Virginia man convicted of punching rally organizer fined $1 - Sensationalist Headlines

Tbh, it all boils down to who came first, the chicken and the egg. I just find that escalating it with violence is generally a bad idea. It's not a "chicken and the egg" situation because it's not a matter of equal escalation. There was no time period or set of conditions in or under which Nazis were not violent. It is an ideology that does not just accepts the use of violence to further its goals, does not just glorify the use of violence in pursuit of its goals, but in fact has violence as an inherent, inseperable part of its goals. If there were times Nazis did not bring guns to their rallies, you can rest assured they had them at home. If there were times Nazis did not attack their opponents, you can rest assured it was not out of the goodness of their hearts and peacefulness of their intentions. And just to be clear, those are both hypotheticals, because there is no time period in which they were not attacking their opponents and killing those they consider subhuman -- I'll give some examples that show this continuous history, like this (also includes bonus police-fascist cooperation!), this, and this. You're not really hiding their faces by punching them. By punching you're giving them negative publicity that they use to ride on the news stations, gaining more coverage. The trick is to make the news as boring as possible or give the press negative feedback when airing groups like these. Beating them up - both physically and metaphorically - does work. If you can't attend a Nazi rally without getting your nose bloodied, there are going to be less people going to Nazi rallies. If you can't be a public Nazi organizer without losing your job, there are going to be less people being public Nazi organizers. If you can't start spouting Nazi rhetoric without getting mobbed by literally everyone -- watch the video of the conference; there is only one person who punches, but the entire crowd forces him to stop speaking -- there will be less people spouting Nazi rhetoric. What possible basis do you have for your claim that the 'trick' is to make news as 'boring' as possible? Do you have a single fact to back that up, or are you just wishing that Nazis could be defeated by good intentions and polite discourse? How could allowing Nazis to ever be seen as something 'boring' - i.e. normal - be good? The 'trick' -- which literally the entire history of anti-fascist action has shown -- is to show that Nazis a) have the worst of intentions for political power b) far beyond anything that should be accepted as normal and c) are being crushed. Stories like "The Nazis marched on a Jewish neighborhood as a power play, so we separated them from their police escort, beat the shit out of them, and drove their columns before us, precipitating a total collapse of their legitimacy.". Or, "The white supremacists threatened our tribe and any white supporters with violence and murder, so we ambushed their meeting, shot at them, drove them off, burned their shit, and ended up totally politically sidelining their leader." Or maybe "After a Nazi murdered a woman, some chucklefuck managed to get a TV crew to listen to him spout rhetoric that justified and defended the murderers, so I punched him in the back of the skull and made everyone laugh at them." Obviously bare, random violence alone isn't enough, but you really need a diversity of tactics, and those tactics need to include direct violent action. It is a bit of a double-edge sword. Denmark have flat-out banned hate-speech under some definitions and in a way, we have given up some of our rights to share repulsive ideas. Where the Supreme Court in America said ".. reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." The problem is actually that it's mostly a single-edged sword that can be flipped around. Relying on the state isn't going to lead to what I think you're hoping it will: extreme voices on both sides getting silenced. More often than not, you're going to see those kind of extremely powerful, extremely broad laws get used against one part of the spectrum more than the other. Denmark bars many extreme Muslim imams from the country using the law you're talking about, yet how many fascist-sympathizing preachers (and there are a lot of them) have been banned? By my count, it's about thirteen to one. The problem still lies when you cross the line towards violence with the reason "Hes a Nazi". Its the same excuse extreme SJW used to hit people they didn't like. "He's a Nazi" isn't an excuse. It is a reason. Fascism and similar ideologies can be given no safe haven and no quarter in the mainstream. s If Nazis want to stop getting hit, they need to stop being Nazis, organizing for Nazi groups, and advancing Nazi goals. Someone being a Nazi is not permanent or inherent; it is not written in their genetic code, or evident in the color of their skin, or the shape of their face, or in any way a basic part of existence -- unlike many of the axis along which Nazis and fascists categorize people as degenerate or subhuman. If you're referring by 'extreme SJW' to the anti-fascists who attack people for carrying American flags - again, there is no justification. And again -- because I talked about this in my last post in hopes I wouldn't have to hash this out again -- those are individual actions. This point is a blatant false equivalency.

