Good news: "Nazi" disguised as monk identified, punched

[PyramidHead]

Well, for one, at this point we don't know for a fact this guy isn't a Nazi.

But in any case, this seems to be a risk one must be willing to tolerate if one advocates empowering individuals to identify and punch Nazis.

Better that 100 innocent priests should get punched than 1 *real* Nazis go unpunched, right?

I mean the ratio is obviously in the other direction, but the answer is still yes. Direct action is the best way to combat fascism. I'm a little confused as to why you think this is something people like me wouldn't accept. Can I assume you're not in favor of violence against any group if there is a chance of misidentifying members of it?

I confess I have a little trouble convincing myself punching an old guy at Seattle gas station in 2019 has much to do with "combating fascism".

It actually doesn't, so you're probably on the right track.

Maybe if the old guy were Hitler or Goebbels, but I'd place my money on the over if there were a prop bet that there would be 100 people mistakenly identified as Hitler or Goebbels at a Seattle gas station before one was accurately identified.

If you add in the fact the old guy is dressed like a Russian Orthodox monk, I'd say the odds of a correct identification are even lower.

Hence, it seems to me the bigger fascists are the ones who feel they are empowered to identify Nazis and and punch them. At least, it does not strike me as being consistent with the liberal democratic concept of "due process".

Maybe this handy chart will help fix your confusion:

 

[dismal]

I confess I have a little trouble convincing myself punching an old guy at Seattle gas station in 2019 has much to do with "combating fascism".

It actually doesn't, so you're probably on the right track.

Maybe if the old guy were Hitler or Goebbels, but I'd place my money on the over if there were a prop bet that there would be 100 people mistakenly identified as Hitler or Goebbels at a Seattle gas station before one was accurately identified.

If you add in the fact the old guy is dressed like a Russian Orthodox monk, I'd say the odds of a correct identification are even lower.

Hence, it seems to me the bigger fascists are the ones who feel they are empowered to identify Nazis and and punch them. At least, it does not strike me as being consistent with the liberal democratic concept of "due process".

Maybe this handy chart will help fix your confusion:

View attachment 21069

See, I feel like this incident exposes a couple errors in the graphic.

For example: "Willing to use violence? Yes, in order to stop the Fascists" needs to be modified in some way to include monks pumping gas. Unless you have some evidence this monk was a Fascist monk who would be stopped by punching.

 

[PyramidHead]

For example: "Willing to use violence? Yes, in order to stop the Fascists" needs to be modified in some way to include monks pumping gas. Unless you have some evidence this monk was a Fascist monk who would be stopped by punching.

I just... this is where I again have to question if everything is okay at home. Your objection to people taking action against white nationalists, supremacists, and literal Nazis is "sometimes people mess up and punch the wrong person, therefore they are the real fascists."

Let me ask you a simple question: do you think WWII was a justified use of force, and did its justification depend on having zero collateral casualties due to hitting the wrong target?

 

[dismal]

For example: "Willing to use violence? Yes, in order to stop the Fascists" needs to be modified in some way to include monks pumping gas. Unless you have some evidence this monk was a Fascist monk who would be stopped by punching.

I just... this is where I again have to question if everything is okay at home. Your objection to people taking action against white nationalists, supremacists, and literal Nazis is "sometimes people mess up and punch the wrong person, therefore they are the real fascists."

Let me ask you a simple question: do you think WWII was a justified use of force, and did its justification depend on having zero collateral casualties due to hitting the wrong target?

Fascinating you think these are the relevant questions.

I am "for" what I would consider traditional elements of law that I thought were considered fundamental in all liberal democracies. Things like law enforcement by professionals (not vigilantes), due process, etc.

Would you describe someone as being "for rape and murder" if they believed basic constitutional rights should apply to people accused of rape and murder?

 

[repoman]

Even if you think that violence against true Nazis are good, inasmuch as the inhibition of Nazis is greater than the incitement of on the fence protonazis and even if this was done by an anti Nazi ideologue, this mistake is bad PR.

I would bet it was done by a druggy or person who belongs in a psych ward.

 

[laughing dog]

For example: "Willing to use violence? Yes, in order to stop the Fascists" needs to be modified in some way to include monks pumping gas. Unless you have some evidence this monk was a Fascist monk who would be stopped by punching.

I just... this is where I again have to question if everything is okay at home. Your objection to people taking action against white nationalists, supremacists, and literal Nazis is "sometimes people mess up and punch the wrong person, therefore they are the real fascists."

