Awesome band becomes awesomer


This is how you do it.

Last week when the Dropkick Murphys played Termianl 5 for two nights, things were going according to plan. It was St Patty’s Day week, the shows were packed, and people were getting drunk. And rowdy. Really rowdy. As has become tradition the band invited the ladies to come onto the stage for their encore of “Kiss Me I’m Shitfaced” 50+ ladies made it past the barricade and onto the stage and danced the song away. The band then kicked into “Skinhead on the MBTA” and a ton of dudes were getting past security and the stage ended up being packed tighter than the underside of a real man’s kilt. As the band kicked into T.N.T. by AC/DC some moron started seig heiling (the nazi salute) in time to the beat.

Dropkicks singer / bassist Ken Casey noticed this and ran right over to the guy, smashed him in the face, took off his bass and hit him with that and then jumped on him and all out chaos ensued. We could only assume from our vantage point that said nazi got his ass kicked. About 30 seconds later Ken emerged from the pileup with his shirt torn and made his way back to the front of the stage. He strapped on his bass and said into the microphone “Nazis are NOT FUCKING WELCOME at a Dropkick Murphys show.”

Yes! Before the usual pearl-clutching centrists start whimpering about free speech and violence, I’ll just point out that kicking the ass of some vicious maniac who supports genocide and mass deportations and racism is a perfect example of an appropriate, tempered reaction.

Comments

  1. killyosaur says

    I’ve been a Dropkick Murphys fan for so very long, saw them (along with Flogging Molly) at a Van’s Warped Tour in 2004 I believe it was (so over 15 years now), standing at my desk, wearing the shirt they released after the Boston Marathon bombings, and I am so happy to be a continuing fan of theirs knowing this piece of information.

  2. Saad says

    But PZ, what if this finally pushes the Nazis from their characteristic pacifism into violence?!

    How will you be able to condemn that violence without condemning this one since the laws of physics prevent you from discerning between the two?!??

  3. kome says

    “Why did you attack someone whose deeply held beliefs involve the brutal extermination of entire groups of people and the complete sexual subjugation of all women ever? That makes you just as bad as they are!”

  4. fusilier says

    Let’s Just Say (tm from another list) that I’d mortgage the house to pay for the DropKicks to play “Deeds Not Words,” live, at Trump’s impeachment trial.

    Except they might do it at no extra charge.

    fusilier

    James 2:24

  5. latsot says

    Punching a known nazi with a history of nazi awfulness and a predictable future of spreading hate and harming others is one thing.

    Beating an idiot, past, personality and future unknown, with a fucking guitar on the spur of the moment and then cheering about it is quite another. Random observers who obviously haven’t thought things through? Almost as bad.

    The guy might be a nazi and might wish harm to others. He might be a narcissistic bellend and wanted to encourage others to violence or hatred. He might be mentally ill or otherwise not in control of his actions. He might be misguided or misled in any number of ways.

    You don’t know any of that, PZ, but you advocate beating him with a fucking guitar.

    I’ve done charity work with people who I guess could be described as “easily led” and definitely of diminished responsibility. I have friends and relatives who would fall into similar categories. I can imagine some of them being goaded to getting on that stage and doing that salute.

    You – PZ – advocate beating those people with guitars. Not manhandling them off the stage with the possible assistance of security, but knocking them down and hitting them with fucking guitars. Despite knowing absolutely nothing about them, their motivations or their intentions.

    FUCK YOU.

  6. Saad says

    Despite knowing absolutely nothing about them, their motivations or their intentions.

    Maybe he was just doing it for the lulz!

  7. Michael says

    If I were the singer, I would have simply stopped performing immediately, pointed the guy out, told him that he was not welcome at the event, ordered him and anyone else like him out of the event, and wait until he left before performing again. That would have sent a clear message to everyone, and you might have even gotten a public apology from the guy for his behaviour.

    On the other hand, imagine you are at the event, didn’t see the guy doing the Nazi salute, but see the singer suddenly stop playing and attack a member of the audience. What are you going the think? I don’t think you are going to immediately jump to the conclusion that “Oh, that guy must have been a Nazi, and the singer is treating him the way he deserves to be treated.”. Personally I would only attack someone if I saw them actually hurting someone else that couldn’t defend themselves.

  8. stroppy says

    Drop…kick…Murphys. Amped up…rowdy…Don’t poke the damn bear!

    To wit:

    If you want blood, we’ll give you some
    Straight from heart ’til the job is done
    If you want it now, then here it comes
    If you want blood, we’ll give you some

    If you look at the logos, listen to the shit-kicking music, and assume some sort of festival of pan-Celtic racism, best you get straightened out before the wrong idea spreads.

    Just a thought. Tell me I’m wrong.

  9. Zeppelin says

    @latsot
    So “beating up people who repeatedly and publicly self-identify as Nazis is ableist” is a take that exist now. Fascinating.

  10. leerudolph says

    kilyosaur@1: ” in 2004 I believe it was (so over 15 years now), standing at my desk, wearing the shirt they released after the Boston Marathon bombings”

    The bombing was in 2013.

  11. latsot says

    @Zeppelin

    I very, very obviously didn’t say that or anything like it. But sure, knock yourself out.

  12. says

    @latsot, if zeppelin’s summarization of your point is incorrect, it is you who is to blame. It is far from obvious that that is not what you meant by when saying these things:

    … might be mentally ill or otherwise not in control of his actions…could be described as “easily led” and definitely of diminished responsibility…

    Do not blame others for interpreting your poorly written ideas in the way you did not intend to.

    The probability that someone with a shaven head and throwing a Nazi salute is not an actual fucking genocidal racist Nazi is nearly zero.

    I agree though he should not be smashed with the guitar though. Someone worked hard to make that guitar, it is disrespectful to the craftsman to use it as a blunt instrument. I never liked it when musicians abuse and destroy their instruments.

    In this specific case, the Nazi should have been led out of there by security.

  13. Zeppelin says

    @latsot
    You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t respond charitably to an attempt at setting the bar for punching Nazis so absurdly high that even public self-identification doesn’t count unless we’ve performed a comprehensive background check. Because that’s what your comment boils down to, whether you meant it or not.

  14. zenlike says

    We already know the motivations and intentions of literal nazis. Kicking their ass is a mild, entirely appropriate, response.

    So latsot, FUCK YOU you apologist for literal nazis.

  15. says

    The guy might be a nazi and might wish harm to others.

    There’s nothing a fucking Nazi can do that will make some “rational person” acknowledge that he’s a Nazi.
    Really, they will give the benefit of the doubt while doing a fucking Hitlergruss.

  16. shikko says

    @5: latsot said:

    Punching a known nazi with a history of nazi awfulness and a predictable future of spreading hate and harming others is one thing.

    Beating an idiot, past, personality and future unknown, with a fucking guitar on the spur of the moment and then cheering about it is quite another. Random observers who obviously haven’t thought things through? Almost as bad.

    So the only Nazi you can punch is one in uniform, with an MP40, climbing over some Roma he just shot while screaming “Blut und Boden”? Sure, that’s not an idea that does anything other than protect Nazis who don’t meet your criteria for being “Nazi enough”.

    The guy might be a nazi and might wish harm to others. He might be a narcissistic bellend and wanted to encourage others to violence or hatred. He might be mentally ill or otherwise not in control of his actions. He might be misguided or misled in any number of ways.

    OK, so which one of those exculpates him? Any? All?

    You don’t know any of that, PZ, but you advocate beating him with a fucking guitar.

    I’ve done charity work with people who I guess could be described as “easily led” and definitely of diminished responsibility. I have friends and relatives who would fall into similar categories. I can imagine some of them being goaded to getting on that stage and doing that salute.

    You – PZ – advocate beating those people with guitars. Not manhandling them off the stage with the possible assistance of security, but knocking them down and hitting them with fucking guitars. Despite knowing absolutely nothing about them, their motivations or their intentions.

    A few things:
    First, this happened almost 6.5 years ago, before budding american fascists took the white house, when white boys who wanted to performatively act out tended towards racism and homophobia. Anyone seig heiling in 2013 can reasonably be assumed to be, at best, a fellow traveler of white supremacy if not an all-out Nazi sympathizer.

    Second, to borrow your phrase “Despite knowing absolutely nothing about them” you’ve decided that an adult human male (presumed) American does not know or does not care or does not understand the significance of doing that motion in front of a crowd, and should be protected from being treated like “a known nazi with a history of nazi awfulness and a predictable future of spreading hate and harming others”. You are doing exactly what you are criticizing PZ of doing…but your activity is designed to give cover to fascism.

    Third, he wasn’t hit with the bass. Yes, the story says he was, but watch the video. I’ll make it easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGubnoMqPxM&t=1m31s
    shove at 1:34
    bass swings over shoulder and behind at 1:36
    How the Nazi was lying on the stage makes it clear the neck of the bass couldn’t have hit him, and the trajectory of the bass is what you’d expect of someone swinging it back and off (which is what happens post-swing), not down at a prone target.

    So, in fact, the bassist did “[manhandle] them off the stage with the possible assistance of security.”

  17. blf says

    What are you [latsot@5] smoking, I’d like to avoid it.

    Exterminationcampash. Grown only by small cult of blind antigurus (so called because they are against everything (including themselves)), and composed mostly of pure hate (of everything) plus an exceptionally large dose of incoherent rage (or denial, the analysis is inconclusive).

    Broadly, I compare using the nazi signal as the equivalent of using the n— word, displaying the proslavery flag, or voting for a le penazi or their ilk: It is not to be tolerated. At all. Smashing one’s axe over their heads is understandable.

  18. says

    latsot #5

    I’ve done charity work with people who I guess could be described as “easily led” and definitely of diminished responsibility. I have friends and relatives who would fall into similar categories. I can imagine some of them being goaded to getting on that stage and doing that salute.

    Have you spent as much time explaining to them why that would be a bad idea as you did writing this post?

  19. says

    Personally I’m comfortable with a world in which publicly declaring your alliance to outright fascism is punished with a summary beating.

    But it’ll drive them underground!

    GOOD. Go down there with the worms and the bugs and the decomposing remains of all the other bad ideas.

  20. vucodlak says

    @ latsot, #5

    So… not only are the mentally ill to blame for every evil piece of shit who shoots a public venue, we’re also here to excuse and defend Nazis.

    How versatile we are! We can do anything except speak for ourselves.

    You know, I get that you believe you’re defending the mentally ill, but you’re really not. You’re defending Nazis by throwing the mentally ill under the bus. How’s about you stop that.

