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

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

But receive different treatment if they don't violate laws against assault?

[Dill]

(04-18-2019, 12:37 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So I have to share a little history with some folks on here. I thought it was common knowledge. But apparently not. This may shock some of you.

The ones we as Americans call the "greatest generation" actually killed nazis. Yep. Its true. True patriots. American heroes. I know this is probably stunning. But they took it even further than punching nazis in the face. They actually killed them. They knew dangerous dumb ass bullshit that wasn't right was horseshit and did what had to be done. They didn't patty cake around like little cowards. They fought evil. Like true righteous people do.

Yes, I have heard that the U.S. fought Nazis.  It was somewhere in Europe, and there is a movie all about it starring Tom Hanks.  While watching the movie I also noticed there were no black soldiers "fighting evil" in any of the units I saw.  Not like the Iraq War movies we see nowadays.

I saw lines of German prisoners in that Tom Hanks movie too. No one was killing them, even though many were Nazis.  I think it is because, by international law, it is permissible for U.S. soldiers to kill enemy soldiers who take up arms against them in a declared war, Nazis or not. But once they surrender, their universal human rights kick back in and they are not to be killed, tortured, starved or otherwise mistreated, Nazis or not. Even in movies--if you want to present the U.S. as a model of international law.

There may be disagreement over why that big war against the Nazis was actually fought.  Some Americans before the war, who coined the slogan "Make America Great Again," wanted to fight on the German side.  Some thought Nazis and their allies left us no choice (I mean, they did declare war on us). We had to fight them there or here, regardless of their beliefs, so better there. Still others thought fascism represented a form of government quite at odds with American ideals of democracy and rule of law. By 1942 at least, that "rule of law" part meant not killing, arresting, or otherwise harming people whose whose publicly affirmed beliefs the majority found odious--even if they were intentionally directing offensive speech towards others.   Nowadays people who aren't Nazis prefer to say the U.S. went to war to defeat fascism. And "Evil." Which was all over there and not in the segregated U.S.

So it is true that the "greatest generation" took it further than punching Nazis, but it is not clear at all that that WAR, which most of us know from movies and books, offers a good and clear precedent for randomly punching Nazis in the peaceful streets of America today.  Some part of the rationale FOR the war, which was offered AFTER the war in places like Nuremberg, may be gradually disappearing from public memory.

[Dill]

(04-19-2019, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But receive different treatment if they don't violate laws against assault?

Not sure what you mean by "different treatment." 

I will treat them differently. I would be happy to have BLM folks to dinner and a few beers. Not Nazis. 

If I were a teacher in HS, I would not mind having a BLM rep speak to my class.  I would not invite a Nazi. 
I might invite both if I were a college teacher, and debate were appropriate to the course.

If I were a rancher who needed to get the hay in by week's end, I might hire a Nazi if I had no other choice. If I had a choice, no.
If I owned a public restaurant, I would serve a Nazi who was behaving. (Though I might not serve Trump, to make a political statement.)


As far as the laws go, I don't see where they should be treated differently.  A $5 parking ticket for the head of BLM should be $5 for Richard Spencer, if each committed the same offense.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 03:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you mean by "different treatment." 

I will treat them differently. I would be happy to have BLM folks to dinner and a few beers. Not Nazis. 

If I were a teacher in HS, I would not mind having a BLM rep speak to my class.  I would not invite a Nazi. 
I might invite both if I were a college teacher, and debate were appropriate to the course.

If I were a rancher who needed to get the hay in by week's end, I might hire a Nazi if I had no other choice. If I had a choice, no.
If I owned a public restaurant, I would serve a Nazi who was behaving. (Though I might not serve Trump, to make a political statement.)


As far as the laws go, I don't see where they should be treated differently.  A $5 parking ticket for the head of BLM should be $5 for Richard Spencer, if each committed the same offense.

So you would treat them equally? As to your examples I could see merit in interacting with both populations. Why not have a beer with a Nazi and get to know what motivates his beliefs?

[Dill]

(04-19-2019, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you would treat them equally? As to your examples I could see merit in interacting with both populations. Why not have a beer with a Nazi and get to know what motivates his beliefs?

Actually, I am not against having a beer with a Nazi. I would like to know more about what motivates such people, especially educational and economic background, and what and where their political resources currently are.

So I would sit down with one in a bar or coffee house, but I don't see inviting one for dinner, which is a stronger invitation to friendship and risks normalizing his views, making him feel more accepted with them.  

But my post did not treat Nazis equally. I am for public shunning--under legal equality for all.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-19-2019, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

The group BLM may have started out as a good thing, just looking peacefully raise awareness.  And, I'm in support of such things.  However, it seems like wealthy forces have hired and paid "people" to riot and act out in their name.  How is rioting, looting, and destroying the very community that they live in going to make others take them into their hearts?  Let's not forget about Antifa, quite likely the biggest oxymoron of all time.  They use fascist tactics to attempt to intimidate and beat down anyone expressing an opinion they don't like?

