/lit/ - Literature

>>15357055
so you gonna post this on every board or what?

>>15357058
based /qa/ crossboarder

Like spanking a child. Sometimes they need a swift rebuke. But psychiatric help should follow. Deep down they’re just injured kids with daddy issues

>Philosophically speaking, is punching a nazi morally wrong?

>>15357091
>that huge line of niggers
Do germans really?

>>15357112
>Du Deutsche actually have black neighborhoods.... being soo far away from Africa

>>15357055
That's a neo-Nazi at best. Not a Nazi.

No. From a moral point of view, I would allow someone who is Nazi to live in relative peace, albeit politically marginalised and voiceless. From the Nazi point of view, they would probably kill me. Therefore, I have no issues with punching a Nazi.

>>15357055
Well that depends on a variety of factors

>is punching a rapist wrong?
>is punching a pedophile wrong?
>is punching a communist wrong?
>is punching a murderer wrong?
>is punching a burglar wrong?
>is punching a crack dealer wrong?
>is punching a terrorist wrong?
>is punching an enemy soldier wrong?
>is punching a soldier wrong?
>is punching a guns rights activist wrong?
>is punching an abortion activist wrong?
>is punching a Republican wrong?
>is punching a Democrat wrong?
It all depends on why and when.
The fact is that we would likely agree that punching people in the above list would be wrong, but many of these examples are far more harmful, in far more tangible ways, than a "Nazi" who sits around and larps and has edgy beliefs.

>>15357182
are you a jew?

>>15357194
>is punching a rapist wrong?
No.
>is punching a pedophile wrong?
No.
>is punching a communist wrong?
No
>is punching a murderer wrong?
No.
>is punching a burglar wrong?
No.
>is punching a crack dealer wrong?
No.
>is punching a terrorist wrong?
No.
>is punching an enemy soldier wrong?
No.
>is punching a soldier wrong?
No.
>is punching a guns rights activist wrong?
No.
>is punching an abortion activist wrong?
No.
>is punching a Republican wrong?
No.
>is punching a Democrat wrong?
No.
>is punching a Nazi wrong?
No.

>>15357055
Nazis don't exist.

Objectively speaking it's not wrong to punch anyone, not even a woman.

>>15357212
No, I would oppose a Nazi state, however, and that would probably get me shot.

>>15357225
>objectively
I think you mean subjectively, because objectively would mean that nazis would also want to punch other nazis.

>>15357217
Also to add to this: punching veterans is not wrong, punching babies is not wrong, punching cops is not wrong, and punching people who read books is not wrong.

>>15357217
>is punching a pedophile wrong?
>No.
I mean, is it wrong? No. But punching Joe Biden could get you decades in year or perhaps even death.

>>15357260
decades in jail* ffs

>>15357240
What the fuck are you on about retard.
He didn't say people want to punch anyone. He said it's not wrong.

>>15357260
just for punching him?

>>15357055
>is ______ "morally" "wrong"
bro morals are fake as hell. if you wanna punch a Nazi, do it hard it enough so that can't testify

>>15357274
You would probably get him into a coma, so yes.

>>15357232
Many people opposed nationalsocialism and didn't get shot unless they were jews

>>15357055
Is it morally wrong when the nazi uses self defense?

Philosophically speaking, it depends on which philosopher is speaking.

About as wrong as punching a disabled person or kicking a woman down some stairs. The answer is no BTW.

>>15357055
>punching Nazis BASED!
>punching friendly Jewish supremacist and Talmudist BAD!
>oy vey

pickle chungus

>>15357055
>Morality
Spooked. I base my violent actions on nothing.

>>15357271
I'm fine with you pointing out that I interpretation was wrong (which it was), but calling me a retard is completely uncalled for.

>>15357295
I would oppose it violently, though. Because I would punch them. And so, would probably get shot.

