Any time you punch someone because of 'what they are', be they black, male, white, gay, disabled, a veteran or a Nazi - that's a hate crime.
The latter two are not to my knowledge, I believe a hate crime only falls under the legal categories of sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.
However, it is always assault unless you are defending yourself.
Maybe our compulsion to dehumanize anyone we find threatening/distasteful/disagreeable and declare them garbage is part of what got us into the current mess we are in.
I don't know. It depends.
Garbage was once useful and had value, until it became garbage. People can be useful and have value, but if they start espousing bigotry and hate, they become garbage.
I think the word "garbage" is actually probably the best and least problematic insult, in general. Maybe "shit", too, since shit is literally waste.
And look, yeah, peace and love. But my pacifism is practical. As in, I'm all for pacifism until it stops being practicalº.
º In a "reaction against bigotry and hate" sense.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
Maybe this should be in the "things I love" thread. I dunno.
But last day at my (soon to be) old job! And last time I'll ever see a bunch of people who're very familiar to me, most likely. Feels kinda weird, and meh, and exciting.
I feel like we should all go back to kindergarten. "Keep your hands to yourself." That was a really good rule.
I just don't think that violence is the answer.
Like Nazi (since we are using this) hates all the things not them.
Nazi is violent and does a thing.
It is not the right show (to me) that you put your hands on them.
It is okay to find a legal ramification against them.
It is okay to educate them out of this thought pattern if possible.
I (personally) feel that the only thing that violence begets is more violence. If you are violent against X group, etc. Then you in a way give them an example to point to and prove their point.
It does not go:
Nazi: Grr, Imma do a a thing!
Nazi does thing.
You: Bad wrong
You assault the Nazi
Nazi: Hey, you know you are right. You kicking my ass made me see the right way (aka your thinking).
It does tend to go like this:
Nazi does a thing against a group
You throat punch the Nazi
Nazi: See (group) is bad and this is what they did.
Nazi: See (group) is bad and is now brainwashing (their type) to act against us. They must be taught a lesson/eradicated.
Nazi2: My brother has been attacked. We must go teach (you) a lesson about messing with us.
I don't mean to get up on my soapbox, it's just one of the things that makes me sigh. It doesn't make me angry, it sort of makes me sad. We are supposed to be 'higher intelligent creatures', yet we tend to resort to using our hands not our words. I also understand that I'm a bit more on the make love not war side of the gambit when it comes to solving issues. Also, maybe I'm over-simplifying etc.
You do not solve hate with hate. You do not solve it with violence. You solve it (to me) with love and education. Riots have never helped a movement. It may have felt good to the person for an act of defiance against the rules. They have tended to harm more innocent people and ruin a cause. They become known (the riot) has senseless, head shaking acts and a lot of times become a selfish sort of twist to them. They take away from the issue at large because of the violence of the issue. I'm huge on everyone getting their civil rights and not judging a person by their life story, or things they cannot help. I just think there are better ways to do it. So, it makes me sad when people are going to be like OMG I'm going to hit this thing to make a point.
TL:DR - Catsmeow went off on a soapbox rant -- Violence does not solve hate; it tends to justify it.
You are over-simplifying, surely. It would be great to not use violence, ever; I abhor violence and I abhor death. Even watching Prince Joffrey in a fictional world die made me sad for someone dying.
But. When the other side uses violence, words only go so far.
My big issue with all the 'YAY LET'S PUNCH NAZIS!' stuff is... some people seem to also have decided that they get to decide what defines a Nazi now?
(Note: I'm not saying 'everyone,' just 'some people.')
I know one person (and promptly distanced myself) who went 'Anyone who does/says anything I don't like is a Nazi, therefor I get to punch them.' And that's... well, that's kinda fucked up and wrong.
My issue with let's punch a thing (again this is my opinion) is it sort of makes you the thing in my book.
Group A hates Group C.
Group B hates Group A because they hate Group C.
Group A does a thing against Group C.
Group B hurts Group A for doing a thing against Group C.
It just makes both Group A and B look wrong and violent to me, I guess.
I don't care what someone is. I care about what they do. If you're a person that sits around minding their own business, I don't care that you're a racist.
The moment you begin to foment other racists into a frothing mass that confuses terrorism with patriotism, I have an objection.
Hell, if you foment ignorance, hate, and fear into a movement that confuses terrorism with patriotism, I have an objection.
I'm looking at you, Fox News.
Well, I was staying out of this happy funtime discussion, but, my perspective:
While I think all of these "white nationalists" as they like to be called, are garbage human beings, I also don't believe in hitting them, because, as much as people hate to hear this, that makes average people sympathize with them before actually hearing the crazy racist bullshit they have to say. It makes your Average Joe dude go, "Wow, this is just like the time a black person was mean to me, I guess all this white nationalism stuff must have some weight to it".
