CBS says it's OK to "punch a Nazi"

[Benton]

(04-18-2019, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What was this show's criteria to label someone a "literal Nazi" to be punched? 

If you need a checklist, the person probably isn't a Nazi. If he's provoking or committing acts of violence based off a belief that it's acceptable because he's racially superior a d it's his right to rule over inferior races... Then, yeah, that's a bad guy.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 05:24 PM)Benton Wrote: If you need a checklist, the person probably isn't a Nazi. If he's provoking or committing acts of violence based off a belief that it's acceptable because he's racially superior a d it's his right to rule over inferior races... Then, yeah, that's a bad guy.

I was simply inquiring as to what "The Good Fight" criteria was. I think that would have a lot to do with folks accepting/disavowing the show's claim that punching should be encouraged. 

You do realize by removing the race element) that last part of your sentence directly describes what the show advocated? 

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2019, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What was this show's criteria to label someone a "literal Nazi" to be punched? 

I think he made it pretty clear

Guys like Richard Spencer

Guys who appear in national media with these type of messages:

“This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is."

“In thinking about immigration and migration, I could not care less whether someone filled out the paperwork correctly or passed a civics exam. I oppose the immigration of an African who waits his turn and genuinely ‘wants to be an American’; conversely, I would gladly accept thousands of ‘Swedish boat people’ who wash up on the shores.”

“Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” 

“Trump has opened the door to nationalism in this country — not American nationalism but the white race. Once that door has fully swung open, you can’t close it.”

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think he made it pretty clear

Guys like Richard Spencer

Guys who appear in national media with these type of messages:

“This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is."

“In thinking about immigration and migration, I could not care less whether someone filled out the paperwork correctly or passed a civics exam. I oppose the immigration of an African who waits his turn and genuinely ‘wants to be an American’; conversely, I would gladly accept thousands of ‘Swedish boat people’ who wash up on the shores.”

“Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” 

“Trump has opened the door to nationalism in this country — not American nationalism but the white race. Once that door has fully swung open, you can’t close it.”

That sounds more like a racist than a Nazi

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-18-2019, 05:24 PM)Benton Wrote: If you need a checklist, the person probably isn't a Nazi. If he's provoking or committing acts of violence based off a belief that it's acceptable because he's racially superior a d it's his right to rule over inferior races... Then, yeah, that's a bad guy.

No one is disputing the right of anyone to defend themselves from acts of violence.  If all that person is doing is talking then no, responding with violence is unacceptable.

(04-18-2019, 06:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think he made it pretty clear

Guys like Richard Spencer

Guys who appear in national media with these type of messages:

“This country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything. We defined what America is."

“In thinking about immigration and migration, I could not care less whether someone filled out the paperwork correctly or passed a civics exam. I oppose the immigration of an African who waits his turn and genuinely ‘wants to be an American’; conversely, I would gladly accept thousands of ‘Swedish boat people’ who wash up on the shores.”

“Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!” 

“Trump has opened the door to nationalism in this country — not American nationalism but the white race. Once that door has fully swung open, you can’t close it.”

So Fred is good with using violence against people based on their words or beliefs.  Very progressive.

[Benton]

(04-18-2019, 11:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one is disputing the right of anyone to defend themselves from acts of violence.  If all that person is doing is talking then no, responding with violence is unacceptable.

And that's a part of the issue. Calling a racist a Nazi is ridiculous. Calling a feminist a  Nazi is ridiculous. Calling someone who wants strong immigration reform a Nazi is ridiculous.

But saying we should go easy on Nazis because the term gets bandied about by two political parties? Equally ridiculous. There are Nazis, don't go easy on them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2019, 12:13 AM)Benton Wrote: And that's a part of the issue. Calling a racist a Nazi is ridiculous. Calling a feminist a  Nazi is ridiculous. Calling someone who wants strong immigration reform a Nazi is ridiculous.

But saying we should go easy on Nazis because the term gets bandied about by two political parties? Equally ridiculous. There are Nazis, don't go easy on them.

