CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it OK to punch a Nazi?
This meme that it's OK to punch Nazis has been going around for a while and I'm wondering, does anybody actually believe it? Is it OK to punch a Nazi purely for the beliefs (s)he holds?
Further, in a political climate where the term Nazi is being misapplied to the right wing in general (not just the actual Nazis on the fringes) is this a good meme to promote?
So because you disagree with them, it's OK to respond with violence? One can respond to their actions (if they act) but the fact that they have different ideas to you isn't a legitimate reason to exert force on them. It doesn't matter how odious these ideas are (and they are).
Also, as I detailed to Excon it isn't even the most practical manner in which to deal with them. Further, you should be careful because there are people out there who would describe you personally to be a Nazi, even though you aren't.
You are one of those dangerous fools with a head full of mad dog's shit, who in the same way as Neville Chamberlain along with his 'appeasement cronies' thought they could subdue the vicious savagery of Nazism with politeness and courtesy.
If France and the U.K. had confronted the open aggression of Hitler and his henchmen much earlier and before his Nazi regime was able to start, never mind complete it's rearmament programme, millions of lives would have been saved.
Unfortunately it was yellow bellied filth such as you, who, through their cowardice and blind stupidity 'sleepwalked' the two other European powers into permitting the German war machine to conquer and enslave most of Europe.
Low lives like you along with the rest of the contemptible 'bleeding heart' scumbags go into denial and spew out their sanctimonious drivel in an attempt to mask their congenial timidity and leave what has to be done to real people so filth like you can get a free ride.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The lesson to be learned is, wherever Nazism raises it's head it must be decisively and effectively stamped out.
Dirtballs such as you can go back to sleep and dream about nice little furry kittens and fairy tale castles in the sky
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. The idea is that just because someone holds a point of view, no matter how loathsome that perspective is, enacting violence on them simply for holding that point of view isn't acceptable. In other words, while one may respond to violence with violence, one shouldn't respond to a difference in ideology with violence. This is both for pragmatic reasons and moral reasons, detailed in my post in the "No" section.
It would be like condoning violence against communists. Sure, we know communism is a murderous ideology, but we cannot enact violence against it's proponents simply because they believe differently to us. After all, who hasn't believed something stupid at one point in their lives? In addition, toleration of differences in opinion without resorting to violence is a central part of what makes a liberal democracy.
If we're talking about someone that partook in the industrial slaughter of Jews you'll find that's the minority of living Nazis. It'd be like blaming the whole left wing for the actions of ANTIFA or the black bloc.
There is of course also the matter of the definition of the word Nazi and which groups are to be considered Nazi. If we define Nazis as only those who helped massacre Jews we will be excluding a lot of genuine Nazis from our definition.
One can hold Nazi beliefs without having killed any Jews. Genuine adherents to the doctrine of Hitler's version of national socialism are genuine Nazis.
Merely for holding a different point of view? Do you expect such violence to cause them to reconsider their opinion or rather to drive them to also be violent?
First of all, we need to have an open dialogue with such people so that we can beat their arguments with our own logical arguments. Attacking such people does your cause no good and in fact makes them appear the victim. Further, observers will think that if you could beat their arguments with your own arguments then surely you would have done so rather than responding with violence. If we counter their arguments with our own arguments, as well as appearing the better side to any observers we also have a chance at changing their minds. Exerting force upon them, on the other hand, will cement their views further.
In addition, we don't want to drive such movements to feel they cannot engage in the democratic process. If we don't allow people to speak out they will inevitably resort to violence instead. What's more, the violence will appear legitimate because it is the only avenue of change that we will have afforded them.
Finally, it isn't moral to exert violence on people merely because they have a different perspective on things, even if that perspective is wrong in the worst ways. To conclude, it's neither pragmatic nor moral to commit violence against Nazis, nor is it compatible with the values of a liberal democracy.
"Dude! Drive THEM to be violent?????? Have you no memory?? They're ALREADY DRIVEN to violence.."
Are they? How do you know? I've not seen any studies that suggest all Nazis are violent.
"I don't WANT an open dialogue with NAZI'S.. I wanna FUCK 'EM OVER.. "
You can want whatever you want, but it doesn't mean you'll get it, nor does it make it the most appropriate course of action.
"MERELY???? Their perspective MURDERED MILLIONS of people.."
Their perspective didn't murder anyone, perspectives aren't able to murder. People's actions killed millions of people and while this is influenced by ideology it is still the people's actions that murdered people. Obviously such actions are illegal, the ideas should never be criminalized.
No, though your leaping to the conclusion that I am further demonstrates why punching those one deems to be a Nazi is a mistake.
"Let me be CRYSTAL clear here.. I don't HATE them for their ideas. I hate them for what they DID.."
I think you're misunderstanding. Not all Nazis were part of the Third Reich. One would term neo-Nazis as Nazis, yet they had nothing to do with gassing Jews. I imagine most of them weren't even alive in 1945.
"I'm BLOWN away by your, "merely because they have a different perspective" comment..
People who think Nazi's merely have a different perspective are USUALLY Holocaust Deniers too..
ARE you a Holocaust Denier?????"
Nazis do merely have a different perspective. They may or may not carry out evil acts in service of this perspective but the acts themselves are the thing to be punished, not the perspective.
I'm not a holocaust denier but let's say I was, why would it be relevant?
I dunno what a genuine Nazi IS, other than killers of Jews. What???? Genuine Nazi's are wonderful??? Genuine Nazi's LOVE Jews?
You can't define Nazi politics as the hating of Jews. By doing that you exclude the modern American right from the label simply because they want to exterminate Muslims instead of Jews. In fact, that's very probably the only difference between German Nazis and the modern American right in terms of ideology.
Further, in a political climate where the term Nazi is being misapplied to the right wing in general
It isn't being misapplied. The centre of the American right has been pushed so far right that even the opposition are now on the right. Just consider the last two Republican administrations before concluding the term is being misapplied.
Calling people you disagree with Nazi's, just like people calling Trump 'Hitler', is just feeding to the lowest common denominator, only bottom feeders eat it up....
I disagree with you and think you're a complete fucking prick. The fact that I haven't called you a Nazi disproves your straw man argument and indicates that I only call Nazis fucking well Nazis. If you are going to ignore (or perhaps it is just mindless ignorance) a contemporary Nazi ideology emerging in America because you are worried about hurting people's feelings then you are a fucking retard and it's as simple as that.
Furthermore, "Nazi's" is the possessive form of the word and "Nazis" is the plural. Perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of your own language before you decide to start making up lies about what other people do.
Nope. Hollywood, the media, academia, and all Bernie supporters would find you and kill you for punching one of their own. Let's take a looksie at the far left, shall we?
1)Socialist? Check both sides
2)Use intimidation and force to silence the opposition? Check both sides
3)Alliance with Islam politically (which is fascist by definition)? Check both sides
4)Political speak? Check both sides.
5)Nationalism? Check both sides.
6)Demonize Israel? Check both sides
7)Want war and imbalance with Russia? Check both sides
8)Take over academia and brainwash kids? Check both sides
First of all, we need to have an open dialogue with such people so that we can beat their arguments with our own logical arguments. Physically attacking such people does your cause no good and in fact makes them appear the victim. Further, observers will think that if you could beat their arguments with your own arguments then surely you would have done so rather than responding with violence. If we counter their arguments with our own arguments, as well as appearing the better side to any observers we also have a chance at changing the Nazis' minds. Exerting force upon them, on the other hand, will cement their views further.
In addition, we don't want to drive such movements to feel they cannot engage in the democratic process. If we don't allow people to speak out they will inevitably resort to violence instead. What's more, the violence will appear legitimate because it is the only avenue of change that we will have afforded them.
Finally, it isn't moral to exert violence on people merely because they have a different perspective on things, even if that perspective is wrong in the worst ways. To conclude, it's neither pragmatic nor moral to commit violence against Nazis, nor is it compatible with the values of a liberal democracy.
It isn't okay to punch anyone, especially unprovoked.
If you just happen to stumble across someone you know is a Nazi, either don't engage them or engage with them peacefully. Punching them is only going to reinforce their own perceptions (ex. If a non-white person punches a Nazi, that person will feel their racism is validated. After all, these people are so violent and mean, so they deserve it!)
Being violent only leads to more violence, and if that Nazi guy has friends you better hope they're not bold enough to defend him. This could lead you beat up and in jail for assaulting someone.
If the Nazi tries to get violent with you first, you have the right to punch them, but try to avoid it if possible.
What you find as a consistent theme throughout the interviews of people who were raised in the Hitler Youth is the danger of Socialism and the indoctrination by academia and the media.
What you find as a consistent theme throughout the interviews of people who were raised in the Hitler Youth is the danger of Socialism
Will you ever get it through your impossibly stupid head that Hitler lied about being a socialist? He absolutely fucking hated the left. In fact, when Hitler invaded Europe he thought he was SAVING it from Communism.
He didn't "lie about being a socialist". Germany was under Socialism when he came into power and remained there. Hell, one could argue that Germany is still Socialist. Show us Germany being Capitalist or anything non-socialist in the 1930's or 1940's. You'll be searching until your dead and gone.
CLEARLY, YES HE DID YOU MINDLESSLY DISHONEST RETARD. HE WAS THE POLITICAL OPPOSITE OF A SOCIALIST. HE CLAIMED TO BE A SOCIALIST SO THE LEFT WOULD VOTE FOR HIM AS WELL AS THE RIGHT.
The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[11] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.
I'm NOT here to discuss English.. I'm here to discuss the WORLD.
And, I don't know what point you're trying to make by saying thinking and doing are CONNECTED... Does that mean fucking Nazi's should be EXCUSED because they THOUGHT about murdering people before they DID it????
By the way, the MURDER of millions of people is significantly MORE important than fucking apostrophes...
