This Week in Nazi-Punching
A video of a Nazi in Seattle getting punched and knocked out has been making the rounds. Responses range from satisfaction and celebration to the predictable cries of “So much for the tolerant left” and the related “Violence makes us as bad as them and plays right into their hands.”
A few things to consider…
1. According to one witness, the punch happened after the Nazi called a man an “ape” and threw a banana at him. With the disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer, that sounds like assault to me. I’m guessing Assault in the Fourth Degree. In other words, the punching was a response to an assault by the Nazi.
The witness who talks about the banana-throwing also says he was high on THC. I haven’t seen anyone disputing his account, but I haven’t seen corroboration, either.
2.Remember when George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, and people like Geraldo Rivera said it was because Martin was wearing a hoodie, and that made Martin a potentially dangerous “suspicious character”? Utter bullshit, I know. But if our legal system let Zimmerman plead self-defense, saying he was afraid because Martin was wearing a hoodie, doesn’t that same argument apply against someone wearing a fucking swastika?
We’re talking about a symbol that announces, “I support genocide of those who aren’t white, aren’t straight, aren’t able-bodied…”
3. Buzzfeed presents this as anti-fascists tracking a Neo-Nazi to beat him up. While antifa Twitter appears to have been talking about this guy, there’s no evidence that the punch was thrown by someone who’s part of that movement. And even if he was, the guy didn’t throw a punch until after the Nazi committed assault (see point #1).
Those Tweets quoted on Buzzfeed also suggest the Nazi was armed, which could add to the self-defense argument in point #2.
Is Nazi-punching right? Is it legal? As any role-player will tell you, there’s a difference between whether something is lawful and whether it’s good.
The “victim” has every right to press charges. But for some reason, he didn’t want to talk to police about the incident.
Was punching this guy a good thing? I mean, there’s a difference between comic books and real life. The Nazi was standing in front of some sort of tile wall. He could have struck his head on the corner after being punched, or when he fell to the ground. In other words, there’s a chance–albeit probably a slim one–that this could have killed him.
My country and culture glorify violence. I’d much rather avoid violence when possible. I think most rational people would. But there are times it’s necessary to fight, to choose to defend yourself and others. I think it’s important to understand the potential consequences of that choice.
Multiple accounts agree this man was harassing people on the bus, and later on the street. He was a self-proclaimed Nazi. Police say they received calls that he was instigating fights, and it sounds like he escalated from verbal harassment to physical assault … at which point another man put him down, halting any further escalation.
I don’t know exactly what I would have done in that situation, but I see nothing to make me condemn or second-guess this man’s choice in the face of a dangerous Nazi.
John Payton
September 20, 2017 @ 4:39 pm
I adhere firmly to the principle that we owe no tolerance to those who would abuse or remove tolerance for others.
Rachel
September 20, 2017 @ 4:40 pm
Excellent points. I think this is what is getting missed in this debate. Throwing something at someone is assault, regardless of the fact that it’s a banana.
Making threats is verbal assault, and most hate speech is at the very least, verbal harassment.
I don’t advocate tracking Neo-Nazis down with the expressed purpose of attacking them, but I think we do have the right to stand up to their attempts to intimidate and bully people.
Miles Carter
September 20, 2017 @ 5:13 pm
If someone calls you a name, and throw a banana at you, then you can punch them? Talk about a disproportionate response. Does that mean that if someone calls me a jerk and throws their drink in my face, I am justified in punching them?
Jim C. Hines
September 20, 2017 @ 5:18 pm
Miles,
“If someone calls you a name, and throw a banana at you, then you can punch them? Talk about a disproportionate response.”
Talk about stripping out/deliberately ignoring a lot of context…
On your question, are you asking about legal justification or ethical?
John M. Cowan
September 20, 2017 @ 6:25 pm
I certainly agree with “sometimes it’s necessary to fight.” On a philosophical level, though, I worry that some people use that as justification for violence as an immediate reaction instead of a last resort. On the other hand, the guy’s a Nazi.
I’ll probably regret this in the morning.
Lexica
September 20, 2017 @ 7:05 pm
“Does that mean that if someone calls me a jerk and throws their drink in my face, I am justified in punching them?”
In many jurisdictions, throwing a drink in somebody’s face is considered assault and battery. In California, if you try to throw a drink in somebody’s face and miss, it’s still considered assault. Given that, if the throwee were to take a swing at the thrower, it might well be ruled self-defense.
