I don’t want to burn anyone’s house down, but I think it’s safe to assume that the only reason they put it there is as a public service announcing that A. “I welcome you to poop in my yard” an B. “Please tear off a piece of this flag so you have something to cleanse your ass with.”
Punching someone because they think taxes should be 10% lower = probably bad
Punching someone because they think human beings are property = probably good
A functioning society cannot endure everyone making snap moral judgements, which is why there are laws against violence, but I'll never mourn a neoconfederate with a black eye or a Nazi with a broken nose.
I think not recognizing that the advocacy for the use of the state to enforce property rights over human beings IS advocacy for violence, and what's more, advocacy for violence in an incredibly unjust cause, is a sign of moral myopia.
I agree with you on all of this. But advocacy of violence is not violence in itself, and retaliating against advocacy with actual violence is not self-defense.
I think advocating for violence is morally corrupt, whether you do it by raising the Confederate flag or talking about how much you enjoy assaulting the people who do so.
I agree to a point. Retaliating against advocacy of violence is not self-defense, which is why it's not allowed. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the monopoly on force; and a democratic state must, by its nature, allow dissent even of the most vile and vulgar kind, if it is to maintain its legitimacy with regards to the suppression of views that might in different circumstances be dangerous - in other words, by convincing those opposed to it that a meaningless participation in the electoral process is preferable to armed insurgency.
But that doesn't mean that punching Nazis is bad. It just means that there's a pragmatic reason why it's not allowed.
I'd argue that it's both bad and pragmatically unsound. Victimizing someone doesn't become acceptable just because they're a bad person. If it's not direct self-defense, it's wrong.
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn't playing fair. And they're just biding their time until they're in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you're opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don't see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
Second, I think it's very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can't attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn't self-defense, and therefore it's not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you're opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don't see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
... my guy have you not been paying attention
Slavery was only totally abolished in the 1940s with the end of peonage in Texas. People today still openly defend slavery. Florida's new curriculum for public schools includes the idea that slavery was good for Black people because it 'taught them valuable skills'. De facto enslavement happens by the selective enforcement of unjust laws combined with targeting of minority and impoverished communities combined with for-profit prisons and subminimum wage in conditions that would be illegal anywhere else.
We're not that far removed from actual, literal slavery, and it's not a leap to believe that a fascist regime would joyfully reimplement it.
Second, I think it's very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can't attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn't self-defense, and therefore it's not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Again, that's only valid within the context of a functioning state. That's not a comment on morality, that's a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
Again, that's only valid within the context of a functioning state. That's not a comment on morality, that's a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
I've been directing my points at morality. I believe it is morally wrong to use such pre-emptive violence.
Well, the philosophy is based heavily on how the Nazi's came into power. So maybe you should just look into that and see how it worked out for the other parties involved.
I think most people would agree they wouldn't want to wait to get violent until after their opposition is sending them to camps.
This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Also, the philosophy goes over this. They would wait until you aren't in a position to fight back.
But Nazis are by definition an active threat to me and mine. So punching them is always the correct answer.
History also shows that the only way to stop Nazis is to punch them often and early. An ideology built on hatred and violence needs to be stamped out by force, for the safety of everyone else.
Neo-confederates are not quite as bad, but still need a boot to the face every now and then to tell them that their hatred and bigotry is not kosher. Otherwise, they start looking for minorities to harm.
Violence against Nazis pretty definitively defeated Nazi Germany in WW2, and the lack of violence against Nazis on the international stage failed to arrest their advances before the outbreak of war.
In Britain, the Battle of Cable Street was a highly influential action in which violence against fascists stymied their growing influence.
The government retains a monopoly on force because we (implicitly) agree that its use of force, in the form of institutions, is preferable, in its reliability and consistency, to individual use of force. Outside of the context of the concession of the monopoly of violence to a central authority or authorities; immediate self-defense is not the only valid use of violence.
Outside of that context; that is to say, regarding the morality and not the legality of an act, one would have to have a fucking death wish to disregard the use of violence outside of the context of immediate self-defense. That's the whole reason cultures of honor get started - because if you do not react to threats and advocacy with force, because if you sit there and meekly let Clan McNazi from across the highlands whisper that all of 'you people' in your clan should be killed while you're trying to work the fucking fields, because if you try to play tit-for-tat, all that ends with is you and all of your family in a shallow grave, or in chains.
