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

If you physically attack someone, who hasn't physically attacked you and aren't about to, it's assault, not self-defence, regardless of the person's political opinion. Why does the person being a nazi make it any different? Again, if the person was a communist, harbouring an ideology which has had far worse atrocities carried out in its name compared to nazism, would the situation be the same? What if the person fundamentally religious? There are sects of wahhabism that have about as abhorrent notions as nazism, if not worse, but would you be fine with someone punching a salafi muslim?

I'm sorry but if someone is running on the platform of "I'll kill you if I'm elected" it's self defense at that point. I don't care what ideology they represent.

Would you defend someone on the right, after that person had used the same argument, to justify him assaulting a fundamentalist Muslim?

If they're just a conservative muslim? No. If they're a conservative muslim who's racist and says white people are scum? No. If they say that terrorism is great and 9/11 was justified? Yes. like, everyone keeps saying it's a slippery slope and "where's the line", but I'm pretty sure advocating murder and genocide is a pretty clear line I don't necessarily think it should be legal, but the situation here where they got off with a much smaller punishment is okay. (although it could be 100$ or something)

S U P E R T U R B O N A Z I P U N C H E R 3

I am "on the right", so don't try and twist this like I'm some extremist liberal trying to justify murdering conservative. That being said: a fundie Muslim who is running on the platform of killing all infidels? Sure.

Nak you didn't even have something to say about the 1% argument being reversed where you admitted that there's a 1% chance that nazis can be convinced by talking and I mentioned that it's the same the other way around but the bigger the audience, the more 1% chances there are. They just don't deserve a platform. You're also proving my point here that it stops the spread of their views because you're having a discussion about anti-fascist tactics rather than which race is the best tyvm.

You point out a key problem with this line of thinking. Where to draw the line? You say it's when you advocate murder and/or genocide, however I know that nazi organisations in my own country don't outright promote genocide, in fact they go so far as to deny the holocaust even happened. So already there's an issue, since it would be possibly quite hard to find anyone willing to openly admit to such a horrid stance. Let's say you do find them though, why exactly would you need to punch them? Are you honestly saying that a person, whose platform is literal and direct genocide, would stand even the slightest chance of gaining any kind of noticeable political power, enough so that it would allow them to carry out said genocide. I'm only trying to see if your stance holds consistency, since it's (I'm assuming) an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. Because strategically, physically assaulting a political opponent because you disagree with them (even if it is something abhorrent like nazism), is possibly the worst move you could make. What is it you hope to achieve by committing assault? Is it to convince them that they're wrong? Because I assure you, you will not. In fact you'll do the opposite. You'll harden their stance, and enable them to recruit more people to their side.

If pre-emptive violence is a morally acceptable form of self defense then nazis would have the same right to violence against those who intend to harm them

It's not a matter of disagreement lmao. I don't assault people I disagree with. I can get behind assaulting someone who intends to manipulate their way into a leadership position, subvert democracy, and commit genocide against people they don't like. The purpose of assaulting them isn't to convince them that they're wrong, it's to cripple or kill them so they can't achieve their goal of fucking up the planet no matter how much they cheat. Great post. There is obviously a difference between fascists murdering innocent people on the basis of their heritage and killing fascists to prevent them from murdering innocent people.

You say this as though the government doesn't preemptively take out terrorists that are planning attacks.

I could get behind this if there were anyone actually running on a platform of 'I'll kill you if I'm elected'. Neo-Nazis will never say that, but you can't take Nazis at their word, so you have to infer from their other beliefs and visible actions. Which, with actual Hitler-worshipping neo-Nazis, is not that hard. The problem is the increasingly liberal use of the Nazi label. I've seen a number of conservative speakers labeled 'Nazis' who I am pretty reasonably sure are not out to exterminate the Jews. But if someone sincerely believes that they're Nazis, then the logic goes that you can't trust what they say -> they really want genocide because they're Nazis -> preemptive violence is justified as self-defense, regardless of what they say they believe or what threat they currently pose. That's some pretty dangerous reasoning and not something I think we should be condoning. I know that there are already Tea Party extremists who use the same kind of reasoning. They've decided that American socialists are 'communists', and infer that because they're communists, their ultimate goal is a replication of the Soviet Union and deporting class traitors to the gulags. I don't want them getting the idea that hurting socialists would be 'self-defense' and something that American society would tolerate. Without any kind of authority to decide who's really a Nazi, you're relying on individuals and unaccountable groups to determine on their own who secretly harbors a desire for genocide and therefore deserves to be hurt, and then giving them a green light to do so under the guise of self-defense. Once you legitimize that behavior I don't trust antifa or the general public to limit it to actual neo-Nazis.

