I'm not "choosing to exclude" anything. I'm not a violence researcher; I'm just quoting from them. I think the studies cited above take differing approaches to that question (e.g. I believe the 2021 WaPo article includes "plots" as well as attacks, which likely brings in some number of threats). Obviously the Reuters analysis is only cap…
I'm not "choosing to exclude" anything. I'm not a violence researcher; I'm just quoting from them. I think the studies cited above take differing approaches to that question (e.g. I believe the 2021 WaPo article includes "plots" as well as attacks, which likely brings in some number of threats). Obviously the Reuters analysis is only capturing murders, so it does not include threats.
The bigger problem, however, is that most threats are not criminal in the first place, because they lack the elements of imminence and intent that are required to qualify as proscribable under the First Amendment. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to characterize constitutionally-protected speech as on a level with targeted assassinations or bomb plots.
So in your view the left should be fine with threatening ideological opponents so long as it doesn’t actually fall outside the scope of the 1st Amendment.
Whether issuing threats that are sufficiently vague and feckless to be constitutionally protected is effective as a matter of political strategy is an entirely different question to whether it qualifies as "political violence." I think the left shouldn't do that because it's stupid and counterproductive, not because it's illegal.
I think it’s telling you mention legality and utility but ignore the third category, morality.
I also find it amusing that so much of the left have convinced itself that threats and violence can be utilised in the service of justice as if they just do it enough to achieve a just society then it’ll magically stop.
History shows that how any group acts out of power, in pursuit of power is a pretty good indicator of how they’ll behave once they achieve power.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hide the ball here. I absolutely think that punching Nazis is morally correct, and if I were satisfied that the myriad practical and legal problems with doing so were solvable, I would support doing it. Society would be a significantly better place with no Nazis in it. No doubt they feel the same in reverse.
For what it's worth, I think the odds that those practical and legal problems can ever be solved are zero percent, so this abstract discussion of moral philosophy is of no real world consequence whatsoever.
Right, and we’ll just leave the definition of ‘Nazi’ to those doing the punching shall we because there’s been no definition creep and no examples of it turning into a meaningless slur.
Given you comical definition of ‘fascist’ I think everyone here should probably be grateful they won’t meet you in person, or else come wearing a motorbike helmet.
You seem to be tremendously invested in whether I personally join you in morally condemning violence against Nazis-- something that I've already agreed is not practically productive in any event.
There's a quote from The Fellowship of the Ring that I think sums up my position pretty well:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
The point of this quote is that even strongly-held moral beliefs (in particular, that an individual or group deserves death) must yield to the practical reality that perfect justice is impossible. On that point, I think we're agreed, so it's not clear what else you want from me here. If it's a confession of thought-crimes, you're not going to get it, so continuing the conversation is pointless.
I’m not hung up on anything, I just think it’s telling that you can’t bring yourself to condemn people who attack and threaten people for thinking the wrong thing, or who it attacking and threatening people for think the wrong thing and perfectly legitimate.
You’ve danced around something that I bet were it right wing people engaging in similar behaviour you’d have no hesitation in condemning as wrong.
It’s also pretty ironic that you acknowledge the difficulty in defining Nazis whilst you regularly throw out the epithet ‘Fascist’ (still waiting on your definition) at comments on this blog.
No idea what the LOTR quote is supposed to mean unless you’re bizarrely claiming that the self righteous bullies who regularly talk of ‘punching a Nazi’ Nazi being almost anyone they disagree with are engage in ‘strongly-held moral beliefs’ as opposed to assault or threatening behaviour.
I'm not "choosing to exclude" anything. I'm not a violence researcher; I'm just quoting from them. I think the studies cited above take differing approaches to that question (e.g. I believe the 2021 WaPo article includes "plots" as well as attacks, which likely brings in some number of threats). Obviously the Reuters analysis is only capturing murders, so it does not include threats.
The bigger problem, however, is that most threats are not criminal in the first place, because they lack the elements of imminence and intent that are required to qualify as proscribable under the First Amendment. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to characterize constitutionally-protected speech as on a level with targeted assassinations or bomb plots.
So in your view the left should be fine with threatening ideological opponents so long as it doesn’t actually fall outside the scope of the 1st Amendment.
Whether issuing threats that are sufficiently vague and feckless to be constitutionally protected is effective as a matter of political strategy is an entirely different question to whether it qualifies as "political violence." I think the left shouldn't do that because it's stupid and counterproductive, not because it's illegal.
I think it’s telling you mention legality and utility but ignore the third category, morality.
I also find it amusing that so much of the left have convinced itself that threats and violence can be utilised in the service of justice as if they just do it enough to achieve a just society then it’ll magically stop.
History shows that how any group acts out of power, in pursuit of power is a pretty good indicator of how they’ll behave once they achieve power.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hide the ball here. I absolutely think that punching Nazis is morally correct, and if I were satisfied that the myriad practical and legal problems with doing so were solvable, I would support doing it. Society would be a significantly better place with no Nazis in it. No doubt they feel the same in reverse.
For what it's worth, I think the odds that those practical and legal problems can ever be solved are zero percent, so this abstract discussion of moral philosophy is of no real world consequence whatsoever.
Right, and we’ll just leave the definition of ‘Nazi’ to those doing the punching shall we because there’s been no definition creep and no examples of it turning into a meaningless slur.
Given you comical definition of ‘fascist’ I think everyone here should probably be grateful they won’t meet you in person, or else come wearing a motorbike helmet.
Absolutely not. The difficulty involved in identifying who is a Nazi is precisely one of those practical and legal problems I just caveated.
So is punching people who aren’t Nazis or who are merely right wing, awful, but not actually Nazis to be morally condemned?
I think there’s a bunch of dancing on the head of a pin to avoid condemning appalling behaviour because the people doing are supposedly on your side.
You seem to be tremendously invested in whether I personally join you in morally condemning violence against Nazis-- something that I've already agreed is not practically productive in any event.
There's a quote from The Fellowship of the Ring that I think sums up my position pretty well:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
The point of this quote is that even strongly-held moral beliefs (in particular, that an individual or group deserves death) must yield to the practical reality that perfect justice is impossible. On that point, I think we're agreed, so it's not clear what else you want from me here. If it's a confession of thought-crimes, you're not going to get it, so continuing the conversation is pointless.
I’m not hung up on anything, I just think it’s telling that you can’t bring yourself to condemn people who attack and threaten people for thinking the wrong thing, or who it attacking and threatening people for think the wrong thing and perfectly legitimate.
You’ve danced around something that I bet were it right wing people engaging in similar behaviour you’d have no hesitation in condemning as wrong.
It’s also pretty ironic that you acknowledge the difficulty in defining Nazis whilst you regularly throw out the epithet ‘Fascist’ (still waiting on your definition) at comments on this blog.
No idea what the LOTR quote is supposed to mean unless you’re bizarrely claiming that the self righteous bullies who regularly talk of ‘punching a Nazi’ Nazi being almost anyone they disagree with are engage in ‘strongly-held moral beliefs’ as opposed to assault or threatening behaviour.