Also, speaking as somebody young enough to have memories of my grandfather who fought in WWII, it boggles my mind that we’re even having this discussion about whether openly supporting Nazis and Nazi positions is acceptable. Kinda glad Grandpa’s not around any more, actually. If he were alive, he might well get in trouble for whacking one of these swastika-wearing edgelords with his cane.
Quill
September 21, 2017 @ 4:08 am
Legally and morally, the right of self-defense is limited to preventing future attacks. So, if someone threw a drink at you and then was clearly taking steps to leave – you would not have a self-defense claim if you punched him.
In the video of the encounter, the Nazi does not appear to be engaged in or about to engage in assaulting anyone. The behavior in the video, even if coupled with verbal harassment and throwing a banana isn’t really enough to justify punching someone.
It seems that the justification for this is that the “victim” was a Nazi and Nazis are unspeakably evil so its fine to punch them*. And, it’s true: the victim was a Nazi and Nazis are unspeakably evil. The problem is that lines of this nature tend to blur**, people on the other side of the issues have different perspectives on where the line is drawn*** and this process therefore tends to be unstable and lead to a breakdown of civil society. So, allowing punches based on political affiliation or even support for evil is something we can’t afford and should be strongly resisted, while we have a functioning relatively**** non evil civil society.
*If you don’t think this is true, imagine the person doing the harassing is a person who appears homeless and not a Nazi. Do you think punching the homeless person is ok?
**The KKK may not be as bad as the Nazis but they are pretty bad. Can you punch a KKK member in this situation? What about someone who identifies as a generic white supremacist or white nationalist? How about someone who believes gays and lesbians should be put to death?
***How about antifa? Gang members? Communists? (This list strikes me as far more ridiculous than the one above with two stars; but I’m on the left. People on the right appear to have a different view and might well add other groups we consider not evil.)
**** Trump is a disaster, Sessions is a racist and our system is far from perfect, but we are still relatively non-evil..
Dee
September 21, 2017 @ 7:14 am
I am conflicted about this entire thing. While part of me is so very deeply disgusted that anyone would wear a nazi symbol I am also a little concerned about this whole tracking via the internet. There is a good side to that kind of communication but also such a wide margin for error and we live in a time when people act like a flock of guinea hens and run to whatever is making the most noise at the moment with no thought to proof or fact or repercussion. It seems to me that anyone who sports this symbol on their clothing is looking for attention and this guy got exactly that. We need to be very careful that we don’t spend so much time and effort fighting over symbols that we end up actually becoming the personification of what we are fighting. I wish I knew the answer. I don’t think I would have punched the guy if he threw a banana at me but if I was present and he threw the banana at someone else I hope that I would have stood for that person. I would also hope that if I was on a train and a guy wearing a swaztika was harassing a black man that I would have stood for that man as well. We have got to work harder at building bridges and spend less time building walls. There is my two cents which won’t even come close to buying you a cup of coffee but you are one of my favorite authors so I wanted to weigh in.
Sean
September 21, 2017 @ 1:02 pm
Self-defense is self-defense, if the nazi threw something that was assault, so, self defense.
More generally, I used to be on the fence about the general question of punching nazis. Surely one should always show that one disagrees with nazis.
But.
When you start seeing it as okay and justifiable to declare some groups of people subhuman, declare it okay to be violent towards them, then you might end up justifying, condoning and, through your silence, supporting, this sort of thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_d3ozhSE-U&feature=youtu.be
(Transactivists beating up a 60 year old woman in Hyde Park, speakers corner, because they do not agree with what feminists have to say. Because they have declared feminists subhuman)
I am very, very wary of anyone who tries to justify violence, now.
D. D. Webb
September 21, 2017 @ 1:38 pm
I’m leery of the argument that anything is justified because “Nazis are evil.” If anything, our use of them as a generic stand-in for evil in decades of movies, books, and video games has stripped away the context that explains why, specifically, they are evil, and what the nature of that evil is. It’s more significant and more useful to understand that Nazis want most of us dead.
I would rather focus on the fact that Nazis are an active and specific threat to the well-being of everyone in their vicinity. Their defining trait is an overt desire to exterminate vast swaths of humanity and subjugate the rest. A Nazi is never not dangerous; they are only variously dangerous in different situations.
Nazis (at least in this country) are entitled to their civil rights and the protection of the law, but context matters. A man shouting insults and throwing bananas is a fundamentally different situation when his group affiliation is a stated threat to the physical welfare of everyone around him. I’m very comfortable with Nazis being held to a stricter standard, and that only because I can conceive no moral justification for hunting them down preemptively.
