Cool but slippery slope
Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
It’s only slippery if you don’t have proper footing when punching a Nazi.
If you can’t ensure proper footing, or are unable to properly punch, a baseball bat will suffice. Preferably a wooden baseball bat, as aluminum bats flex more than wood, and you don’t want any give when hitting a Nazi with your bat.
Aim for the knees, so the cowardly Nazi can’t run away, like the coward it is. Once it’s on the ground, you can continue to work the rest of the body. Stay away from the head! I cannot emphasize that enough. You want the Nazi to remain conscious, so it can feel it’s bones shatter.
I love how every time someone badmouths nazis, someone tries to divert to talking about communism, making it obvious how salty they still are about the fall of Berlin.
It’s a sheer cliff really. Either you’re punching a nazi or you’re punching someone that doesn’t deserve it. Nazis are usually proud of being Nazis, so they show off with these salutes and their dumb swastika flags. It’s ok to punch people like this. It should in fact be legal.
Conceptual slippery slope arguments assume that because we cannot draw a distinction between adjacent stages, we cannot draw a distinction between any stages at all.
Example: "There is no essential difference between 199 and 200 grains of sand or 200 and 201 grains and so on. Thus, there is no difference between 1 grain of sand and 3 billion grains of sand.”
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Oh for sure. I’m not at all for leaving Nazis alone. Like I said, they should be mocked merciless. They should know just exactly how deranged they sound, and they should feel bad for opening their dumb mouths. However, no matter how dumb their mouth may be, you don’t get to punch them in it.
Not really. It’s an ideology, and ideologies always have various layers, variants, intensities and whatnot. If someone has a race bias are they automatically a Nazi? If someone is in a position to kill a jew but doesn’t do it, are they automatically not a Nazi? Putin says Ukraine is controlled by Nazis. The entire US population is pretty much split on whether “certain politicians” are Nazi or not.
As much as I’d like it to be true, it’s not something objective enough that most people can agree on a single definition.
The guy is doing a fucking Nazi salute. There are people who literally wave the fucking Nazi flag. People will tattoo the Nazi swastika on their bodies and literally self identify as a Nazi. It isn’t that complex holy fuck.
Oh I never disagreed with that. If someone openly identifies as a nazi they deserve anything that’s coming their way. My gripe with your initial comment was that you said this couldn’t lead to a slippery slope because “a Nazi is well defined”, when it’s not. If we stop at people who are 100% confirmed nazis I’m all in, the thing that person was mentioning is how we should be wary of applying the same logic to people who could be nazis, because it’s all downhill from there.
Nah, they’ll ban leftism and trans people either way. It’s not like the Weimar Republic banned Nazism, and yet Hitler still banned every other political party and did the Holocaust. Fascist ideologies must be strangled in the cradle, so punching Nazis is fine.
Nazis have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they must be exterminated at every opportunity. You know, there was that whole world war and a bunch of people died and stuff that you can’t miss. Fuck Nazis.
this post doesnt even mention banning anything, just punching nazis. if they didnt want to get punched, maybe they shouldn’t have chosen to be such vile pieces of shit.
even if it did, its worked fine for germany, where hate speech and particularly holocaust denial and nazi rhetoric is aggressively prosecuted.
Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. Nazis end game has been seen. They murder people. I don’t hear Nazis saying we can coexist. You murder murderers. You silence people who want to permanently silence others. Idealistically silence them until they change their mind. Punching a Nazi might fix their brain damage at least make them think twice before they try to publicly express themselves
A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.
Black and white cartoon of a tall woman in a dress reaching her knees and a shorter man holding a bouquet. Both are in front of a robed figure. Each of the marrying couples has a couple of their same-sex and similar attire behind.
The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the camel’s nose in the tent, or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.
I’ve realized that conservatives often call everything a slippery slope because that’s what they try to do. They know they can’t come out and say we don’t want blacks to vote, so they chip it at with the intent of then taking it to the next step and as many steps at they can. Apply to all their policies.
Exactly. Dehumanise a certain category of people, so it’s easier to hate, punch and kill. It’s better to educate these people and to make them understand that they’re going the wrong path. Violence leads to radicalisation. It’s funny how nazis used this same mentality against other people. Well, not funny, just sad.
Uhh… we’re not dehumanising nazis, we’re merely acknowledging the fact that as long as they can air their views unchallenged they’re an existential threat to marginalised communities and they must be dealt with with extreme prejudice. That doesn’t make them not human.
The chanting punch a nazi and discard everything about their persona doesn’t sound very humanising. But regardless of that I am not young anymore and have seen some things. I have seen people that complain about eugenics, but wish the worst to autistic people. I have seen people chanting punch a nazi and then going ahead to vote for the most vile right wing party. I have seen people chanting for inclusion and then hating that a foreigner moved into their neighbourhood. All of this to me is just hollow virtue signaling.
Cool but slippery slope Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
It’s only slippery if you don’t have proper footing when punching a Nazi.
If you can’t ensure proper footing, or are unable to properly punch, a baseball bat will suffice. Preferably a wooden baseball bat, as aluminum bats flex more than wood, and you don’t want any give when hitting a Nazi with your bat.
Aim for the knees, so the cowardly Nazi can’t run away, like the coward it is. Once it’s on the ground, you can continue to work the rest of the body. Stay away from the head! I cannot emphasize that enough. You want the Nazi to remain conscious, so it can feel it’s bones shatter.
Allowing Nazis to be in society is a slippery slope
Now do communists
Look up “false equivalence.” Wanting a stateless classless society is not the same as wanting to genocide one’s way to an ethnostate.