  21. chrislawson says

    Charly@13:

    “I agree though he should not be smashed with the guitar though. Someone worked hard to make that guitar, it is disrespectful to the craftsman to use it as a blunt instrument.”

    If I were the luthier who made that guitar, I’d be prouder of Ken Casey smashing it over the head of a nazi than if he’d recorded a hit song with it.

  22. aramad says

    Oh wow, a few weeks ago it was coming up with excuses for an arsonist, now we have open celebration of assault with a weapon against a guy for… proclaiming his politics. Your descent is accelerating, PZ.

    “Before the usual pearl-clutching centrists start whimpering about free speech and violence, I’ll just point out that kicking the ass of some vicious maniac who supports genocide and mass deportations and racism is a perfect example of an appropriate, tempered reaction.”
    No it isn’t. The guy engaged in political speech; physical reprisal is an escalation. Oh and centrist? For disagreeing with battering my political foes? That’s just brainless.

    P.s. this happened 6 years ago.

  23. Rowan vet-tech says

    A nazi isn’t my political foe. They are a threat to my husband, my in laws, my step family, and many of my friends. Nazis want them dead. That’s not politics. That’s espousing genocide. Beating a nazi is doing the world a favor. So yes, you are a pearl clutching, centrist nazi apologist for claiming that a nazi is merely a political foe.

  24. says

    Indeed. When advocating genocide is considered just another political opinion, we’re long past the point where we can have any kind of reasonable discussion.

  25. zenlike says

    I would have thought the centrist pearl-clutching would not extend to people who are literal nazis. But that is where we are.

    As Rowan said, nazis are not “political foes”. They are our foes period. They are foes of democracy, foes of every one of our freedoms. They want to kill everyone who doesn’t fit their very narrow mindset. And this is not my opinion, it is not something I pulled out of my ass, it is what they themselves stated and what they put into practice resulting in literally millions of deaths.

    I can somehow grasp a centrist whining about using violence against the brownshirts in the 20ies. But since then, we know what they want, quite explicitly. Whining now about using violence against a brownshirt makes you complicit.

  26. consciousness razor says

    Pacifists aren’t centrists, and centrists aren’t pacifists.
    It’s a nice old smear, though … as if Russell opposed the war because was sympathetic to the enemy! Still just as ridiculous as it always has been.

  27. vucodlak says

    Now, now. Centrists have lots of ideas for opposing Nazis. Here’s a comprehensive list of every effective act of nonviolent centrist resistance, both those they propose and those they have enacted:

    1.

    See? They’ve been very effective, from a certain point of view.

    And don’t go implying that centrists are pacifists! Centrists are perfectly fine with any act of violence that doesn’t threaten to discomfit centrists, or otherwise upset their view of themselves as the arbiters of all that is right and moral in the world.

    That means they’re fine with violence committed by Nazis, because it fits perfectly into their warped little worldview, but if the victims of Nazis fight back using violence, then their worldview collapses. Victims are supposed to live sinless lives and die without making a fuss, and wait for the centrists to decide that enough of them have died to make violence against Nazis morally acceptable. Morally acceptable in the centrists’ determination, of course- the victims don’t get a say.

    See, if the victims start fighting back, then that makes centrists uncomfortable. Centrists say they’re for ‘justified self-defense,’ and if the would-be victims of genocide start fighting back while the centrists are still sitting on the sidelines with their thumbs up their asses, it doesn’t look to good for the centrists.

    Since there is no greater sin than making it look like centrists might possibly be wrong, the would-be victims must be in the wrong. They must, in fact, deserve everything Nazis do to them. Yes, that must be it- Nazis are the ones acting in self-defense! Victims can’t be acting self-defense, because that would mean that centrists were wrong, so the Nazis must be the real victims here.

    In summary:
    Violence is acceptable (sometimes even necessary) in self-defense, or in defense of others.
    Violence is only violence when centrists say it’s violence.
    Centrists, being the smartest people in any room, are always in the right.
    Thus, Nazis are cannot be violent until centrists decide it’s time to use violence in self-defense against them…
    …and therefore anyone who attempts to use violence against Nazis before centrists have decided it’s time to do so cannot be acting in self-defense…
    …because no matter what, centrists are always in the right.

    If all that seems like a heinous point of view to you, even if only for the sheer tortured logic of it, then you’re clearly not a centrist, and are therefore wrong.

  28. says

    Yeah, aramad, fuck off with that.

    We’re talking about people who want me and mine dead. I’m just fine with pounding the shit out of Nazis, and had I the opportunity, I’d definitely ram a few with my wheelchair.

  29. Rob Grigjanis says

    cr @30: Quite so. And one could substitute “apologists” for “centrists” in that sentence as well.

  30. says

    @Charly & ChrisLawson:

    From Charly:

    I agree though he should not be smashed with the guitar though. Someone worked hard to make that guitar, it is disrespectful to the craftsman to use it as a blunt instrument. I never liked it when musicians abuse and destroy their instruments.

    From ChrisLawson:

    If I were the luthier who made that guitar, I’d be prouder of Ken Casey smashing it over the head of a nazi than if he’d recorded a hit song with it.

    This machine kills fascists?

    That said, I am way too fucking non-violent to be okay with smashing someone over the head with … almost anything (water balloon? go ahead). There are lots of possible responses to Nazis like the asshat at this concert. We don’t have to assault to injure. Pushing someone off the stage is also assault, but I’m fine with that. Grabbing hold and dragging them offstage? Also fine with that. What happened here? No.

    I really get being upset at how the media treats concerns over milkshakes more seriously than Charlottesville Nazis that punched and pepper sprayed the people who peacefully protested their fascism. I don’t get why it’s reasonable to celebrate hitting someone with a fucking guitar. That’s dangerous. That can break skulls.

    I can’t go there.

  31. says

    @John Morales:

    Having read that now, it seems like the bassist probably did do the right thing.

    That said, the OP includes:

    kicking the ass of some vicious maniac who supports genocide and mass deportations and racism is a perfect example of an appropriate, tempered reaction.

    I don’t disagree because of any priority I put on speech and allowing Nazis to get their ideas out.

    I disagree because of the priority I place on ending violence.

  32. aramad says

    27-29
    He is a guy who made a nazi salute. Whether he did it ‘for lulz’ or because he fully embraces nazi ideology, or somewhere in between, the extent of his actions (that we know of) is that he made the nazi salute. He made no physical attack against anyone and so posed no physical threat. Saying that this makes him an immediate physical threat is therefore a lie.

    31 “Here’s a comprehensive list of every effective act of nonviolent centrist resistance, both those they propose and those they have enacted: 1.
    Teehee very funny, but the last time this topic came up, I disticntly recall endorsing things like counterprotests. Ignoring this shows that you are lying, or maybe very forgetful.

    “And don’t go implying that centrists are pacifists! Centrists are perfectly fine with any act of violence that…”
    Are you stupid? consciousness razor specifically said that centrist and pacifist are NOT the same thing. Adn then the rest of your post is a long screed against centrists, which is a waste of time given I and some others have endorsed ‘don’t assault people,’ which is hardly adefining characteristic of centrism. And as stated, I;m not centrist.

    32
    Go to bed.

    34
    Excuse me, but this blog does not take kindly to misogynist slurs.

    36
    Irrelevant, people here are actively supporting the beating of the guy with the bass, even if it did not happen that way.

  33. says

    He made no physical attack against anyone and so posed no physical threat.

    Bullshit. A person announcing support for genocide is threatening by definition. The fact that he hasn’t actually killed anyone yet is not much of a defense, when he’s publicly announcing his will to do so. If you threaten to kill people, you can’t blame them for taking you at your word.

    But sure, let’s just pretend that a nazi salute is a completely random gesture, with no history or implications at all.

  34. John Morales says

    aramad, high rhetoric, but vacuous as.

    Eg.:

    27-29 … Saying that this makes him an immediate physical threat is therefore a lie.

    Therefore, since nobody said that, nobody lied. Whence this purported physicality and immediacy, except in your fevered imagination?

  35. John Morales says

    LykeX @42:

    Bullshit. A person announcing support for genocide is threatening by definition.

    Maybe, but most certainly not an “an immediate physical threat”. That’s the actual bullshit.

    (Here I am out-pedanting the pedant, and you muddle your way in. Bah)

  36. says

    @John Morales
    Well, I never claimed “immediate physical threat”, so I didn’t bother defending that point. You might argue over the “physical” part, given that he didn’t touch anyone, but since naziism explicitly drives towards eventual physical violence, it’s really more a difference in timing than in fact.

  37. zenlike says

    aramad @39
    “He made no physical attack against anyone and so posed no physical threat.”
    That is ass-backwards. Just because someone hasn’t yet engaged in a physical attack doesn’t mean he posed no physical threat. Do you understand the meaning of the word “threat”?

    “Saying that this makes him an immediate physical threat is therefore a lie.”
    As John already pointed out, that could indeed be considered a lie. Good thing then I didn’t say it, nor do I think this is the case.

    “the extent of his actions (that we know of) is that he made the nazi salute.”
    The extend of his actions is that he showed public support for a genocidal ideology. I don’t care if someone does that “for the lulz” or because they “really mean it”.

  38. aramad says

    “But sure, let’s just pretend that a nazi salute is a completely random gesture, with no history or implications at all.”
    If you don’t mind, can I ask who made that claim, and where?

    43.
    It has been stated by regular commenters, especially by vucodlak, that a person merely identifying as a nazi is assumed to be a physical threat, while many have strongly implied that. And then LykeX reiterated it. Thanks, buddy :)

  39. chigau (違う) says

    PSA
    Doing this
    <blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
    Results in this

    paste copied text here

    It makes comments with quotes easier to read.

  40. latsot says

    Thanks for the gendered insult, that was great.

    But aside from that, will some of you just listen to yourselves? You’re advocating extreme violence against someone who might be an unapologetic, dangerous nazi or might be some dickhead who thought nazi salutes might be funny. Or something in between. These things are not the same.

    When it comes to violence as defense or punishment or… whatever you people imagine hitting someone with a guitar is… then proportion is important, isn’t it? There are many ways we can show our intolerance of awful ideas, views and practices and if hitting people with sticks is the default, then I think we’ve lost our way. Several people in this thread seem to indicate that severe beatings are the default and correct behaviour when nazis are abroad. That’s not rational as you already know.

    There are many ways the guy in question could have been restrained, all but one of which would not have included hitting him with guitars. Seriously, people, hate nazis and do what you can to counter and confront nazis, but don’t hate the concept of a nazi so much that you lend up attacking common-or-garden arseholes with a stick. It isn’t remotely rational and it isn’t remotely humane.