It is very frustrating, having to be the good guys, having to think about and argue about these points and act with restraint while vile people act without it. But unless we make that effort, all of this is pointless.
Jayden
September 21, 2017 @ 3:33 pm
Okay, I’ll step into this, even though I’m wary of this argument.
As someone who’s country bans the swastika in any shape or form when used in Nazi-reference (except if shown in historically accurate ways) – yes, I’m German – I understand the implications of this rather well, I think. And I’m absolutely against Nazis myself.
Thing is, I’m also against violence. Even though he was harrassing someone – and let’s face it, that’s what they do best these days, scream their ideology at people because of course that makes them so much more sophisticated – I think that’s definitely not the right response to this. And putting it on the internet? Just plain bad taste, in my books.
Verbal abuse is horrible. Throwing things (bananas or other) at people could well be called assault. But honestly? Punching, videotaping, and putting it on the web? At least here that would be grounds for a lawsuit as well. Personal rights and all that. And yes, even Nazis have those…
I do not support violence like this. And I do not support this “new” kind of voyeurism that the internet brings with it. I personally condemn the ideology, and I am as frustrated by them being able to scream it at everyone and their uncle as the next person is, but punching them just can’t be the solution, no matter how satisfying it might seem in that instance.
What I would have liked to see is a faster response of the police force, since they – according to your information up there – received several calls about this guy starting things. What I would have liked to see as well is this group of onlookers entering the discussion, grouping up against this Nazi in a verbal sort of way and showing an united front.
I just don’t like to see this kind of thing, and think as I may, I can’t see this as a good response. Neither the violence nor the public shaming on the internet. No matter how justified, insulted, assaulted, or furious one might be, this is not the right way to stop these kind of acts. The only thing it can bring is escalation, and I really don’t want to see more of that.
There, that’s my 2c.
KatG
September 21, 2017 @ 7:55 pm
Sean: Trans activists did not beat up a 60 year old woman. That’s a nice example of the games these people like to play. The woman is not a feminist — she’s a long time anti-trans activist and far rightist who deliberately went right up in the face of a line of trans activists peacefully protesting and screamed at them. They screamed back, whereupon she grabbed a young woman’s head in a headlock and refused to let go, also yanking her hair — assault. Other people pried her off the young woman and one of them did punch her to get her to step back from further assault, perhaps unwisely, but it wasn’t a “beating”. The groups then separated. The anti-trans activist has been promoting that video to show that she was assaulted when instead she was the one who attacked, hoping to get video of them reacting in self-defense and claiming that trans people are vicious animals when she’s deliberately trying to harm them.
This is now the big regular tactic of the bigots and it’s what happened in Charlottesville as well. They deliberately go after protesters, hoping to get some sort of violence started in self-defense. And then they claim it’s part of a large, coordinated “antifa” conspiracy to attack them, thus justifying any violence they do and their carrying guns to intimidate.
I’m not for violence either. The Black Bloc group gave a handy excuse for the far right to escalate these attempts. And the Nazi in Seattle maybe shouldn’t have been punched. But we weren’t there, in that situation, with lots of people under threat and no cops showing up yet, trying to assess how violent this guy was going to be, a guy who was already harassing, getting into people’s faces, clearly out of control on drugs, making threats of violence and throwing things. Did they have to wait till he stabbed someone to try to stop him? Sure, they could have tried to restrain him, but that’s dangerous, especially if he was armed. In the heat of the moment, trying to make a decision, punching the guy may have seemed like the fastest, best way to restrain him.
The reality is that we are a white supremacist society. So even though this guy was threatening, violent, possibly armed, and bearing a swastika which is not a sign of restraint, we tend to think he couldn’t possibly be that scary to the people there because he’s white. He wouldn’t have really hurt them, because he’s white — so those people shouldn’t have reacted defensively, especially if they are black, because black people in our society don’t have a right to self-defense. If he’d been a black man, threatening people with death and violence, getting up in their faces, possibly armed, throwing things — and someone hit him — would the response be that this violence was unacceptable? Or would the majority view more likely be that people were scared, under threat and reacted with understandable self-defense? I’m guessing number two if this guy wasn’t white — because a POC is automatically seen as more violent and threatening in those situations by most.
