6 ms·

I think the point being made is that there is a limit to tolerance and what might be called multicultural or post modernism. I took the original comments point

I think the point being made is that there is a limit to tolerance and what might be called multicultural or post modernism. I took the original comments point to be: all humans deserve respect intrinsically, but evil does exist and should not be tolerated. Yes, evil doers think they’re good. Is there a way to objectively judge this? No. This is the classical liberal dilemma re military action. Let’s be tolerant of everyone except those who belong to groups explicitly making the world worse. Is that a subjective measure? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn’t, to use a modern phrase, “punch Nazis”? No, punch away. Everyone has the moral authority and responsibility to act to reduce suffering.

fallingknife 3y ago
If everyone has the moral authority, then you realize that your enemies think the same way, right? And you realize that you have just given them license to punch you too, right? How can you believe that other people can err in their judgement of themselves and others and at the same time assume that you are immune to the same error? It's completely ridiculous.
- erulabs 3y ago
  Oh but that's the entire point! I do not assume I'm immune to the same error - in fact introspecting on this continuously is absolutely vital. What I'm arguing against is inaction in the face of uncertainty. The phrase "punch nazis" polluted my point. Violence against the violent is justifiable. Yes, my enemies can think the same way; this is why armed conflict exists in our world, and why being blanket "anti-war" or "anti-violence" for that matter is unfortunately naive. It's not idealism, its pragmatism.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    Alright. Imagine a non-violent Nazi. They're not punching anyone. Your natural move is to claim (their) speech as harmful. This inevitably descends into "My violence is merely political speech, but their political speech is violence," inverting the meaning of things.
    - neaden 3y ago
      You can't be a non-violent Nazi, violence and the idea that racial groups are constantly at war with each other is an inherent part of the ideology. There is at best a Nazi who due to the circumstances around them is not choosing to engage in violence yet.
      - at_a_remove 3y ago
        Ah, but look around at people pointed at and referred to as Nazis. That's the rub, isn't it? And if you're advocating punching them, then violence is an inherent part of your ideology. That's why they call it horseshoe theory.
        neaden 3y ago
        So in your view horseshoe theory is group 1. Who wants to murder me and group 2. Me, who does not want to be murdered? Truly, we are so alike. Edit: And to be clear, Far Right groups are responsible for over half of the terrorist deaths in the US, with Jihadist groups being number 2: https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/ https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/terrorism...
        at_a_remove 3y ago
        In other words, kill them before they kill you. You know the funny thing about those terrorist violence stats is that a lot of them seemed to cut off around 1974. I noticed that a few years ago. Then I did some digging and it turns out that the cutoff just magically happens to be "just right" for excluding a lot of far-left Weather Underground bombings. The thumb has been on the scale to discount violence like the Berkley Bike Lock basher. Or, wasn't there a right wing figure punched, sans provocation, right there on video, and the judge threw that one out? I don't track those guys so I don't recall the name, but I do recall the outcome.
        neaden 3y ago
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  I fully expect my enemies to do worse than punch me. The purpose of having a coherent philosophy is understanding who I have irreconcilable differences with (such as Nazis) and deciding whether the appropriate course of action is to ignore them or to fight them. In the case of Nazis, they pose a substantial threat to innocents, so the correct answer is to fight them.
deadbeeves 3y ago
Nazis are not monsters, they're people just like you. Their existence does not cause suffering per se, and punching a Nazi does not reduce suffering, it increases it. If you think a particular worldview is inherently evil you're not going to eradicate it by dehumanizing those who adhere to it and advocating for violence against them. The only way to achieve that is to get them to understand that they're wrong, and to do that you need to engage with them as human beings. Needless to say, tolerating Nazis does not mean tolerating all actions inspired by Nazism.
- neaden 3y ago
  "you're not going to eradicate it by dehumanizing those who adhere to it and advocating for violence against them. The only way to achieve that is to get them to understand that they're wrong" I think you need to read a history book on WW2, because that is definitely not what happened to get rid of Nazism.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    Yet there are still Nazis.
    - mbg721 3y ago
      In any meaningful sense?? Yeah, there are some edgy attention-seekers, but no, there are no longer real threatening Nazis.
      - deadbeeves 3y ago
        If they're not threatening then there's no point in punching them, beyond perhaps satisfying one's own violent urges.
      - jonhendry18 3y ago
        No? Not the guy who shot up a mall in May? "Texas mall shooting: gunman expressed interest in neo-Nazi views – report" Or the guy who shot up a dollar store Or "Neo-Nazi Marine Plotted Mass Murder, Rape Campaigns with Group, Feds Say While tasked with protecting the nation, Matthew Belanger was plotting a killing spree against minorities and to rape “white women to increase the production of white children,” according to federal prosecutors" Weird that you apparently feel compelled to downplay the threat.
chipsa 3y ago
I punch Nazis. The people I punch are Nazis. Anyone I punch is definitionally a Nazi, regardless of what they state their beliefs are. Even if they do happen to be wearing a Bernie Sanders shirt while I'm smacking them with a megaphone. --- The problem with the idea of "punch Nazis" is that it's really, really easy to go from "I punch people because they are Nazis", to "I punch people, therefore they are Nazis". This is made worse when "Nazi" and "fascist" are general epithets thrown by the left at anyone to their right. Pre-emptive self-defense is valid. You don't have to wait for them to swing their fist into your nose. But imminence requires imminence. You do have to wait for them to be squared up and about to swing. You can't just sucker punch them from the back.
- erulabs 3y ago
  I agree and boy I wish I had not used that phrase. Ideally the other words surrounding that phrase shows that yes, I agree completely. Just because there is no objective way to measure evil does not mean one shouldn’t attempt to fight it when one can. No, I don’t punch my political opponents.