While I'm sure that sort of image isn't what the founders of BLM had in mind, how the group has been portrayed is a bad look.  As for Antifa?  I'm convinced that was pretty much the same group (or ones similar) that were paid to "protest" on behalf of BLM.

[Dill]

(04-19-2019, 04:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The group BLM may have started out as a good thing, just looking peacefully raise awareness.  And, I'm in support of such things.  However, it seems like wealthy forces have hired and paid "people" to riot and act out in their name.  How is rioting, looting, and destroying the very community that they live in going to make others take them into their hearts?  Let's not forget about Antifa, quite likely the biggest oxymoron of all time.  They use fascist tactics to attempt to intimidate and beat down anyone expressing an opinion they don't like?

While I'm sure that sort of image isn't what the founders of BLM had in mind, how the group has been portrayed is a bad look.  As for Antifa?  I'm convinced that was pretty much the same group (or ones similar) that were paid to "protest" on behalf of BLM.

I haven't heard about any "wealthy forces" hiring and paying people to riot and act out in the name of BLM. If so, the blame should not fall on BLM is someone is setting them up.  I'd be thankful for any links I can evaluate.

I am not a member of Antifa and don't condone their tactics.  I am just saying that if they break a window, then the same law should apply to them as everyone else. But since their goal is to end racism, I still don't put them in the same category as groups who want to elevate racism to political and legal criterion of worth. If I am a judge, none of that factors into my decision. I don't say $500 fine for the non-racist and $1000 for the racist.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-17-2019, 10:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess my use of "well known" should be "prominent leaders". They absolutely aren't household names unless you live with white supremacists.

 You either ignore them and do clue others into the fact that this is happening and needs to stop or you report on them and spread their views to new people who are susceptible to them. I don't discredit your view and I think it's valid, I just feel like more good than harm is done by shedding a light on them. Exposure does them more harm in my opinion. 

I don't think people lumping all conservatives in with them is as prominent as you're suggesting, but I can only speak from my experiences. I remember there was a lot of pushback initially with Charlottesville, and I told people point blank that they were defending Nazi's when they defended those individuals, using evidence to show the march was populated by Neo Nazi's and that their chants were Nazi chants. Those people were the ones who can could absolutely label as racists and white supremacists, and they have been banned here. There certainly were people who were hesitant to call them out at first, assuming they weren't all Nazis/White Supremacists, and having the leading member of the GOP suggest some of them were "good people" didn't help. 

Fair enough. I just thought "well known" was giving them far too much credit and power for hateful little internet circle jerks. They might be the leaders of their little circle jerks, but unless you're a white supremacist, or spend a lot of your time following them online in order to hate them, I feel the vast majority of the US wouldn't have any idea of who they are if you took a poll.

- - - - - - - - - -

Yeah, I am obviously not 100% sure that my idea of shun-and-neglect is THE solution. I just don't believe that giving them a camera and microphone is the answer either. All the news stations giving Trump a microphone and camera in the election sure didn't help. If they give him the same coverage as every other Republican candidate... does he win? Not sure. The news obviously can't shun a Presidential candidate and pretend like he doesn't exist, because that's a whole different problem for the elections, but a white supremecist? The less people his message reaches, the better. The less people his message reaches, the less hate he is able to spread. If white supremacy was an incurable disease (for some people it is, you'll never be able to change their mind) then my method is basically quarantine. Isolate the sickness, let it die off, and prevent it from infecting others. I don't see the end game otherwise because there's a certain segment that will always be terrible.

You will never be able to get 100% of the population of the human race to ever believe in a single concept. Regardless of that concept. See: flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. Believing that shedding light on them will make them all change their ways and step in line with shame and condemnation seems a bit naive to me. At least that's my opinion on it.

Granted, for all I know, I am wrong as hell and your way might be the best way. We'll see, I suppose.

[*Nately120*]

(04-19-2019, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you would treat them equally? As to your examples I could see merit in interacting with both populations. Why not have a beer with a Nazi and get to know what motivates his beliefs?

I've had a beer with a proud member of the kkk.  He doesn't like black people. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-19-2019, 05:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I haven't heard about any "wealthy forces" hiring and paying people to riot and act out in the name of BLM. If so, the blame should not fall on BLM is someone is setting them up.  I'd be thankful for any links I can evaluate.

I am not a member of Antifa and don't condone their tactics.  I am just saying that if they break a window, then the same law should apply to them as everyone else. But since their goal is to end racism, I still don't put them in the same category as groups who want to elevate racism to political and legal criterion of worth. If I am a judge, none of that factors into my decision. I don't say $500 fine for the non-racist and $1000 for the racist.

People raging out in hate aren't excused from being vile, despicable groups, simply because you want to give them a pass for targeting racist people.  Vigilante is no better than racist.  We are a Nation of laws.

[Dill]

(04-19-2019, 06:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: People raging out in hate aren't excused from being vile, despicable groups, simply because you want to give them a pass for targeting racist people.  Vigilante is no better than racist.  We are a Nation of laws.

That's why I said that people who commit assault or property crimes should be punished, right?  Regardless of their motivation.