Let me ask you a simple question: do you think WWII was a justified use of force, and did its justification depend on having zero collateral casualties due to hitting the wrong target?

Please stop feeding the troll.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Is there a point to all this? It seems below you, dismal. If any mistaken application of force makes it illegitimate, then no application of force is ever legitimate. Is that the hill you want to die on?

No, this seems about right for dismal's typical level of discourse and "reasoning".

Spot on, in fact.

 

[PyramidHead]

For example: "Willing to use violence? Yes, in order to stop the Fascists" needs to be modified in some way to include monks pumping gas. Unless you have some evidence this monk was a Fascist monk who would be stopped by punching.

I just... this is where I again have to question if everything is okay at home. Your objection to people taking action against white nationalists, supremacists, and literal Nazis is "sometimes people mess up and punch the wrong person, therefore they are the real fascists."

Let me ask you a simple question: do you think WWII was a justified use of force, and did its justification depend on having zero collateral casualties due to hitting the wrong target?

Fascinating you think these are the relevant questions.

I am "for" what I would consider traditional elements of law that I thought were considered fundamental in all liberal democracies. Things like law enforcement by professionals (not vigilantes), due process, etc.

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, since people are wrongfully accused, arrested, indicted, and convicted (sometimes killed) all the time under liberal democratic justice systems. Sure, you might say that those are the exceptions rather than the rule, but then we're right back where we started because so is this case.

Would you describe someone as being "for rape and murder" if they believed basic constitutional rights should apply to people accused of rape and murder?

No, but I don't think this case has anything to do with constitutional rights. Aren't conservatives usually the ones saying the constitution only limits the power of the government, not the people?

 

[dismal]

Fascinating you think these are the relevant questions.

I am "for" what I would consider traditional elements of law that I thought were considered fundamental in all liberal democracies. Things like law enforcement by professionals (not vigilantes), due process, etc.

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, since people are wrongfully accused, arrested, indicted, and convicted (sometimes killed) all the time under liberal democratic justice systems. Sure, you might say that those are the exceptions rather than the rule, but then we're right back where we started because so is this case.

Would you describe someone as being "for rape and murder" if they believed basic constitutional rights should apply to people accused of rape and murder?

No, but I don't think this case has anything to do with constitutional rights. Aren't conservatives usually the ones saying the constitution only limits the power of the government, not the people?

But there are protections in place to lessen that from happening.

Some of them are Constitutional protections.

For example:

Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The language of the Constitution actually makes it pretty clear when it is imposing a limit on government or conveying a right to an individual.

If someone were to act as a vigilante and attempt to mete out justice the language does not suggest they are exempt from these restrictions.

You may, acting as a vigilante, have the power to make an arrest with probable cause, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the power to convict and mete out punishment.

 

[PyramidHead]

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, since people are wrongfully accused, arrested, indicted, and convicted (sometimes killed) all the time under liberal democratic justice systems. Sure, you might say that those are the exceptions rather than the rule, but then we're right back where we started because so is this case.


No, but I don't think this case has anything to do with constitutional rights. Aren't conservatives usually the ones saying the constitution only limits the power of the government, not the people?

But there are protections in place to lessen that from happening.

Some of them are Constitutional protections.

For example:

Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The language of the Constitution actually makes it pretty clear when it is imposing a limit on government or conveying a right to an individual.

If someone were to act as a vigilante and attempt to mete out justice the language does not suggest they are exempt from these restrictions.

You may, acting as a vigilante, have the power to make an arrest with probable cause, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the power to convict and mete out punishment.

Shit, liberals are so obsessed with the law. Are we really arguing about whether punches are constitutionally protected or not? Like I'm gonna read your post and realize, oh my god, I've been advocating something that may not be enshrined in precedent established by jurisprudence, that's like the most important thing ever, what have I been thinking

 

[dismal]

But there are protections in place to lessen that from happening.

Some of them are Constitutional protections.

For example:



The language of the Constitution actually makes it pretty clear when it is imposing a limit on government or conveying a right to an individual.

If someone were to act as a vigilante and attempt to mete out justice the language does not suggest they are exempt from these restrictions.

You may, acting as a vigilante, have the power to make an arrest with probable cause, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the power to convict and mete out punishment.

