I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
But Nazis are by definition an active threat to me and mine. So punching them is always the correct answer.
History also shows that the only way to stop Nazis is to punch them often and early. An ideology built on hatred and violence needs to be stamped out by force, for the safety of everyone else.
Neo-confederates are not quite as bad, but still need a boot to the face every now and then to tell them that their hatred and bigotry is not kosher. Otherwise, they start looking for minorities to harm.
The government retains a monopoly on force because we (implicitly) agree that its use of force, in the form of institutions, is preferable, in its reliability and consistency, to individual use of force. Outside of the context of the concession of the monopoly of violence to a central authority or authorities; immediate self-defense is not the only valid use of violence.
Outside of that context; that is to say, regarding the morality and not the legality of an act, one would have to have a fucking death wish to disregard the use of violence outside of the context of immediate self-defense. That’s the whole reason cultures of honor get started - because if you do not react to threats and advocacy with force, because if you sit there and meekly let Clan McNazi from across the highlands whisper that all of ‘you people’ in your clan should be killed while you’re trying to work the fucking fields, because if you try to play tit-for-tat, all that ends with is you and all of your family in a shallow grave, or in chains.
In a civilized society, the position of reacting with force is taken up by the state, however flawed and imperfect this system is. We haven’t stopped reacting with force in non-self-defense contexts, we’ve merely outsourced it to a (theoretically) representative body.
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
…Umm…It was advocacy for slavery, not advocacy for violence. The guy even said “Advocacy for enslavement” in the very next sentence.
Why did you just do that? Why did you just shift the argument incorrectly? Hell there’s other posts within the 30 minutes you’ve been posting where you clearly knew what the topic was.
Excuse me for getting mixed up when I’m trying to reply to like seven people at once. Either way, I’ve explicitly mentioned violence and slavery in this discussion multiple times, so I’m not sure why you seem to think this is some rhetorical trap you’ve laid.
I’ve said it multiple times in this thread: advocating for something like slavery or other violence is not, in and of itself, grounds for violent retaliation. When the advocating moves into action, then it becomes self-defense.
When the advocating moves into action, it’s too damn late
And the issue at hand is too irrevocable to leave as a wait and see.
You speak purely like someone who knows they will never be on the brunt end of the discrimination a day in their life. It’s okay to wait and see because you know you won’t be affected either way by it.
I would argue that no, advocating for slavery is indeed violent. You’re advocating for someone else to get violent.
You shouldn’t be allowed to say “I’m just advocating” to defend yourself when the thing you’re advocating for actually happens, and is in fact violent. It means if anything you were afraid of retribution than you being actually against the idea.
You’re just wrong is the problem. Words can be violent, and I would go as far as to say there’s something fishy about you arguing this for 3 days and not seeing how everyone is saying that it can be violent.
What I’m saying is a principle I apply to all groups of people. I try not to hold different moral standards just because I find someone to be reprehensible.
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples’ “right” to try to enslave other people without being punched in the teeth for even suggesting as much and you should really stop doing that, whatever the reason.
If you need that to be explained, I think you’re in the wrong community.
Do you believe that not wanting them to be inflicted with indiscriminate violence means I agree with them?
I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what’s more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
Man, you are such a poet, you have put it perfectly.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it’s not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn’t mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there’s a pragmatic reason why it’s not allowed.
I’d argue that it’s both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn’t become acceptable just because they’re a bad person. If it’s not direct self-defense, it’s wrong.
In a vacuum, your pacifism might seem good.
But Nazis are by definition an active threat to me and mine. So punching them is always the correct answer.
History also shows that the only way to stop Nazis is to punch them often and early. An ideology built on hatred and violence needs to be stamped out by force, for the safety of everyone else.
Neo-confederates are not quite as bad, but still need a boot to the face every now and then to tell them that their hatred and bigotry is not kosher. Otherwise, they start looking for minorities to harm.
Do you have an example of this, or are you extrapolating from the failure of appeasement prior to World War II?
… there aren’t many other examples of Nazis outside of the 20s, 30s and early-mid 40s. Kind of hard to find any example outside of that time frame.