>>15357392
I do prefer the catchall term fascist, but OP is just bait

>>15357091
Welcome to Germany

>>15357259
Unironically based

>>15357260
>No. But punching Joe Biden could get you decades in year or perhaps even death
Punching Joe Biden is not morally wrong either. Punching Donald Trump is not morally wrong. Punching AOC would be wrong, because she's cute and has big milkies.

>>15357662
based and mommypilled

Nobody here has punched anyone ever

>>15357726
I punched your mother in the stomach HARD and she threw up

>>15357217
>>15357225
>>15357259
>>15357389
>>15357468

The average "nazi" has beliefs that wouldn't even be offensive to most people if explained neutrally, and would even be normal in somewhere like china.

Probably not but pussy asses that are actually nazis barely go outside and the limp wristed fucks that will "punch them" probably havent thrown a punch in their lives

Given that left-wingers are generally of the opinion that punching nazis is ok, is it morally reasonable for Nazis to preemptively punch liberals?

Technically speaking, Nazis were a clearly definable political movement, with clearly definable party membership. They existed for about a decade, and their existence ended immediately after the second world war whereby participation in that political movement was made illegal and several high ranking party officials were publically tried and executed.

Legally speaking, the Nazi government was thoroughly defeated, their leadership was put on trial, and punishment was dealt with according to international law. The vast majority of people involved in the nazi party were ordinary Germans who had no idea of the excesses and human rights violations being undertaken by their leadership. Every European country has forgiven Germany, only in the USA and Israel do you hear continued calls for vengeance against a group of people who already stood legal trial and accepted their punishment according to international law, and who as a generation do not have longer than a decade to live anyways.

Politically speaking, nazi has become a meaningless phrase used to label anyone politically to the right. Here we might ask ourselves "to the right of what?" which is a fair question, but judging from how 'nazi' has even been applied to party democrats, its obvious that the answer is entirely subjective. The "punch a nazi" meme is an effective rallying cry to justify political violence and the threat of political violence against dissident voices.

The inability of America to move on speaks volumes about Americans. Specifically, that it was the last 'just war' which they fought, where they can say that their involvement was necessary, productive, and morally justified. Since the end of ww2 the US government has been involved in human trafficking, mass starvation, funding ethnic genocide, disinformation campaigns, terrorist sponsorship, and the backing of multiple coups in neutral and democratic countries, yet no American believes Americans should be punished AS AMERICANS for their governments crimes the way Germans should be punished AS NAZIS for the crimes of their government. Nazis as an idea represent a psychological totem, an embodiment of America's desire to see history as a clear linear struggle between good and evil, a struggle where America is the side of good.

Of course that isn't the case. Under American sanctions, over 500,000 children were starved to death in Iraq. Millions died in Iran due to the Western backed Shah. The US has sold chemical weapons illegally used to murder not just enemy combatants but also political dissidents. Tens of millions of people have died due to ill-planned American colonial ventures SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR, and if you open any history book you will discover accounts of ethnic cleansing campaigns practiced against Native Americans during Western Expansion which dwarfed anything Hitler ever did. But still Americans talk about "punching nazis" like political violence is a funny joke. You deserve to suffer a thousand 9/11s.

>>15357055
it's a sacred duty

>>15357055
>Philosophically speaking
punch yourself at once

>>15357091
fuck that's chilling

>>15357055
it is the moral thing to do

>>15357726
When I was a kid, roughhousing and playground fights were routine. I've punched plenty of people. I rabbit punched my cousin for laughing when I hurt my hand in the foosball machine.

>>15357055
Justified, but strategically might backfire & give political enemies ammunition fueling the idea that leftists are irrational. So really depends on the context.

>>15357769
>the way Germans should be punished AS NAZIS for the crimes of their government.
Nobody says this.
>judging from how 'nazi' has even been applied to party democrats, its obvious that the answer is entirely subjective.
Just because some people use a term wrongly, or wrongly, doesn't mean there aren't actual Nazis. Certain conservatives today often use the term "post-modern marxists" to describe everyone on the left, by your logic does that mean both post-modernists and Marxists don't exist?
>Western Expansion which dwarfed anything Hitler ever did. But still Americans talk about "punching nazis" like political violence is a funny joke.
So because one country has done bad things, we can't criticize another country doing bad things.