Shit, liberals are so obsessed with the law. Are we really arguing about whether punches are constitutionally protected or not? Like I'm gonna read your post and realize, oh my god, I've been advocating something that may not be enshrined in precedent established by jurisprudence, that's like the most important thing ever, what have I been thinking

Actually we’re arguing about whether advocating and defending punching someone you have determined is a nazi makes you a fascist, or just an asshole who should be sent to prison. The good news is that by your own stated principles anyone is entitled to decide you’re a fascist and punch the shit out of you.

I take some comfort in that.

 

[PyramidHead]

But there are protections in place to lessen that from happening.

Some of them are Constitutional protections.

For example:



The language of the Constitution actually makes it pretty clear when it is imposing a limit on government or conveying a right to an individual.

If someone were to act as a vigilante and attempt to mete out justice the language does not suggest they are exempt from these restrictions.

You may, acting as a vigilante, have the power to make an arrest with probable cause, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the power to convict and mete out punishment.

Shit, liberals are so obsessed with the law. Are we really arguing about whether punches are constitutionally protected or not? Like I'm gonna read your post and realize, oh my god, I've been advocating something that may not be enshrined in precedent established by jurisprudence, that's like the most important thing ever, what have I been thinking

Actually we’re arguing about whether advocating and defending punching someone you have determined is a nazi makes you a fascist, or just an asshole who should be sent to prison. The good news is that by your own stated principles anyone is entitled to decide you’re a fascist and punch the shit out of you.

I take some comfort in that.

Nothing to disagree with here, so I guess we're done. Was there a point to all this, I wonder?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Maybe this handy chart will help fix your confusion:

View attachment 21069

Maybe this handy chart will help fix your confusion:

 

[Mumbles]

Well, that was quite a strawman there. How long did it take for the GOP to move against Steve King again? And that's not to mention the fact that their party's leader is an obvious white supremacist and proto-fascist...

Truth is, "Antifa" mostly only shows up to counterprotests to drown them out, and other than that they mostly work online, driving fascist groups off of common servers, smoking out people who attend Nazi rallies and reporting them to their communities and employers, and so forth. For that matter "Antifa" is not an actual group, instead being simply whoever works against white supremacists, Nazi wannabes, and the like, who accepts the name.

 

[Patooka]

Look at me! I'm a mountain!

No, dude, you're a mole hill. Could find no mention of nazis in the news article by the way.

 

[laughing dog]

But there are protections in place to lessen that from happening.

Some of them are Constitutional protections.

For example:



The language of the Constitution actually makes it pretty clear when it is imposing a limit on government or conveying a right to an individual.

If someone were to act as a vigilante and attempt to mete out justice the language does not suggest they are exempt from these restrictions.

You may, acting as a vigilante, have the power to make an arrest with probable cause, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the power to convict and mete out punishment.

Shit, liberals are so obsessed with the law. Are we really arguing about whether punches are constitutionally protected or not? Like I'm gonna read your post and realize, oh my god, I've been advocating something that may not be enshrined in precedent established by jurisprudence, that's like the most important thing ever, what have I been thinking

Actually we’re arguing about whether advocating and defending punching someone you have determined is a nazi makes you a fascist, or just an asshole who should be sent to prison.

Well, anyone who thinks those are the only two choices is an asshole fascist. Whether an asshole fascist deserves to have the shit punched out of him (or her) is up to one's personal sense of morality and fair play.

 

[dismal]

Look at me! I'm a mountain!

No, dude, you're a mole hill. Could find no mention of nazis in the news article by the way.

You must have missed this:

How’s Trump?

Cause Trump is literally a Nazi and stuff.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, that was quite a strawman there.

Every word of it was true, even if the individual statements are half-truths. Like your post.

Maybe this one will be more to your liking.

Truth is, "Antifa" mostly only shows up to counterprotests to drown them out, and other than that they mostly work online, driving fascist groups off of common servers, smoking out people who attend Nazi rallies and reporting them to their communities and employers, and so forth.

Or anyone they think might be a nazi, or anyone they want to call a nazi.

For that matter "Antifa" is not an actual group, instead being simply whoever works against white supremacists, Nazi wannabes, and the like, who accepts the name.

No, they do have some collective beliefs above and beyond 'anti-nazi'. They use the 'anti-nazi' label to distract from those other beliefs.

 

[marc]

Could feed an entire cattle ranch for the winter with the strawmen on this page alone.

 

[PyramidHead]

lol So we're doing memes