Violence is always more vile than ideas

[IDL]

There is currently a strategy in place to equate speech with violence, if it can be boxed into the Orwellian 'hate speech' category

For example, the following clip has to do with compulsory pronoun usage for transgender/nonbinary left wing activists (and their institutional backers)

The 'Transgender Studies' teacher in the following clip tries to equate not using the mandated pronouns as 'abusing students' and 'violence'

One of the creepiest clips I've seen really, but this manipulative argument is not all that uncommon amongst the radical left.

If speech itself can arbitrarily be equated to violence and abuse when it doesn't suit a particular radical agenda, then what is then justified in order to crush it? A devious strategy indeed.

 

[Burning Hammer]

My dad always bragged about his clocking of some cunts who shit talked his family but since you guys are some regular ole Mahatma Gandhis, let me rephrase it. If you saw someone say those vile things to another person in front of you, and maybe a few more about his wife and kids who are present, would you truly think the person being ridiculed is vile for punching the person using obscenities?

Maybe you would but I can't say I'd blame the guy. Of course there's a limit, that's no reason to kill a guy, but as others said if you are looking for trouble and you find it that's on you. There's a reason US law has a limitation of free speech centered around fighting words.

My fists are registered lethal weapons brah

I'd gauge the situation and act accordingly. I'd probably step in if he's being a dipshit but I'd also tell the dude to not be such a fucking beta.

 

[ryan3434]

Really?
"The FBI, on the other hand, has already concluded that white supremacists, including neo-Nazi supporters and members of the Ku Klux Klan, are in fact responsible for the lion’s share of violent attacks among domestic extremist groups. White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement,” reads the joint intelligence bulletin.

The report, titled “White Supremacist Extremism Poses Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence,” was prepared by the FBI and DHS.

The bulletin’s numbers appear to correspond with outside estimates. An independent database compiled by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute found that between 2008 and 2016, far-right plots and attacks outnumbered Islamist incidents by almost 2 to 1.

The cases cited in the intelligence report include an 18-year-old Chinese student in Nashville, Indiana, who was attacked by a white supremacist with a hatchet; the murder of an African-American man in Fort Wayne, Indiana; and the stabbing of Klansman in East Yanceyville, North Carolina, by other KKK members, who believed the victim was Jewish and secretly working for law enforcement."

nazis are all but dead.

 

[Newave]

There is currently a strategy in place to equate speech with violence, if it can be boxed into the Orwellian 'hate speech' category

For example, the following clip has to do with compulsory pronoun usage for transgender/nonbinary left wing activists (and their institutional backers)

The 'Transgender Studies' teacher in the following clip tries to equate not using the mandated pronouns as 'abusing students' and 'violence'

One of the creepiest clips I've seen really, but this manipulative argument is not all that uncommon amongst the radical left.

If speech itself can arbitrarily be equated to violence and abuse when it doesn't suit a particular radical agenda, then what is then justified in order to crush it? A devious strategy indeed.

Speech constraints are normal in almost every segment of life and society. In the military you must say "sir" and only speak when you are spoken to, if you work with Trump you must say "Mr. President", in the classroom you must raise your hand befor you speak and address your teacher as Mrs. or Mr., in amateur boxing a coach is not allowed to give instructions to his athlete, in my marriage if I use certain language or words during an argument with my wife I have to sleep on the couch, if I disclose certain information about my company to potential competitors I could go to jail for violating intellectual property agreements...you get the picture. There is no such thing as free speech, and there shouldn't be. Words are very powerful and should be spoken carefully and according to society's accepted regulations and zeitgeist. The only new strategy is the one that proposes there should all of a sudden, for the first time in history, be no acceptable restrictions on speech.

 

[Orgasmo]

If you are willing to initiate violence because of political disagreement, you're problem. Even if the other guy was peddling Nazi ideology, he is free to express it in a free and democratic society. You are well within your boundaries to criticize him and his ideas, but the moment you take up violence is the moment you deserve to be arrested for than him.

 

[Newave]

If you are willing to initiate violence because of political disagreement, you're problem. Even if the other guy was peddling Nazi ideology, he is free to express it in a free and democratic society. You are well within your boundaries to criticize him and his ideas, but the moment you take up violence is the moment you deserve to be arrested for than him.

6 months probation for clocking a nazi is well worth it. That nazi better be lucky he didn't get stabbed.

 

[Rav1nHunter]

My dad always bragged about his clocking of some cunts who shit talked his family but since you guys are some regular ole Mahatma Gandhis, let me rephrase it. If you saw someone say those vile things to another person in front of you, and maybe a few more about his wife and kids who are present, would you truly think the person being ridiculed is vile for punching the person using obscenities?

