> I lost a great many friends just because I don't think it's okay to punch people. Good riddance honestly.
I doubt you lost the friends for that. You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this. While people can be pretty unreasonable, I would be cautious to paint them even more so. It's only going to strengthen any divide on issues that likely caused you to lose the friends.
Another part is the context of the argument. I'm pretty against punching people too. I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support. What issues you choose to be outspoken about is a statement in itself.
Edit: This is all context based. See OP's thread below for specifics.
> You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this
there it is, the whole problem with the current hate epidemic in the USA. "if you're not against them you're one of them" and critical thinking be damned, coupled it "everyone in the other side is [x]" where x is anything but decent human with differing opinions, which is a well known tactic to wear empathy and cause conflict to erupt.
the moment either side will gain critical mass such as to be impossible to be policed you'll lose your democracy, so beware of people thinking it's fair to go above the law to crush an idea, because while there are people with despicable ideas like Spencer, the mob won't actually stop judging case be case and will leash to anyone that's not "one of us". it's already happening, with people actively trying to scare voters of a party to hide in fear, and if you think that's good for democracy, well, let's hope you're in the minority.
> where x is anything but decent human with differing opinions
People wearing swastikas are not decent humans. People calling for the subjugation of other races or minorities are not decent humans. There is no nuance here.
you're right and I didn't ever claimed that, read further to find
> despicable ideas
we can all agree that most of their ideas are from outrageous to sheer folly (racial superiority, eugenics, blood and soil, you name it).
However, here's the thing: calling Nazis Nazis is fine and punching Nazis is, let's say, in a moral grey area subject to personal interpretation, being at least outside of law. but my own gripe is not with the whole "punching a Nazi" thing, it's whom decide someone classify as a Nazi. Some groups are self evident, being self proclaimed; fine, fair targets. Some group share most of the ideas publicly, so no escaping there from the label. Some person share some of the ideas, maybe not even the most outrageous, say, supports closing borders or just support legal immigration. Some person are guilt by association.
Where do you draw the line? Person are quite rational and I expect somewhere between the spectrum there's a 'too much of a Nazi' at which you get into this sort of 'punchable' level of naziness, or something. But where would an angry mob draw the line? An antifa death squad fueled by all these 'they're subhumans' 'punch a nazi' slogans? You're basically merging extra-judiciary executive power with rage fueled irrationality, and that's bad, and that's growing.
remember, there's a constant stream on most media that 'everyone supporting X is a Nazi', where X changes quite fast and X can often be 'being a white male' and calls for actions against these groups. diluting the term to include the privileged group of the day coupled with fueling violence is very dangerous.
I'd pretty much prefer to see Nazis removed from the public view via the use of the existing hate speech laws, the judiciary system and fines/sentences, so there's that.
Well, your argument was fine until you brought up this strawman nonsense.
> X can often be 'being a white male'
I haven't seen a single person called a Nazi for supporting "being a white male". Can you cite some sources there?
> I'd pretty much prefer to see Nazis removed from the public view via the use of the existing hate speech laws, the judiciary system and fines/sentences, so there's that.
Let's have a quick check on how that's working out now there's white supremacists in charge of the justice system: Oh, apparently quite badly. I know I'm shocked to hear this.
"Any Jew, anywhere, who does not act to oppose President Donald Trump and his administration acts in favor of anti-Semitism"
There ya go, this guy just associated non vocal Jews to Nazis, even if with a convoluted wording that avoided the label directly, but called them anti-semite, and I'm not gonna repeat the point of the Nazi 'spectrum' again, but you know where it's gonna go: once the real Nazi's have all been punched, the bar will lower and lower until you can scream racist at someone and have it ostracized, mediatically or otherwise.