>>15357726
I have autism and I'd get off scot free for punching people in the face right up till I graduated highschool.

Morality is a central precept of conservatism, and it creeps towards a universality. If history teaches anything it is that the content of morality is mutable. When you start claiming it "springs from the individual" it inevitably becomes applied universally. Morality is the rope which is being used to hang the White European races. True freedom always ultimately infringes on someone elses "freedom", therefore there need to be a different set of restrictions (very little) for your population and the other populations (more significant.)

Yes.

>>15358272
>therefore there need to be a different set of restrictions (very little) for your population and the other populations (more significant.)
Uhhh, what exactly are you trying to say with this? If you mean that we need to reserve the right to slaughter and murder others while denying others the right to do it to us, why don't you just say so? And why do you need to put this in terms of freedom?

Antifas are spineless, hypocritical fucking faggots who say they will punch Nazis but jump gay manlets instead, probably because their own ideology tells them that "marginalized folx" are weak victims. They never step foot anywhere near an actual neo-Nazi skinhead who would tear them limb from limb in a matter of seconds.

>>1535796
Punching someone for laughing at you = cringe
Punching someone because you've wanted to smack their smug face for years and their mockery gives you a justification you can use to avoid serious consequence = based

>>15358294
The peak of European power and dominance over the planet was in the middle of the 19th century. The recession from this peak was due to internal -rather than external- forces, although I'd submit that these were not inevitable. This period saw the rise of social organizations which -satisfied with conquering the planet- saw the next project to perfect the morality of their nations, eventually leading to civil rights and independence movements.

The mistaken ideal of moral perfection has led to multiculturalism and massive economic opportunity loses: the slippery slope has proven all too real as voting rights have led to a creep towards all manner of dubious rights (E.G. being called by a preferred pronoun.) From a cultural perspective, not every country is equal, and technological advances allowed Europe to dominate the world, before morality encouraged to give up their holdings.

A central dogma of Conservatism is that society and the individual should be moral, but the most dominant empires at their peak, throughout history were far from moral... and it is this contradiction which I consider to be the blindspot which will doom efforts towards the preservation of White European culture. Society doesn't fall apart because it lacks a defined morality, but because it dogmatically clings to ideals which no longer apply to its current situation.

The argument against a White identity is political correctness, although this is not politically motivated, at all, but moral. The solution to this isn't liberalism, conservatism or libertarianism, but in a pragmatic version of libertinism (De Sade failed to resolve the contradiction where the goals of numerous libertines would clash- there have to be winners and losers.)

>>15358232
Do you believe Bolsheviks exist within the USA? If you do I think you're an idiot.
Post-Modernist and Marxist relate to a specific methodological system. Nazi refers to the specific nationalist socialist ideology of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, a political party which existed in a specific time and place. There aren't "actual Nazis" because the NSDAP hasn't existed for decades.
>So because one country has done bad things, we can't criticize another country doing bad things.
No, I'm saying that the criticism does not serve it's stated purpose (of stopping the nazis, I assume) because Germany is not Nazi Germany, and what is being criticized is a political movement that has been nonexistent for several generations. One could criticize the French King for his incompetence too, and it would have as much effect on how the French Monarch conducts his politics.
Seeing that so much criticism and hubris is tied up in a cause that accomplished (spectacularly well) a decisive victory during your grandparent's generation, it seems reasonable to assume ulterior motives driving the movement. I use this as a point of departure to offer reasons that Americans might be so obsessed with Nazis, namely that they represent the kind of heroic struggle that America is incapable of replicating, and act as justification for a national das-in-der-Welt-sein which is increasingly out of touch with the reality of world affairs.