White men cause most of the violence in the U.S. But our society is set up to view white men as trustworthy until they prove otherwise, while black people are not trustworthy until they prove otherwise. It’s why the white men waving guns around often survive their encounters with the police and are given extra considerations, while a POC who’s deaf and simply holding a piece of pipe on his own front porch, while people screamed that he couldn’t hear the cops’ commands, was shot in 60 seconds by those cops. In evaluating threat, we’re expected to regard POC immediately as a threat and err on the side of caution with white people. But when you are facing an aggressive white person, it’s not necessarily that easy to assess — it’s not just about him bearing a Nazi ensignia.
Expecting a crowd of people being threatened by a white guy to treat him as probably non-threatening, engage him in discussion of his views that is likely to make him more violent, and be able to tackle whatever he might do with restraint, is a demand we make because of white privilege. It’s what we’d expect people to do for us, because we’re white, and it’s also one of the reasons folks like the Nazi in Seattle are getting out and ranting, threatening people and smashing things — because they know that their whiteness means they won’t be seen as really violent and threatening. It’s why white college kids ravaged a town during a pumpkin festival, burning cars and smashing things — threatening people — and it was described as hi-jinks, whereas if any violence happens from anyone in the near vicinity of a black activist protest — no matter how peaceful the protest might have been and no matter how little the protesters have to do with the violence — it’s accepted as rioting by violent thugs. Right now, the far right is trying — with considerable success — to paint the thoroughly vetted Dreamers as violent gang members.
So it’s easy for us to say, he shouldn’t have been punched, he wasn’t violent enough, when we weren’t there. It’s easy for us to see him as a high, harmless crank because he’s white. It’s easy for us to say, don’t defend yourself violently against a white person throwing things at you who’s threatening to kill you, while at the same time we impassively watch black people getting beaten up all the time. It’s easy for us to tell POC that they should talk compassionately or argumentatively to people who want to violently kill them — to insist that they play the caring, wise Negro to aggressive and attacking white people. Because we’re used to that being the world order we live in and making those demands.
The far right is getting more and more openly violent — they are escalating on their own. (It’s profitable for one thing.) If we insist that white people can be violent without any self-defense from those they’re attacking, then it’s not really just an issue of violence anymore. It’s a power issue. I’m against the violence; I think most people are in agreement that we want to avoid it as much as possible. I don’t agree with punching Nazi T-shirts, (though I understand them.) But I’m increasingly uncomfortable with having POC and LGBTQ people getting beaten, killed, screamed at and terrorized and then telling them that they have to be perfect, not feel threatened and not defend themselves against attacks because a bunch of mostly white people don’t think the situation was violent enough against them — because they don’t see white people as violent. That’s not necessarily being the “good guys.” Sometimes it’s being the status quo guys and ignoring the realities of the situation. It’s a little more complicated than just hit/no hit.
Miles Carter
September 25, 2017 @ 3:59 pm
Mr. Hines – I’m talking about legal justification. I’m a plaintiff’s attorney and I state unequivocally that under the civil law the punch was a disproportionate response to the threat presented. A shove, a slap, a crisp “fuck off!” would be (probably) legally proportionate. I concede that it would be a terrible case to take to trial – what American jury is siding with a Nazi? The truly unpopular have never, anywhere or at any time, enjoyed equal protection under the law. That said, a potentially lethal assault in this situation was a clear violation of the law. For whatever that’s worth – for me, a passionate defender of the rule of law, quite a bit. Your mileage may vary.
linnen
September 25, 2017 @ 9:56 pm
I’m willing to accept pre-emptive violence should be shunned. Thing is, if you encounter a neo-Nazi, Klan member, or white nationalist, I would say that is ground for saying you’ve already have been pre-emptively punched. They already call for the ‘Other’ to be beaten, gulaged, an eliminated. That you, yourself, don’t look like the people they are railing against is a a rather minor problem for them (think ‘One- Drop racism’.)
Grew up in Germany in Bavaria, the German version of Texas, with a German born mother and a Jewish Uncle and Aunt, I was brought up that shunning Nazis is the polite way to go. Punching them was always considered acceptable behavior.
Consider them an invasive species. If you don’t aggressively uproot them then they show up, they will take over your environment.
Jayden
September 30, 2017 @ 5:04 am
linnen, without wanting to be insulting, I hope your part of Bavaria is a long way from my part of Bavaria. Really now… I’d be rather nervous to live next to people who think pre-emptive punching acceptable behavior.