Maybe you would but I can't say I'd blame the guy. Of course there's a limit, that's no reason to kill a guy, but as others said if you are looking for trouble and you find it that's on you. There's a reason US law has a limitation of free speech centered around fighting words.

I'm with You about there is a point where you are going to take a beating if you keep carrying on.
But at a political rally if you need to attack someone to show your side is right then you are the problem.

 

[Rav1nHunter]

nazis are all but dead.

But but but the FBI who have never lied about anything ever and said the Nazi's did it.

 

[sub_thug]

My dad always bragged about his clocking of some cunts who shit talked his family but since you guys are some regular ole Mahatma Gandhis, let me rephrase it. If you saw someone say those vile things to another person in front of you, and maybe a few more about his wife and kids who are present, would you truly think the person being ridiculed is vile for punching the person using obscenities?

Maybe you would but I can't say I'd blame the guy. Of course there's a limit, that's no reason to kill a guy, but as others said if you are looking for trouble and you find it that's on you. There's a reason US law has a limitation of free speech centered around fighting words.

I'm no Gandhi. But wisdom won through many years of being quick to violence has taught me that restraint is often the better part of valor. Speaking to your example, I wouldn't think that the puncher is vile necessarily, although it may not be justified. It depends on the context of the situation. If the family was acting like a bunch of damn fools, and someone told them to knock it the fuck off, if the dad were to punch the man for saying that, it wouldn't be justified violence. If they were just standing there and someone came up with the intent to harass or bully, then violence may be the right answer.

But that isn't what happened in this case or many others where violence is being used. These are people displaying political opinions, and while those opinions are inflammatory and can be taken personally, they aren't directed at any one person. I actually have a huge problem with fighting words doctrine. I think it's an unreasonable restriction on free speech. I am sympathetic to anyone who feels intimidated by those words, but as long as nothing is violated, such as property rights, then there should be no issue there. If a white supremacist says, "I hate all n******," then it is vile speech, but it should be protected. Burning the flag in front of a group of veterans, I'd want curb stomp the dude, but it's protected and should remain so. If a guy wears a swastika, goes to the public land nearest to a synagogue, and has a sign that says, "Fuck k****," then it should be protected. The free market of ideas should be allowed to be free.

 

[tonni]

This post is why the moral argument should also be accompanied by a legitimacy argument.

Violence lacks legitimacy.

This is true for the US government as much as it is for antifa, or a white supremacist militia.

There is a cost to losing legitimacy. It is strategically flawed, and stupid.

violence does not always lack legitimacy. self defense is the most obvious example.

 

[Andy Capp]

Lol, wait what?

According to these "statistics" an incident of harassment and an incident of murdering 50 people are both given a "value of 1".

Lol, now I understand why the article seems so shockingly inaccurate, they're purposefully obfuscating the truth.

Disgusting.

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you read the other incident in Orlando? It was an entire group of armed white supremacists training in an organized fashion for an attack on the government. If they were not caught, what do you think their death toll could have been? Does it matter? The entire point is there is shit like that going down all over the US and the FBI and DHS warned about it back in May and no action was taken. Quit being obtuse or shut the fuck up.

 

[Orgasmo]

6 months probation for clocking a nazi is well worth it. That nazi better be lucky he didn't get stabbed.

Assault is a felony/indictable offense, and usually carries a prison sentence.

Enjoy your jail time, while he's out and continues to spread his ideas because you're too stupid to counter his argument through logic.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you read the other incident in Orlando? It was an entire group of armed white supremacists training in an organized fashion for an attack on the government. If they were not caught, what do you think their death toll could have been? Does it matter? The entire point is there is shit like that going down all over the US. Quit being obtuse or shut the fuck up.

"The FBI, on the other hand, has already concluded that white supremacists, including neo-Nazi supporters and members of the Ku Klux Klan, are in fact responsible for the lion’s share of violent attacks among domestic extremist groups. White supremacists “were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement,” reads the joint intelligence bulletin."

This part of the article says "violent attacks".

You do understand what a violent attack is?

So this claim is factually incorrect.

Concerning this second claim:

"An independent database compiled by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute foundthat between 2008 and 2016, far-right plots and attacks outnumbered Islamist incidents by almost 2 to 1."

Giving any instance of domestic terrorism a value of 1, weather it includes killing 1000 people or it is an online threat, is absurd and useless, and is exactly the kind of statistical obfuscation that someone would use to shroud the disparate impact Islamic terrorism has had. Or to over emphasize the impact of right wing terrorism.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

It's about personal responsibility. I don't feign sympathy for every moron on the planet who looks for trouble and finds it. Violence is bad mmkay, but in reality you can't just walk into and invite potentially dangerous situations and not expect a violent outcome.