(ok this fall shorts of "all white man" but I guess you're smart enough to draw the parallels)
Let's restart from the article: "We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs"
Say for the sake of argument me and you agree on 3 fundamental aspect of nazism, and that we also agree that if one express an ideology that matches 2 out of 3 of these aspects it's a fair target for online lynching (whether he self defines as a nazi or not, because of course we hate cryptonazis too, they're just nazis with extra steps).
Here's the crux of the matter: tomorrow another guy can come and disagree with our definition, and claim there are 6 aspect of nazism. or this guy can be more sensitive, and claim that 1 out of 3 is well enough for starting a media crusade against the perpetrator and try to ruin is life forever.
See where I'm going? It's not as easy as "this guy openly claim to support the nazi party" - and live/online mobs aren't exactly known for their rationality and measured response.
> I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support.
It takes a really warped brand of morality to say things like this.
Please guide us on the issues that matter, as free speech is not on your list.
So by not supporting punching people, I'm supporting their views?
I'm required to commit a serious misdemeanor or possible felony to disagree with their views?
Also, the comments about Richard Spencer weren't mine, I was just responding to them in this thread. You're painting with some pretty broad brushes here.
It depends on the context. To use the context of Richard Spencer, if you spend more time arguing for not punching him than with other larger injustices, it speaks to moral priorities, which is what your friends likely judged you on.
I can't imagine this being anything else, but if it's a different context do add it. Again, it's all based on that. I'm simply pointing out that you didn't lose friends for believing you shouldn't punch people.
Sure. Said friends, who I would (similarly to myself) attribute as progressive, are largely of privilege and shifted their priorities away from things like work, school and their families to go actively participate in their 'war'. The entirety of our relationships became them telling me about it and asking me why I wasn't out there with them.
Me, not coming from much privilege, and being a bit of a troll, questioned their priorities and why they hadn't previously been doing much of anything to fight very obvious injustices all around them that they were already aware of.
See, while they're out there following the mob, my job had me meet and talk to Ben Crump today. I'd much rather spend my time with positive people doing the right thing for _everyone_ in this country and not just for certain groups.
In a civilized society, we all have a social contract that says " law > opinion ". That's why morals don't matter when deciding to punch someone or not. Want to punch a Nazi? Go get your legislator write a law about it. Simple.
We cannot just have everyone randomly going off Robbin-Hooding around based on their own morals and half(at best) understanding of complex issues.
In this specific case, a couple things are at play. I don't think people thought "I want to punch Nazi's". They thought "Richard Spencer is gaining power via confidence and support, I want to send a clear message". I don't agree with the action they chose for it, but that was likely some form of the logic. However, they may have resorted to the action because they didn't believe the law could help them. People are losing faith in the system fast, and frankly for good reason.
I would argue that combating the arguments of people openly advocating to subvert the rule of law & due process in this country is not just a moral priority, but a moral imperative.
Yes, due process whenever possible. This is directly talking about any moral failings of a justice system though, so due process outside of the justice system looks very different based on context.
There's no such thing as "due process, sometimes". Fair treatment is only fair when it's a guarantee.
If someone is the victim of a crime that goes unpunished (and in many cases uninvestigated), then due process failed to serve them too. I say unpunished for lack of a better word -- it's a case where society allowed them to be victimized/targeted of a crime.
Fuck, can we figure out how to resurrect Bill Kunstler somehow? We need him now more than ever.
Due process is a term directly describing something within the legal system. This entire argument takes place within immoral actions outside of the legal system, hence a bit of confusion here. I would agree with always fair treatment of course.
I doubt you lost the friends for that. You lost friends likely because of the beliefs that you supported with this. While people can be pretty unreasonable, I would be cautious to paint them even more so. It's only going to strengthen any divide on issues that likely caused you to lose the friends.
Another part is the context of the argument. I'm pretty against punching people too. I'm not going to bring up that argument for Richard Spencer because I don't think people punching actual Nazi's is a big problem compared to the many others I support. What issues you choose to be outspoken about is a statement in itself.
Edit: This is all context based. See OP's thread below for specifics.