Though I’m rather certain your part of Bavaria considers that assault as well.
linnen
October 2, 2017 @ 8:20 pm
Jayden, yes the description you made of Germany does not quite match what I remember. Visiting friends of my Mother’s and Oma’s (my mom kept up the relationships her mom made) one would see pictures of fathers, brothers, and sons in uniforms, on occasion. Once past the post-war Reiniung (prison sentence) the only military uniform pictured was that of the Bundesrepublik. My German Grandfather served in the army. We have no pictures of him in uniform, only civilian clothes.
We did not have many left-wing extremists because there was East Germany right next to us, not to mention tales from defectors from the DDR. Right-wing? I’m honestly uncertain how successful Germany was in ostracizing them given Gundolf Kohler’s Octoberfest bombing in 1980.
I’m going to stop rambling and point you to an essay I’ve found titled Tolerance is not a moral precept, https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376?gi=615ed8f25356
TLDR short of it, “Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty”.
Slightly longer; “[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.”
linnen
October 2, 2017 @ 8:35 pm
Oh and Jayden, re Assault? I’m pretty certain you are right about the assault part of it. As illegal as displaying Nazi behaviors are in Germany (and that might be lowered given that neo-Nazis have been given permission to march), it is better that the police handle the situation.
Jo
October 7, 2017 @ 6:49 pm
My opinion: if you feel confident to label someone a nazi and then feel like your labeling of that person gives you the right to physically harm them… then I think something is seriously wrong with you.
Define nazi. Does your definition include someone who is actually killing people? Or is your definition basically someone who says stuff you don’t like?
You are not a judge. You are not a jury. You are not an executioner.
linnen
October 8, 2017 @ 5:32 pm
Jo, I am not critiquing what you wrote in the following. If I call you out specifically then, yes, comments have been addressed to you. Most of the following are from http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
Added comments to Umberto Eco’s definition of ‘Ur-Fascism’ (here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush Newspeak Fascism.pdf) (add-ins 1995);
“The cult of tradition.
[Who are the folks who beat their breasts (and ours) incessantly over the primacy of
‘traditional Judaeo-Christian culture’?]
The rejection of modernism.
[Think ‘feminazis.’ Think attacks on the NEA. Think attacks on multiculturalism.]
Irrationalism.
[G.W. Bush’s anti-intellectualism and illogical, skewed speech are positively celebrated
by the right.]
Action for action’s sake.
[Exactly why are we making war on Iraq, anyway?]
Disagreement is treason.
[“Liberals are anti-American.”]
Fear of difference.
[Again, think of the attacks on multiculturalism, as well as the attacks on Muslims and
Islam generically.]
Appeal to a frustrated middle class.
[See the Red states — you know, the ones who voted for Bush. The ones where
Limbaugh is on the air incessantly.]
Obsession with a plot.
[Limbaugh and conservatives have been obsessed with various “plots” by liberals for the past decade — see, e.g., the Clinton impeachment, and current claims of a “fifth column” among liberals.]
Humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
[Think Blue states vs. Red states.]
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
[The very essence of the attacks led by talk-radio hosts against antiwar protesters.]
Life is eternal warfare.
[This perfectly describes the War on Terror.]
Contempt for the weak.
[Think both of conservatives’ characterization of liberals as “weak spined,” as well as the verbal attacks on Muslims and immigrants from the likes of Limbaugh and Michael
Savage.]
Against ‘rotten’ parliamentary governments.
[Remember all those rants against ‘big government’?]
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
[Perhaps the most noticeable trait in the current environment. The destruction of
meaning by creating “empty phrases” combining opposite ideas has, as we have seen,
become a prominent strategy deployed by the conservative movement.]”
Also note Stanley Payne’s list also contained in here. Also note the comment after “Anticonservatism “. Fascists will align with what ever group gives them power.
Roger Griffin’s The Nature of Fascism has the definition of Fascism as ‘palingenetic ultranationalist populism’. One of his definitions is what I will go by;
“Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and
cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or
ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and
often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of
democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.
”
Personally, I believe in redemption. Nazi/Neo-Nazi wanting to walk away? Hey! Milk and cookies!
As I wrote before, German families do have pictures of fathers, brothers, and sons that served in the German Army of that period. Those pictures were kept because their relatives did not survive. The biggest faux paus is to ask if their relative goose-stepped into membership or were frogged-marched into the same. (Southern employees in the US in the ’60s / 70s also had the same choice to join the CCC(KKK) or be unemployed.)
