Is it acceptable to use violence against Neo Nazis?

Watch
Poll: Is it acceptable to use violence against Neo-Nazis?
Yes (10)
28.57%
No (25)
71.43%
murintemed
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
This is quite a big debate in America but I believe applies in any Western democracy with neo Nazis/alt-rightists/far-rightists: to use violence against neo-Nazis at their demonstrations or not?

Are Neo-Nazis/alt-right/far-right individuals entitled to freedom of speech, assembly and expression as any other political entity is or are their opinions too toxic and hateful to be expressed and is it acceptable when they are shut down violently by groups like "Antifa"? Please vote in the poll and discuss below.
0
reply
username2766878
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Of course not. The use of violence in politics should be a red line in any self-respecting democracy. If we accepted violence against one category of political view, horrendous as they are, then violence against other categories of political views will proliferate and before we know it we'll be in a fully fledged civil war. Political violence will have the opposite effect of shutting down unsavoury groups, it will gain them new sympathisers and promote retaliatory violence. If you don't like Neo-Nazis the last thing you ought to be doing is stooping down to their political mentality.
2
reply
thotproduct
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
As long as they're not breaking any laws then I don't see freedom of speech justifying being attacked. If the only way you can oust an ideology you don't agree with is violence then it's clear you're not doing something right, talk to them, they're people too, not just a blanket umbrella term.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
1
reply
ElAshtonio
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I'm not a neo nazi but here's my take on it:

if neo nazis deserve to be beaten up, so do members of Antifa and other White hating societies. People who hate innocent White people are ironically just as bad as the Nazis who hated innocent Jewish people
0
reply
basicallyshrek
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
yess :clap2:

Also, why is this even a question?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by murintemed)
Are Neo-Nazis/alt-right/far-right individuals entitled to freedom of speech, assembly and expression as any other political entity is or are their opinions too toxic and hateful to be expressed and is it acceptable when they are shut down violently by groups like "Antifa"?
Way to load a question....
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by AryanGh)
If the only way you can oust an ideology you don't agree with is violence then it's clear you're not doing something right, talk to them
So we did the wrong thing by ousting Nazism with violence in 1945, in your opinion?
0
reply
thotproduct
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by anarchism101)
So we did the wrong thing by ousting Nazism with violence in 1945, in your opinion?
Only as a result of them invading Czechoslovakia and an unprovoked attack on Poland did war fully erupt
0
reply
RockGirl19
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Although I don't think that violence is necessarily the answer, and this piece of writing therefore isn't necessarily relevant, I'd like to insert an argument I sent to someone in my class about the view of "freedom of speech" and the "acceptance" of nazis.

My best friend has different opinions from me.
Obviously
She thinks that the confederate statues should stay up because destroying them would be akin to destroying evidence of the holocaust, and she doesn’t want people to forget the evil of these events.
She largely dislikes populism, which lead her to distrust both Bernie Sanders and the Scottish Independence movement.
She interprets the Laffer curve to mean that lower taxes tend to be more effective.
She doesn’t like the ukulele.
But we still get along, we can still argue, we can still respect each other’s opinions.

However, there is a difference between this and accepting ALL opinions.

Both my friend and I base our opinions on a common goal of improving society, of making the world a better place for everybody. It’s humanist, egalitarian; although we may differ on our views of how this goal would be best carried out, our fundamental philosophies are very similar.

When I see a nazi, I don’t see a valid opinion.

They don’t believe in anything remotely egalitarian or humanist; all they believe in is a skewed image of the world which wishes suppression on minorities for no other purpose than their own abhorrent gratification. Nothing about their beliefs warrants respect, or even classification as a “belief,” come to that. It’s nothing more that a vile, twisted expression of hatred.

That’s why I feel morally able to disregard some opinions. If someone’s belief revolves around either (a) a personal preference or (b) the universal obligation to make the world a better place for EVERYONE, then I will accept it.

