Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

I've heard this repeatedly, and each time I thought....'if someone just firebombs the lot of them, or some other certain death, there's no one left to sue you'. You just have to be sure you get them all....no jury will ever convict.

The family itself doesn't generally put boots on the ground on location to do the provoking (at least not all together); that's for the pawns of their "congregation".

Hitting their lair itself might work, but since I'm arguing that their entire modus operandi revolves around intentionally provoking violence against them, I'd wager that they expect that such an attack may well happen some day and also intentionally avoid all being together in the same physical location.

I fully concur that it is enjoyable to contemplate, though.

You're probably correct, they should expect exactly that mass attack. It would still be a great day if it happened, especially by an anonymous soldier of God that never is caught and hunts the survivors. I doubt too much effort would go into investigating it. ;-)

Until that day, I can only hope they are identified and given proper Christian treatment, meaning others treat them as they treat others, so their remaining time on earth is spent hiding with the family unable to spend any of that money without being exposed to rabid hatred screamed into their bleeding ears incessantly.

I'm a big fan of EC-Comics-style ironic punishment and I love the Punisher and other revenge fantasies but Bill is right. You have to be better than them. You can't sink to their level, you need to keep your ethics in place.

But it's of course A-ok to kill Nazis once they do actual physical harm to others. I am a big Indiana Jones fan too, you know.

Morello doesn't seem to understand that the majority victimizing the minority is a bad precedent and should be fought against, not merely used now that he's in the majority.

Especially not against someone who is merely wrong.

Find him lynching a black man for getting "uppity"? I'm full on immediate capital punishment for that shit, but this is erroneous opinion and zero fashion sense.

Edit, lulz, auto correct said "zero fascist sense".

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

This. You cannot assault people for speaking their mind, no matter how odious their opinion might be (with huge grey areas around actual incitement to violence and so on).

The second they start something violent though, you have a right to defend yourself and others, and there's no law that says you can't feel immensely satisfied while doing so.

But as much as I viscerally want to see Nazis punched in the face (Indy FTW!), it's not how you ultimately defeat them.

Short term, yeah, you have to defend yourself and stop them from achieving their goals... by any means necessary.

Long term, you have to prove them wrong, and the way to do that is with compassion (like the "Life after hate" guys, or this brilliant story *related=https://videosift.com/video/How-one-black-man-defeated-the-KKK-with-humor-and-grace).

*quality discussion though.

How one black man defeated the KKK with humor and grace has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.

Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated.

I don't mind swimming against the stream on this one; i think it's fine to punch nazis.

When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint. You are saying that you support the ideals of the old nazi party, you support Hitler & his goals, you want to see people exterminated in a genocidal system and you celebrate that such a system existed. You are actively pursuing a course of action that, if successful, will result in the deaths of millions of people. Your goal is to kill people.

I don't think there's any comparison to the same kind of treatment of the Phelps family. They celebrate death, misery and hate, but they never killed millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' They are unconscionable bastards, but that's it. Your end goal in supporting them is not violence & genocide.

I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. Laws aren't divine or sacrosanct, and they certainly aren't constant. Our oligarchs meddle with them on a daily basis. The right thing to do may not always be the legal thing to do, and you should not rely on your government to decide right and wrong for you (that's what nazi germany thrived on - 'i was only obeying orders'). The "law" argument will never convince me.

But i might be convinced for other reasons.

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.

I think it's shitty these guys talk over the woman in this clip.

You cannot assault people - not unless you are protecting yourself or another from immediate physical harm. And if it's not immediate, call the appropriate authority and let them handle it. THE END.

If you are so offended that you feel like you need to intervene, then politely ask why he is a nazi, and explain to him why it's wrong, challenge his views in a non-confrontional manner. It's as easy as saying "I don't agree with Nazi ideology because of XYZ" He's clearly in the wrong, so it shouldn't be hard to explain to him why.

Anything else means you are OK with living in a society where punching each other is an acceptable form of communication - leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views.

"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

Might be worth mentioning that people did punch Nazis back when they were originally forming. All it did was teach them how to implement political violence.