Hacker News Reader

Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

> People who advocate violence over mere words should be shunned in society

And indeed fascists, notorious advocates for violence, get shunned and get punched in the face. What is the problem? Am I supposed to feel bad?

I despise this kind of idealistic view. If you're part of a hate group, be prepared to be hated and face the consequences. If you turn your cheek, you enable bullies while feeling good about yourself. Fuck them.

There would be fewer bullies if they'd risked getting sucker punched, laughed at openly and actively shamed.

View on HN

Do you condone this attack too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty

What level of violence is too much in response to being offended by someone else's words or nonviolent actions?

Many in the Islamic world consider that response just.

I know words don't mean anything today, but I said fascists get what they deserve.

This person and the people killed at Charlie Hebdo were not fascist, so what your doing here is political misconstruction of my words.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

If a person, because of their ideology, is capable of hate against others to the point of killing them, they should not get a free pass. This includes fascists, Ku-Klux-Klanners or Islamist radicals than blow themselves up, as well as those that condone that sort of behaviour.

> This person and the people killed at Charlie Hebdo were not fascist

They were if you define Fascism the same way certain religious groups do.

Richard Spencer is the most brand label fascism that fascism will get at this point in time.

I mean, ffs, read the first few paragraphs on the guys wikipedia page before you defend him.

I'm not defending anyone in that interaction.

The fact you think I am is why I don't want you hitting people for being "fascist" when you don't know what the Hell that is.

I get it, you want to point out how hard, or even borderline impossible it is to delineate who is a fascist and who isn't, because you think people use the word to loosely.

Maybe they know the word better than you, though? Maybe they're not as oblivious to the dog whistles.

Well, either way, I don't really care where "the line" is here, because Richard Spencer is so clearly over it, it's a ridiculous argument to make. Because actually, often it is quite clear.

No, I want to point out that the idiots who think hitting others accomplishes something don't know what the hell a "Fascist" is.

Look up the history of Weimar Germany. That's what "hitting Fascists" accomplishes. Anyone who wants that must be a Fascist, like you.

which point in the history of the weimar republic proves that it's punching the nazis too much that brought hitler to power? (please support your claims with citations, thanks.)

This is a hilarious misinterpretation of history. Imagine if the nazis hadn't been beaten back during the Beer Hall Putsch.

If you can level a criticism at violence during the Weimer Republic, it's that is was too unfocused, with monarchists, social democrats and communists (who, indeed, were the original organization structure known as "Antifaschistische Aktion", or colloquially, Antifa) all beating each other up as much as they did nazis.

Clearly World War 2 could have been avoided if the Allies had simply challenged Hitler and the other Axis leaders to a debate.

> Many in the Islamic world consider that response just.

It's fair to say most in the Islamic world would consider that response unjust and, more pragmatically, counter-productive. Don't let misconceptions get the best of you.

We went from punching (a form of activism you might not agree with, but one that arguably works to make fascists afraid of public appearances - like milkshakes) a genocidal nazi to outright murder with a extremist religious motive. And you even go on to paint that extremist like an average muslim. Islamophobic gargabe.

This would be like me calling the Oklahoma City bombers "average americans".

Mind that you are advocating "eye for an eye" and vigilantes/self justice by violence here (ironically on the basis of moral or ethical superiority)

It's easy to sit on this kind of high horse when you yourself are not a target of fascist aggression.

I don't want to make assumptions here, maybe you are in fact part of a group that is actively targeted by violent fascists (and I'm not asking you to confirm this), but if you're not, perhaps consider that difference in perspective.

[flagged]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com