  41. latsot says

    Oh for goodness’ sake, Kitty. I’ve made it perfectly clear that I don’t love nazis so which part of what I said has convinced you that I do?

    My position is clear and it is obvious that I don’t love nazis. I just don’t like the idea of hitting idiots with guitars and I think there’s a difference between people who spend years being nazis and doing hateful things and idiots who might of might not be that sort of person. They are still idiotic and wrong but they don’t necessarily deserve to be hit with sticks.

    How on earth do you imagine that means I love nazis?

  42. lochaber says

    it’s all well and fine to argue about the extent of free speech in a vacuum, but right now we have concentration camps on the Southern border where at least six children have died. There have been several mass shootings perpetuated by racist assholes targeting minorities. One nazi drove a car into a crowd of anti-nazi protesters, killing Heather Heyer and severely injuring dozens.

    Tolerating white supremacism has real-world consequences, and we are seeing that here in the U.S. I’m not a very confrontational person, so I’m unlikely to go punching nazis right now, but I’m certainly not going to criticize those with more initiative than I, who do go and punch nazis.

    White supremacism is abhorrent, and is not to be tolerated.

  43. Rob Grigjanis says

    lochaber @53:

    I’m certainly not going to criticize those with more initiative than I, who do go and punch nazis.

    For the instances I’ve come across, I’m not inclined to criticize either, though I might worry about the legal consequences for the puncher. Note, though, that most folk here are not merely “not criticizing”, they are applauding. That’s where I get uneasy.

    Whenever you applaud, or advocate, violence without an immediate threat, you’re going down a dangerous path. When is someone not quite horrible enough to be punched? Is there a bright shining line between “milkshakeable” and “punchable”? How do you explain this concept of acceptable violence to kids? Why isn’t the applauder out there looking for nazis to punch?

  44. lochaber says

    Rob Grigjanis @54>

    I’m not convinced that there isn’t an immediate threat. White supremacy and white nationalism has reached dangerous levels in our country. They’ve infiltrated the police force, several intelligence agencies, and pretty much own CBP/ICE. We’ve had so many racially-motivated mass shootings, that I’ve lost count. We have concentration camps.
    It’s pretty easy to not be a nazi, put down the flag, stop sig-heiling, and stop promoting white supremacy

  45. voidhawk says

    There’s an angle that I think people are forgetting in all this concern about whether the violence inflicted was justified, and that is…

    It’s a Dropkick Murphys gig.

    The clue about their willingness or not to use violence is in the goddamned name.

  46. says

    If you’re arguing about “proportional responses”, and you think hitting someone with a guitar (an incident that produced no police response or hospital reports) is excessive compared to promoting genocide, then I think your sense of proportion is way off.

    Saying that the guy was an ignorant dumbass is also no excuse. The ranks of neo-Nazis are filled with ignorant dumbasses — that’s their recruitment pool.

  47. latsot says

    Bullshit, PZ. I’m saying that a random idiot doing a nazi salute might not be promoting genocide, he might just be someone who needs education, perhaps not on the end of a plank of fucking wood.

    I agree that we shouldn’t tolerate nazis and nobody should have tolerated his actions but it isn’t me who has the skewed sense of proportion. There are other ways to deal with apparent nazis that do not involve mindless, unthinking violence.

    Glorying in violence against someone you don’t know, whose story you don’t know and when you apparently don’t know anything about the actual situation is seriously fucked up. Violence has its place in fighting nazis and nazi sentiments, certainly. Not here. Your brain is misfiring. There is nothing rational in your applause of violence here.

  48. Rob Grigjanis says

    PZ @57: So if you meet someone at a party who says they’re an exec for Purdue Pharma, or is wearing a t-shirt saying “Climate change is a hoax”, your refined sense of proportion tells you it is appropriate to punch them in the face, or hit them with a guitar? What about an anti-vaxxer? These folks all support shit that is actually harming people as we speak. In the case of the climate denier, we’re talking millions more displaced or dead in the coming years.

  49. aramad says

    49.
    If they are not am immediate threat, then you have no basis for attacking them.
    .

    51.
    Speaking of dishonesty… zenlike, are you going to get on WMDKitty’s case here? I am assuming you are interested in being consistent but maybe that is too generous for you.

    And no, I choose not to fuck off. Maybe if I turned the suggestion on you… WMDKitty, would you mind fucking off? Thanks.
    .

    “it’s all well and fine to argue about the extent of free speech…”
    Excuse me but who here argued that nazi salutes should be permitted? Those of us arguing against assaulting nazis have not objected to ejecting the nazi from the establishment even once.

    “Tolerating white supremacism has real-world consequences”
    Who the fuck has argued for tolerating nazism? Are you seriously equating ‘don’t assault nazis’ with support for nazism?? WTF ar eyou smoking?
    .

    “I’m not convinced that there isn’t an immediate threat.”
    Aha! A claim that a person espousing nazism is necessarily an immediate physical threat. Paging zenlike! Would zenlike like to respond to lochaber?
    .
    “If you’re arguing about “proportional responses”, and you think hitting someone with a guitar (an incident that produced no police response or hospital reports) is excessive compared to promoting genocide, then I think your sense of proportion is way off.”
    And that’s where you get it wrong. A person saying the most awful things imaginable is still merely a person speaking. I’m not suggesting that that speech needs to be tolerated – the band should definitely ahve the guy ejected from the venue without a refund – but even the most awful verbal attack is still not a physical attack. And physical defense is only warranted against physical attack.

  50. says

    I’m saying that a random idiot doing a nazi salute might not be promoting genocide, he might just be someone who needs education, perhaps not on the end of a plank of fucking wood.

    We’re not talking about children who don’t know any better. We’re talking about grown human beings who are perfectly aware of what a nazi salute is.

    Is this really the basis of your argument? He didn’t know?

    There are other ways to deal with apparent nazis that do not involve mindless, unthinking violence.

    Do you really think the discussion in this thread represents mindless, unthinking violence?

    Arguing about tactics is one thing. Arguing that we have to wait around for the people who have told us that they want to kill us to actually kill us, before we’re allowed to use violence in response, is another.

  51. latsot says

    @LykeX

    No. I’m not saying that. Try to read. I’m saying that PZ doesn’t know anything about the guy. He might be a full on nazi with terrible views. He might not be. Advocating extreme violence against someone on the basis of a few seconds of reported behavior is batshit insane, as is your deliberate twisting of my argument.

  52. latsot says

    aramad – keep going. You’re about the only person who is making any sense around here.

  53. zenlike says

    @aramad
    “If they are not am immediate threat, then you have no basis for attacking them.”
    That is of course your worthless opinion, one I obviously don’t share. But nice deflection from your goalpost moving though.

    “zenlike, are you going to get on WMDKitty’s case here? I am assuming you are interested in being consistent but maybe that is too generous for you.”
    Why? How is any of this inconsistent? On the other hand, don’t bother to explain. I don’t expect on honest answer from someone who deliberately conflates “immediate threat” with “threat”, and then deflects to avoid owning up to it.

    “but even the most awful verbal attack is still not a physical attack”
    That is insane. According to this standard, what Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines did was less bad than punching a guy in the face. Hitler never physically attacked someone, but his verbal attacks are way worse than almost every physical attack imaginable. Some people vastly underestimate the power of speech.

  54. latsot says

    @WMDKitty #64:

    aramad — Get bent, Nazi-lover.

    Another brilliant argument, you must be so proud of yourself.

  55. vucodlak says

    @ aramad, #39

    Teehee very funny, but the last time this topic came up, I disticntly recall endorsing things like counterprotests. Ignoring this shows that you are lying, or maybe very forgetful.

    There are always peaceful counter-protests to neo-Nazi marches. I approve of the sentiment behind them, but I’ve seen precious little evidence that they’ve been effective in stopping the spread of fascism.

    Are you stupid?

    Pretty much. The fact that I can still see through your bullshit ought to tell you something.

    consciousness razor specifically said that centrist and pacifist are NOT the same thing.

    And I was agreeing with him! On that small point, anyway. Centrists are not pacifists. Centrists are enablers, apologists, and mealy-mouthed encouragers of and for atrocities. They don’t get their hands dirty, even as they glide smugly through an ocean of blood.

    And as stated, I;m not centrist.

    Did I say you were? My post was, as you so eruditely noted, a screed against centrists. I didn’t name anyone, so if you if saw something of yourself in that screed that you didn’t like, then that’s really your problem, isn’t it?

    From your #47:

    It has been stated by regular commenters, especially by vucodlak, that a person merely identifying as a nazi is assumed to be a physical threat,

    The mere existence of Nazis is a physical threat to anyone who isn’t a Nazi. History offers ample evidence of that. The physical aspect of the threat isn’t always immediate, or immediately apparent, but threat is inherent in the ideology. To express support for the ideology, even as a joke, is to offer a threat.

    You think it’s silly to take something that might just be a joke so seriously? OK, so how many times have we heard “he was always joking and talking about doing a mass shooting” from people close to the shooters in the wake of a mass shooting? It’s become a fucking cliché.

    If we follow your (and latsot’s) logic, then it would be wrong to inform law enforcement (given how trigger-happy and abusive the police are in the US, no one can honestly claim that calling the cops is anything but an act of extreme violence) about someone who talks constantly about shooting a whole lot of people. After all, maybe it’s just a joke!

    It’s not like talking about it constitutes an immediate threat. By your metric, we can’t respond in any way that might be effective in preventing a shooting until they point a gun into a crowd and pull the trigger. After all, lots of people own guns, lots of people carry them everywhere, so until the mass murder is in progress we can’t possibly make any judgements about the shooter, or take any action that might impede them. We cannot take lessons from history, we can’t draw conclusions based on global events, and we can’t make a guess based on personal experiences with other violent people, because it’s possible that this time it’s all just a joke.

  56. latsot says

    @PZ #57:

    (an incident that produced no police response or hospital reports)

    Whoah, back the fuck up there sunshine. Are you saying that if there’s no police or hospital report there’s no victim? You can’t possibly be saying that because in the past you’ve (rightly) believed people who have made complaints against abusers without any such stipulation.
    This is different….how…?

  57. says

    I’m saying that PZ doesn’t know anything about the guy. He might be a full on nazi with terrible views. He might not be.

    He was sure acting like one.

    Advocating extreme violence against someone on the basis of a few seconds of reported behavior is batshit insane

    “Hey, Alan! Kill latsot, too!”

  58. latsot says

    LykeX. Please don’t tell people to kill me.

    I assume it is some sort of joke I don’t understand but it is not fucking funny

  59. says

    It’s not meant to be funny. It’s meant to demonstrate how these things are done. The fact that you have a problem with it means that you understand exactly the point I’m making.

  60. latsot says

    I have a problem with people making death threats against me, yes. That doesn’t relate to anything I’ve said on this or any other thread, ever.

    PZ, is this the kind of thing you think is OK on your blog these days?

  61. vucodlak says

    @ latsot, #52

    They are still idiotic and wrong but they don’t necessarily deserve to be hit with sticks.

    I chose to pull that particular line because I think it sums up the argument you’re making- that maybe this particular person didn’t deserve to be hit with a guitar. I think it also sums up where your argument goes wrong. This isn’t about what anyone “deserves,” because “deserving” is a concept so bereft of meaning as to be worthless.

    Let me offer this analogy:
    Let’s say, as a “joke,” you decide to go walking barefoot into a nest full of baby rattlesnakes, stepping as close as you possibly can to the snakes while being careful not to actually step on the snakes. What’s going to happen is that you’re probably going to die, or at least lose some limbs. Why? Because the rattlesnakes have learned (not really the right word, but close enough) to react to giant creatures stepping close to them as potentially-lethal threats. Those rattlesnakes who didn’t strike tended not to survive to procreate. So those babies are going to strike at you and pump you full of all the venom they have, because history (again not quite the right word, but it works for the analogy) tells them you’re either going to eat them, or simply stomp on them out of ignorance.

    And so, even though you only meant it as a joke, even though you intended no harm, you’re faced with an extremely violent response. You don’t survive this particular joke, not because you deserved to die, but because when people do something really fucking stupid and dangerous they sometimes die.

    Humanity is marginally more sophisticated than a nest of recently-hatched reptiles, which in practice seems to mean that we’re rather slow learners, but we still should have learned our lesson about Nazis by now. It does not matter if the stupid fucker in the OP was just making a joke. This isn’t about punishment or what anyone “deserves;” a violent response to an apparent Nazi is ultimately about survival.

    (Refusing to allow Nazis a presence, even doing so through violent means, is also the right thing to do, but that’s a slightly different discussion.)

  62. says

    @latsot
    Wow. So you’re really going to pretend you don’t get it? Okay, I guess I can pretend for a bit, too:

    What do you mean “death threat”? I never touched you and so I can’t possibly have been making a threat. How could you even begin to judge such thing, based off of a few internet comments? Why, you don’t know anything about me!

    But seriously, whatever threat you believe is being communicated here pales in comparison to a nazi salute, for two basic reasons:

    1) There isn’t actually an “Alan”. I made him up and I give you enough credit to assume that you knew that. In other words, the threat is literally non-existent.
    Compare that with a nazi salute, which attempts to inspire violence from people who very much do exist and have shown their willingness to act on that kind of inspiration.

    2) My statement was directed at a single person, whom I don’t even know. I’m not even sure which continent you’re on. It’s not particularly realistic that I’d be able to do anything to you, even if I wanted to.
    Compare with nazis, who target broad populations, making it easy for any would-be attacker to find an appropriate target and making it similarly difficult for the targets to anticipate or defend against any attack.

    A nazi salute is a credible threat and your continuing attempts to minimize that does you no credit. This isn’t a joke or an intellectual exercise. Nazis are killing people right now, but your main concern is that we don’t go too far in defending ourselves.

    P.S.
    If you’re going to accuse me of misrepresenting you again, please try to explain exactly how and what your position is instead. I feel like that’s getting less clear as the conversation progresses.

  63. consciousness razor says

    Public Service Announcement
    Here is some appropriate terminology for the instrument in question:
    “bass”
    “bass guitar”
    “electric bass”
    “electric bass guitar”
    “fucking electric bass guitar”
    And so forth. The one thing those all have in common? Bass.

    It’s not the same thing as the contrabass/double bass/acoustic bass/upright bass/etc., but it is a bass which is played by a bassist. It’s also not a guitarrón mexicano, a mandobass, a bass banjo, a bass trombone, or a lot of other things for that matter.

    Anyway, if you call that thing “a guitar,” people might give you a weird look.

  64. John Morales says

    cr, not that informative.

    I think of it in terms of sound, not of instruments. And in terms of frequency, not volume.

    More informative: low-pitched sounds, under 1 kilohertz. Musical, presumably.

  65. consciousness razor says

    John, the allegation was that the dude was hit with an instrument, not a sound, and some have said they think this would be acceptable. You could use various names for the thing, but not “guitar,” because that is already understood to mean something else.

    By the way, the range of nearly all common instruments (and voice types) extends below 1 kHz. You can see on the chart there that a piccolo, for example, can go as low as ~523 Hz (i.e., an octave above middle C, which is not very low).

  66. consciousness razor says

    Well, I mainly write the stuff. I don’t do musicological research in a professional capacity very much, so I wouldn’t call myself that.

  67. latsot says

    @vucodlak

    Your ridiculously elaborate analogy is not only not apt but not necessary because it turns out I know that intent isn’t magic. That isn’t my point. I’m perfectly aware that people can do bad things without meaning to. Again, not my point.

    My point is that we probably shouldn’t automatically beat someone with a guitar for doing nazi salutes. I don’t see what that achieves and it is monstrous on the face of it.

    That seems a reasonable enough opinion but around here it gets you death threats. I hope you enjoy crunching on that irony.

  68. latsot says

    @LykeX:

    I figured it was some sort of ‘joke’. I don’t think it’s great to joke about killing people, though, especially if the people is me. The fact that it was probably not a credible direct threat to me is unimportant. What possible reason could you have to make the threat, joke or not? Do you imagine it made some point that argument could not?

    While I don’t think for a second that your childish post will cause me any harm, it’s absolutely true that posts like it have caused much, much harm to other people more vulnerable than I am.

    Stop it, you fucking idiot.

  69. John Morales says

    latsot to vucodlak:

    My point is that we probably shouldn’t automatically beat someone with a guitar for doing nazi salutes.

    Probably not. Not automatically, anyway.

    I don’t see what that achieves and it is monstrous on the face of it.

    Well, it sends a rather pointed message. Also, in terms of monstrousness, it’s pretty minor.

    (Also, it didn’t actually happen, as has been noted here)

    That seems a reasonable enough opinion but around here it gets you death threats.

    You’re either paranoid or disingenuous. Bah.

    I hope you enjoy crunching on that irony.

    Dunno about that, but I sure enjoy crunching on you.

    [PS (personal) your comment at Ophelia’s is a dozen hours or more after mine, but alas, mine is in moderation and so you cannot see it. Shame]

  70. John Morales says

    [PPS latsot, technically, time-stamps are
    * John Morales August 12, 2019 at 6:25 pm
    * latsot August 13, 2019 at 1:54 am
    … so, it just felt like ages till you added your acumen to the comments]

  71. John Morales says

    latsot:

    “While I don’t think for a second that your childish post will cause me any harm [blah]”
    &
    “That seems a reasonable enough opinion but around here it gets you death threats.”

    Heh. “Death threats” wherein you admit you “don’t think for a second that [the] childish post will cause me any harm”.

    Posturing is one thing, telling people you are posturing is another.

    (Performer, you)

  72. latsot says

    John:

    How is that “personal” when I can’t see your post and have no control over its publication?

    Personal to me, personal to you? Either way, why talk about it here, if it’s personal?

    A rhetorical question, of course, I know exactly what the reason is.

    Besides, a person’s blog is not your tool. If they take time approving a comment it might be because of time differences or because you’re a fucking idiot. I’ve no idea which is true in this case, but Ophelia – whether you like her or not – is honest. I expect she’ll publish your post if she thinks it has any value.

  73. latsot says

    Also John: Sorry I didn’t perform to your schedule. Amazing as it might seem some things are more important to me than talking to you. Sleep, relationships, life, my cat are among them.

  74. says

    latsot, would you be willing to estimate the probabilities for following reasons for a grown-up man to throw nazi salute?
    1) for the lulz
    2) because they have no clue
    3) because they support what the gesture represents

    From the way you argue it seems to me like you consider them to be roughly equaly split. Why? Did you ever see a grown up man 1) or 2)? I never did, I only saw 3). Because 1) nazi salute is not funny in any way or form and 2) grown up men in western world cannot avoid learing what it means even if they tried to.

    I never saw a single person to throw nazi salute without being a nazi supporter. Not a single one. Not even among young men drunk out of their skulls did anyone think nazi salute is “lulz” unless they were a nazi.

  75. latsot says

    John the Idiot @ 85:

    Wow, you’ve certainly got me there. Shame you missed the bits about how even jokey threats have been exceedingly harmful in the past. If you’d like some evidence, search this blog.

    Obviously threats can be harmful even when they are not direct threats against a particular person. You know that and are choosing to ignore it to make…. some… point….?

  76. latsot says

    Charlie @88

    I have no idea and neither do you. I happen to err on the side of not hitting people with guitars.

  77. latsot says

    We UK people have a prince who thought it was funny to dress in a nazi uniform at a party.

    He was mildly condemned at the time but everyone seems to have forgotten about it now.

    He’s an arsehole. He’s obviously a racist prick. But should we hit him with guitars whenever we see him? Or is there some better route?

  78. says

    @latsot, I agree people should not be hit with guitars, or basses, or pikollos or any musical instruments whatsoever.

    Throwing nazi salute should be a fineable offense at the very least, and arrestable offense when repeated offense. But if the law in a country is so dysfunctional that nazis can throw their salutes with impunity, then I have no problem with people who respond with violence to an incitement of vioence. And make no mistake, a nazi salute is an incitement to violence, despite your pretense that you do not understand LykeX’s point.

    If you have no clue, then I would recommend to you to engage with the actual reality around you, not with the one you are constructing in your head. There is plenty of examples of nazis throwing nazi salute, but finding one who throws it for genuine joke or not knowing what it means are hard to find.

    And that your racist pampered princeling in UK was treated with kid gloves after showing support for nazis is not an argument, but an example of a state not functioning properly.

  79. Silentbob says

    (off topic)

    @ 86 latsot

    Ophelia – whether you like her or not – is honest.

    I used to believe that. In fact I used to vehemently argue with people who thought otherwise. (Oh, the wistful naiveté of days gone by.)

    Today, it is impossible for anyone with an ounce of integrity, or a passing familiarity with her blog, to see this post, for example, as anything other than a big fat steaming pile of porkies.

    (/off topic)

  80. latsot says

    Oh come on, Charly, you’re talking shit. I said here several times that violence might be an option for countering nazi behaviour but that automatically violently assaulting someone for a nazi salute might not be the best option.

    There really is a case that a nazi saluting idiot might be just an idiot and I think it makes sense to find that out before beating him with a plank of fucking wood.

