HellforLeather
Member
I wonder why that is...
vi·o·lence
ˈvī(ələns/Submit
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
....oh
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WashingtonPost: "Who are the antifa?"
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
I wonder why that is...
....oh
Chie Satonaka
Member
You sure showed me. Dictionary defination. Good job!
Meanwhile speech has been one of the primary factors in people who share my skin tone being murdered by all groups, including the state, and those actions have been justified and celebrated throughout the history of this country.
I'd love to tell you how I really feel about your dumb dick response to my post, but I recognize my speech here isn't free, and if I step outside of the boundaries of that, I'll be punished.
Honestly, I think there's a non-insignificant number of them who are soft bigots (a proper term for what I'm describing escapes me) rather than true believers. The Kekistan nerds. I think, for a lot of them, the first rally they attend during which they get a baton across their head will probably be the last.
Regardless of dissuasion, like Chie is arguing above, I'm of the opinion that there's no practical reason to discern violent speech/ideology from actual violence. There's no point in telling the minorities, who these people want to hurt, to wait until they actually get hurt to react.
Once you show up shouting "the Jews will not replace us" you've started a fight, IMO.
I guess I'd argue that if speech can be violence then proportionality would point to using speech in response.
Chie Satonaka
Member
I mean, people get really twisted in a knot if you say something as simple as "all nazis deserved to be punched in the face". This isn't a strategy that's going to work for left leaning groups because they believe you can counter hate with sunshine and rainbows, or they'll say something stupid like "don't stoop to their level".
HellforLeather
Member
Would you say the speech was more of a primary factor than the actual violent acts?
You sure showed me. Dictionary defination. Good job!
Meanwhile speech has been one of the primary factors in people who share my skin tone being murdered by all groups, including the state, and those actions have been justified and celebrated throughout the history of this country.
I'd love to tell you how I really feel about your dumb dick response to my post, but I recognize my speech here isn't free, and if I step outside of the boundaries of that, I'll be punished.
What definition would you propose?
Woody Guthrie was my favorite antifa:
All You Fascist Bound to Lose
All You Fascist Bound to Lose
Chie Satonaka
Member
I mean, if you say something like, "We want to kill niggers," and then people start killing black folks, and people's response to that is, "Killing people is bad, but so is censoring speech", doesn't that mean there's a certain level of acceptance there?
Like, when a jewish person hears shit like "blood and soil", if that was the precursor to a whole lot of jewish violence in this country, and people were equally as concerned about the fact that these people should be able to say what they want with no consequence, even IF it lead to actual physical violence, doesn't that mean you're enabling it?
If speech leads to physical violence, and we have the ability to curb violent hate speech, and we DON'T do that because all speech must be protected, I'd say that at the very least, they should be weighed equally.
Also, god, posting on mobile SUCKS.
That seems reasonable enough. Was just curious as to what the basis was for rejecting the dictionary definition.
Those are centrist groups not Leftist
Assault isn't inherently violent?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Some people are really opposed to white supremacists getting clocked, wonder why
Copy pasting a dictionary definition is pretty much admitting you have no argument
Copy pasting a dictionary definition is pretty much admitting you have no argument
Raven117
Member
The legal definition of assault does not involve physical contact.
Violence (battery) by its very definition is physical contact.
All I'm providing is that these are the legal constraints in which to view these things (if you choose to).
I guess I find it hard to argue against the concept if proportionality. You respond with the level of violence you're presented with. If speech is violence, the proportional response is speech.
Could it be for the reason they state? Or is it easier to assign a motivation that allows you to dismiss them out of hand?
My favorite thing to look at in my home town:
There's a legal perspective and there's a practical perspective...
There have been communists fighting against the authoritarian takeover of the ideology since the beginning. Fascists actually legitimately are a part of a death cult.
JeTmAn81
Member
Citing an authority on definitions when discussing definitions and meaning seems logical to me.
HellforLeather
Member
Is "blood and soil" only considered hate speech if its spoken around Jewish people since the only context in which it is offensive is the historical relevance as it regards to the Nazi's and the Jewish people?
Yes, speech can lead to physical violence, thats why threats and calls to violence are not protected. However, the physical act of speaking in itself does not have any way of causing you physical harm or threatening your life. Throwing a punch absolutely does. This is why they are not on equal grounds.
HellforLeather
Member
When arguing about the meaning of words, what authority would you use?
Fahzgoolin
Banned
This is actually kind of helpful for me. I often question the purpose of such rallies/protests, but this is a plausible reality.
Thanks for sharing OP.
History is often over simplified. This is my concern as well regarding the logic in the OP.
That definition is up for discussion though. As I posted above:
I actually have a real story related to this:
When I was younger, I was walking my friends dog to 7-11. On the way there, this guy noticed me and the dog and started following us. Upon arriving at 7-11, I finally heard him yelling at me, carrying a fucking SWORD (yes, really). He then charged at me, yelled at me and held the sword over his head as if he was going to take a swing. Apparently he thought my friends dog killed one of his cats, which obviously did not happen.