Ugh, I can't believe I'm still having the explain the point made in OP.  The term being bandied around is a problem, yes.  However, the point of the thread is that violence is not an acceptable response to words or thoughts.  The possibility that people who aren't Nazis being hurt instead of just Nazis is just an additional example of why this is a horrible idea.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, I can't believe I'm still having the explain the point made in OP.  The term being bandied around is a problem, yes.  However, the point of the thread is that violence is not an acceptable response to words or thoughts.  The possibility that people who aren't Nazis being hurt instead of just Nazis is just an additional example of why this is a horrible idea.

There's no shortage of tough guys in this thread. 

[Benton]

(04-19-2019, 12:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, I can't believe I'm still having the explain the point made in OP.  The term being bandied around is a problem, yes.  However, the point of the thread is that violence is not an acceptable response to words or thoughts.  The possibility that people who aren't Nazis being hurt instead of just Nazis is just an additional example of why this is a horrible idea.

Ugh indeed.

Won't someone please think of the Nazis!

[NATI BENGALS]

When is this dumb ass shit going to end? Good defeating evil is the goal. If your moral compass wants to give nazis a seat at the table... I have a problem. How many people did Osama physically murder himself before we wanted him dead? I cant think of any murders he physically carried out that pissed me off. Was it his concepts and preachings that were responsible?

Keep defending terrorist leaders....

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The problem that those who others think are defending nazis is that everyone is considered a nazi especially those on the right.

If it becomes ok to "Punch a nazi" then some jackass will punch or kill some dude because he was labeled a nazi by someone else simply because he's pro Second Amendment or wants to build the wall on the southern boarder.

Then lawyers or public defenders will be able to claim self defense or something stupid like the "Twinkie" defense or use the "Affluenza" defense somehow. 

"He didn't know it was wrong your honor, he thought he was defending life and liberty. He's not responsible for his actions...this isn't murder"

Even if it is an actual nazi who was beat or killed, it's still wrong. Plus it gives actual nazis justification to beat or kill and it brings more to their cause.

[JustWinBaby]

Liberal tolerance at its best. How dare he not be grateful for being punched in the face!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2019, 01:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Ugh indeed.

Won't someone please think of the Nazis!

Ugh, won't someone think of the concept of free speech, one of the founding principles of our nation?  Ugh, won't someone think of the concept that words, however abhorrent, don't justify a physically violent response?

Seriously, I expected better from you, both as a person and as a journalist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2019, 01:38 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: When is this dumb ass shit going to end? Good defeating evil is the goal. If your moral compass wants to give nazis a seat at the table... I have a problem. How many people did Osama physically murder himself before we wanted him dead? I cant think of any murders he physically carried out that pissed me off. Was it his concepts and preachings that were responsible?

Keep defending terrorist leaders....

Again!  The minute someone engages in violence it is appropriate to respond in kind.  When all someone is doing is using words then responding with violence is wrong.  You keep conflating the two concepts like they're both being discussed.  Seriously, the lack of reading comprehension in this thread is insane.

[Benton]

(04-19-2019, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, won't someone think of the concept of free speech, one of the founding principles of our nation?  Ugh, won't someone think of the concept that words, however abhorrent, don't justify a physically violent response?

Seriously, I expected better from you, both as a person and as a journalist.

Your disappointment is noted. 

As a person and a journalist I believe Nazis have a right to opinions. This incident with CBS is one more blip on trying to normalize and give acceptance to white supremacy. If you expect me to support that trend, you don't know me very well. 

Personally, I don't like the "well, what about the innocent people" defense. That absolves people of having to think for themselves. If I call you a tomato and someone bites you, are we going to blame you or me over the label, and not the idiot that thought you were a fruit? Hold people accountable for their actions, Nazi and tomato-biter alike.

[Benton]

(04-19-2019, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again!  The minute someone engages in violence it is appropriate to respond in kind.  When all someone is doing is using words then responding with violence is wrong.  You keep conflating the two concepts like they're both being discussed.  Seriously, the lack of reading comprehension in this thread is insane.