Granted, my experiences growing up in Philadelphia has painted my impression of what the average person and the average person's perspective is, that's just generally how I personally expect it to go. I think hitting these people will only give them more supporters and make them even more sympathetic to people who are just the average everyday level of racist you expect most people to be. I'd rather not push them over that far, I prefer the racism I have to be around to be at a level I can tolerate.
I want all of these "white nationalists" to be on camera saying the most racist shit possible, so that I can have a video to point to and go "See, this is what's wrong with all this shit".
I incidentally also don't want the Confederate flag banned, I'd prefer to know what kind of neighborhood I'm in, or what kind of people I'm dealing with, so I can back the fuck up and go no where near it. I prefer literal goddamned red flags so that I don't get caught in a situation where I can't tell if I'm entering a literal racist town where I might encounter a literal lynch mob or something.
It's true that the South and Midwest scare the shit out of me, and this might be an exaggeration, but I'm just being honest about how I feel. When you know damned well that there are millions of people out there who would kill you without a second thought, and probably think it was fun and hilarious, yes I am going to be prone to being terrified of an entire region of the country, no matter how reassuring people try to be about how it's "not that bad".
Swimming with goddamned sharks is also not as bad as most people make it out to be. Are you gonna go do it?
@HelloProject said in RL Anger:
While I think all of these "white nationalists" as they like to be called, are garbage human beings, I also don't believe in hitting them, because, as much as people hate to hear this, that makes average people sympathize with them before actually hearing the crazy racist bullshit they have to say. It makes your Average Joe dude go, "Wow, this is just like the time a black person was mean to me, I guess all this white nationalism stuff must have some weight to it".
I could care less who sympathizes with whom. I wouldn't hit anyone other than in direct defense of myself or another because that's not what I believe in or how I want to behave.
I feel like we should all go back to kindergarten. "Keep your hands to yourself." That was a really good rule.
I just don't think that violence is the answer.
Like Nazi (since we are using this) hates all the things not them.
Nazi is violent and does a thing.
It is not the right show (to me) that you put your hands on them.
It is okay to find a legal ramification against them.
It is okay to educate them out of this thought pattern if possible.I (personally) feel that the only thing that violence begets is more violence. If you are violent against X group, etc. Then you in a way give them an example to point to and prove their point.
This is definitely a naive way of looking at this particular chain of events.
The problem here is that the law doesn't do anything about it. The problem here is a systemic bias in favor of Nazis, white supremacists, and men who engender and foster bigotry against people of color, women, and non-heteronormative people in order to victimize them.
There is no recourse in the law at this time because the law is on their side.
What do you think the law would do if it did something? You think it would be peaceful? In what world are cops peaceful when facing opposition willing to turn to violence? (And, further, in what world are cops generally peaceful at all? Not mine.)
Your proposed solution is just as violent, in the end, as someone who says "yes, it's always okay to punch a Nazi". It's just that your solution looks for backing from a system that is, at this time, categorically unable and unwilling to take those actions.
So it goes.
As for people deciding they get to punch anyone they define as a Nazi, regardless of logic and actual facts, that's just because there are stupid people, and not indicative of a significant problem in a movement (if you can even call it a movement).
If anything, a small percentage of people deciidng they now get to punch anyone they can define as a Nazi based on their arbitrary and non-sensical definition of such is still probably less of a problem than actual Nazis and white supremacists fomenting bigotry, violence, and systemic disenfranchisement of others.
It does not go:
Nazi: Grr, Imma do a a thing!
Nazi does thing.
You: Bad wrong
You assault the Nazi
Nazi: Hey, you know you are right. You kicking my ass made me see the right way (aka your thinking).
Well actually, it kind of does, because in a very simplistic way, you just summarized World War II and its aftermath.
I could care less who sympathizes with whom. I wouldn't hit anyone other than in direct defense of myself or another because that's not what I believe in or how I want to behave.
I like to think that I wouldn't hit someone due to the inner goodness of my heart, but some people require digging down very, very deep. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another for someone to be telling you to your face the most racist shit I've ever heard, for three hours straight, and to be trapped in the situation due to it being a point in your life where you had no idea what to even do when shit like that comes up.
I know you're probably thinking "just walk away from the situation", but it's like, we're talking about a situation where, when I mention it, mutual friends that I have with this person start going "Well, did that really happen? Are you sure you didn't just misinterpret the situation? Maybe we should just stop talking about this" and shit like that. It's frustrating, getting constantly poked at with a stick like that, and you're just kind of expected to repress it, which is exactly what I do, because there's not really an alternative that doesn't complicate a bunch of my relationships.
