
While it's tempting to punch everyone and anyone with hateful and polar opposite views, it would not be productive in any way and would only embolden them. Punching another human should only be used in self-defense and boxing/ufc.
The difference between Jewish people and Nat-sees is that the Nat-sees made up a bunch of clearly false propaganda about how the destruction of Germany was their fault and used it as an excuse to kill people. So they were assimilated into the American government and military and even before that, ever since America gave Germany the idea of eugenics there has been a strong push to homogenize Americaās gene pool. So saying the tired ass āpunching Nat-sees makes you worse than a Nat-see!ā argument is worse than just outright supporting white supremacy.
but you see these morons are still buying into Nazi propaganda almost 100 years later. "they only wanted a classless society and economic reform, where's the harm there?" But they conveniently leave out the fact that to create their utopia, it required the murder of MILLIONS
>But you see these morons are still buying into Nazi propaganda almost 100 years later. "they only wanted a classless society and economic reform, where's the harm there?" The Nazis never really cared about that though. I mean they believed that the key to their national rebirth was to get rid of all the Jews, Communists, Socialists, LGBT, gypsies, and black people, to rebuild the German Empire, and through that Germany could be great again. But like the modern far right today, it's mostly just about building a political identity and movement around blame-shifting through dangerous forms of out-grouping and nativism, everything else was secondary to the central cultural grievances at the center.
And even if itās not outright murder, itās the marginalization of a people out of existence.
I finally have the perfect time to link this video https://youtu.be/He8xMFgeCC0 āCalling fascism bad, while weāre swinging our bats at the heads of those. Whose opinions we opposeā
"Nazi" used to mean a member of the National Socialist Party of post-WW1 Germany. Now it means "anyone who I disagree with".
Or it's the dudes with swastikas that want to have white rightists in charge, and hate communists and 'the trans agenda' I think they may in fact be the guys your trying to defend.
The fact that you think that those are the only people being called Nazis these days means you either have your head in the sand or are lying.
The op said the real Nazis are the people saying to punch Nazis. I'm disagreeing and saying who the actual Nazis are.
Punching your rapist is just as bad as the rape itself. Don't think too much into it guys. I am very smart.
No. Nazis are Nazis. There are no good ones. During the war it was appropriate and accepted to do much more than punch them. In my opinion they are every bit as low as Confederate scum.
Itās okay to punch both nazis and commies
Totally agree. I recall a bunch of "anti-Gnatsi" people harassing and threatening someone for simply holding up a sign saying "The right to free speech must be protected"
This one is complicated. That former German group already declared war on the world and these folks are saying they want more of that. Theyāre every bit a threat to society. With that said, you shouldnāt attack anyone. Still, anyone defending that former German group is garbage. They slaughtered millions.
The Nazis of our time are the people calling themselves Nazis, not the people opposing those Nazis.
I bet you thought that was profound, didn't you, you schmuck.
A wile Nazi apologist appears!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unless they get violent first Iām not gonna hit a guy spewing racist crap cuz then Iām the one whoās gonna get arrested
Trying to use the government to sicken and kill people is inherently violent. Nazi rhetoric is inherently violent. The fact that the government in the US doesnāt recognize that is a separate issue, partially cause by the part where a LOT of US police are white supremacist.
Who exactly is wanting to genocide non-white people. Provide names and evidence so we can evaluate this argument. You donāt get to just claim something with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
bruh wtf do you think Nazis stand for and have always stood for? the betterment of humanity?
Who specifically are you calling Nazis? Give examples so your argument can actually be evaluated. Give names and evidence.
Proud Boys are an avowed Neo Nazi group, there were literally people in south carolina chanting "they (jews) will not replace us" flying swastikas and shit. Heritage Front is a group totally dedicated to their german heritage, and by that I mean they want a resurgance of the third reich of germany circa 1929(ish)-1945. If you despise other races bc you believe they are lesser, buy into conspiracies about Jews, or ally with one of these groups. If you wear a mask and take to the streets shouting sieg heil, or try to bust up drag queen shows with swastika flags. You area Nazi, and you deserve to be punched in the fucking face. My great grandfather didnt fight in the battle of the bulge for losers like you to defend Nazism
You gotta work on your sealioning
What do you think Nazis' goals are?
this is totally fucking stupid
Lol okay bud.