Keep in mind that while ya'll have had 3 pages of debate about whether or not it's okay to hit a nazi in a democracy, a nazi wouldn't debate for a second about whether or not to hit someone pro-democracy

If you dont punch nazis they are genocidal and spead their ideals. If you do puch nazis they are genocidal, spread their ideals, go in groups and might carry firearms everywhere now they feel unsafe.*

Again - Nazis already, and have almost always, carry firearms.

I just want to make a distinction to how this is discussed: These people aren't Nazis. They're Neo-Nazis. They aren't part of the German political party that carried out the holocaust, though they may share some or all of their ideals. I think this is an important distinction to make in order to make it clear to both the Neo-Nazis and everyone else that these people dont have even a fraction of the power the actual Nazis did.

I don't think that's an important distinction. Like you said, the main - if not only significant - difference between the two is the degree of power they hold. You can't argue they're less bad or less worthy of being weakened because they can't implement the same scale of policy the actual Nazis did -- if they could, they absolutely would.

See, I dont agree. I think people should judged much more harshly on the actions they take rather than the ideas they hold. It's one thing to, say, hate the education system and protest and rally for it to be destroyed. Its another thing to systematically move an army across the country and destroy schools. Should Neo-nazis be punched? Maybe. But most real nazis deserved to die, and I dont think these people are at that level yet.

My point is they're not at that level because they're being prevented from reaching it, in part by getting beaten up. It isn't a matter of 'do they ""deserve"" to die or not'. Like I said, it's not about their moral fiber, it's about what will happen if they're not stopped. A comparison between destroying school systems and destroying ethnic groups is not even close to appropriate. You shouldn't use physical violence to stop anti-school protestors because they are not calling for or using physical violence -- they're tearing down buildings, which is destruction of property and should not be considered in the same light as physical violence. You should use physical violence to stop fascist protestors because they are calling for and using physical violence -- in addition, they are unlikely to stop except when countered in force, as I've discussed in my previous posts.

So, collective punishment? I mean, if Christians did those Crusades back then, that must mean that all Christians should be punched for the hatred that are in the bible. Its also not like USA had any concentration camps. There are no angels in war, so don't try to compare anything from back then with today. And unless those Nazis are over 70 years old, you can't compare them with those monsters back then. Yes. Who needs laws, police or government? Lets follow the mob and be judge, jury and execute! Its not like mob-mentality ever went wrong. seinwave posted: Blablabla, back in 1950 someone they did something really bad. Sure they did something bad, but you can't blame a whole group on something done over 50 years ago. With that flawed logic, I could blame all Americans in the army for My Lai Massacre that happen in 1968. (347-504 unarmed citizens in Vietnam raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.)

You've slightly edited this post since I responded to it, adding the following: Allowing people to become the judge, jury and executioner is going to encourage mob-mentality. What if its a kid? What if family or "friends" pressured someone to join? I got a feeling this is going to end like the time Reddit tried to look after the Boston bomber. Very few people join a Nazi group on accident. Even fewer people are going to stand around on a street listening to someone on a megaphone yell about how only white lives matter without actually beliving that. As I've said before and, for the love of God, will hopefully not need to say again, I am neither talking about nor justifying anti-fascists who attack any rando right-of-center. Don't beat up kids? The reason you beat up Nazis is because they pose a threat to both democracy (in the larger picture) and people (in both the larger and immediate picture). Kids aren't a threat, so you shouldn't beat them up. How are the two comparable? One is a bunch of closet internet racists hunting down some vaguely brown, vaguely present person and assuming its him, and one is literally listening to who is saying shit along the lines of"kikes should die" and beating them up. Like, physically listening. With your ears. And confirming with your eyes. Or you could see who's marching around with an assault rifle and a swastika, and take a wild guess.

You're conflating groups as huge, divided, and varied as "Christian" or "American" with the very specific group with very specific goals "Nazi". You're comparing "fruits" to "Northern Spy apples".

Yep, sorry about that, but it helps taking a break for a few mins to clear your mind. I can say the same about Nazis. I have yet meet anyone irl who was listening to them. While this is your ideals, others might disagree. Mob-mentality usually just brings out the worst in all people and there are no judge, jury or someone who holds a stop-sign. Kids have been used in many bad parades for KKK, Nazis .. ect. Violence leads to violence. Its an example of a lynch mob. You know .. when people start advocating for violence and become more aggressive? It was on purpose, if he can use the entire German population as a group, I can use the entire American army as one. Its to show that you can't blame everyone for something that happen 70 years ago by entire different people.