    And make no mistake, a nazi salute is an incitement to violence, despite your pretense that you do not understand LykeX’s point.

    I’m making no mistake at all. What are you talking about? How can any gesture automatically be an incitement to violence? How exactly would that work? Once again, since you seem to be hard of understanding, I’m not advocating nazi gestures or symbolism, I’m against people doing that. But I can’t buy into the ridiculous idea that someone who does such a thing ought to be violently assaulted by default and that we should all nod our heads in satisfaction when it happens..

  81. Saad says

    latsot, #94

    But I can’t buy into the ridiculous idea that someone who does such a thing ought to be violently assaulted by default and that we should all nod our heads in satisfaction when it happens..

    I certainly nod my head in satisfaction when it happens. But I acknowledge that attacking someone for only doing a Nazi salute isn’t a good way to run society. But neither is not having any legal consequences for it. Nazi/white supremacist displays and speech are and should be treated as threats.

    How can any gesture automatically be an incitement to violence? How exactly would that work?

    Are you a white guy?

  82. latsot says

    And I didn’t say otherwise, #96. Certainly there should be consequences for people who do shitty things. I never for the slightest instant implied otherwise and explicitly said so about nine times.

    Are you a white guy?

    Yes.

  83. says

    @lastot

    There really is a case that a nazi saluting idiot might be just an idiot

    You insist that this is a plausible option to be considered, but you refrain to even roughly estimate the probability of such an option occurring in real life. I have seen no case my whole life, none whatsoever, of some random schmoe doing nazi salute without being an actual racist nazi.

    How can any gesture automatically be an incitement to violence?

    We are not talking about “any” gesture. We are talking about a very specific gesture, which was and is used by a very specific group of people to signal a very specific set of political beliefs and intentions. I am glad to live in a state where someone throwing a nazi salute gets a hefty fine and a caution at least exactly because it is seen as what it is – promoting of nazism. And excuses “for the lulz” or “just an idiot” are not valid as a defense for a person who is legally competent – which anyone able to visit a rock concert is.

    By saying “any gesture” you are just proving that you are dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

  84. consciousness razor says

    Charly:

    would you be willing to estimate the probabilities for following reasons for a grown-up man to throw nazi salute?
    1) for the lulz
    2) because they have no clue
    3) because they support what the gesture represents

    You missed at least one possibility:
    4) because he’s on stage in a large group of people at a rowdy concert, who were all tossing their raised arms around to the beat, so it only happened to (unintentionally) look like that for a few seconds, before someone immediately began attacking him.

    I remember, when I was young and still had to attend mass, at catholic school and with my family, that there was a gesture the congregation began doing in certain situations, which was meant to convey blessings or benevolence or some such. (It was like laying on of hands, collectively and from a distance, without the physical contact … because who needs that when you have “spiritual” contact?) Anyway, everybody held up an arm above shoulder height just like that, while the priest mumbled something inscrutable and probably pointless. It was not about giving a Nazi salute to anyone, nor was it about threatening anybody in any way. It was a gesture: those can mean a lot of things in different contexts or not mean much of anything at all.
    But of course, it was still creepy as fuck, if it occurred to you (as it did to me and other kids, I recall) that it can look an awful lot like a Nazi salute. I don’t know if that is still done anywhere, but this was in a rather sober and sedate and contemplative environment, during catholic mass on multiple occasions. Whether or not they still do it, this was not a well-thought-out idea, given the optics of it.
    But as far as I know, nobody was beaten with any heavy, blunt objects for it. If one of the primary reasons we should despise Nazis is because of their violent history, then violence would not have been a good or coherent response anyway.

  85. aramad says

    “Hey, Alan! Go kill aramad!”
    This is not the winning argument you think it is. Yes, such speech is an incitement to violence… and the correct course of action for such is to call police. Or are you suggesting that the correct course of action to a verbal threat is to physically attack them? My god, this is straight out of a MAGA rally.
    .
    Oh is that your approach? Your dishonesty was highlighted, and you choose to double down. You don’t have much to contribute, do you? But fine, if you get to label people whatever you like, then I assume you’re fine with in return. Ahem… Get bent, convicted paedophile.

    66.
    No, YOUR opinion is worthless! Wow, fun game. And, which goalpost moved? Make the argument instead of silly things.

    And since you ask, the inconsistency is that you claim to be against dishonesty in posts, but you ignore WMDKitty flagrantly lying about me in the post I referenced (51)
    .

  86. aramad says

    “There are always peaceful counter-protests to neo-Nazi marches. I approve of the sentiment behind them, but I’ve seen precious little evidence that they’ve been effective in stopping the spread of fascism.”
    Really? I pointed out an approach that works without being the attacker – getting in front of their march and obstructing them, forcing them to become the attacker or to retreat. Much better than simply attacking them.

    “Did I say you were? My post was, as you so eruditely noted, a screed against centrists. I didn’t name anyone, so if you if saw something of yourself in that screed that you didn’t like, then that’s really your problem, isn’t it?”
    Don’t be an idiot. I was criticizing your post for not addressing anything that was stated by anyone here that I saw. Your long screed against centrists addressed no one, because no one here appears to be one.

    “The mere existence of Nazis is a physical threat to anyone who isn’t a Nazi. History offers ample evidence of that.”
    What proportion of them become violent? Is it 100%?

  87. aramad says

    “Probably not. Not automatically, anyway.” and “Also, it didn’t actually happen, as has been noted here”
    …But it has also been noted that people are cheering on and endorsing the bashing-with-an-instrument, even if it did not happen.

    And now to work.

  88. vucodlak says

    @ latsot, #81

    Your ridiculously elaborate analogy is not only not apt but not necessary because it turns out I know that intent isn’t magic.

    Your entire argument is that we don’t know what the (possibly-joke-)Nazi was intending, and that we should therefore not respond with violence.

    Well ok, that’s not entirely true- that’s just most charitable interpretation of your argument. I was being nice and forgiving but, given your closing paragraph, I won’t make that mistake again.

    My point is that we probably shouldn’t automatically beat someone with a guitar for doing nazi salutes.

    Let us first remember what actually happened- one person took a single swing at a Nazi fuck, which did not connect. Nazi fuck was then escorted out. No beating occurred.

    However, in a couple of tiny ways, I sort of agree with this. First, we shouldn’t automatically go nuclear on people if we aren’t certain where their allegiance lies. If at all possible, one should ask questions like “Are you a Nazi?” If the answer is no, then ask “Why did you give a Nazi salute, then?”

    If it was all a misunderstanding, then simply ask them to be more mindful of their gestures in the future.

    If it was joke, then toss the fucker out on their ear, and don’t allow them in your presence again until they grow a sense of empathy, or at least a better sense of humor.

    In either case, removing them from the spotlight is paramount, and that’s exactly what was done.

    On the other hand, if they are some variety of Nazi then they still shouldn’t be beaten with a musical instrument. That’s not what musical instruments are for, and it can cause lasting harm to the instrument.

    I don’t see what that achieves and it is monstrous on the face of it.

    What it achieves: Beating a Nazi (again, that’s not what happened) makes it clear that Nazis are not tolerated. Beating a jackass who is pretending to be a Nazi who is pretending to be a Nazi for the lulz makes it clear that Nazis, and even pretend-Nazis, are not tolerated.

    Monstrousness: While I’ve never pretended to be anything other than a monster, your standards for what is “monstrous” are pretty fucking warped if you think pretending to be a Nazi (or, more likely, actually being a Nazi) is less monstrous than kicking the ass of an apparent Nazi.

    That seems a reasonable enough opinion but around here it gets you death threats. I hope you enjoy crunching on that irony.

    No one here has threatened your life, and you damn well know it. I wouldn’t have used the rhetorical strategy that LykeX employed because I could have predicted that you’d react by climbing up on a cross and whining that you’re being persecuted. It’s a typical bully tactic, same as claiming that deliberate harm is “just a joke.”

    Pulling shit like that makes it crystal clear why you’re so eager to defend Nazis.

  89. Rob Grigjanis says

    vucodlak @104:

    one person took a single swing at a Nazi fuck, which did not connect.

    So you didn’t see the video? Casey certainly connected with his right fist (not the guitar). The skinhead went down like a sack of spuds.

  90. vucodlak says

    @ aramad, #102

    Really? I pointed out an approach that works without being the attacker – getting in front of their march and obstructing them, forcing them to become the attacker or to retreat.

    I am familiar with your bizarre insistence that the Battle of Cable Street was not a violent antifascist action. I’ve seen the pictures, I’ve the accounts, and it’s clear that you’re full of shit. I have no interest in arguing over this yet again.

    I was criticizing your post for not addressing anything that was stated by anyone here that I saw. Your long screed against centrists addressed no one, because no one here appears to be one.

    Once again I’m left to wonder why someone who insists that they are not a centrist is so invested in telling me what centrists are and are not, as well as when and where I’m permitted talk about them.

    Centrists have been known to read and comment here. They tend to get banned, but they can still read. Did any read my little screed? I cannot say. But since they’d been mentioned in not-entirely-negative terms, I felt that someone should remind them that we know what they are.

    It’s impossible for the white moderate centrist to hear that they’re disingenuous pieces of crap too often.

    What proportion of them become violent? Is it 100%?

    One hundred percent of Nazis are violent. Asking “what proportion of them become violent?” is like asking “what proportion of liquid water becomes wet?” You can’t embrace an ideology based on exterminating or enslaving everyone who isn’t exactly like you and honestly claim you’re nonviolent.

  91. vucodlak says

    @ Rob Grigjanis, #106

    So you didn’t see the video? Casey certainly connected with his right fist (not the guitar). The skinhead went down like a sack of spuds.

    Ooh, you got me! I should have specified that the swing with a bass didn’t connect. Beyond that, I honestly can’t see a lot of what’s happening in the video provided (I watched it twice before I made the comment you’re responding to). If you say someone punched the Nazi, I’ll take your word for it. Looked like a shove knocked him on his ass to me, but I could be wrong.

    From my #104:

    Let us first remember what actually happened- one person took a single swing at a Nazi fuck, which did not connect. Nazi fuck was then escorted out. No beating occurred.

    I’ll amend my statement to- one person knocked a Nazi on their ass with either a shove or a punch, then took a single swing with a bass at a Nazi, which did not connect. Possibly other things happened in the jumble of flailing bodies and flashing lights. Nazi fuck was escorted out. To the best of my ability, I cannot see a beating in the provided video. I can say with confidence that no beating with a musical instrument occurred, but the Nazi might have been punched. Maybe even twice. As I say, I’m honestly not sure.