So I try to remember the consequences of hitting people, because there is a limit to the pure goodness in one's heart to simply not hit someone when they become grossly racist every time you're alone with them and none of your other friends are around to see it.
@HelloProject said in RL Anger:
So I try to remember the consequences of hitting people, because there is a limit to the pure goodness in one's heart to simply not hit someone when they become grossly racist every time you're alone with them and none of your other friends are around to see it.
Record it with your phone, even if just the audio, and play that nasty shit back next time folks deny it. It won't necessarily win you much, but you can rebut the 'they never would have said that' bullshit with their own words.
You might get the 'they were probably joking' bullshit, though.
@HelloProject said in RL Anger:
So I try to remember the consequences of hitting people, because there is a limit to the pure goodness in one's heart to simply not hit someone when they become grossly racist every time you're alone with them and none of your other friends are around to see it.
Hey, I never said I never wanted to hit someone. And sure enough there are folks who can get under your skin (usually because that's exactly what they're trying to do) and make you do things you'll regret later.
@HelloProject said in RL Anger:
I like to think that I wouldn't hit someone due to the inner goodness of my heart, but some people require digging down very, very deep. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another for someone to be telling you to your face the most racist shit I've ever heard, for three hours straight, and to be trapped in the situation due to it being a point in your life where you had no idea what to even do when shit like that comes up.
Picture yourself on public transportation. Some man comes up and starts berating you for being Muslim. You're black, you're young, and you don't want to cause trouble, but the man is really upsetting you.
So, these three men come up and try to shut the man down with their words. They tell him to get off the vehicle when the opportunity arises.
And then, the man whips out a knife and starts slashing people's throats.
You know what? Yes, I'm going to punch an ignorant racist that decides he wants to stand his ground. Actually, I'm not; I'm going to honestly attempt to take him down and subdue him. And I will do it with as much prejudice as I can muster because I don't want to be fucking stabbed by some crazy fuck who'll probably mistake me for being Mexican or Muslim.
Is it always okay to punch a Nazi? No. Is it okay to pre-emptively strike someone who seems likely to lash out with deadly force? Legally, yes.
I've been trying to decide whether I speak into this topic or not. I usually don't, because I've found it rare that a conversation online ever actually results in the two people having their views adjusted. So, why bother saying something contrary to what the loud people are saying if it's likely going to cause those loud people to jump to insane conclusions about you?
But, whatever. Here I go.
I'm a much a libertarian as I can get away with. I want the government out of my life as much as possible. I have absolutely no problem with businesses discriminating against people for whatever reason they want, no matter how cockamamie or vile it seems to me. My belief is that businesses who get involved in that sort of behaviour find themselves either catering to a clientele who either supports or is indifferent to that policy, or out of business because no one wants to give them any money because of that practice. I've been discriminated against in the past, and just shrugged and moved on to find a business who wanted my money.
I think the spark that ignited the movie theatre debacle was that there appeared to be inconsistent standards applied. Where the theatre originally just had tickets for sale to a "women only" night, they weren't for a specific cause - it wasn't a closed event. So, the fellow bought a ticket because he's legally allowed to do so. Contrast that with bakeries who have been sued into the ground for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (for that specific event), and you see that there's an inconsistent standard. No one's suing Muslim-owned bakeries for doing the exact same thing (you can check Stephen Crowder's video on that topic - he might be a troll at times, but the video doesn't lie). No one's demanding that mosques allow them to have their rainbow flag-waving, bacon-laden wedding reception there, but churches are getting sued for that same practice.
If the movie theatre (Alamo, was it?) had started off with a "this is a private event," then that fellow would have no claim - private events are private. But because tickets were being sold to the general population, he's right to say that the state law prohibits discrimination based on gender, and no one can ask him to leave because of it. Is he trolling? - sure. Is he wrong? - I don't think so.
As I said before: I don't care what someone believes, as long as they behave civilly. Jason being called a Nazi because he hates Jews and loves Hitler is totally fine because, well, that's a Nazi. Susan being called a Nazi because she thinks marriage should be limited to heterosexual relationships is entirely another.
Well, I've stepped into it, I guess.
Boy howdy.
Your analogy doesn't work.
The bakery didn't have a posted sign stating "We do not offer service to same sex couples."
However, the women only night was advertised as EXACTLY that. So if a man looks at the advertisement and decides that he's going to purchase a ticket, it isn't because he somehow accidentally missed the memo, it's because he willfully chose to purchase a ticket to a women only event to make a statement.
Also, to clarify:
Jason is Nazi.