I am going to stop you there. You are losing the plot. You are under the impression that Nazis are a type of person, or a mere identity. You are under the impression I want Nazis beat up because it is some sort of moral purification or revenge mechanism. Neither of these are correct. Nobody is born a Nazi. Nobody has to remain a Nazi. You can stop being a Nazi at any time. Even more easily, you can stop actively taking part in organization that will lead to the genocidal goals of Nazis. Obviously, if you're a conscript, or live under a Nazi government, it's a little harder to do the latter, and you have to keep the former secret at the very least. But guess what? That doesn't even matter to my argument, because I'm not saying all Nazis should be killed because they're Nazis. I'm saying all Nazis should be stopped. Violence -- including, if not mainly, non-lethal violence -- with the goal of shattering fascist organization and keeping them out of power is oftentimes an effective tactic (and occasionally the last effective tactic) in doing this, and therefore should be used. This is utterly unrelated to the summary executions and political murders you desperately try to draw parallels with. As I replied to Dumpus - I can, in fact, compare the Nazis of today to the Nazis of yesterday, because they share the same ideology. They want the same things (mostly). I cannot comprehend how nearsighted someone would have to be to not know of one of the biggest Nazi-related political events in recent years, and yet have the gall to post a long list of well-known massacres and murders as if I would be shocked and have my eyes opened. It is beyond insulting to imply I don't know about the My Lai massacre, or the Japanese internment camps, when I clearly care very much about murder and state repression. Do you expect me to defend massacres and murders? How is that related to talking about combat (non-lethal in the cases I mention) between armed groups? Another false equivalence. I notice they all focus on the Second World War. I think I have hit a nerve by including the Holocaust in my previous post, especially since you talk about how you can't hold accountable "all Americans", or "all Christians", or whatever group. When I say Nazis, I am not talking about "all Germans" (which you, again, allude to in your post -- what the fuck is your problem?), "all white people", or even "all right-wing politics". I am specifically talking about Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, and all the related group that subscribe to and strive for some combination, give or take, of anti-democratic, racist, anti-Semitic, totalitarian views. How you managed to twist this into being comparable to racist imprisonment of entire populations of vaguely-related citizens or the wholesale slaughter of ethnic groups is beyond me. In fact, you're very, very focused on this sense of nationhood and national responsibility. How do rapes by American troops have anything to do with fascism? Can you really not conceive of me as anything but an 'American', a mythical creature that shares in support for and benefits from all previous crimes by Americans and American government? "No angels in war"? This better not be intended as a profound statement. Did you pick up Sun Tzu from your grandfather, or from a Call of Duty loading screen? You've ignored the majority of my post, and now I am beginning to believe you edited your first post to add the comment about the Reddit witch hunt to imply I'd ignored it. In summary: what the fuck?

Many of our beliefs are not chosen, we are born into them. Yes, and we do that by repeating punching them in the face. Violence begets violence. "If not mainly"? You sound like you're ready to draw a gun, Jesus. You bring up some old stuff from WW2 (post 1950), trying to say "This is what Nazis do". You should not compare anyone from 2018 to those monsters. They might have the same twisted ideas but I've yet read about Nazis doing mass-murder in 2000. ( Do fill in if I missed ) I'm trying to hammer it into your mind, that I could take anything from a group post 1950 or doing a war and find something bad. But it shouldn't result in the current members deserving punishment for what happen back then. When you use the word 'Nazis' from WW2, its not a small group of 40 people. Its most of the army. Therefor I should be able to use your logic and hold anyone who support an army that did something bad, accountable. (Spoiler, they all did) The holocaust is a terrible war-scenario. Comparing that with anything today is an insult. ( Also you misunderstood, I'm not trying to tie you to hating Germans ) Its mostly just filling or something I find irrelevant. Like I would play Call Of Duty. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

