Hacker News Reader

The other sibling comments in reply to this comment emphasise the central point that it was about culture war and that therefore it's not surprising that many employees don't want to take part on one side or the other!

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?

> banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)

"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...

I don’t see where it’s relating “conservatives” to the name “nazis”, but if that’s what the author’s intent is, then that is shameful.

Calling conservatives a detestable name of a former global enemy doesn’t make it acceptable. Instead it’s encouraging blind “hate” AND violent crimes

>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)

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.

Here's what the book says,

"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".

What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.

I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.

>My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition

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.

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi

The way I read the passage, merely holding any position perceived by them as "racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" constitutes Nazism - regardless of whatever term you may choose. Therefore, holding such views rightfully subjects you to well-deserved violence.

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.

You edited "hateful groups are spewing vile..." out of the beginning of that quote which is important because even if people "exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are", there is still a difference between an anti stance and a hateful and vile stance. It isn't talking about opposing affirmative action, being against more immigration, or disagreeing with gay marriage. If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end.

>"If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."

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 character flaw isn't worrying about the labels being foisted wrongly upon someone. The character flaw is someone worrying that their personal politics can't clearly be distinguished as not being motivated by hate. Odds are that is a marker of a bad and unjust political opinion.

No, odds are that you see the world in black and white when that's not how people are.

> raising money to support violence against conservatives

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.

The entire comic is predicated on a meme coming out rioting at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus

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.

Equating people criticizing folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer as people criticizing "US conservatives" says more about you and the Republican Party then the people doing the criticizing. These are not mainstream conservative people. They do not have mainstream conservative values. These are people who support extreme right wing policies including at times fascist policies. Basically every mainstream platform has kicked these people off for their abhorrent behavior. Holding them up as a representative of "US conservatives" is an insult to any reasonable-minded conservative.

I didn't say that milo ect were typical or that I agree with them.

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

The argument is, in part, "these people [fascists] don't play by the rules, and will obliterate you if given the chance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

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.

I don't think it as clear cut as you claim. There are many political and psychology thinkers who hold that extrajudicial violence is usually counter productive.

> I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.

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.

>" No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi."

It happened a lot more often back in 2012 when he was running for President.

And plenty of people today call Joe Biden a communist. Yet if someone has a "Punch a Communist" bumper sticker, I'm not going to call up the Secret Service saying someone is threatening the president because I know that name-calling is inherently unserious.

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.

>"I know that name-calling is inherently unserious."

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"

>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?

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.

>"Punch a Nazi" is only a slightly more serious notion, but there is firmly a tongue in cheek aspect to it.

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

At this point, Mitt Romney is a RINO - republican in name only. The party has moved way past his kind of politics.

Anyone can call anyone a Nazi. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a fascist, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system

>Anyone can call anyone a criminal. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a criminal, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system

That is basically all comic books. Why are you criticizing this one and not like Batman or something?

Being a Nazi isn't criminal, and I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just pointing out why the comic was controversial.

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.

No see I really want to press you on this, because I want to hear how a theoretical stance in support of violence against unarmed, peaceful protestors (Charlottesville) is equivalent to support of violence against violent armed people who more often than not are the ones initiating the violence.

One of those could maybe be called vigilantism. The other isn't, its terrorism.

I won't be making that argument because I gave two examples of things that I disagree with, not one that I support.

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

>"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."

> 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.

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.

Can you elaborate instead of being coy? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

> I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis"...

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?

That's an appeal to tradition. If harassing gay people was a core part of American culture should we continue to do it? Beating up and killing people over one's political beliefs is wrong.

"It was wrong to beat up gay people" and "it was wrong to beat up the Nazis" are... not quite comparable, I'd argue.

Except that only depends on where your point of view lies. If you were a Nazi you would think it okay to beat up the pink triangle people.

It's also a diversion from the actual argument about inciting violence against _anyone_ being both wrong AND illegal.

I think you're dramatically overstating just how integral "beating up and killing Nazis" is to American culture. I'd go a step further and say that the principles of liberty and the First Amendment are more ingrained than the notion that it is permissible and encouraged to commit violence against Nazis. Especially if the alleged Nazis are fellow Americans.

>"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.

More communists than Nazis although we've forgotten about that unfortunately.

Except the kind of people who donate to something like that think that all conservatives are nazis.