He did not physically assault me, but he verbally assaulted me with the threat of physical violence. Now....if I, or some on-looker, decided to resort to physical violence in my defense, is that wrong? Not necessarily from a legal perspective, just from a personal point of view?
I reject the notion that anything that does not fall within legal bounds is always wrong, or always dangerous. Laws are not absolute. He threatened me with a weapon and verbally assaulted me. If someone tackled and proceeded to beat the shit out of him, I would have thanked them with all my heart, because they would've been protecting me from someone threatening my life.
johancruijff
Banned
thank you my hairy ass
fascism was fought from the first day in Italy, while being at the same time propped up by the wealthy elites and part of the state scared by the rising of socialism/communism
it didn't even have strong racial connotations at first, there were jewish earlier members
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
If the dictionary definition is as far as you're willing to think then so be it.
Raven117
Member
Sure. Not debating that. Everyone is free to make their own decisions. But practical considerations can still land you in cuffs if not tempered with the legal ramification of such action.
theignoramus
Member
I dont care that theyre not the nicest bunch. Theyre willing to engage White supremacists in open combat. We need them around.
Raven117
Member
Not debating the practical limitations of legal theory. There are many.
World Health Organization isn't the Model Penal Code.
The Model Penal Code (MPC) § 211.1 separates assault into two general categories: simple assault and aggravated assault:
(1) Simple assault: a person is guilty of simple assault if he:
(a) attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(b) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
(c) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
AlexFlame116
Member
What many don't get sometimes is that there are multiple antifa organizations, not one international one. Of course there will be different levels of it. Because they are their own groups each with their own ideology. The US antifa isn't the same as, say, the UK one and vice versa. So we can't just blame them all for violence when they themselves are only groups that do the best they can with what they have.
As for me? As long as Nazis and white supremacists are getting the punch and not the people or their things like cars and homes, then antifa is okay with me. Just stay safe and don't get killed by a crazy Nazi.
As for me? As long as Nazis and white supremacists are getting the punch and not the people or their things like cars and homes, then antifa is okay with me. Just stay safe and don't get killed by a crazy Nazi.
Fenderputty
Banned
Depends on the ideology. Are we pretending that Nazism isn't on the extreme fringe of ideologies? It's not exactly a line that's been placed close to a slope.
Gorilla Shark
Member
So for all the people that are supporting Antifa using violence - honest question:
Say there was another rally of those shit head white supremacist/Nazi assholes next weekend. A few Antifa people show up with machine guns and open fire killing a couple hundred Nazis. They shouldn't be prosecuted? After all, it was self defense to hate speech "violence"?
Say there was another rally of those shit head white supremacist/Nazi assholes next weekend. A few Antifa people show up with machine guns and open fire killing a couple hundred Nazis. They shouldn't be prosecuted? After all, it was self defense to hate speech "violence"?
Zen_Arcade
Banned
They should be pardoned.
This is an absurd hypothetical.
I'm not a cop or a prosecutor though so I don't care.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
If you're going to rely on hypotheticals instead of reality to make an argument, could you at least come up with a more probable scenario
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I wouldn't be too broke up about it. They would know what they were doing was against the law and would thus accept the consequences when the state apprehends them.
Agreed.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
As I said in the other thread, when you're dealing with violent anarchists and communists and everyone to the right of Barack Obama is a Nazi fascist/Nazi sympathizer, suddenly suffocating people with plastic bags and beating them over the head with bike locks becomes pretty terrifying.
Let's not act like there is any room for nuance when ANTIFA get involved. The city starts looking like a fucking war zone and anyone who isn't wearing a mask is their enemy.
Let's not act like there is any room for nuance when ANTIFA get involved. The city starts looking like a fucking war zone and anyone who isn't wearing a mask is their enemy.
AlexFlame116
Member
Wasn't the exact same question asked months ago???
Because I'm getting serious deja vu vibes right now.
i guess we'd know who to replace those confederate statues with statues of
Alexander DeLarge
Member
And they're also comrades to the right who are going to point to the escalating violence and win elections as a result.
JeTmAn81
Member
Obviously the dictionary doesn't have absolute authority to define meaning, but to treat it as irrelevant is just as silly as treating it like the end-all.
Glass Rebel
Member
Christ, the mental hoops people jump through to excuse neo-nazis is just staggering.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
People in here acting like Nazisim and White Supremacy can exist non-violently. It can't, it's an ideology that requires violence and subjugation which we've seen every single damn time they come into power or get a seat at the table. Preemptive action is absolutely fine.
And we can point out the violence of the alt right and the murder in Charlottesville.
I would have no moral problem with it but it would realistically cause a huge amount of blowback.
The problem here is that we are talking about how they should be handled within the context of a liberal/bourgeois-democratic state. I don't really care about such a state - it's not really totally legitimate to me, so whether or not they "should" be prosecuted is a pointless question. They will be. My decisions regarding the American state and politics relate to what can actually be done within its bounds and how far we can make those boundaries bulge before it breaks, supposing that breakage would negatively affect the left, the working class, and people who are oppressed and exploited.
Similar threads
- Poll