    Also, because the Nazi does not have a microphone, I cannot tell what (if anything) he is saying up there. He appears to be saying something, but I suppose we’ll never know what it was, though it might have cleared things up. Or not.

  92. zenlike says

    aramad @100

    No, YOUR opinion is worthless! Wow, fun game.

    That is your takeaway from my comment? I honestly can’t tell if your reading comprehension is just that ridiculously bad, or that you are not here here to argue in anything resembling good faith.

    And, which goalpost moved? Make the argument instead of silly things.

    Changing you claim from “immediate threat” to “threat”, as I pointed out in the comment your reacted to.

    And since you ask, the inconsistency is that you claim to be against dishonesty in posts

    You made a dishonest claim about me. I reacted to it. Me not reacting to an unrelated comment is not “inconsistent” in the least.

  93. says

    Okay. So, I can feel my energy for this discussion wavering, so I’m going to wrap things up. Let me start with setting this point straight:

    I figured it was some sort of ‘joke’.

    I specifically said it wasn’t a joke. I don’t think there’s anything funny about it. I was making a point. You might not like how I made it (obviously), but it was made, you understood it, and it seems to me that you’re now avoiding it.

    Clearly, a few seconds of behaviour (the words I responded to, if you care to check) can be enough to make a fair judgment about what someone might do. It doesn’t even have to be a physical attack. A gesture or a word can be quite enough, if there’s a ready-made base to pick up on the message. The line between a physical threat and a verbal threat is not as neat and clear as you might like.

    Giving a nazi salute is making a threat. The purpose of it is to create community among nazis and inspire murderous action. No discussion is possible if you’re going to deny that reality. You could argue about how immediate the threat is, but I’m not sure that’ll get you anywhere. The threat is there and that’s that.

    You seemed quite capable of picking up on it when it was directed at you, even though it was just one single line of text. No physical action at all. Only a matter of seconds.

    How can any gesture automatically be an incitement to violence? How exactly would that work?

    I could demonstrate very easily, but you’ve asked me to stop that, so I guess I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

    Instead, I’ll focus on another thing: You’ve let an “automatically” sneak in. Obviously, no gesture “automatically” communicates incitement to violence. It requires a group of people who share some sort of gestural language. But once you have that, it’s so ludicrous straightforward, that I have to wonder if that question was asked in good faith.

    You might say that’s a minor issue, except, going through the thread, I noticed it’s happened before:

    I said here several times that violence might be an option for countering nazi behaviour but that automatically violently assaulting someone for a nazi salute might not be the best option.

    There’s that “automatically” again. Who said that? Who said that we can’t take circumstances into consideration and that we must respond with immediate violence in all cases? Who, aside from you, said that it had to be automatic?

    Then there’s this:

    But I can’t buy into the ridiculous idea that someone who does such a thing ought to be violently assaulted by default

    Who argued that it should be default? You’re the one arguing that a certain course of action is illegitimate, not us. Nobody is telling you that you have to punch the nazi.

    And then I noticed this bit:

    He’s an arsehole. He’s obviously a racist prick. But should we hit him with guitars whenever we see him?

    Who introduced this notion of “whenever we see him”? Even after he has stopped the behaviour in question? Oh, it was just you? Nobody else? How about that.

    And, to top it off, there’s actually another one. Remember that “few seconds of behaviour” thing? Your exact words were “a few seconds of reported behavior”. There’s another one of those words that just pop out of nowhere. As if people were saying we should hunt down people for being nazis on the basis of rumours, rather than what the actual situation was; immediate and seen with the participants’ own eyes.

    I can’t help but notice how these cases all form a pattern, and how that pattern is consistent with another comment you made. The one about “mindless, unthinking violence”. In all these cases, you’re depicting us as unreasoning brutes, who mandate indiscriminate violence at all cost. That’s not actually what anyone is saying.

    So, I guess I’ll round this off with something I tried to ask earlier: Regardless of our disagreements, do you stand by your characterization of us as mindless and unthinking?

    @vucodlak

    I wouldn’t have used the rhetorical strategy that LykeX employed because I could have predicted that you’d react by climbing up on a cross and whining that you’re being persecuted.

    In hindsight, I should have predicted that, too. Sometimes I forget that other people’s heads don’t work the same way mine does.

  94. aramad says

    “Let us first remember what actually happened- one person took a single swing at a Nazi fuck, which did not connect. Nazi fuck was then escorted out. No beating occurred.”
    I don’t know what footage you watched but that is not accurate. What ACTUALLY happened: the guy was shoved to the ground, and then there was a scuffle where at least one punch was thrown, but we can see very little due to the press of bodies. The article quoted in OP states that the bassist came back with a torn shirt so it seems the physical scuffle continued out of sight. We specifically do NOT know that only one punch was thrown, nor what happened to the nazi after he was lost to sight.

    And again I reiterate that it doesn’t matter if he was beaten or not; I am surveying this thread and seeing many people endorsing the beating which may or may not have occurred, including PZ. That bloodlust is what I and latsot and Crip Dyke (and possibly others) are arguing against.

    “No one here has threatened your life, and you damn well know it.”
    By that same token, nor did the nazi threaten the life of anyone.

  95. aramad says

    That reply was directed at comment 104… I don’t know how the number fell off it, I was sure I wrote that at the start.

  96. aramad says

    I am saying that no person should be assaulted. If that means I love nazis, then I also love antifa, gays, lesbians, trans*, women, men, disabled, able-bodied, ethnic minorities, religious minorities… In short, it means I love people.

    Which is not so bad.

    But you choose to put me on the side of nazis, and the people on your side – those arguing with you that nazis should be beaten – seem to be fine with that, even though some have stated a dislike of dishonesty.

    Also, have you read Crip Dyke’s stance on the matter? Is she a nazi lover, or are your friends immune?

  97. aramad says

    What the hell… I definitely started that post off with “105.” at the top, but it was snipped off by I guess wordpress for some reason. Anyway, that post was directed at post 105 by WMDKitty.

  98. aramad says

    Comment 107 (Maybe it won’t be snipped off if there is text with it?)
    “I am familiar with your bizarre insistence that the Battle of Cable Street was not a violent antifascist action. I’ve seen the pictures, I’ve the accounts, and it’s clear that you’re full of shit. I have no interest in arguing over this yet again.”
    Probably for the best from your perspective, as you are wrong. Getting in front of a march and forcing them to choose between attacking or retreating is plainly not an initiation of violence. it is a dare to the others to be the initiator.

    “Once again I’m left to wonder why someone who insists that they are not a centrist is so invested in telling me what centrists are and are not, as well as when and where I’m permitted talk about them.”
    Two acts of dishonesty, or possibly sloppy thinking.
    1. I did not tell you “what centrists are or are not,” I stated that none had appeared in the thread and so your post was seemingly addressing no one here. You even quoted text saying this!
    2. In no way did I talk about whether this was a matter of permission, this is entirely your invention. Again, I said that your screed against centrists appeared to be without point on the basis that you were addressing no one.

    Sheesh! You can talk to all sorts of people that aren’t here if you really want.

    “One hundred percent of Nazis are violent.”
    Ah. Lying confirmed.

  99. aramad says

    comment 109 “That is your takeaway from my comment?”
    Anyone with some basic level of reading comprehension would see what I was driving at: the passage I was referring to in comment 66 post was heavy on dismissiveness but light on reasoned argument.

    And as I mentioned later, if someone is not an immediate threat, they do not warrant violence as the condition for violence employed for self defense is not present.

  100. aramad says

    Sorry for SIX posts in a row, but… I’d really like to see word from PZ regarding the use of sexis slurs on this blog. I recall them being shot down in the past, even when used to describe the nastiest of nasties, but perhaps things have changed.

  101. says

    I am saying that no person should be assaulted.

    It’s a worthy goal, to be sure, but how do you intend to achieve that? I mean, given the actual world we live in, not some idealized fantasy, how do you, practically, intend to achieve that?

  102. says

    Aramad — you still haven’t pointed out where I “lied”. You have repeatedly stated that Nazis are not, in fact, a threat.

    I — as a disabled person, a queer person, and a nonbinary person — feel that Nazis, in any number other than zero, to be an imminent threat to my health, my safety, and my life. Because history shows that disabled people and queer people tend to be the first marched off for extermination.

  103. lochaber says

    “One hundred percent of Nazis are violent.”
    Ah. Lying confirmed.

    This is as much of a lie as stating that book-readers are literate.

    promoting white supremacy, promoting white nationalism, and promoting genocide are all a form of violence.

    For too long, most people tried the “ignore them and they will go away” approach, and look where it got us.
    We’ve got so many racially motivated mass shooters that I’ve lost count long ago.
    For fuck’s sake, we have concentration camps on the border. CONCENTRATION CAMPS. multiple. that people have died in. that children have died in.

    This is the sorta shit that happens when nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, or whatever label you attach to them, are ignored, tolerated, and allowed to spread their hate. And it’s only going to get worse.

    what do you call a table with a nazi and 10 people talking?
    a table with 11 nazis.

    I usually lurk, and rarely comment, but I’m beginning to notice certain user names keep showing up in threads like these, and they often seem to be defending nazis and bigots.

  104. says

    I love people who argue that the meaning of the Hitlergruß depends on the intentions of the one throwing it, which only they know in their heart of hearts and we can therefore not decipher the meaning of the Hitlergruß or take actions against people doing it. Probably the same people who tell us that we mustn’t call Trump supporters racist because maybe they support him because of economic anxiety…
    Or as Humpty Dumpty said: “When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean!”

    Now, I don’t know about aramad, but in latsot’s case it’s deeply unsurprising. The ties and parallels between TERFs and the extreme right have by now been well documented, regardless of how much “plausible deniability” and smoke screens they’re claiming. “Protect women” by protecting Nazis my ass.

  105. consciousness razor says

    LykeX:

    I mean, given the actual world we live in, not some idealized fantasy, how do you, practically, intend to achieve that?

    Seriously? I have not assaulted anyone in my life. I’ve had to defend myself a few times when I was the one being assaulted, although even then it’s about causing minimal harm and getting myself out of the situation.
    Apparently, one way to achieve that is whatever sort of thing I’ve been doing for the last few decades. Whatever you want to call it, my life sure as fuck hasn’t been an idealized fantasy. I wouldn’t say it took much effort for me, to not assault people or to be nonviolent…. Maybe you should actually try it out, instead of just sitting there and telling us that you assume it can’t work. Then you’ll get your answer.

  106. says

    I have not assaulted anyone in my life.

    Good for you, but that doesn’t lead to a world where nobody is being assaulted. It just leads to one where nobody is being assaulted by you. If that’s the extent of your ambition, then congratulations, you’re done. However, if the goal is to attain a world where nobody is being assaulted by anyone at all, then your method won’t work.

    Since this whole discussion is about nazis, who certainly don’t follow your philosophy or are very likely to be convinced to, I don’t see how your comment is at all relevant.

  107. aramad says

    119.
    Yes I did, I pointed out that your characterization of me is dishonest – I have advised against assaulting people, including nazis, and you have concluded that I love nazis. Or at least, that is dishonesty or incredible stupidity.

    And as I mentioned, Crip Dyke shares my aversion to violence against nazis… any word on her being a nazi-lover?

  108. aramad says

    “promoting white supremacy, promoting white nationalism, and promoting genocide are all a form of violence.”
    Yes I know you are playing games with words, no need to repeat them when called on it.

    “For fuck’s sake, we have concentration camps on the border.”
    And how does an assault against a nazi-saluting schlub solve that?

    “I usually lurk, and rarely comment, but I’m beginning to notice certain user names keep showing up in threads like these, and they often seem to be defending nazis and bigots.”
    Critical omission: defending nazis and bigots from assault. Very different spin.

  109. aramad says

    “I love people who argue that the meaning of the Hitlergruß depends on the intentions of the one throwing it,” – 121.
    (Maybe if I post the post number after the quote it won’t be snipped)
    So do you have a crystal ball? Tarot? Tea leaves? Or maybe something else; whatever it is, I’d love to know the method by which you know which ones go on to be violent.

  110. chigau (違う) says

    aramad #126
    You might also try including the nym of the commenter.
    and using <blockquote>paste quote here</blockquote>

  111. vucodlak says

    @ aramad, #111

    I don’t know what footage you watched but that is not accurate.

    Yes, what I wrote there does leave out rather a lot, which is why I corrected myself in #108. Given that you read and responded to comments 107 and 109, I’m sure you’re already aware of that.

    That bloodlust is what I and latsot and Crip Dyke (and possibly others) are arguing against.

    Crip Dyke makes a nuanced argument, which she presents as her personal opinion. She doesn’t believe Nazis should be subjected to potentially skull-cracking violence just for saluting, but she’s fine with shoving/dragging them off the stage. She clearly understands the threat Nazis represent, and she is honest. I may not entirely agree with her, but hers is an argument presented in good faith, and one which I can respect.

    You, on the other hand, are at best a fool who carries water for Nazis because you don’t know any better, which is entirely inexcusable at this point in history.

    And just to clarify- I don’t lust for Nazi blood, or the blood of anyone else. I just want to live my life, which is precisely what I was doing when a pack of Nazi skinheads cornered me and a dear friend of mine, took us back to their meth-lab/lair, and tortured us. If not for the intervention of other friends of ours, they’d have murdered us as well.

    If you’d asked me before that night I’d probably have said that I thought most neo-Nazis don’t really mean it. That it was all just an affectation, and that they weren’t really a threat. I know better now. They really do mean it, and they’re all just waiting for a chance to commit mind-boggling atrocities. They mean to kill us all, and if we tolerate Nazis being Nazis in the public sphere they will find a way to do it.

    By that same token, nor did the nazi threaten the life of anyone.

    “If I ignore what it means to be Nazi, I can pretend this is true!” –except that people here largely know that this is utter bullshit.

    There is no such thing as a nonviolent Nazi. To shape your identity around an ideology of extermination and enslavement necessitates adopting a violent disposition, and to espouse National Socialism in any way is an act of violence. Toleration of even the smallest act of Nazism leads to escalation on the part of the Nazis.

    From your #113:

    I also love antifa, gays, lesbians, trans*, women, men, disabled, able-bodied, ethnic minorities, religious minorities…

    You come here and tell us that you know better than we do what our lived experiences are, and that we shouldn’t fight back unless we do it on your nonsensical terms. You engage in lies and gaslighting, you move the goalposts constantly, and generally argue in bad faith for the good of Nazis. Then you condescendingly pat their victims on the head and tell us you love us.

    Well then, in the spirit of love, I will tell you something I appreciated about the Nazis I’ve met- they were honest enough to tell me they hated me and wanted me to die when they were beating ever-loving fuck out of me. That puts them one up on you.

    Fuck off.

  112. says

    aramad — and yet you continue to defend Nazis. You even compared them to the minority groups — trans, queer, disabled, etc. — that they want to exterminate!

    I’ve not lied about you.

    You, however, have continually lied in your responses.

  113. consciousness razor says

    but that doesn’t lead to a world where nobody is being assaulted.

    Then I guess you’re the one living in fantasy land. Nothing under our control leads to a world where nobody is being assaulted.
    Evidently, that’s also what your objections amount to: nothing.
    I can control what I do, and I can try to influence others. Indeed, that’s why I’m communicating to people in this thread who I barely know anything about. What you’re doing here is encouraging more violence, not less. That has never worked to reduce (much less eliminate) violence, which should come as no surprise at all. But you can crack open a history book, if you don’t feel like listening to me. Whatever you do, you should know the evidence is in, and it doesn’t in any way support your position.

  114. says

    Sounds to me like we’re back to “…we have to wait around for the people who have told us that they want to kill us to actually kill us, before we’re allowed to use violence in response” (quoting myself from up-thread).

    Also, quick clarification: Are you disavowing the notion that the goal is to achieve a world where no person is assaulted? Because that was the bit I was arguing about here (starting from #118, responding to aramad) and if you’re simply going to deny the premise that I’m responding to, then go argue with aramad instead of me.

  115. aramad says

    vucodlak #128 (good suggestion chigau, still not going for code though)
    “Yes, what I wrote there does leave out rather a lot, which is why I corrected myself in #108. Given that you read and responded to comments 107 and 109, I’m sure you’re already aware of that.”
    I will dispute your account of events very slightly: he didn’t even take a swing with his guitar meaning to hit the guy at all! He swung the strap off his shoulder and dumped the guitar behind him. But that is irrelevant, I’ve said I think twice already that I am responding to people’s advocacy of assault in general, and assault with a guitar in particular, even though the bassist didn’t actually connect.

    “You, on the other hand, are at best a fool who carries water for Nazis because you don’t know any better, which is entirely inexcusable at this point in history.”
    But since Crip and I are advocating for the same or very similar positions – disagreement with the reasons argued here advocating for assault-with-guitars – you castigating me but sparing her is a case of special pleading. Probably because she is a regular here on good terms with other regulars here, while I delurked recently and specifically to disagree with the regulars on this subject.

    This dishonesty becomes even mroe apparent with further selections of your post: “If I ignore what it means to be Nazi, I can pretend this is true!” As a paraphrase of my position, this is blatantly false as I have never set aside what nazism is. You keep mistaking your spin on what I wrote for what I actually wrote.

    “There is no such thing as a nonviolent Nazi.”
    Yes there is. A nazi that does not engage in violence (as distinct from speech) is a non violent nazi. Calling violent rhetoric actual violence is a very obvious game of equivocation.

    “You come here and tell us that you know better than we do what our lived experiences are…”
    Nope, sorry, this is just a lie. I have not made that claim even once.

    “Well then, in the spirit of love, I will tell you something I appreciated about the Nazis I’ve met- they were honest enough to tell me they hated me and wanted me to die when they were beating ever-loving fuck out of me. That puts them one up on you.

    Fuck off.”
    You’re an idiot.

  116. aramad says

    WMDKitty #129
    “aramad — and yet you continue to defend Nazis. You even compared them to the minority groups — trans, queer, disabled, etc. — that they want to exterminate!”
    Yeah, they all qualify for the statement “no person should be assaulted.” That is, they are all persons. And yet here you are presenting that as an explicit defense of nazism! Are you just totally incapable of honest engagement? Are you really this bad at thinking??

    “I’ve not lied about you.”
    I documented several instances of your dishonest arguments.

    “You, however, have continually lied in your responses.”
    And you have not documented any such thing in my posts. Holy shit conversation with you is worthless.

  117. aramad says

    LykeX #123
    “Good for you, but that doesn’t lead to a world where nobody is being assaulted.”
    I never claimed it would, there are always people that will justify assault to themselves. Nazis and you are making that same mistake.

    “Sounds to me like we’re back to “…we have to wait around for the people who have told us that they want to kill us to actually kill us, before we’re allowed to use violence in response” (quoting myself from up-thread).”
    That’s an extremely silly rephrasing of “you don’t get to attack people.”

  118. says

    @aramad
    I guess I don’t really see why allowing the nazi to punch someone else is morally superior to punching said nazi. I’m perfectly happy to not punch anyone, provided everyone else agrees to the same thing. Nazis don’t.

    The only way your position makes sense is if you ignore what they have told us they want to do to the rest of us; what they are egging each other on to do, every time such a salute is given in public.

    Whether or not a nazi is physically violent is only a question of timing and opportunity. Once the threat is clear, I don’t see why we need to give them more time to find that opportunity.

  119. vucodlak says

    @ aramad, #133

    But since Crip and I are advocating for the same or very similar positions – disagreement with the reasons argued here advocating for assault-with-guitars – you castigating me but sparing her is a case of special pleading.

    Once again, you forget that WE CAN SEE EVERYTHING YOU’VE WRITTEN IN THE GODDAMN THREAD. Jesus Fucking Christmas Dildos, if you’re gonna gaslight me, you’re going to have to get a lot better at it than this…
    …from your #27, your first comment in this thread:

    No it isn’t. The guy engaged in political speech; physical reprisal is an escalation.

    Let’s compare that to…
    …Crip Dyke’s #36, her first comment in this thread:

    Pushing someone off the stage is also assault, but I’m fine with that. Grabbing hold and dragging them offstage? Also fine with that.

    You decry physical reprisal. Crip Dyke argues for moderation in physical reprisal. Crip Dyke literally says “I’m fine with [pushing the Nazi off the stage].”

    You’re not getting any respect because you are a liar. A bad one, who chooses to lie specifically in defense of Nazis.

    Back to your #133:

    Yes there is. A nazi that does not engage in violence (as distinct from speech) is a non violent nazi.

    I’m thoroughly sick of talking to you, so I’ll let Edward Burmila respond to this nonsense.
    From: White Supremacy Is Terrorism, Not a Difference of Opinion – The Nation

    This is where law enforcement, elected officials, the media, and much of the country get it wrong about white supremacy. The ideology is violence, and its adherents are by definition a threat. Their presence makes other people—people of color, people of targeted religions—unsafe. White supremacy is treated as a difference of political opinion instead of as terrorism. People who devote their lives to purging “their” country of nonwhites are a threat; their presence at a community event makes others unsafe.