But then we are punishing them for the crimes, not for thelr beliefs, right? We don't punish people in this country for "raging hate."

So who is getting a pass?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-19-2019, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why I said that people who commit assault or property crimes should be punished, right?  Regardless of their motivation.

But then we are punishing them for the crimes, not for thelr beliefs, right? We don't punish people in this country for "raging hate."

So who is getting a pass?

Actually, we do.  Have you ever heard of hate crime laws?  That is why I chose to mention previously that I feel that a vigilante is no better than a racist.  Why?  Both are acting upon emotion and sentiment, rather than logic and rationale.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2019, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why I said that people who commit assault or property crimes should be punished, right?  Regardless of their motivation.

But then we are punishing them for the crimes, not for thelr beliefs, right? We don't punish people in this country for "raging hate."

So who is getting a pass?

Did you read the OP?

[BmorePat87]

(04-18-2019, 10:11 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Don't forget about that ***** mall cop who was all obsessed with llama hair pants or whatever.  Tools like that need punched.  

Cincy's "Best". 

[Dill]

(04-19-2019, 09:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Actually, we do.  Have you ever heard of hate crime laws?  That is why I chose to mention previously that I feel that a vigilante is no better than a racist.  Why?  Both are acting upon emotion and sentiment, rather than logic and rationale.

I have heard of hate crime laws.  But as I understand them, they don't punish people for just hating.  You can hate all you want, and say it, without punishment.

If you want to be punished for a hate crime, you still have to assault someone or deface property--i.e., violate the actual boundaries of others freedom.

So far there are no laws against emotion and sentiment.  They are not bad in themselves.  Nazis may feel saddened at Hitler's death and react emotionally to it, sentimentalizing Nazi Germany under the Third Reich. Others may feel saddened at the death of millions of Jews and sentimentalize life in the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe before WWII.   If this sentiment motivates a Jew to act, as in punch a Nazi, I cannot ethically equate that with a Nazi motivated to act, as in punch a Jew, because both are "acting upon emotion and sentiment, rather than logic and rationale." 

In our Western, Judeo-Hellenic tradition, hating people who tried to exterminate your people is not ethically the same as wanting to exterminate people because you hate them.

But to maintain civil order and rule of law, a Jew in the the U.S. today who punches a Nazi for shouting hate must receive the same penalty as a Nazi who punches a Jew for being a Jew. 

[samhain]

Taxpaying adults shouldn't be punching anyone for any reason beyond self-defense. It's sort of a part of the social contract. We can all disagree, but when we go out in public, we need to behave like adults and avoid stupidity beyond the daily mundane variety.

I will say this, though. I think a lot of extremist types on the right were a bit emboldened, and falsely so by the election of the current president. I think that the Richard Spencers of the nation thought that maybe a shift to populism on the right favored their ideology having a chance to spread in a way that it hadn't in decades.

I also think that they found out pretty quick that they were dead wrong after the unite the right march. People were sent to jail, fired, and had their lives ruined when their identities were revealed to their employers and associates. Their faces were everywhere. They learned the lesson that life is a bit tougher for an open racist outside of internet chat rooms. I guess it was a pretty organic enforcement of social norms, really. Nobody needs to get curb-stomped or verbally berated. They just get to live with the stink of their ideology forever thanks to the internet.

Violence is not needed to humiliate and destroy these kinds of people. All you have to do is allow them to speak their minds and elaborate their views. They'll be unemployed or in hiding in short order.

Same goes for any violent group on the left. Nobody wants these people hanging around their necks. The mentality it must take and the life of rejection that leads to it must be a pretty sad road to go down.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I, for one, am grateful these liberal snowflakes stopped being so damn politically correct and started telling it like it is.  Like our president.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 01:41 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I, for one, am grateful these liberal snowflakes stopped being so damn politically correct and started telling it like it is.  Like our president.

I get the point you're trying to make.  However, whataboutism is not a defense.  Trump's wrong statements don't make the CBS video any more acceptable.  Alternatively, one could flip the script on your point and ask why you have a problem with Trump's statements and not the CBS episode?


Even more alternatively, we could all agree that a violent response to words is never warranted, no matter how much those words upset us.  The adult world is a difficult one at times, to be sure.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 02:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get the point you're trying to make.  However, whataboutism is not a defense.  Trump's wrong statements don't make the CBS video any more acceptable.  Alternatively, one could flip the script on your point and ask why you have a problem with Trump's statements and not the CBS episode?


Even more alternatively, we could all agree that a violent response to words is never warranted, no matter how much those words upset us.  The adult world is a difficult one at times, to be sure.

All excellent points.  But, only one of us made a thread about CBS advocating violence and none about Trump advocating violence.  Although it's possible I missed it.

[GMDino]

(04-23-2019, 03:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: All excellent points.  But, only one of us made a thread about CBS advocating violence and none about Trump advocating violence.  Although it's possible I missed it.

Nah, you missed them defending what Trump said or saying he never encouraged anyone to be violent or that the "left" had worse people who did worse things.

"whataboutism"