As for the ‘Nazi’s are someone who says stuff you don’t like’? Jo, I will presume this is hyperbolic exaggeration. Most people trying this as a “counter-example” will also use “You’re intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance”, “Anti-racism is anti-white”, and … (I had a list before dinner, forgot them to avoid indigestion.)
View and comments in https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/bethesda-anti-nazi-game-wasnt-meant-to-incite-political-discussions Plenty of people willing to comment that Nazis should not be attacked.
Jo
October 8, 2017 @ 10:21 pm
It is most certainly not hyperbole. The use of the word nazi is meant to summon image of Hitler, and what would one not do to stop Hitler? The difference here is that Hitler led a regime that actively and horribly killed. Literal death camps sponsored, controlled, and run by the government.
What is hyperbolic is suggesting that someone like Rush Limbaugh is on the level of Hitler. It is plain to see the hyperbole there, and it is shameful.
Below, I have used the list you provided, with a few changes that will hopefully help you see this from another point of view. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the list you gave helps establish what sort of “nazis” it’s okay for everyday citizens to punish with fists.
Again, I maintain: you are not a judge, and you are not a jury, and you are not an executioner. I have serious concerns with a political body that cannot agree with that.
“The cult of tradition.
[An obsession with cultural appropriation.]
Irrationalism.
[Everyone is *literally* equal under the law. Nevertheless, we live in a country where we’re told that there is institutionalized inequality. However, no one names the institution or the inequality that is specific to that institution by policy. Instead, it’s treated like the boogieman. Also, look at the way students try to take over college campuses. This list of irrational behavior is lengthy and well documented on youtube for future generations.]
Action for action’s sake.
[You used the example of Iraq. I’ll use the example of the Paris Climate Accord (which really doesn’t do anything, by the way).]
Disagreement is treason.
[Punch a nazi. Trump supporters are nazis. Impeach Trump.]
Fear of difference.
[Safe spaces. The 1%. “You’re an (effing) white male!”]
Appeal to a frustrated middle class.
[“I can see why the rich would vote Republican, but I sure don’t get why the middle class would vote against their own interests.”]
Obsession with a plot.
[Institutionalized racism and white privilege.]
Humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
[Redistribution of wealth. The myth of the wage gap. The 1%.]
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
[Punch a nazi. Antifa.]
Life is eternal warfare.
[What better describes the world as painted by the left? The underprivileged always having to struggle against the institution.]
Contempt for the weak.
[Male tears.]
Against ‘rotten’ parliamentary governments.
[Trump.]
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
[Cisgendered. Privilege. Intersexual. Cultural appropriation. Something-aphobe. Safe space. Triggering.
Problematic. ]”
linnen
October 9, 2017 @ 12:31 pm
Jo, I must point out that those commented add-in were examples given by David Neiwert when he published his essay in 2003.
As for your added examples, a finer example of Poe’s Law I cannot imagine. **golf clap**
You did manage to leave off triggering words like, “Check your privilege.”
I’m done. I’m willing to read your response, but I’m stopping at this point so OGH does not need to bring out his version of Scalzi’s “Mallet of Loving Correction.”
Jim C. Hines
October 9, 2017 @ 12:51 pm
Jo,
I don’t have time to respond to everything, but this part of your comment demanded a response:
“It is most certainly not hyperbole. The use of the word nazi is meant to summon image of Hitler, and what would one not do to stop Hitler? The difference here is that Hitler led a regime that actively and horribly killed. Literal death camps sponsored, controlled, and run by the government…What is hyperbolic is suggesting that someone like Rush Limbaugh is on the level of Hitler. It is plain to see the hyperbole there, and it is shameful.”
This is nonsense. The use of the word Nazi is meant to summon images of Nazis. There were ~8 million Nazis in Germany in 1945. Are you suggesting that 7,999,999 of them weren’t *really* Nazis because they weren’t on the level of Hitler? As for actively and horribly killing, were you not watching the news coverage of Charlottesville?
Jo
October 10, 2017 @ 4:52 pm
I was going to briefly respond to this, but then I reread my initial argument and realized that my point is abundantly clear. If you are incapable of realizing there’s a difference between a government attempting to commit genocide and your political opponents then there’s not much I can say to get through to you.
If you maintain that you have any sort of right, legal or otherwise, to punch (physically harm) someone for their speech then I think you’re evil. And basically either disingenuous or dumb.
Thank you for your time, and have a good day.