Cool but slippery slope
Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
It’s a sheer cliff really. Either you’re punching a nazi or you’re punching someone that doesn’t deserve it. Nazis are usually proud of being Nazis, so they show off with these salutes and their dumb swastika flags. It’s ok to punch people like this. It should in fact be legal.
Conceptual slippery slope arguments assume that because we cannot draw a distinction between adjacent stages, we cannot draw a distinction between any stages at all.
Example: "There is no essential difference between 199 and 200 grains of sand or 200 and 201 grains and so on. Thus, there is no difference between 1 grain of sand and 3 billion grains of sand.”
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Oh for sure. I’m not at all for leaving Nazis alone. Like I said, they should be mocked merciless. They should know just exactly how deranged they sound, and they should feel bad for opening their dumb mouths. However, no matter how dumb their mouth may be, you don’t get to punch them in it.
Nah, they’ll ban leftism and trans people either way. It’s not like the Weimar Republic banned Nazism, and yet Hitler still banned every other political party and did the Holocaust. Fascist ideologies must be strangled in the cradle, so punching Nazis is fine.
I agree with the Paradox of Tolerance being solved by “it doesn’t cover the intolerant.” I’m cool with banning Nazi speech, and kicking Nazis out of shops and bars no questions asked. Maybe I’m just too idealistic, but I also believe everyone has human rights that shouldn’t be violated. Even if you did take away others’ rights in your life—what matters to me is that you have your capacity to hurt others taken away, not that you suffer in kind. (I am fully aware that killing people does stop that individual from being able to hurt others.) I’ve always believed an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And people do change.
This reaction also probably comes from my strong aversion to violence. Can’t see any realistic violence without reacting poorly, and even a few cartoony violent things will freak me out. I’m possibly just knee-jerking “no no omg wtf” to any kind of speech that celebrates any form of real-life violence.
I do understand the argument that their entire worldview is “commit violence against the others” and so perhaps punching Nazis is simply a preemptive strike against people who have actively chosen this belief. I do understand self-defense. If someone punches you and the conditions make it so running away is not an option available to you, by all means I will not fault you for punching back. And if things get to the point where you’ve already tried all the peaceful solutions and someone just keeps being harmful anyways, I can see violence being a last resort to make them stop hurting you or others. I think my problem is that I’m aware that sometimes, punching a schoolyard bully will stop them from hurting you anymore, but I’ve never heard of punching a Nazi stopping them from doing harm to anyone. Which makes the “this is okay because it’s a preemptive strike to stop them from hurting anyone” argument fall flat to me. I’ve heard of bringing a military against them stopping them from doing harm in WWII, but I haven’t heard of the same for punching individual Nazis.
I’m very used to people online being cruel to acceptable targets, for what seems to me like cruelty for the sake of it, and shutting down any “wait, that seems a little mean and unnecessary” with “so you’re DEFENDING them? You’re a bootlicker.” So I’m not sure if what I’m looking at is the minority frustration I’m not supposed to tone police, or if it’s glee in violence against an acceptable target for the sake of violence. And I’ll risk being a tone policer and getting corrected when it comes to people celebrating violence. By all means, I’d love to find out that punching individual Nazis actually a “maybe I’ll stop being horrible to them” effect, that people are advocating violence for the sake of protecting themselves and others and not just violence for the sake of exerting power over a disliked group (and yes, I know Nazis are the oppressors and I am not trying to compare it to violence against oppressed and disliked groups).
Cool but slippery slope Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
It’s a sheer cliff really. Either you’re punching a nazi or you’re punching someone that doesn’t deserve it. Nazis are usually proud of being Nazis, so they show off with these salutes and their dumb swastika flags. It’s ok to punch people like this. It should in fact be legal.
Nope. A Nazi is well defined.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
We should be mocking them mercilessly.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Oh for sure. I’m not at all for leaving Nazis alone. Like I said, they should be mocked merciless. They should know just exactly how deranged they sound, and they should feel bad for opening their dumb mouths. However, no matter how dumb their mouth may be, you don’t get to punch them in it.
Congratulations you are privileged enough to laugh because they aren’t affecting your life
Nazis already preach political violence so who cares?
I agree with you. It’s a lot harder to make that effective, though.
This is said as if they wouldn’t ban the left otherwise, or are not already banning being trans or books right now.
Yeah thats true
This is the “extreme” everyone keeps talking about. The line is like 300 yards behind it.
Life is nothing but slippery slopes in all directions. Get used to it and stop falling for it as a line.
Nah, they’ll ban leftism and trans people either way. It’s not like the Weimar Republic banned Nazism, and yet Hitler still banned every other political party and did the Holocaust. Fascist ideologies must be strangled in the cradle, so punching Nazis is fine.
I agree with the Paradox of Tolerance being solved by “it doesn’t cover the intolerant.” I’m cool with banning Nazi speech, and kicking Nazis out of shops and bars no questions asked. Maybe I’m just too idealistic, but I also believe everyone has human rights that shouldn’t be violated. Even if you did take away others’ rights in your life—what matters to me is that you have your capacity to hurt others taken away, not that you suffer in kind. (I am fully aware that killing people does stop that individual from being able to hurt others.) I’ve always believed an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And people do change.
This reaction also probably comes from my strong aversion to violence. Can’t see any realistic violence without reacting poorly, and even a few cartoony violent things will freak me out. I’m possibly just knee-jerking “no no omg wtf” to any kind of speech that celebrates any form of real-life violence.
I do understand the argument that their entire worldview is “commit violence against the others” and so perhaps punching Nazis is simply a preemptive strike against people who have actively chosen this belief. I do understand self-defense. If someone punches you and the conditions make it so running away is not an option available to you, by all means I will not fault you for punching back. And if things get to the point where you’ve already tried all the peaceful solutions and someone just keeps being harmful anyways, I can see violence being a last resort to make them stop hurting you or others. I think my problem is that I’m aware that sometimes, punching a schoolyard bully will stop them from hurting you anymore, but I’ve never heard of punching a Nazi stopping them from doing harm to anyone. Which makes the “this is okay because it’s a preemptive strike to stop them from hurting anyone” argument fall flat to me. I’ve heard of bringing a military against them stopping them from doing harm in WWII, but I haven’t heard of the same for punching individual Nazis.
I’m very used to people online being cruel to acceptable targets, for what seems to me like cruelty for the sake of it, and shutting down any “wait, that seems a little mean and unnecessary” with “so you’re DEFENDING them? You’re a bootlicker.” So I’m not sure if what I’m looking at is the minority frustration I’m not supposed to tone police, or if it’s glee in violence against an acceptable target for the sake of violence. And I’ll risk being a tone policer and getting corrected when it comes to people celebrating violence. By all means, I’d love to find out that punching individual Nazis actually a “maybe I’ll stop being horrible to them” effect, that people are advocating violence for the sake of protecting themselves and others and not just violence for the sake of exerting power over a disliked group (and yes, I know Nazis are the oppressors and I am not trying to compare it to violence against oppressed and disliked groups).