Susan is a bigot.
Put a pin in that;
For obvious reasons, I take the term "Nazi" very seriously and I don't apply it casually. Whenever I see or hear people saying that Nazis/White Supremacists have the right to be heard, the reaction is visceral for me, and for a lot of Jewish people. "Nazi" isn't just a catch-all term for someone who's a dick to us, or men prancing around in fancy jackboots. It doesn't even represent a vague idea of genocide. It represents a very real and pervasive piece of history involving entire branches of family trees (and entire family trees) being wiped out, it involves ancestral memory of cattle cars and tattoos, wire fences and ghettos.
And in all serious, if you think I'm being melodramatic? Maybe I am, but I stand by every word I say.
"If you stand for nothing Burr, what will you fall for?"
-- Hamilton: An American Musical
@dontpanda said in RL Anger:
I think the spark that ignited the movie theatre debacle was that there appeared to be inconsistent standards applied. Where the theatre originally just had tickets for sale to a "women only" night, they weren't for a specific cause - it wasn't a closed event. So, the fellow bought a ticket because he's legally allowed to do so. Contrast that with bakeries who have been sued into the ground for not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (for that specific event), and you see that there's an inconsistent standard. No one's suing Muslim-owned bakeries for doing the exact same thing (you can check Stephen Crowder's video on that topic - he might be a troll at times, but the video doesn't lie). No one's demanding that mosques allow them to have their rainbow flag-waving, bacon-laden wedding reception there, but churches are getting sued for that same practice.
I know I've harped on this point a lot, but this entire section of the argument, again, just pretty much entirely ignores literally all context surrounding things. Now, I'm no stranger to Libertarian ideology, as I looked at most of the major popular ideologies before realizing that none of them really fit me, due to largely ignoring the world in favor of a convenient way of thinking. I'm saying this so that you understand that I have a general grasp of the ideological perspective.
That said, ignoring all context is pretty much 100% just pretending that all the situations are equal. It's basically equivalent to looking at a house, and looking at a house on fire, and then going, "These both look like houses to me, I don't know why the government has people wasting water on that other house and giving it a wash. This is special treatment".
Libertarian ideology in particular is very prone to mental gymnastics, which are largely centered around convincingly giving people the foundation for believing that we live in a society where inequality is a personal failing, and holding two very different things up and going, "These two things look perfectly even to me, I don't see what the problem is".
So it's ultimately difficult to address, because depending on what camp of Libertarianism you're from, I know that most responses to what I'd have to say are things like survival of the fittest arguments, "this research I read says what you said are factually not true" arguments, and other things. It's an ideology I have difficulty explaining things to, because it is very much built on a foundation of reaffirming feel-good mental gymnastics.
Though if you do have a solid argument for why context doesn't matter and we need to be robotic in making sure that all decisions are exactly the same, I'll read it. Just keep in mind that it's very difficult to make people accept an argument that a burning house should be treated equally to one that isn't on fire, and all decisions should be handled perfectly the same.
I grew up in Northern Idaho during the 80s/early 90s, when it was a hotbed for Aryan Nation activity (the house my folks lived in was like three miles from the Ruby Ridge stand-off. Maybe it still is like this, I am long gone and don't know anymore!). Not "people having views that were mean and abstractly hateful," but robbing banks/putting bombs under people's cars/selling weapons to and supplying training for groups that are classified as domestic terrorists. There were backroads you did not want to drive on because of white nationalist militia fucks were trigger-happy about anything that got too close to their "compounds." I am terrifyingly white (ginger, y'all), so my family was never targeted, but this shit is real. It's not an intellectual exercise in people having distasteful views. These are actual domestic terrorists.
Admittedly I don't know where the line is, in terms of how these fucks should be curtailed. I would personally be against applying European-style speech codes in the US. I enjoyed the hell out of that Richard Spencer getting punched video in a visceral way, even while on a civil discourse level it made me uncomfortable. I'm angry that, after a couple decades removal from this, I became as complacent about it as anyone else, and it chills the fuck out of me to see it alive and well right now, even if it's wearing more socially acceptable clothing in some instances. I have no answers and don't know where we go from here, except acknowledging that this shit is a part of our country and it's a problem we need to deal with.
Also, yeah, seeing the term "Nazi" thrown around casually to describe people are who are just bigoted morons hits me wrong as well, but I don't think I'm in a position to bark at people about it.
Any time you punch someone because of 'what they are', be they black, male, white, gay, disabled, a veteran or a Nazi - that's a hate crime.
The latter two are not to my knowledge, I believe a hate crime only falls under the legal categories of sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.
However, it is always assault unless you are defending yourself.