In a civilized society, the position of reacting with force is taken up by the state, however flawed and imperfect this system is. We haven't stopped reacting with force in non-self-defense contexts, we've merely outsourced it to a (theoretically) representative body.
You're just wrong is the problem. Words can be violent, and I would go as far as to say there's something fishy about you arguing this for 3 days and not seeing how everyone is saying that it can be violent.
The problem is that most of the people in here have just been repeating their points over and over again (in between personal insults) rather than actually explaining their reasoning. This includes you; I ask how words can be classified as violence, and instead of telling me why you think so, you just reiterate that you think so.
Several people I've talked with in this thread have been discussing in good faith, but not everyone.
No, the problem here is you're arguing in bad faith.
Because what you're saying isn't true. People have told you various things. Some the same, some different. And you just wave them off as if they don't matter.
Let me write this in bold, and I will not respond to you any further on the matter:
If you are defending people who want to enslave other people's right to advocate doing so, then you are advocating for violence, because you are allowing for them to build a base of more people who wish to enslave other people, and once they have built that base, they will act upon it, and that will be violent and long after we have the ability to prevent it. The act of advocating for a violent thing, is violent for this reason.
You are handwaving the preparation for the violent act, and acting like we will be ready for it and therefore shouldn't be worried about it, when history has shown that is not the case.
If you are defending people who want to enslave other people's right to advocate doing so, then you are advocating for violence, because you are allowing for them to build a base of more people who wish to enslave other people, and once they have built that base, they will act upon it, and that will be violent and long after we have the ability to prevent it. The act of advocating for a violent thing, is violent for this reason.
I believe I had addressed this idea earlier. I had said that merely the possibility of a hypothetical occurring at some point in the indeterminate future is not sufficient justification. The threat has to be imminent, definite, and actionable. Not "this group of people is likely to do this at some point, so we may freely punch them in the meantime."
You're wagging your finger at nazi's while they perform the holocaust
That is the effectiveness of what you're doing.
So no, punch in the face will work just fine.
I'm not replying to the rest of the stuff you've said, i'm just leaving now. I'm pretty sure if we went with the "nazi's at the table" analogy, you are the guy who is a nazi by association. Bye.
I would argue that no, advocating for slavery is indeed violent. You're advocating for someone else to get violent.
You shouldn't be allowed to say "I'm just advocating" to defend yourself when the thing you're advocating for actually happens, and is in fact violent. It means if anything you were afraid of retribution than you being actually against the idea.
What I'm saying is a principle I apply to all groups of people. I try not to hold different moral standards just because I find someone to be reprehensible.
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples' "right" to try to enslave other people without being punched in the teeth for even suggesting as much and you should really stop doing that, whatever the reason.
Whatever principle you allege to hold is currently having you defend peoples' "right" to try to enslave other people
This is false. I have said numerous times that when I decry violent reprisal, I'm talking about advocacy, not action. I hope you're not lying about this on purpose to try to discredit me.
Enslaving people is bad.
I'm not sure why you think I disagree with this, considering I've explicitly said so myself in this thread.
If you're arguing about it here, then you are. No ifs ands or buts.
There doesn't need to be another thread about advocacy for you to go to, there's the phrase "There's a time and a place for everything". This is not the time or the place unless you want to be advocating for slavery.
And sorry, there really isn't a way around to argue around it. You are advocating for slavery by defending people who advocate for it.
This is an absurdly black-and-white way of looking at morality. Saying that pro-slavery people shouldn't be assaulted is not by any stretch the same as being pro-slavery oneself.
I think I have a good way to illustrate this, actually. What do you think about, say, torturing pro-slavery people? Or perhaps their families?
It's possible you think torturing them and their families is going too far. This "too far" feeling would be you defending them just as much as I am; you don't support slavery, but that doesn't mean you think any conceivable misfortune should be inflicted on them. Likewise, contrary to what you say, I don't support slavery but still don't think certain actions against them are justified.
For the mob boss example, I would say that while it's still not violence, per se, it still poses enough of a risk to warrant violent reprisal.
So for the advocacy of slavery example, an acceptable use of violent reprisal would have to be directed at someone who is truly influential enough for their suggestion (or "suggestion," as the case may be,) to reasonably constitute an actual threat.
The only person I can think of who may qualify on the American Right is Trump, because of the whole January 6th insurrection. Clearly some of his followers are keen on violence at his mere suggestion. As far as I'm aware, though, nobody has openly advocated for slavery.
