27 – On Punching Nazis

When is it OK to punch Nazis? With Sean.

Original Richard Spencer being punched video
Follow-up video of the guy who punched him being briefly confronted

Eneasz’s two posts on the topic

Ken White of Popehat On Punching Nazis (he’s against it, for good legal reasons)

A pro-punching piece a friend sent to Eneasz

The Alternative Right piece discussing black genocide that is quoted

Who is this “Black Bloc?”

The shooting of a (not really) Nazi at University of Washington

Derek Black, the white supremacist who was invited to dinner by Jewish classmates and decided he wouldn’t be a supremacist anymore.

Superman vs The KKK, on This American Life, where Eneasz first heard of it, although it looks to have first appeared in Freakonomics and so has probably shown up all over the place.

Non-Violent options for change at Indivisible Guide

Change My View at reddit


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to 27 – On Punching Nazis

  1. Eddie says:

    The Superman radio series “Clan of the Fiery Cross” is well worth listening to, if nothing else than for the old timey radio ads. It was hosted on the Superman homepage for a while, but I couldn’t find it. It is easily found on youtube.

    I haven’t listened to your ep yet, as I was on vacation and now have a few weeks worth of podcasts to catch up on, but I am looking forward to it.

    • BayesianAdmin says:

      Thanks for the lead on the Superman radio series! I know I just recently heard the detailed version of the story, but I don’t listen to either of the podcasts Eneasz mentioned, so I’m still trying to remember. 🙂

      Thanks for the positive feedback. I hope you enjoy catching up on the back-log. 🙂

      – Steven

  2. The Mike says:

    First, there is a false equivalence between the German Nazis of the 40s and the Nazis we have around today. Using the actions of our grandparents in this case as a moral center is inappropriate and, as I’ll describe later, hypocritical. The German Nazis were a group of people who were in control of a country, had an army, and more importantly were committing acts of violence against many people. Today’s Nazis are a group of morons who yearn for the old days. Despite the neo-Nazis being violent, they do not have an army, nor hold office, nor influence law. If anything, the only cases of new-Nazi violence I’ve seen are personal incidents where a neo-Nazi (and sure, guided by his/her ideology) attacks somebody, nothing organized so far (as in, a community of them going to burn a synagogue).

    Second, it’s not ok to try to denigrate people you dislike. The only reason this conversation is happening, is because the disgusting sjws are frantically looking for justifications for committing violence AND hold their moral high ground. They want to be able to punch people they don’t like and tell them they deserve so because they thought differently. Inflicting fear on a group of people is terrorism, yes even on neo-Nazis.

    Third, no, it’s not ok to punch a Nazi, or anybody you disagree with. The law is perfectly clear, speech that would not be tolerated is inciting speech. And by inciting it is meant in the precise legal definition, as in let’s go harm X or Y minority. These sjws understand that they don’t have an argument and that they don’t have the support of an overwhelming majority, therefore they use censorship (and now apparently violence) to try to maintain their point as the only one. This is especially tough within minority communities, where minorities are targeted and harassed other minorities that do not accept the movement the sjws present.

    This is specially hypocritical because the same free speech principles that they’re trying to quench is the same principle that’s there to protect the same minorities they claim to represent. The reason it was ok (in their minds) to bring the attack dogs and open the water hoses in Birmingham was because the demonstrators were radicals exercising their FOS. And this is why everyone ought to be able to express their POVs as well as they can. If you can persuade anybody then leave, but coercion is not an option in Western societies.

  3. Albionic American says:

    People keep missing the Alt-Right’s real message, and by now I think this has to happen because of perverse blindness. The Alt-Right’s “racism” doesn’t really upset people, but rather its rediscovery of our ancestors’ tragic view of man. “Social progress” can’t happen because man has an obdurate nature that you can’t reshape like clay into the arbitrary configurations demanded by the political correctness of The Current Year. We have inequality, hierarchy and patriarchy because of this reality. And we have to construct the best lives we can under these constraints.

    Not that long ago our ancestors would have called this realistic view of the human condition something like “wisdom.” Compared with our elites’ childish utopianism which denies this reality, the Alt Right people sound more like the mature adults in the country these days.

    • taking out the trash says:

      Incorrect. The alt-right’s racism does “really upset people”. So do their other poorly veiled expressions of Antisocial Personality Disorder; as we see in your case “Albionic American”. Intelligent, mature persons have no difficulty crushing antiquated stupidity and enjoying constant moral progress.

      Good job pausing your overt anti-Semitism and Spencer adoration and using Google to find another mention of Nazis so you can come to their defense with your pathetically self-censored prepared statement.

        • taking out the recycling says:

          Duly noted. Will abide henceforth. Apologies for my impulsive response.

          (Though I do feel somewhat justified in my preliminary comment according to the reasoning you presented in the episode, with which I agree, especially as a member of one of Spencer and the above individual’s target groups.

          I would not attempt to justify physically assaulting “Albionic American”, but am willing to expose and combat their attempts to obfuscate and otherwise promote hate and bigotry. A Google search of their pseudonym will return copius examples of this behavior on both alt-right websites, as well as a specific focus on rationalist sites.

          I fully understand that you would nonetheless prefer that I defeat their statements with civil, logical argumentation on your site, especially if I am to consider myself a rationalist. I am unsure which method is more effective in the case of what I assume is an intellectually dishonest antagonist [I don’t think ignoring is preferable here] but I am completely happy to try civility either way. I just didn’t feel like taking the time to develop or source a formal refutation that would likely feel completely wasted. But perhaps I will, simply to have it at my disposal.

          Thank you for the motivation, and more importantly for the show in general.

          • It’s OK, I appreciate the prompt response. 🙂

            Googling Albionic American was interesting, I see now that you must’ve run into them in the past and are fed up with their parroting of claims without back-up. If you do eventually take the time for a formal refutation, I, for one, would be quite interested! I assume Albionic won’t be returning to back up anything they said, but hey, you never know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.