This guy had it coming. You want to proudly wear a symbol of hate, and start preaching your bullshit, alone, and with no backup? Yeah, you better be prepared to deal with all that comes with it. You might get punched every now and then, and don't expect me to give a shit every time it happens.

I have no more sympathy for him, than some idiot who walks into a Hell's Angels biker bar, and declares "y'all are a bunch of queers!", and gets the shit kicked out of them.

So, if someone wears something that offends you, then you are allowed to beat the shit out of them? You sure you want to go there? Then it is a logical progression to get to well they are not wearing a display of X philosophy, but I can tell he agrees with it, so I can just kick his ass.
Then to, well, if he is not in my group then he is hateful because only members in my group are not hateful, so I will just beat the shit out of everyone not in my organization.


That is pretty much literally what NAZIS fucking did.


"start preaching your bullshit"
- OMG are you ANTIFA? Isn't that the same shit they say about every conservative speaker?

 

[Denter]

Technically it's wrong and if the cops are able to catch the guy who does something like that then they should charge him. But I can't feel sorry for some dumb fuck who dresses up and acts like that catching a beatdown. It's like my brother told me that there was some guy he worked with who went out on Halloween dressed as Bin Laden, it was either the year it happened or 2002. Well the guy got the shit kicked out of him and actually got put in the hospital. Like yea, it's wrong but am I really supposed to feel bad for the guy? You're basically trolling to the point where you have to accept it.

My problem with the Antifa types is more how they sometimes expand their definition of Nazi/fascist to a retarded degree and how they threaten violence to use a heckler's veto to shut down speakers they don't agree with.

This is actually a pretty good position- social standards matter at a certain point.

 

[HereticBD]

So, if someone wears something that offends you, then you are allowed to beat the shit out of them?

You're not allowed. There are laws that you will be charged under, if you decide to act violently.

What I'm saying is, is that if you're prepared to wear hateful symbols, and walk up to groups that strongly disagree with your ideologies as you preach them, you best be prepared to deal with any and all potential consequences.

- OMG are you ANTIFA? Isn't that the same shit they say about every conservative speaker?

Dude, it's pretty weird that you're so adamant in defending this guy's rights, when I'm pretty sure you've been hooting and hollering when an ANTIFA guy gets shut up with some fists on these forums.

I'm equal opportunity. If you look for trouble and find it, I don't have much sympathy for you.

 

[VivaRevolution]

violence does not always lack legitimacy. self defense is the most obvious example.

It is justified, but not legitimate. Two very different ideas.

 

[sub_thug]

It is justified, but not legitimate. Two very different ideas.

Care to explain the difference?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm no Gandhi. But wisdom won through many years of being quick to violence has taught me that restraint is often the better part of valor. Speaking to your example, I wouldn't think that the puncher is vile necessarily, although it may not be justified. It depends on the context of the situation. If the family was acting like a bunch of damn fools, and someone told them to knock it the fuck off, if the dad were to punch the man for saying that, it wouldn't be justified violence. If they were just standing there and someone came up with the intent to harass or bully, then violence may be the right answer.

But that isn't what happened in this case or many others where violence is being used. These are people displaying political opinions, and while those opinions are inflammatory and can be taken personally, they aren't directed at any one person. I actually have a huge problem with fighting words doctrine. I think it's an unreasonable restriction on free speech. I am sympathetic to anyone who feels intimidated by those words, but as long as nothing is violated, such as property rights, then there should be no issue there. If a white supremacist says, "I hate all n******," then it is vile speech, but it should be protected. Burning the flag in front of a group of veterans, I'd want curb stomp the dude, but it's protected and should remain so. If a guy wears a swastika, goes to the public land nearest to a synagogue, and has a sign that says, "Fuck k****," then it should be protected. The free market of ideas should be allowed to be free.

The state isn't going after these guys though, its private citizens tired of their shit. There's the written rules and the unwritten rules. If these Nazis fucks are too stupid to know the unwritten rules then that's on them as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Teppodama]

This post is why the moral argument should also be accompanied by a legitimacy argument.

Violence lacks legitimacy.

This is true for the US government as much as it is for antifa, or a white supremacist militia.

There is a cost to losing legitimacy. It is strategically flawed, and stupid.

Every policy of civilization much come with commensurate consequences in order to truly be enforced. Whether its incarceration or violence, the penalty must outweigh the act or there is no real deterrent. Expecting individuals or societies to act rationally and altruistically, especially when it's not in their best interest or even detrimental to those interests is naive at best if not down right dangerously foolish and potentially fatal at worst.

You have a stick in the hope you never need it, but have to be willing to use it or allow it be used by a surrogate on your behalf or eventually see your shit jacked and potentially your life taken. History has proven that time and again on both the individual level and the societal level.