I mean all things - the severity of the words, the influence of the person, etc. We agree that words are sometimes crossing the line to where a violent reaction is morally justified (if not necessarily recommended or practical, ESPECIALLY in societies with a functioning government), we just disagree on where that line is drawn.
np, I get why people get heated over this, because I've certainly known my fair share of "Just asking questions" covert Nazis, but you always came off as simply genuinely convinced of a peaceful approach to things. In such matters, between two reasonably moral people, disagreement should be civil, even if the disagreement is severe.
So for the advocacy of slavery example, an acceptable use of violent reprisal would have to be directed at someone who is truly influential enough for their suggestion (or "suggestion," as the case may be,) to reasonably constitute an actual threat.
You do get that by juicing someone's face like a tomato so soon as they so much as sniff "We should enslave our fellow human beings." for freshness, no one ever gets the power and influence you are describing and for society that is a good thing?
The violence is pro-scoial and prophylactic.
Further I can't figure out what you think society gains by having people running around suggesting reprehensible things so long as they never get carried out.
You seem to think keeping a rabid animal in a petting zoo is a net positive, but as soon as it bites a few people boy howdy will it get a talking to.
It is more moral to use violence to coerce the safety and dignity of your fellow human beings than to force your fellow humans to weather the constant threat of enslavement so you can glorify whatever liberal Neutrality Morality deity you serve.
You're sounding real Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod from season 3, episode 19 of Highlander, The Series right now and you should stop it.
Advocacy for slavery is itself violence and you should stop defending it.
We should not have a society where people attempt to enslave other humans (which is at all stages an act of violence).
Using violence to bring about a world where people are not enslaved is just, funny, good, awesome, laudable, recommended, and the way decent humans go about this "life" thing.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can't be this dense.
Advocacy for enslavement of other humans beings IS VIOLENCE. Period. Advocacy for the termination of an entire group of other people IS VIOLENCE.
You DO NOT get to debate another person's right to exist. Period. End of fucking story. And the good people of the world WILL violently prevent you from enacting any of the things that you're advocating for.
Advocacy FOR WHAT. Go ahead, say it out loud. You can't be this dense.
Violence? The thing I've explicitly said multiple times in this thread?
I feel like most of you aren't really responding to what I'm saying and are instead just repeating your points and insulting me because we disagree. Not everyone in here, though, thankfully
...Umm...It was advocacy for slavery, not advocacy for violence. The guy even said "Advocacy for enslavement" in the very next sentence.
Why did you just do that? Why did you just shift the argument incorrectly? Hell there's other posts within the 30 minutes you've been posting where you clearly knew what the topic was.
Excuse me for getting mixed up when I'm trying to reply to like seven people at once. Either way, I've explicitly mentioned violence and slavery in this discussion multiple times, so I'm not sure why you seem to think this is some rhetorical trap you've laid.
I've said it multiple times in this thread: advocating for something like slavery or other violence is not, in and of itself, grounds for violent retaliation. When the advocating moves into action, then it becomes self-defense.
When the advocating moves into action, it's too damn late
And the issue at hand is too irrevocable to leave as a wait and see.
You speak purely like someone who knows they will never be on the brunt end of the discrimination a day in their life. It's okay to wait and see because you know you won't be affected either way by it.
Well, it sounds like the best thing to do is ignore your cries against violence while you sit on your pedestal completely uninvolved in everyone else's conflicts, to be honest.
You just aren't personally involved enough to see the issue.
But you have no way of knowing what the confederate flag means to them without actually having a conversation.
My guy, it's a meme. See the sidebar - "joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment." It's a criticism of the 'heritage' argument by blasely referring to Sherman's March to the Sea, a campaign of property destruction which brought the traitorous, slaving South to its knees, as Yankee 'heritage'. No one here is actually advocating for burning down people's houses for the sin of flying a Confederate flag
Punching someone over a flag seems like one of those snap moral judgements you said a society cannot endure.
Yes, society cannot endure it. There's a reason we don't allow it.
That there is a reason that we don't allow an action, that I support that reason, and that that reason is valid, is different than saying that the action is immoral.
Like...burning someone's toddler alive. The blindingly obvious problem is they don't have to live alone to fly a flag. Tell me it was an unacceptably racist labrador and you had no choice.
Add comment