    Again, for emphasis: White supremacy is violence. Which means that this statement by you-

    As a paraphrase of my position, this is blatantly false as I have never set aside what nazism is.

    -is an out and out lie. You have repeatedly stated that Nazism is merely a political opinion. You said as much twice in your first comment in this thread, here (from #27):

    Oh wow, a few weeks ago it was coming up with excuses for an arsonist, now we have open celebration of assault with a weapon against a guy for… proclaiming his politics.

    …and here:

    The guy engaged in political speech;

    You’ve repeated this assertion throughout the thread. Nazism is just “politics.” You place an ideology based on the enslavement and extermination of everyone Nazis deem ‘lesser people’ into the same category of benignity as discussions of bond issues and financial regulations. You have repeatedly stated that a declaration of this exterminationist ideology is not violence. A person saying “I’m going to kill you all the first chance I get” is no different than someone saying “I think the new half-cent sales tax will be a real boon to our local schools.” After all, it’s all just politics!

    You have, in other words, completely set aside what Nazism is. You defend them, by minimizing and trivializing the threat they pose. Do you think the Nazis will spare you and yours for your milquetoast defense of them? Do you think they’ll moderate their plans, if you’re nice enough to them? Because they won’t, on either account.

    Stop this nonsense. Especially stop lying for Nazis.

  120. jefrir says

    Aramad

    Yes there is. A nazi that does not engage in violence (as distinct from speech) is a non violent nazi. Calling violent rhetoric actual violence is a very obvious game of equivocation.

    So was Hitler a non-violent Nazi? Would it be illegitimate to use violence against him? As far as I’m aware, he didn’t carry out any violence personally.

  121. aramad says

    WMDKitty #136
    Continued refusal to point to any supposed lie I’ve made, you’re just blurting random things now.

    “Nazis are inherently a threat to minorities, and therefore are exempt from “nobody should be hit.””
    If that is the depth of your thought process, I guess you also want people to assault every conservative, right? They all endorse politics which “are inherently a threat to minorities” after all.

  122. aramad says

    LykeX #137 “I guess I don’t really see why allowing the nazi to punch someone else is morally superior to punching said nazi.”
    Stop right there, I have said repeatedly in previous editions of this argument that an immediate physical threat is grounds for self defense. You are responding to a strawman made of your own misremembering.

  123. aramad says

    vucodlak #138 “You decry physical reprisal. Crip Dyke argues for moderation in physical reprisal.”

    …Do you even know what reprisal means? It means revenge, punishment, retaliation etc. I made it abundantly clear that I am against assault, just reread the post #27 – you know, the post that you quoted – and you will see me specify assault and battery as the things I oppose. A quick skim of some more posts and you will see me endorse the the guy being ejected from premises. To imply that Crip Dyke is so incredibly nuanced for endorsing ejecting the guy from the premises is to overlook that I said the same thing.

    I leave it to you whether you overlooked that out of forgetfulness, scattered thinking, or as a deliberately dishonest act.

    “You’re not getting any respect because you are a liar. A bad one, who chooses to lie specifically in defense of Nazis.”
    This is pretty funny, given that in the course of tracking down my supposed lie, you omitted clarifying text in the very same post you quoted from.

    “I’m thoroughly sick of talking to you, so I’ll let Edward Burmila respond to this nonsense.”
    I don’t know why you bothered, he only said the same silly shit you’ve been bumbling about, which I have already addressed.

  124. aramad says

    jefrir #139 “So was Hitler a non-violent Nazi?”
    Are you seriously comparing a guy nazi-saluting on stage to Hitler? Or are you trying to imply I’m against the war to thwart Hitler? FFS man.

  125. says

    @aramad

    “Conservative” is a very wide political umbrella that does not necessarily in all historical and contemporary contexts mean promotion of policies harmful to minorities.

    “Nazi” however is a very specific term which, by definition, means a person following an ideology ideology that promotes literal extermination of disabled, non-cis-hetero and non-white people (non-white as defined by the nazi).

    A nazi who does not engage in violence is a nazi who does not, at this moment, engage in violence. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not make them nonviolent. “Not engagin in violence at the moment” ≠ “nonviolent”.

    Breivik did not engage in violence – until he did. He does not engage in violence now (AFAIK). But still he was, and is, a violent person. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Henlein, Hess – those too did not, personally, engae in violence. But they espoused it, endorsed it and incited it with violent rhetoric. They were violent. Violent by proxy perhaps, but violent all the same.

    So in conclusion it is you who engages in

    obvious game of equivocation

    and projecting your faulty reasoning onto others.

    Nazis are violent. A non-violent nazi is a contradicition in terms.

  126. says

    I have said repeatedly in previous editions of this argument that an immediate physical threat is grounds for self defense

    They want to murder us. They’ve told us that repeatedly. They’ve shown they’re serious about it… by ACTUALLY MURDERING PEOPLE. This isn’t ancient history, it’s right now.

    But sure, you wait around until they have you at gunpoint before you fight back. Let me know how that goes.

  127. aramad says

    @Charly
    I was replying to WMDKitty, who said “______ are inherently a threat to minorities, and therefore are exempt from “nobody should be hit.”” She said Nazis in that blank, but if we follow her logic we can insert any group into that blank provided they are a threat to minorities. Conservatives fulfill that criteria, but you could choose other terms if you wish. Anti-abortion activists, ICE officials, anti-vax idiots… they all fulfill WMD’s stated criteria for punching.

    “Breivik did not engage in violence – until he did. He does not engage in violence now (AFAIK). But still he was, and is, a violent person.”
    Let’s go with that and see where it takes us. if Anders is a violent person, and if being a violent person qualifies him for random assaults, you are suggesting that we get to assault Anders – and any other prisoner convicted on violence – whenever we want. You are greenlighting corporal punishment for anyone with a violent conviction.

  128. aramad says

    @LykeX
    “They want to murder us. They’ve told us that repeatedly. They’ve shown they’re serious about it… by ACTUALLY MURDERING PEOPLE.”
    Some of them murdered people, what about the others? A nazi that remains on 8chan without doing anything in the real world has done nothing violent.

  129. says

    Some of them murdered people, what about the others?

    Only some of the people in the group explicitly formed around an ideology of genocide have actually murdered people so far, so how dare I assume a violent intent on the part of the other people in that group?

    <

    blockquote>A nazi that remains on 8chan without doing anything in the real world has done nothing violent./blockquote>Other than encouraging other nazis to commit murderous attacks. Violence needn’t be direct to cause harm. This is not the first time this fact has been mentioned.

    You are greenlighting corporal punishment for anyone with a violent conviction.

    “Having committed violence in the past” and “stating publicly that you intend violence in the future” are hardly the same thing.

    You’re still pretending nazis are just random people. You’re pretending that “nazi” doesn’t mean anything at all. Nothing you say makes any sense once you factor in that we’re talking about people who have made a conscious choice to publicly support an ideology that advocates the extermination of the majority of humanity.

    Snap the fuck out of it.

  130. says

    amarad, please do not lie about what you said and what others said in response. It does not work.
    For example I am nowhere greenlighting assaulting people wherever we want, that is flat out lie.
    In case of Breivik, no action is necessary anymore because he is behind bars where he has no potential to cause harm.
    Further you are qouting WMDKitty selectively, by plucking one sentence out of context. The “threat” they talk about is the threat of extermination. You are disingenuously expanding this very specific and concrete threat to mean “any” threat.

    But in case of actual nazis, here in Europe they are in fact assaulted if they publicly declare that they are nazis. That assault is called “an arrest” and that is how it should be done.

  131. aramad says

    @LykeX “Violence needn’t be direct to cause harm. This is not the first time this fact has been mentioned.”
    Nor the point that speech is itself not violence. I addressed your asinine point about calls to violence too, all the way back in 102.

    ““Having committed violence in the past” and “stating publicly that you intend violence in the future” are hardly the same thing.”
    I was replying to Charly, who made no such distinction. She said that a person who has committed violence in the past is violent, and violent people can be assaulted. Ergo, all people convicted of violence can be assaulted.

  132. aramad says

    @Charly “amarad, please do not lie about what you said and what others said in response. It does not work.”
    I didn’t, I directly quoted people and presented the consequences of the points made.

    “In case of Breivik, no action is necessary anymore because he is behind bars where he has no potential to cause harm.”
    You made the point that a person who has committed violence in the past is violent in the present, irrespective of their present actions, in support of the point that we get to assault nazis (they are violent even without taking violent action, therefore attacking them is self defense against their implicit violence). This is the obvious consequence of such reasoning: justification of assault against anyone deemed violent by your stated criteria.

    “You are disingenuously expanding this very specific and concrete threat to mean “any” threat.”
    Not disingenuous at all. She stated that exemption from “nobody should be hit” is the result, specifically, of their being a threat to minorities. If she does not want her reasoning to be broadly applied, then she should state her reasoning in a manner that is not so broadly applicable!

    “But in case of actual nazis, here in Europe they are in fact assaulted if they publicly declare that they are nazis. That assault is called “an arrest” and that is how it should be done.”
    Speaking of dishonest equivocation, an arrest is absolutely not assault.

  133. aramad says

    By the way, any official word yet on whether twat is an accepted part of discourse here? In more sensible times it was considered bad, but it seems it is fine these days.

  134. says

    And my reasoning applies to ANY group calling for the extermination of minorities, sweetie. Nazis, White Nationalists, all of their ilk are just violence waiting to happen.

  135. aramad says

    See now it is obvious that you are just deliberately trolling. Misgendering you? Okay, I thought you were she/her for some reason and now you are telling that is incorrect. Fine. But deliberate misgendering? Don’t be ridiculous, I would first need to know your gender in order for that to be deliberate.

    Are you getting desperate to make something stick on me?

  136. aramad says

    Actually, I didn’t notice. But trying to put deliberate misgendering on me shows only your continued mendacity.

  137. aramad says

    So it’s not enough for you to lie about my statements in this thread, it’s not enough that you lie about my politics and motive, you’re now lying about my own knowledge. The one constant with you is dishonest engagement.

  138. aramad says

    I documented your dishonesty, you’re just being a child about it because you have no other defense.

  139. aramad says

    I quoted you and pointed out the dishonesty in what you said. You are now repeating that lie even after it has been pointed out, removing all doubt as to your lack of integrity.

  140. aramad says

    Yes, the lie of yours I documented and explained long ago, which you repeated just two comments ago, that’s the one.

    But you’re so childish that you can’t be conversed with. You’ll probably even reply purely to have the last word (and lie about me again):

Leave a Reply