The government retains a monopoly on force because we (implicitly) agree that its use of force, in the form of institutions, is preferable, in its reliability and consistency, to individual use of force. Outside of the context of the concession of the monopoly of violence to a central authority or authorities; immediate self-defense is not the only valid use of violence.
Outside of that context; that is to say, regarding the morality and not the legality of an act, one would have to have a fucking death wish to disregard the use of violence outside of the context of immediate self-defense. That’s the whole reason cultures of honor get started - because if you do not react to threats and advocacy with force, because if you sit there and meekly let Clan McNazi from across the highlands whisper that all of ‘you people’ in your clan should be killed while you’re trying to work the fucking fields, because if you try to play tit-for-tat, all that ends with is you and all of your family in a shallow grave, or in chains.
In a civilized society, the position of reacting with force is taken up by the state, however flawed and imperfect this system is. We haven’t stopped reacting with force in non-self-defense contexts, we’ve merely outsourced it to a (theoretically) representative body.
Listen trucknuts. Can I call you trucknuts? Intolerance of intolerance is the only way through. Otherwise we get only more extreme.
I don’t own a truck so I’m not sure why you’d want to, but sure.
Why do you think intolerance of intolerance is the only way through? Assaulting your ideological opponents seems extreme to me. Does it not to you?
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
deleted by creator
I think you will find the violence quite discriminate against the category, “Those who advocate the enslavement of other humans.”
Why is it okay to respond to advocacy, which is not violent in itself, with actual violence?
“It would be great if PugJesus was riddled with bullets in the near future. I hope someone does it. In fact, I encourage you to do it!”
This is just advocacy of violence. Harmless. I should defeat it with the power of my own words.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can’t be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person’s right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you’re advocating for.
Violence? The thing I’ve explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren’t really responding to what I’m saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
…Umm…It was advocacy for slavery, not advocacy for violence. The guy even said “Advocacy for enslavement” in the very next sentence.
Why did you just do that? Why did you just shift the argument incorrectly? Hell there’s other posts within the 30 minutes you’ve been posting where you clearly knew what the topic was.
Excuse me for getting mixed up when I’m trying to reply to like seven people at once. Either way, I’ve explicitly mentioned violence and slavery in this discussion multiple times, so I’m not sure why you seem to think this is some rhetorical trap you’ve laid.
I’ve said it multiple times in this thread: advocating for something like slavery or other violence is not, in and of itself, grounds for violent retaliation. When the advocating moves into action, then it becomes self-defense.
When the advocating moves into action, it’s too damn late
And the issue at hand is too irrevocable to leave as a wait and see.
You speak purely like someone who knows they will never be on the brunt end of the discrimination a day in their life. It’s okay to wait and see because you know you won’t be affected either way by it.
How is the advocacy of slavery not violent?
It’s an ideology which inherently requires violence.
Slavery is, yes. The advocacy of slavery is not. It’s wrong and corrupt and only bad people do it, but it’s not violent.
I would argue that no, advocating for slavery is indeed violent. You’re advocating for someone else to get violent.
You shouldn’t be allowed to say “I’m just advocating” to defend yourself when the thing you’re advocating for actually happens, and is in fact violent. It means if anything you were afraid of retribution than you being actually against the idea.
How far does it have to go to be violence to you? Is a mob boss ‘suggesting’ someone be killed advocacy enough to be considered violence?
You are wrong. Plain and simple. Advocacy for the violent oppression of others is a violent act
How do you define violence? In my mind, words cannot be violence.
You’re just wrong is the problem. Words can be violent, and I would go as far as to say there’s something fishy about you arguing this for 3 days and not seeing how everyone is saying that it can be violent.
Begging the question the property damage is violence, aren’t we?
Also that advocating for enslavement of other humans isn’t violence, which it is.
I could understand not considering property damage to be violence, but how is advocacy violence in itself?
Why are you carrying water for The Klan? Let them bastards be thirsty.
What I’m saying is a principle I apply to all groups of people. I try not to hold different moral standards just because I find someone to be reprehensible.
deleted by creator
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples’ “right” to try to enslave other people without being punched in the teeth for even suggesting as much and you should really stop doing that, whatever the reason.
Enslaving people is bad.
deleted by creator