No, you actually probably can't stop someone from being a Nazi by punching them. But you can make them unable to implement their goals, and you can prevent them from recruiting others, maybe even drive others away. This isn't about punishing people, it's about defanging and marginalizing a movement. I actually don't think being ready to use lethal violence against Nazis using lethal violence is a controversial statement? If the police or military isn't there or won't stop it, should I just throw up my hands, decide to hold the moral high ground, and let the victim die? I am well aware that many people were very much enthusiastic about Nazism in Germany during 30s and 40s. Those people were and are Nazis. Their government should have been stopped long before a global war became necessary. I see you are trying to drag the 'clean Wehrmacht' myth into this - why? I'm aware Nazi party membership was essentially mandatory, and that many soldiers were not enthusiastic; that is irrelevant. The reason it was okay to fight them is because they were protecting the Nazi government and its policies - without the war, these policies would not have been stopped. I'm specifically using the Holocaust because that was most well-known, widest-ranging, successful implementation of the same policies and ideas today's Nazis espouse. How is it controversial to say the Nazi party was behind the Holocaust? How is it controversial to say that Nazis hate Jews? How is it controversial to say maybe it's representative of the type of suffering modern Nazis might inflict if given the chance? The Holocaust is not a 'terrible war scenario'. It is not an isolated incident or sporadic reprisal. It is not something that can be explained away by the confusion, horror, terror, and evil of war. It is a deliberate systematic extermination of a group of people by a state utterly unprovoked by any threat or action, began in peacetime and carried out with no real haste. It is pure state murder on an unprecedented industrial scale. It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that you would claim it to be some kind of tragic mistake comparable to the ones made in war all the time. You have ignored some of the most important parts of my post - the parts where I make an argument, using cited historical precedent, that violence is key to anti-fascism - in favor of turning this into some great cultural narrative.

My two cents on the ethics of punching Nazis: These Nazis are out there hoping to get punched. They want to prove that they're not really the violent ones. I don't believe that giving your enemy want they want on a silver platter is a smart idea during a war. Seems counter intuitive. I also don't think Martin Luther King Jr. was an idiot who accomplished nothing by being too much of a pussy to beat up white supremacists and should have employed violence at his rallies.

You don't stop a movement with violence. It will only result in more supporters gathering, more media-coverage and escalation in violence. And negative or positive media-coverage helps them. I think its controversial that you make that statement and the same time advocating for violence against people. Based on their believes. No offense, but careful that you don't become what you hunt. Self-defense only works if you're the victim. Not the aggressor. Stop throwing WWII stuff up. I already tried to explain in 3 posts that its useless and you can't compare the anyone to that monster. War isn't black and white and that you can't blame anything that happen over 70 years ago on something today. "Nazies back then did concentration camps", well so did the Americans and don't get me started on Japan. Cause you're comparing a group of worms to one of the worst events in human history. Its an insult comparing the two. Never said that. Its controversial cause you want to go on a witch-hunt and advocate violence against people, on grounds what happen over 70 years ago. No one in the party was part of it. I have no idea if you're trying to say in that rable. I stated that the holocaust was terrible and that you shouldn't comparing that with anything today. Are you trying to misrepresent what I say? Let me try and boil it down so you understand what the conversation is about: You state that violence is good I state violence is bad You state that all Nazis are bad and did bad things 70 years ago. I state that none of those Nazis today did bad thing 70 years ago. You state that Nazis might do bad thing. Therefor hurt now. I state that guilty until innocent is bad. I never said that Nazis wasn't Nazis. The only thing I've state is that you cannot compaire WW2 Nazis with Nazis today.

I would argue that this is almost moot. It is true that today's Nazis have not (yet) managed to siphon millions into the gas chambers. Issue is, they really want to and this is the core of their ideology. While I agree with you that they have not committed any overt crimes against humanity (there's no such thing as thought crime), they still have the desire to exterminate subhumans as the core of their ideology. Their ideology is almost superstitiously rooted in genocide as a statement of fact, and this deserves criticism.

I know their ideology is rotten and lag basic human-values. Its some of the worst believes out there. But they're still people. No matter how much disgusting garbage they spew, we have to keep to our morals and show that we wont budge. YES! They deserve to be hammed down with criticism, being the laughing-stock and get all the anti-protests there is. But don't cross the line with violence. You drag yourself down to their ideology. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.

They might be shitty people, true. But they're people non the less. I'm not sure if you find any value in humans, but I find that all people should be entitled to basic Human Rights. Regardless of what they believe, its their actions that speak.

