EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)
Okay, thoughtful argument but still…
Who gets to decide when to use violence then? For what reason? When is it okay and when is it not? What is the line? And aren’t you sweet talking vigilantism here? Because you are.
We both literally are saying that violence is okay in certain cases. I say it’s okay when someone attacks me. I defend myself with violence because there literally is no other option.
You say it’s okay when people have opinions that you disagree with. Granted, those options are really very shitty opinions, but they’re that: opinions. This person you’ll be punching hasn’t hit you, hasn’t attacked you. He said or displayed things you don’t like.
So where is the line? You can punch him if he displays a swastika? How about me displayjng a swastika, you punch me and oops, it’s a religious symbol from India…
Who gets to decide who to punch? WHO?
this is why we have a legal system and this is why we don’t live in an anarchy. We live in a civilized society.
You. Do. Not. Punch. People. It doesn’t matter if they got shit opinions or not.
Lastly, if you still disagree, then go out and punch a Neo Nazi. Heck, kill one, must feel good!
Then you get arrested and a judge (and depending on the country, jury of your peers) will throw your ass in jail because you are a criminal.
Congrats, you made a neo nazi a victim and yourself a criminal.
Well thanks, however this compliment seems a bit like a poisoned chalice considering the rest of your replies.
We have been through this, the line is that it has to be a last resort. FYI, this concept is literally enshrined in our constitution:
No, I say it’s okay when people have opinions that are a clear and present danger to a tolerant society. Again, we have been over this, it’s know as the paradox of tolerance. What these people do is attack civil society by abusing its rules, and you seem to propose we let them without keeping violence as a last resort, except for immediate self-defence of your person. Saying for example that all Jews or Muslims should be killed or that refugees deserve no asylum is technically an opinion, but it is also an attack on human rights and civil society. And you should stand up to that, if you deem it necessary with violence.
And yes, answering intolerance with intolerance seems like circular logic, because it is. That’s why it’s called a paradox. But IMHO you should consider that we are talking about something where our language, also a system of circular logic by the way, breaks down.
Well this one is easy in Germany at least, because it’s literally illegal. I’ll report them to police and they will get up to three years in prison for it pursuant to § 86a of the criminal code (display of anti-constitutional symbols).
Those are usually turned the other way and not displayed at a 45° angle. Nazi iconography is in most cases clearly distinguishable from Hindu and Shinto iconography, and if it’s not you can ask first. I will say however that when you claim to display an Asian religious symbol while being white, having a shaved head, wearing a bomber jacket and jump boots, I’m not inclined to believe you.
Doesn’t matter for my locale though, people here usually chose to just not display it outside of temples to avoid this obvious misunderstanding.
The one doing the punching. If it was justified will be decided by the courts, as you said. And yeah, unless you have a very good reason you will probably be convicted of assault, since the state claims a monopoly on violence. However some would argue, including me, that sometimes the only way to defend the existence of civil society lies outside its rules. It’s called civil disobedience.
Yeah ok, first off the time frame and circumstances are a little different here. The Roman Empire and the samurai caste have been gone a bit longer than Nazi Germany. Every single member of those organisations is long dead. This is not the case for Nazis, and they had ample opportunity to pass on their ideology to later generations, which they did. There aren’t, to my knowledge, any large groups of people self-identifying as Roman legionaries or samurai, except for LARPing purposes. There are however a lot of them seriously self-identifying as Nazis. I don’t see what you or I would gain by denying that they are.
Secondly, to classify them as neo-Nazis instead of actual Nazis, and maintaining that there is a relevant difference in that regarding their level of intolerance towards other groups is bonkers. In context, i.e. whether they present a clear and present danger to civil society, it’s a distinction without a difference. And if you want to hold on to this ridiculous premise this entire discussion is kind of pointless.
You seem to be of the persuasion that liberal democracies aren’t endangered by fascism or other forms of totalitarianism anymore, I fail to see why that would be the case. On the contrary, history teaches us that this is a constant danger. There is a reason the principle of defensive democracy was made into law by a lot of nations after the second world war.
It also leads to Nazis being punched. I don’t think we will reach agreement on this, so thanks for the - mostly - respectful discussion. At the risk of being accused of using dumb slogans again, I’ll leave you with a quote from a German pastor who was put into the concentration camps for his believes: