Can you link to details about this?
So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war.
It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author.
I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.
>"Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America? "
Obviously not, and the fact that this is even being asked illustrates the concern because the association between Nazism and Conservatism has already taken root in some way. If you had just left those last two sentences out of your post, the first assertion would have stood on its own.
It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.”
It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.
I don't agree with the idea that you get to punch someone in the face if you disagree with them, even if you label them as a fascist
I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.
But these aren’t “conservatives in general”. These are people who are at the very least fascist sympathizers. No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi.
It happened a lot more often back in 2012 when he was running for President.
Meanwhile Richard Spencer's Wikipedia page starts with "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi..." It is entirely fair to call that guy a Nazi and it is the reason the modern "punch a Nazi" meme centers on him.
But I must beg the question, if society normalizes and encourages violence against Nazis, doesn't that mean that calling someone a Nazi is a potentially serious act? And, what if they aren't really a Nazi?
The term "stochastic terrorism" has been discussed and I believe it applies here. This is the definition I pulled from dicitonary.com: "the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted"
Context is important and it seems like you are trying to blur that context for the sake of an argument. "Mitt Romeny is a Nazi" is not a serious opinion. "Punch a Nazi" is only a slightly more serious notion, but there is firmly a tongue in cheek aspect to it. There is a reason why the only "punching of a Nazi" to reach any type of penetration into pop culture was from the year before this Kickstarter was launched. This comic is not a serious threat anymore than your average issue of The Punisher.
I think we are debating cross topic.
There is a literal argument that if you think someone is a Nazi you should punch them in the face. It is not a widespread sentiment but advocated by fringe people.
Others are arguing against the literal interpretation. If you disagree with the literal interpretation, I think discussion of abstractions would be more fruitful
That is basically all comic books. Why are you criticizing this one and not like Batman or something?
I don't think it should be illegal to print, but can see how Kickstarter employees could see it as advocating violence in the context of it's name and origin.
I think employees would be similarly outraged if someone was crowd funding a comic called "how to mow down leftists" after the Charlottesville car attack.
Again, not illegal, but you could see it as advocating vigilantism and not want it on their platform.
In general, I oppose vigilantism and violence, and think both sentiments are detestable.
One of those could maybe be called vigilantism. The other isn't, its terrorism.
I don't think violence is ever warranted against another non-violent person whom you have ideological differences with.
I don't think it is moral to act as an individual judge against any non-violent person and Carry Out violence.
Punching someone because you think they are a Nazi or communist is not okay
"A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/10/how-debat...
Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes
What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.
"Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies.
SCREW THAT.
ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".
I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2.
You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage.
Given that most conservatives hold positions that are perceived by the nazi punching crowd as one or more of those evil stances above, I feel like the concern is genuine. Emphasis on perceived, because there is a tendency to exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are.
And there's the issue, front and center. If someone like me is worried that labels are getting thrown around in a wanton and haphazard manner, and such labels are used as justification for violence, why is it seen as a character flaw for me to worry that such labels might be foisted upon myself in the future?
>"only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
Honestly, part of why I'm so concerned is that I can't read this as anything other than an insinuation.
The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?
I'm personally in tight with a whole bunch of (ex-)Kickstarter people from rank and file to leadership.
Glad to be friends with people but happy they're not my coworkers.