I don't disagree with you. I just don't like this attempt to normalize white supremacy by painting them as victims.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-19-2019, 12:04 PM)Benton Wrote: Your disappointment is noted. 

As a person and a journalist I believe Nazis have a right to opinions. This incident with CBS is one more blip on trying to normalize and give acceptance to white supremacy. If you expect me to support that trend, you don't know me very well.

What an abysmally misguided take on this thread.  I think you do more to normalize abhorrent viewpoints by banning or threatening them then by giving them the ability to profess their view points.  

Quote:Personally, I don't like the "well, what about the innocent people" defense. That absolves people of having to think for themselves. If I call you a tomato and someone bites you, are we going to blame you or me over the label, and not the idiot that thought you were a fruit? Hold people accountable for their actions, Nazi and tomato-biter alike.

It's not a defense, it's a byproduct.  Even if there was 100% assurance that no non-Nazi would ever be punched I'd be making the same point; that responding to words with violence is both wrong an unAmerican.

(04-19-2019, 12:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't disagree with you. I just don't like this attempt to normalize white supremacy by painting them as victims.

Then you must love this thread as that's not what's being advocated for here.  Anyone who is physically attacked for their words is a victim of unwarranted violence though.  How about Farrakhan, can a Jewish person punch him in the face because he's a virulent antisemite?  How about a black lives matter protester who, although in the minority of that group, is advocating killing police officers, can a LEO run up and punch them in the face?  The answer to all of this is no, and Nazis, Islamic extremists, Westboro Baptists, Nation of Islam can, and should, all profess their abhorrent beliefs in this country without fearing for their physical safety.

[GMDino]

(04-19-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What an abysmally misguided take on this thread.  I think you do more to normalize abhorrent viewpoints by banning or threatening them then by giving them the ability to profess their view points.  


It's not a defense, it's a byproduct.  Even if there was 100% assurance that no non-Nazi would ever be punched I'd be making the same point; that responding to words with violence is both wrong an unAmerican.


Then you must love this thread as that's not what's being advocated for here.  Anyone who is physically attacked for their words is a victim of unwarranted violence though.  How about Farrakhan, can a Jewish person punch him in the face because he's a virulent antisemite?  How about a black lives matter protester who, although in the minority of that group, is advocating killing police officers, can a LEO run up and punch them in the face?  The answer to all of this is no, and Nazis, Islamic extremists, Westboro Baptists, Nation of Islam can, and should, all profess their abhorrent beliefs in this country without fearing for their physical safety.

Uh, I figured you were more a student of history than that.    

Seriously though even the POTUS disagrees.  

Even more seriously anyone "can" do anything.  I'd have to imagine (without doing any searching) that courts have said a punch or violent reaction to being threatened was not punishable.  And that is probably on a case by case basis.

That doesn't mean it is right.  And it doesn't mean I agree with it.

Violence is never the answer in my opinion.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2019, 02:02 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The problem that those who others think are defending nazis is that everyone is considered a nazi especially those on the right.

If it becomes ok to "Punch a nazi" then some jackass will punch or kill some dude because he was labeled a nazi by someone else simply because he's pro Second Amendment or wants to build the wall on the southern boarder.

Then lawyers or public defenders will be able to claim self defense or something stupid like the "Twinkie" defense or use the "Affluenza" defense somehow. 

"He didn't know it was wrong your honor, he thought he was defending life and liberty. He's not responsible for his actions...this isn't murder"

Even if it is an actual nazi who was beat or killed, it's still wrong. Plus it gives actual nazis justification to beat or kill and it brings more to their cause.

You mean like that nazi did in charlottesville?  

[Dill]

(04-17-2019, 09:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pat, it's great to feel negatively about NAZI's and White Supremacists, I don't much care for them myself.  Are you as equally revolted by hate groups on the other side of the coin?  Groups like Antifa or BLM?

Wow, I can definitely say that I am NOT as revolted by groups that protest fascism and racial inequality. 

But if they violate laws against assault, they should get the same penalties as Nazis and White Supremacists would/should.