+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: On: Punching Nazis (/showthread.php?tid=7018)
On: Punching Nazis - Dark Jaguar - 11th February 2017
I've seen this making the rounds, and the discussion tends to boil down to a statement that if someone says something deplorable enough, or is in enough of a position of power, it's okay to physically assault them. Alternatively, I have no right to condemn such an action because I'm not in the maligned group.
I get the sentiment, I really do. Part of me even agrees with it. However, another part of me doesn't think this is a good standard. Where's the cutoff point? How deplorable does a view have to be? How much confidence do you need to have that the person actually said something deplorable and isn't just a social idiot? How do you know you aren't going to kill the person by mistake? Would THAT be acceptable? Would shooting that guy be acceptable? Would kidnapping him and torturing him be acceptable? (A recent news story suggests at least a few people though it would be okay to kidnap and torture a Trump supporter.) Lastly, is that really the world we even want to live in? Yes, his views are unacceptable, but what if someone's unacceptable view is actually correct, but most people don't know it yet?
When these people start rounding up minorities, then "by any means necessary" can be on the table for consideration. For now, well, I don't want my face at risk because I said something some redneck thought was deplorable, so I can't condone it here. I'm frankly surprised just how quickly casual violence became acceptable to progressives.
Remember when our side would NEVER do anything like that, and such a violent response was just a sign of how backwards and violent Trump supporters were?
On: Punching Nazis - Sacred Jellybean - 11th February 2017
Punching people is never the answer and violence should never be advocated. Anyone committing battery should be arrested and jailed.
That said, I don't feel guilty for laughing my ass off about it.
On: Punching Nazis - alien space marine - 11th February 2017
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Only in self-defense
On: Punching Nazis - Dark Jaguar - 12th February 2017
Heck I laughed at this.
If it's an act of self defense, it's justified. That does get murky when we're talking about people who can make decisions directly affecting you, but frankly just punching him in the face isn't going to change anything. Once you realize that, you realize just what one would have to advocate to ACTUALLY defend one's self from their political machinations.
Or DO they? I've still got at least a small level of faith that the 3 branches of government will be enough to protect minorities from truly outrageous things. If it isn't... well then we'll see.
On: Punching Nazis - A Black Falcon - 12th February 2017
On the one hand, yeah, violence is wrong and I definitely do not condone it. Just because people are terrible doesn't mean you should beat them up.
Still... I saw this, and there is some truth to it:
![[Image: l0XTQ8V.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/l0XTQ8V.jpg)
I still agree with the liberal side there, violence is wrong, and freedom of speech is one of our most important rights as Americans. Still, you DO need to keep people like those from getting in a position where they can (violently) abuse that opportunity. As the First Amendment goes, if it's just talk, let them talk, but if someone takes a negative action they need to be stopped. It is usually possible to do that without violence, and stopping Trump sure looks possible without any, though... so yeah, hitting someone who isn't physically threatening anyone? Don't do that. Do protest Trump and do whatever we can to stop him by legal means. Anything beyond that should only be considered if there was some kind of pro-Trump military coup or something... though with how much he's angering pretty much everyone who isn't a diehard supporter of his, I do not think such a thing is at all likely, thankfully.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Or DO they? I've still got at least a small level of faith that the 3 branches of government will be enough to protect minorities from truly outrageous things. If it isn't... well then we'll see.
The Executive Branch is currently actively acting against minorities, women, etc. with much of their ability. The Legislative Branch is paralyzed with indecision, not sure what it should do; Republicans really want to accomplish their (bad) aims so they're not openly opposing Trump, but they don't all actually want to discriminate as much as Trump does either. And the Legislative Branch is apparently still sane and functioning, as we saw with how they stopped the immigration ban. So yeah, at least one branch of government still functions, right now at least... we'll see in the future.
On: Punching Nazis - Dark Jaguar - 12th February 2017
That image of your's... Basically it's saying that evil is more likely to win because they don't have morals holding them back, so good must become evil if we want to win.
On: Punching Nazis - A Black Falcon - 12th February 2017
That is the challenge really, how do you win against those people without descending to their level? Outside of the issue of physical violence this is a very pertinent question in government as well, where the Democrats have still not come up with an answer to Republican stonewalling. What do you do when the other party is willing to break the spirit of the rules in order to further their aims? The analogy I've seen around that the Democrats and Republicans were playing chess in a house, but the Republicans decided to set the house on fire... while the Dems continue to play chess alone in the burning house, as if that can somehow win while the Republicans run around crazily burning things... it's pretty accurate, really. But running around setting things on fire yourself would be stupid and even more damaging, so how is our party supposed to respond to that?
Of course, now the Republicans control the government and are struggling with that in part for that exact reason, because after years of being "the party of NO" they suddenly have to govern and can't while sticking to the policy positions they currently have, but even so, it's still a huge problem without a great answer. I don't like the idea of descending to their level, blocking everything, violating the spirit of the rules, doing un-democratic things if it benefits us... but how do we get back to a place where we have two functioning parties, when one is having so much success by being terrible? And how do you stop them? Tough questions indeed.
On: Punching Nazis - Dark Jaguar - 13th February 2017
I don't even know what a cuck is. Sounds like water fowl.
What I can say is acting the way they do is a good way to make enemies, and acting the way we do is a good way to make friends. In the fullness of time, I think that having scruples wins out. To use your analogy, if someone sets your house on fire, you don't play chess and you don't set more things on fire. You put out the fire. I think that would represent ground level politics, getting as many people with views you support in every level of office so the arsonists can't keep at it.
On: Punching Nazis - alien space marine - 13th February 2017
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I don't even know what a cuck is. Sounds like water fowl.
It's short for Cuckoldry
This article about a "feminist man" in a open marriage is where the "cuck" meme started from, they call leftist men cucks as a slur , implying they let other men fuck their wife just like the guy in this article.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html
On: Punching Nazis - A Black Falcon - 13th February 2017
That's where it started, but hasn't it expanded into a general insult for any man they think of as insufficiently masculine or ideologically pure by their standards?
Quote:What I can say is acting the way they do is a good way to make enemies, and acting the way we do is a good way to make friends. In the fullness of time, I think that having scruples wins out. To use your analogy, if someone sets your house on fire, you don't play chess and you don't set more things on fire. You put out the fire. I think that would represent ground level politics, getting as many people with views you support in every level of office so the arsonists can't keep at it.That is definitely important, but putting out the fire by starting from ground-level politics will take a long time to get far, thanks to major problems such as gerrymandering and the sheer number of states they control. I don't know if we can wait that long, not with them blocking anything good from happening in DC and also doing bad stuff beyond that too, as we see from the things Trump is managing to accomplish and not mess up...
On: Punching Nazis - Dark Jaguar - 14th February 2017
I really don't think it's a "meme", it sounds like it's just a general insult at this point. Honestly, cuckoldry? Isn't that some medieval word no one uses any more? So, they're insulting people calling them sexist by saying "Well, your wife cheated on you and you are now raising a baby that isn't issued of your seed in the manner the gods of manliness intended! Thou doth raise a bastard, and I scoff at thee for it!"
The details of the insult don't matter, because in form it's identical to insults like "Yo momma so fat", namely in that whoever's throwing it out there has no idea what they're talking about. They've never met my mother, they don't even know what my gender is, much less if I'm married, and so forth. It's an insult completely lacking any real "punch". On the other hand, they just said something sexist, so I really don't need to know much about their personal life to say "yeah, you're sexist".