But if a belief flies directly in the face of accepted core morals of HELPING people and progressing society (which I see as very different to opinions), then we will have a problem.
0
reply
AnnieGakusei
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
It is not acceptable to use violence against a neo-nazi who is not being violent themselves. People are entitled to hold opinions even if society deems them morally repugnant. If they are causing a threat to other groups due to political clout, any resistance should use a similar platform. For example, counter-protests.

A person who is physically attacked by a neo-nazi has a right to use violence in self defence and vice versa.
1
reply
Beth_H
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
The laws against violent crime don't make any exceptions, regardless of how repugnant someone's view may be.

The question of free speech, however, is another one entirely. And no, the views of Neo-Nazis are not protected by freedom of speech (US) or freedom of expression (UK) laws, because they inherently advocate violence and discrimination. Such views should not be tolerated.
0
reply
FaZe Clan
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Free speech is overated, just beat the **** out of those racist pr*cks.
Nah lol but for real dont tolerate what they say at least try to shut down these people and their views by social conform
0
reply
Chichaldo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by murintemed)
This is quite a big debate in America but I believe applies in any Western democracy with neo Nazis/alt-rightists/far-rightists: to use violence against neo-Nazis at their demonstrations or not?

Are Neo-Nazis/alt-right/far-right individuals entitled to freedom of speech, assembly and expression as any other political entity is or are their opinions too toxic and hateful to be expressed and is it acceptable when they are shut down violently by groups like "Antifa"? Please vote in the poll and discuss below.
Replying to the title and altering it, is it right to harm someone who is wrong?
No, due actions should be taken but physical violence makes us no better and isn't legal
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by AryanGh)
Only as a result of them invading Czechoslovakia and an unprovoked attack on Poland did war fully erupt
But we weren't Czechoslovakia or Poland though, were we? We made a decision that we had to fight Nazi Germany despite their lack of aggression towards us.

Also, we established relatively early on that the aim was regime change, not merely removing Germany from the territories it occupied.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Chichaldo)
Replying to the title and altering it, is it right to harm someone who is wrong?
It's not a question of "wrong", it's a question of defence.
0
reply
that_guy874
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Beth_H)
The laws against violent crime don't make any exceptions, regardless of how repugnant someone's view may be.

The question of free speech, however, is another one entirely. And no, the views of Neo-Nazis are not protected by freedom of speech (US) or freedom of expression (UK) laws, because they inherently advocate violence and discrimination. Such views should not be tolerated.
Still protected in by the First Amendment in the US
0
reply
usfbullz
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Why commit an act you were trying to prevent in the first place?

Think about it like that.
0
reply
username3519790
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
only put your hands on people after accepting the worst-case consequences that may follow ie. getting charged with assault or getting hands back
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by murintemed)
This is quite a big debate in America but I believe applies in any Western democracy with neo Nazis/alt-rightists/far-rightists: to use violence against neo-Nazis at their demonstrations or not?
Simply put, I understand personal acts of violance. Punching somebody because they are spewing nonesense can be frustrating. I think its uncivilized and the hallmark of being weak-willed to violently attack someone for saying something you disagree with, but its not somethng I really care about.

What is an issue is organized violence for the purposes of preventing others from expressing their views.


(Original post by anarchism101)
But we weren't Czechoslovakia or Poland though, were we? We made a decision that we had to fight Nazi Germany despite their lack of aggression towards us.

Also, we established relatively early on that the aim was regime change, not merely removing Germany from the territories it occupied.
Lets be honest, WWII wasnt some magnificent crusade against racism and intolerant ideologies. The goal of regime change wasn't to remove an intolerant or racist regime, it was to remove a hostile one. It was partially a legal requirement to honour an alliance (which they never really bothered to do), but mostly it because it became clear the Nazis would eventually turn their eyes to France and the UK.

Its why we took no issue with other intolerant regimes (ourselves included) and its why we handed our allies and most of eastern europe over to a dictatorship.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

When did you submit your Ucas application if you applied to go to university this year?

September 2021 (16)
7.02%
October 2021 (112)
49.12%
November 2021 (23)
10.09%
December 2021 (31)
13.6%
January 2021 (19)
8.33%
I still haven't submitted it yet! (21)
9.21%
Something else (6)
2.63%

Watched Threads

View All