fallingknife 3y ago

If everyone has the moral authority, then you realize that your enemies think the same way, right? And you realize that you have just given them license to punch you too, right? How can you believe that other people can err in their judgement of themselves and others and at the same time assume that you are immune to the same error? It's completely ridiculous.

erulabs 3y ago
Oh but that's the entire point! I do not assume I'm immune to the same error - in fact introspecting on this continuously is absolutely vital. What I'm arguing against is inaction in the face of uncertainty. The phrase "punch nazis" polluted my point. Violence against the violent is justifiable. Yes, my enemies can think the same way; this is why armed conflict exists in our world, and why being blanket "anti-war" or "anti-violence" for that matter is unfortunately naive. It's not idealism, its pragmatism.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Alright. Imagine a non-violent Nazi. They're not punching anyone. Your natural move is to claim (their) speech as harmful. This inevitably descends into "My violence is merely political speech, but their political speech is violence," inverting the meaning of things.
  - neaden 3y ago
    You can't be a non-violent Nazi, violence and the idea that racial groups are constantly at war with each other is an inherent part of the ideology. There is at best a Nazi who due to the circumstances around them is not choosing to engage in violence yet.
    - at_a_remove 3y ago
      Ah, but look around at people pointed at and referred to as Nazis. That's the rub, isn't it? And if you're advocating punching them, then violence is an inherent part of your ideology. That's why they call it horseshoe theory.
      - neaden 3y ago
        So in your view horseshoe theory is group 1. Who wants to murder me and group 2. Me, who does not want to be murdered? Truly, we are so alike. Edit: And to be clear, Far Right groups are responsible for over half of the terrorist deaths in the US, with Jihadist groups being number 2: https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/ https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/terrorism...
        at_a_remove 3y ago
        In other words, kill them before they kill you. You know the funny thing about those terrorist violence stats is that a lot of them seemed to cut off around 1974. I noticed that a few years ago. Then I did some digging and it turns out that the cutoff just magically happens to be "just right" for excluding a lot of far-left Weather Underground bombings. The thumb has been on the scale to discount violence like the Berkley Bike Lock basher. Or, wasn't there a right wing figure punched, sans provocation, right there on video, and the judge threw that one out? I don't track those guys so I don't recall the name, but I do recall the outcome.
        neaden 3y ago
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
I fully expect my enemies to do worse than punch me. The purpose of having a coherent philosophy is understanding who I have irreconcilable differences with (such as Nazis) and deciding whether the appropriate course of action is to ignore them or to fight them. In the case of Nazis, they pose a substantial threat to innocents, so the correct answer is to fight them.

deadbeeves 3y ago

Nazis are not monsters, they're people just like you. Their existence does not cause suffering per se, and punching a Nazi does not reduce suffering, it increases it. If you think a particular worldview is inherently evil you're not going to eradicate it by dehumanizing those who adhere to it and advocating for violence against them. The only way to achieve that is to get them to understand that they're wrong, and to do that you need to engage with them as human beings. Needless to say, tolerating Nazis does not mean tolerating all actions inspired by Nazism.

neaden 3y ago
"you're not going to eradicate it by dehumanizing those who adhere to it and advocating for violence against them. The only way to achieve that is to get them to understand that they're wrong" I think you need to read a history book on WW2, because that is definitely not what happened to get rid of Nazism.
- deadbeeves 3y ago
  Yet there are still Nazis.
  - mbg721 3y ago
    In any meaningful sense?? Yeah, there are some edgy attention-seekers, but no, there are no longer real threatening Nazis.
    - deadbeeves 3y ago
      If they're not threatening then there's no point in punching them, beyond perhaps satisfying one's own violent urges.
    - jonhendry18 3y ago
      No? Not the guy who shot up a mall in May? "Texas mall shooting: gunman expressed interest in neo-Nazi views – report" Or the guy who shot up a dollar store Or "Neo-Nazi Marine Plotted Mass Murder, Rape Campaigns with Group, Feds Say While tasked with protecting the nation, Matthew Belanger was plotting a killing spree against minorities and to rape “white women to increase the production of white children,” according to federal prosecutors" Weird that you apparently feel compelled to downplay the threat.

chipsa 3y ago

I punch Nazis. The people I punch are Nazis. Anyone I punch is definitionally a Nazi, regardless of what they state their beliefs are. Even if they do happen to be wearing a Bernie Sanders shirt while I'm smacking them with a megaphone. --- The problem with the idea of "punch Nazis" is that it's really, really easy to go from "I punch people because they are Nazis", to "I punch people, therefore they are Nazis". This is made worse when "Nazi" and "fascist" are general epithets thrown by the left at anyone to their right. Pre-emptive self-defense is valid. You don't have to wait for them to swing their fist into your nose. But imminence requires imminence. You do have to wait for them to be squared up and about to swing. You can't just sucker punch them from the back.

erulabs 3y ago
I agree and boy I wish I had not used that phrase. Ideally the other words surrounding that phrase shows that yes, I agree completely. Just because there is no objective way to measure evil does not mean one shouldn’t attempt to fight it when one can. No, I don’t punch my political opponents.