You sound insane. Like this post is going to be screencapped and shown on abc once the gun smoke settles kind of insane. Seriously, you're saying you would literally murder people based on their political stance. In a fucking democracy. And don't give me shit about "this isn't a disagreement", just because the opposing view is more extreme. It's still a disagreement. God damn. Get help. Did the person pose a direct physical threat like those terrorists? Did he have specific plans to bomb civilians like those terrorists? Did he have an arsenal with which to carry out said bombing like those terrorists? Does having an extreme political ideology alone make you a terrorist?

"When I take over I'm going to murder everyone from xyz group" isn't a political stance, it's a fucking threat that needs to be responded to as such. If there wasn't a very real chance of these people getting their hands on the wheel I'd have a more moderate opinion but I really don't give a shit about neo-Nazis getting a taste of their own medicine. 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) No, but these people aren't "just" holding extreme beliefs. They carry out race attacks and killings all the time. Stop trying to legitimize Nazism!!! It's not just a harmless ideology. Neo-Nazis are domestic terrorists in all forms whose ultimate goal is to commit genocide. That's not the same thing as having a political disagreement with someone. Stop trying to downplay it. You are Danish. Your country suffered hardcore the last time we accepted these people as legitimate political actors.

Is that where you draw the line? Threats / hate speech / conspiracy to commit violence? You are correct those are not political beliefs, but most who you would consider nazis don't say those things because they don't want to be arrested. I'm still trying to nail down what exactly is your criteria for being a nazi and deserving to be "crippled". Anybody who associates with nazis? Praises nazi literature? Attends nazi demonstrations? Anybody who holds anti-democratic values? Right now it sounds like you're openly and willingly sacrificing democracy to satisfy your vigilante bloodlust. Nobody wants nazis arounds but most people understand that you can't win by killing the baddies in real life.

I draw the line at conspiracy to commit violence, yes. Any group which is planning to inflict harm upon innocents is not innocent and tolerating them is counter-democratic. That includes all Nazis. That's an inherent, inseparable part of their ideology. There are no progressive Nazis, I assure you.

You really don't see any possible issue with your black and white thinking? People are far more complex than binarily being one ideology or another, and democracy doesn't work by taking people behind the shed. I give up.

If someone identifies themselves to you as a member of the KKK, are you going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't actually racist but instead only subscribe to the KKK's non-race-related policies?

No, I just kill them on the spot to promote democracy and peace

What's your argument again?

B-but what if people call my movement naziism and attack me with impunity? - man who is concerned his political affiliations might be conflated with naziism

As I often like to compare: no republican simply asking for a flat 15% tax rate is being accused of naziism by any rational person. it's people who legit flirt with populism, islamophobia, and anti-semitism who are being accused of, and being punished for, naziism. The divide being "naziism" and "conservative" or actually GIGANTIC divides: you can be a conservative without being a huge fucking racist/misogynist. If you find yourself associating with ideas which originate in 1930s Berlin, then IT'S TIME TO GO BACK

You guys just forgetting the guy who was attacked by antifa activists because he was flying an American flag? If you're under the impression that only people who openly support fascist policies are in danger of being branded Nazis, then I don't think you've been paying attention.

Those guys weren't anti-nazi, they were anti-American

What would you do if someone told you they were a member of the KKK? Would you punch them? Would instate a law that puts people like them in jail, despite having committed no crime (yet)? For how long should they be in jail? Until they change their mind?

This is a great sentence when you intentionally ignore the fact that Jason Kessler has publicly defended ethnic cleansing and that the entire point of Unite the Right was to organize a hate rally for white nationalists.

You really think that a political organisation with openly declared genocide as part of their agenda, would stand any chance in any western democracy? Again, the neo-nazi groups in my country are all holocaust deniers, and I have a hunch that most such organisations elsewhere have a similar attitude. Then why wasn't he arrested by the feds? Or do you know something that they don't? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? And if they do they get arrested, same as everyone else? I fail to see your point. If it's because you want to generalize people with a specific ideology, again, I could use the argument to justify killing innocent salafi muslims. Please, you're the one legitimizing facist and insane ideas, by promoting murdering political opponents. I've never said one positive word about nazism, in fact quite the opposite. If people commit terrorist attacks, or have specific plans to do so, they should be arrested and punished accordingly. Regardless of ideology. And I'd much rather have the state decide that matter under the law, than some random yahoo imbecile with a blood-lust. Idiotic vigilante mob justice has never been positive. Also don't lecture me on history, since you've clearly learned nothing from it.