The person you’re talking to is a nazi
Should have expected that from that type of username. That limited brain function is on full display.
Enjoy eating that clay to keep your belly full.
Show an example of commie nonsense that hasn’t resulted in authoritarian rule and slaughter or forced starvation.
Wanting a stateless classless society results in the state ruling a bunch of classless dipshits.
I’m not a communist. But I’m not sure where in the communist manifesto it calls for systematic genocide of non Aryan people
I love how every time someone badmouths nazis, someone tries to divert to talking about communism, making it obvious how salty they still are about the fall of Berlin.
It’s a sheer cliff really. Either you’re punching a nazi or you’re punching someone that doesn’t deserve it. Nazis are usually proud of being Nazis, so they show off with these salutes and their dumb swastika flags. It’s ok to punch people like this. It should in fact be legal.
It should be required. Not punching a known Nazi should be a felony
Nope. A Nazi is well defined.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
We should be mocking them mercilessly.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Not just genocide but eugenics.
They will genocide anyone who doesn’t fit in whatever their definition of a perfect human being is.
Your elderly mom who has a disability? Gassed.
Your partner, who happens to have some link to a race of people they don’t like? Gassed. (And your children, possibly you too for fraternizing)
You look a little different for no apparent reason? Gassed.
It’s almost like old school witch trials in nature where they just make up shit with flimsy justifications to exterminate you.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Oh for sure. I’m not at all for leaving Nazis alone. Like I said, they should be mocked merciless. They should know just exactly how deranged they sound, and they should feel bad for opening their dumb mouths. However, no matter how dumb their mouth may be, you don’t get to punch them in it.
Congratulations you are privileged enough to laugh because they aren’t affecting your life
I agree with you. It’s a lot harder to make that effective, though.
Not really. It’s an ideology, and ideologies always have various layers, variants, intensities and whatnot. If someone has a race bias are they automatically a Nazi? If someone is in a position to kill a jew but doesn’t do it, are they automatically not a Nazi? Putin says Ukraine is controlled by Nazis. The entire US population is pretty much split on whether “certain politicians” are Nazi or not.
As much as I’d like it to be true, it’s not something objective enough that most people can agree on a single definition.
The guy is doing a fucking Nazi salute. There are people who literally wave the fucking Nazi flag. People will tattoo the Nazi swastika on their bodies and literally self identify as a Nazi. It isn’t that complex holy fuck.
And those people you listed are definitely Nazis. But are people who don’t do that stuff definitely not Nazis? There’s a huge gray area.
It does not follow from this that the existence of a gray area means that obvious nazis should not be opposed vigorously.
Oh I never disagreed with that. If someone openly identifies as a nazi they deserve anything that’s coming their way. My gripe with your initial comment was that you said this couldn’t lead to a slippery slope because “a Nazi is well defined”, when it’s not. If we stop at people who are 100% confirmed nazis I’m all in, the thing that person was mentioning is how we should be wary of applying the same logic to people who could be nazis, because it’s all downhill from there.
This is said as if they wouldn’t ban the left otherwise, or are not already banning being trans or books right now.
Yeah thats true
This is the “extreme” everyone keeps talking about. The line is like 300 yards behind it.
Punch nazis, don’t punch not nazis. Sieg heil means someone’s a nazi. Agreed?
Life is nothing but slippery slopes in all directions. Get used to it and stop falling for it as a line.
Nah, they’ll ban leftism and trans people either way. It’s not like the Weimar Republic banned Nazism, and yet Hitler still banned every other political party and did the Holocaust. Fascist ideologies must be strangled in the cradle, so punching Nazis is fine.
Nazis have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they must be exterminated at every opportunity. You know, there was that whole world war and a bunch of people died and stuff that you can’t miss. Fuck Nazis.
this post doesnt even mention banning anything, just punching nazis. if they didnt want to get punched, maybe they shouldn’t have chosen to be such vile pieces of shit.
even if it did, its worked fine for germany, where hate speech and particularly holocaust denial and nazi rhetoric is aggressively prosecuted.
Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. Nazis end game has been seen. They murder people. I don’t hear Nazis saying we can coexist. You murder murderers. You silence people who want to permanently silence others. Idealistically silence them until they change their mind. Punching a Nazi might fix their brain damage at least make them think twice before they try to publicly express themselves
A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. Black and white cartoon of a tall woman in a dress reaching her knees and a shorter man holding a bouquet. Both are in front of a robed figure. Each of the marrying couples has a couple of their same-sex and similar attire behind.
The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the camel’s nose in the tent, or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I’ve realized that conservatives often call everything a slippery slope because that’s what they try to do. They know they can’t come out and say we don’t want blacks to vote, so they chip it at with the intent of then taking it to the next step and as many steps at they can. Apply to all their policies.
Exactly. Dehumanise a certain category of people, so it’s easier to hate, punch and kill. It’s better to educate these people and to make them understand that they’re going the wrong path. Violence leads to radicalisation. It’s funny how nazis used this same mentality against other people. Well, not funny, just sad.
Uhh… we’re not dehumanising nazis, we’re merely acknowledging the fact that as long as they can air their views unchallenged they’re an existential threat to marginalised communities and they must be dealt with with extreme prejudice. That doesn’t make them not human.
The chanting punch a nazi and discard everything about their persona doesn’t sound very humanising. But regardless of that I am not young anymore and have seen some things. I have seen people that complain about eugenics, but wish the worst to autistic people. I have seen people chanting punch a nazi and then going ahead to vote for the most vile right wing party. I have seen people chanting for inclusion and then hating that a foreigner moved into their neighbourhood. All of this to me is just hollow virtue signaling.
Punch them until they stop calling for genocide.