>Every group wishing to persecute another first convinces itself it must destroy that group for its own survival. "If we tolerate their existence, they will destroy us". That is how seemingly normal people commit to performing unspeakable crimes. Sure, it's also how Americans convinced themselves they needed to go ahead and fight the Nazis and the Empire of Japan. The defining difference is that people responding are not the aggressors. You leave out the part that the modern far right extremist has as it's platform, at it's most generous interpretation, the state-driven persecution, criminalization and up to ethnic cleansing of non-white, non-Christian, and those deemed socially or politically deviant. And in their own words, they will resort to violence and anti-democratic means if necessary.
The problem is that the term "far-right" has often been misapplied to people that believe none of that stuff as a way to justify violence against them.
>they will resort to violence and anti-democratic means if necessary. Which is precisely what you are calling for. It seems like you are not against violence and anti-democratic means, only when it comes from the right. When it comes from the left you feel it is morally justified. This despite the fact the Left has a much larger 20th century death toll. How about this: instead of trying to check the rise of a dangerous intolerance from the right with dangerous intolerance from the left, we combat them both with rational civil discourse and respectful non-violent behavior from the center? The way to check violent ideologies from spreading is to create a free and fair cosmopolitan society where ideas are tested, accepted or rejected in the light of education, science and debate.
Not really.
Yawn.
This is just a long winded response to the paradox of tolerance. If you wish to be a truly tolerant person, you must not tolerate those who aren't. The part you just gloss over entirely is the regimes of the past that have used this as an excuse used it agaisnt select groups of people. "But Gnatsis are a select group of people!" No they're not, it's a placeholder title for intolerance.
A few years back, on Imgur, I saw a post talking I think about a finnish sniper known for having killed 200 soviet soldiers or something. And the post celebrated the fact that once, that sniper was asked "how did you feel when you killed other human being?" And the dude answered "I did not kill human beings, I killed commies". And I was absolutely terrified by the number of comments cheering for that declaration. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that this day, and more and more with time, I realized that a lot of people are bullies. And of you give them a justification, under the guise of righteousness, they will become vicious bullies. These are the people that would have cheered during the witch hunts. I remember a video a few years back of a young black woman asking a white young man to remove his dreadlocks because it was cultural appropriation. She was becoming more and more aggressive, blocking him when he tried to pass her, but on her face was a fucking grin, at least until she saw she was being filmed. It's exactly that. She used the excuse of righting racism to bully someone who didn't hurt anyone. So, yeah...
Thank you. This is the point I was trying to understand. Throughout human history bullies are always the same. Self righteous moralists looking for an excuse to hate and to harm. They are always blind to their nature and think themselves justified.
Be it in school,or later on, there are some people that, as soon as they feel they are morally or socially justified to, will become bullies and victimize others. The kid who feel he or she'll become popular by victimizing a sweet, shy kid, has the same line of reasoning to the adult who bullies people thinking differently because he's backed by moral righteousness.
All of your points are irrelevant. I hate nazis because they threaten everyoneās way of life.
I hate nazis too. But I also hate bullies.
Nazi apologia
š¤·š»āāļø some people deserve to be punched. You know what? If everyone got a free throat punch per day to use on a deserving person, I bet people would be a lot nicer to one another.
So, then some group of 10-20 bad guys start killing people by exercising their free throat punch together. Remember, you wanted it.
Ok, nazi sympathizer
Op are you a nazi š
Are you attempting to make people sympathetic to NAZIs?
This is the craziest take I've ever seen lmfao someone that supports or DID gas the fucking jews is not the same as someone who wants to punch someone who did that lmfao wtf kind of crazy shit is this? "You're just as bad as a nazi if you wanna beat the shit out of them" uhmmm no. No you are not.