6 ms·

It's worth remembering that the event that, uh, kickstarted their drive for unionization was the site's management banning a project that was raising money to s

It's worth remembering that the event that, uh, kickstarted their drive for unionization was the site's management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words). The details are a bit fuzzy now but iirc some of the hard-left employees didn't like the ToS being enforced in that case, because whilst they accepted the project was calling for violence they felt that encouraging people to "punch Nazis" should explicitly be allowed. They felt that strongly enough that they unionized to force management to acquiesce. So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war. It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debate-about-punching-nazis-sparked-fight-create-techs-first-name-brand-union/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...

ceejayoz 4y ago
> raising money to support violence against conservatives Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Except the kind of people who donate to something like that think that all conservatives are nazis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author." I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint. Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    > I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint. Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kgermino 4y ago
      Can you elaborate instead of being coy? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis"... C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      That's an appeal to tradition. If harassing gay people was a core part of American culture should we continue to do it? Beating up and killing people over one's political beliefs is wrong.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        "It was wrong to beat up gay people" and "it was wrong to beat up the Nazis" are... not quite comparable, I'd argue.
        busterarm 4y ago
        Except that only depends on where your point of view lies. If you were a Nazi you would think it okay to beat up the pink triangle people. It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The entire comic is predicated on a meme coming out rioting at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.” It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
  - slg 4y ago
    Equating people criticizing folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer as people criticizing "US conservatives" says more about you and the Republican Party then the people doing the criticizing. These are not mainstream conservative people. They do not have mainstream conservative values. These are people who support extreme right wing policies including at times fascist policies. Basically every mainstream platform has kicked these people off for their abhorrent behavior. Holding them up as a representative of "US conservatives" is an insult to any reasonable-minded conservative.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I didn't say that milo ect were typical or that I agree with them. I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence. I don't agree with the idea that you get to punch someone in the face if you disagree with them, even if you label them as a fascist
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        The argument is, in part, "these people [fascists] don't play by the rules, and will obliterate you if given the chance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words) "A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debate-about-punching-nazis-sparked-fight-create-techs-first-name-brand-union/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
- throwoutway 4y ago
  I don’t see where it’s relating “conservatives” to the name “nazis”, but if that’s what the author’s intent is, then that is shameful. Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes
slg 4y ago
>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words) What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.
- gorwell 4y ago
  Here's what the book says, "Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies. SCREW THAT. ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".
  - slg 4y ago
    What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.
    - gorwell 4y ago
      I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.
      - slg 4y ago
        >My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2. You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage. [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
thinkingemote 4y ago
The other sibling comments in reply to this comment emphasise the central point that it was about culture war and that therefore it's not surprising that many employees don't want to take part on one side or the other! The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?
usrn 4y ago
[flagged]

ceejayoz 4y ago

> raising money to support violence against conservatives Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author.

rayiner 4y ago
Except the kind of people who donate to something like that think that all conservatives are nazis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author." I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint. Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint. Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kgermino 4y ago
    Can you elaborate instead of being coy? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis"... C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    That's an appeal to tradition. If harassing gay people was a core part of American culture should we continue to do it? Beating up and killing people over one's political beliefs is wrong.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      "It was wrong to beat up gay people" and "it was wrong to beat up the Nazis" are... not quite comparable, I'd argue.
      - busterarm 4y ago
        Except that only depends on where your point of view lies. If you were a Nazi you would think it okay to beat up the pink triangle people. It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
The entire comic is predicated on a meme coming out rioting at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.” It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
- slg 4y ago
  Equating people criticizing folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer as people criticizing "US conservatives" says more about you and the Republican Party then the people doing the criticizing. These are not mainstream conservative people. They do not have mainstream conservative values. These are people who support extreme right wing policies including at times fascist policies. Basically every mainstream platform has kicked these people off for their abhorrent behavior. Holding them up as a representative of "US conservatives" is an insult to any reasonable-minded conservative.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I didn't say that milo ect were typical or that I agree with them. I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence. I don't agree with the idea that you get to punch someone in the face if you disagree with them, even if you label them as a fascist
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      The argument is, in part, "these people [fascists] don't play by the rules, and will obliterate you if given the chance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words) "A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debate-about-punching-nazis-sparked-fight-create-techs-first-name-brand-union/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...

throwoutway 4y ago
I don’t see where it’s relating “conservatives” to the name “nazis”, but if that’s what the author’s intent is, then that is shameful. Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes

slg 4y ago

>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words) What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.

gorwell 4y ago
Here's what the book says, "Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies. SCREW THAT. ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".
- slg 4y ago
  What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.
  - gorwell 4y ago
    I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.
    - slg 4y ago
      >My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2. You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage. [1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi

thinkingemote 4y ago

The other sibling comments in reply to this comment emphasise the central point that it was about culture war and that therefore it's not surprising that many employees don't want to take part on one side or the other! The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?

usrn 4y ago

[flagged]