Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 840

I’ll go a step farther. Hitler and the Nazis should’ve been killed long before they started war in Europe. That would’ve happened if we’d had the strong League of Nations that Wilson had proposed after WWI.

It “will have to do”? What is wrong with that thread? I actually get why the original title was too much, but what is still wrong with it now? Not that any of it is your call to make in the first place, I’m just curious.

IMO there are three varieties of Nazis: people who have been directly involved in genocide, people who aspire to be directly involved in genocide, and people who aspire to facilitate/be accessories to genocide. I don’t have much issue with any of those categories getting punched. And if they can’t be described in those terms, they’re probably not a Nazi.

I’m sure some mugger somewhere has attempted the “they attacked me just because I ascribed to a controversial, offensive pro-mugging viewpoint” defense. I’m sure I could spare as much sympathy for them.

At first I wasn’t sure whether I thought the police brutality thread was appropriate. Then I got to thinking, what if someone started a thread chronicling “North Korean police brutality”. I doubt anyone here would object. Why then couldn’t we accept a discussion on police brutality elsewhere, such as here? So, I think the topic is fine.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Addendum: It’s also important to note that the people punching Nazis usually aren’t very good judges of who is and isn’t a Nazi. Personally, I’d rather have 100 Nazis go free than have 1 innocent man get punched, but that’s just me.

I also agree with this. That’s my thinking behind police too. I’d rather 100 guilty suspects go free than have 1 innocent one murdered or falsely imprisoned.

This is more reasonable, but I really can’t agree with Jeebus’s analogy. Getting punched isn’t that big a deal. I’d let myself get punched if it meant 100 guilty Nazis wouldn’t go free.

I definitely think that the analogy is better in the police brutality sense since that actually involves the loss of life. I agree that I don’t feel bad about Nazis getting punched. I want them punched, but if someone punched me, I would try to beat the shit out of them and I might stick my car keys into their eyes. I have no interest in getting punched for sake of 100 Nazis getting punched too. If you’re throwing punches then make damn sure that the person you’re punching is actually a Nazi. If you punch an innocent person then I want your ass to get thrown in jail for assault.

As to Collipso’s point, it’s one thing to be personally happy about it happening, and another thing to actually support happening it in the broader sense. I don’t think violence is a good or terribly helpful option, but on a personal level I can’t say I dislike it when a hateful sack of shit gets socked.

I agree for the most part.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

At first I wasn’t sure whether I thought the police brutality thread was appropriate. Then I got to thinking, what if someone started a thread chronicling “North Korean police brutality”. I doubt anyone here would object. Why then couldn’t we accept a discussion on police brutality elsewhere, such as here? So, I think the topic is fine.

1. It was the wording of the original title of the thread that I objected to. The original title was “American Police and their crimes against humanity”. What if a thread were created with the title “X and their crimes against humanity” (and replace X with any racial, religious, ethnic, or any other group you could think of)? Would that be acceptable?

That is an astoundingly terrible analogy with, I think, dangerous implications. Police are not a racial or ethnic group. Every single cop on Earth made their own decision as an adult to become a police officer. They aren’t a protected class. Saying that “American Police and Their Crimes Against Humanity” is in any way comparable to “Jews and Their Crimes Against Humanity” is the most absurd and ridiculous thing that I have ever seen on this website. When you start saying that criticism (however harsh) of law enforcement is going too far because it’s offensive, then that’s putting law enforcement beyond accountability in a frightening way.

2. Cases are being presented in that thread as if it is fact that they are cases of police brutality when it may just be opinion that there are.

The cases that I presented were examples of police brutality. If you’re convinced otherwise then point out how I’m wrong with evidence to the contrary. I know you won’t do that, but that’s what I would do and that’s would you should do if you think that my thread is so horrible. If you think the 6’4" cop that slammed a five and a half foot-tall, non-violent offender into the ground for no reason and then lied about it to protect himself is actually in the right, then make your case. If you think the cop that chose to allow the Parkland students to die rather than risk his own life is actually in the right, then make your case, but don’t vaguely claim that I’m misrepresenting people unless you’re willing to actually point out what I’m doing wrong.

moviefreakedmind said:

One of the main reasons that MLK seemed so moderate to white America was the militancy of people like Malcolm X. How could you possibly disagree that there is a widespread problem of police brutality? I’m on the fence about self-defense when unjustly assaulted by police. I do believe that it’s morally acceptable to defend yourself but I think it would mostly just make things worse for the victim.

Also, are you opposed to the American Revolution? How is the flag not just a symbol of violence to you? Washington should’ve just gone on hunger strike according to your logic.

If we want to talk about war or self defense (from actual or imminent violence) we can do that. Even then there will be disagreement (as there is about use of nuclear weapons in WWII). Punching supposed Nazis (a term used in a rather loosely goosey fashion nowadays) is another matter. That being punched (though I never thought that was meant to be the outer limit or allowable violence against supposed Nazis) is a small kind of violence doesn’t make it okay, even if one were to have the privilege to punch Dom as he suggests.

Warb, I only have a half-eaten bag of marshmallows with which I defend my stamp collection. Actually I don’t have a stamp collection. Nor a gun. And the marshmallow bag is now empty.

Mrebo said:

Warb, I only have a half-eaten bag of marshmallows with which I defend my stamp collection. Actually I don’t have a stamp collection. Nor a gun. And the marshmallow bag is now empty.

allol.

I’m anti-feminist in some ways. I’m in favor of the sex-positive, empowerment feminism, but I loath the feminism that is sex-negative and preoccupied with policing media and language.

Warbler said:

It is clear this is marketed to feminists. ugh.

I just watched it and I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. There was nothing overtly feminist in this trailer at all. The only thing that kind of seemed like it could be feminist was when they said that she was in charge, but what’s wrong with that? It’s a totally out-of-context scene from an episode that hasn’t aired yet. I don’t see how anyone other than a total easily-offended snowflake could be bothered by something that innocuous. The only thing that’s clear to me is that you’re looking for reasons to have a problem with this show.