If you read my post prior, you'd know that I'd agree with you. Let me give you a somewhat cheesy quote from a television series: "While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love." -Albert Rosenfield, Twin Peaks As cheesy is that is, it's my inspiration for how I wish to be as a human. I do not believe in violence yet I still believe in self defense. I understand that the lines are blurry here and that sometimes war is neccesary to defend what is right, but in this case I do not condone the assault of random civilians because there's a strength to be found in those who came before us and that their example is extremely effective. The only way to defeat evil is with love. It sounds counter-intuitive but it's proven to work historically time and time again. We still have a long way to go but I'm totally unconvinced that assaulting people in the street is our path to justice. That said, in this case, a man assaulted a person in the street, and judgement was passed. This is how our government is meant to function and I'm 100% behind that. The democracy has spoken and it said that this man owes one dollar. I do not condone the violence, but the people have spoken and they have decided that racist rhetoric is not to be tolerated in a court of law.

Let's use a few more gray cells and think a few more days ahead. A group of armed Nazi scum starts shit and injures or kills someone in a way that grabs media attention. They get declared a terrorist group in response to pressure from an outraged populace, and suddenly it's open season on Nazis. They get cracked down on hard by law enforcement, stomped out by police and counterprotestors wherever they gather in public, and the Nazis finally learn that they should keep their mouths shut and go back into the holes they crawled out of like the worms they are. Everyone wins.

I just want to cherry pick this one part and point out that there are actual living Nazi war criminals that actually committed terrible acts 70 years ago in Nazi Germany Feel free to ignore this post much like you did with my last one.

I mean, pretty much all those things qualify if you include the whole WAR against NAZIS we had 70 years ago.

Granted, punching nazis doesn't prevent 6 people from secretly meeting and plotting the assassination of a political figure but if we stop deplatforming is it really going to make the conspirators go "ATTENTION EVERYONE, COME ONE COME ALL TOMORROW TO THE FERDINAND ASSASSINATION DISCUSSION"? There are other mechanisms that sort of help deal with that like the Discord leaks but ultimately 5 guys just going in the woods and planning a terror attack isn't affected by whether or not they got access to a stage. Trump voters are already used to being disliked and the president called mexicans rapists before his election racist views are actually somewhat accepted among conservatives The nazi presence is not required. We know their arguments. Just have their victims talk instead. Also there's 1% chance for each viewer to be convinced by them and with 1000 viewers that's 10 people, 10x more nazis. Self-defense. They've warned us they want us dead.

Hitler was on center stage. People like you who spout this absolute babble (which is patently false) need to go watch The World at War and read up on some details of Hitler's rise to power. He was a public figure. He was a laughing stock and relatively unfeared by most.

Turning them into a punching bag would only anger them. A 95 year old former nazi-guard, I bet hes the head of all Neo-Nazi-cells in USA. /s What does that have to do with anything with the Neo-Nazis in the rallies? I still state that no one in the group today did anything in the war. Therefor you can't comparable apples and oranges and blame the current neo-nazis for what happen back then. I got a feeling that letting the public know what garbage they spew and a face-count is going to be much better, than letting them stay secret. You can't really compare the two. Trump voters was disliked by those who yelled loudest and the news-stations. I got a feeling that a lot of people voted on Trump, just in spite of being told who to vote on. Punching them is just going to drag you down on their level and policy. Oh, and its going to give them free news-coverage world-wide. In fact, I bet we wouldn't have this discussion if the guy didn't get punched. Sticks and stones may break my bones .. Assaulting them is going to make them the victim and you the aggressor. You're now the unethical one for attacking someone, based on what they think. How many Jews are attacking those Muslims who won't condemn Hamas? ( if they said your name and threaten you personally, that is another matter ) Post WW1 + USA calling in loans = Really bad economy It was mostly a choice between Hitler or Communism Article 48 being abused to pass laws. A guy from the communist-party set a fire, this was used as an excuse to jail the leaders of the party. The Nazi-party then intimidated the rest of the parties to pass the enabling act. Do you really think that Hitlers speech was enough?

Expressing your political views with violence is stupid, put in some more effort lol.

Surely now all that'll happen is neo-Nazis prowling about and provoking a fight where they get hit first. What's this accomplished?

lol what the fuck. Both MLK and Ghandi were successful where their more violent compatriots were not. Are you for fucking real?