>>15358322
>The recession from this peak was due to internal -rather than external- forces, although I'd submit that these were not inevitable. This period saw the rise of social organizations which -satisfied with conquering the planet- saw the next project to perfect the morality of their nations, eventually leading to civil rights and independence movements.
You don't think that the rise of powerful states in the periphery, "internecine" wars, and the desire to be free of foreign rule within the colonies had anything to do with it? You don't think being bankrupted by WWII had anything to do with it? Do you want to restore white control of the planet?
>the slippery slope has proven all too real as voting rights have led to a creep towards all manner of dubious rights (E.G. being called by a preferred pronoun.)
There is nothing inherent in the right to vote that leads to that form of degeneracy.
>From a cultural perspective, not every country is equal
How do you measure that?
>before morality encouraged to give up their holdings.
Is that why France spent two decades fighting wars all over the planet to preserve her colonies? Is that why the Portuguese fought for almost a decade in Angola and Mozambique? Is that why southern Africa was embroiled in a large conflict involving white settlers, locals, and various foreign powers? Europe could no longer sustain her overseas holdings.
>A central dogma of Conservatism is that society and the individual should be moral
You have not defined moral, and conservatism is not the only ideology to ever exist.
>Society doesn't fall apart because it lacks a defined morality, but because it dogmatically clings to ideals which no longer apply to its current situation.
I think you're conflating a number of different things here. Internal collapse can be due to the loss of shared notions of justice, or the formation of conflicting identities, and so on. That is where we are headed.
>The argument against a White identity is political correctness
There are plenty of arguments against huhwhite identity that have nothing to do with political correctness.
>The solution to this isn't liberalism, conservatism or libertarianism, but in a pragmatic version of libertinism (De Sade failed to resolve the contradiction where the goals of numerous libertines would clash- there have to be winners and losers.)
u wot m8

>>15358322
>The mistaken ideal of moral perfection has led to multiculturalism and massive economic opportunity loses:
Show me the evidence that shows that having multiple races in a country or area brings economic loss. Also can you speak normally, have no idea what you mean by moral perfectibility or how it possibly relates to multiculturalism. As far as I can tell we're more multicultural simply because we live in a more global, connected world; not everything is some grand conspiracy to destroy white people.
>have led to a creep towards all manner of dubious rights (E.G. being called by a preferred pronoun.
Okay I'll bite, why should you not call people by their preferred pronoun. Seems to me like a basic courtesy no different than calling a teacher by their formal name Mr. or Mrs.

>>15357217
>>15357259
Punching is never wrong. If you solve arguments in any style other than punching, you're a faggot.

>>15358426
>How do you measure that?

Are you legitimately asking how people measure differences of countries?

There are a plethora of measurements you can look up and see how countries differ.

>>15358349
>There aren't "actual Nazis" because the NSDAP hasn't existed for decades.
You're being ridiculously literal and obtuse. Okay obviously by that definition "literal" Nazis don't exist, but groups that are inspired by Nazi ideology do. See Richard Spencer, see any number of Neo-Nazi groups: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Neo-v%C3%B6lkisch_movements
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Order_of_Nine_Angles

>>15358439
Not him, but
>Seems to me like a basic courtesy no different than calling a teacher by their formal name Mr. or Mrs.
This isn't something chosen by the individual. It is socially imposed, standardized, and based on a mixture of birth sex and marital status.
>their preferred pronoun
This is arbitrary, and entails foisting one's view of both themselves and their relation to society onto the listener. It entails the repudiation of all social norms and standards and forcing the listener to comply in their act of transgression.

>>15358468
You're moving the goalposts, my man. You started out talking about culture. How do we measure culture?

>>15358495
>entails foisting one's view of both themselves and their relation to society onto the listener.
Nobody's forcing anybody, I'm making the argument that you should as a niciety not that you have to. Secondly this is a ridiculous argument every form of identifying yourself in a particular way could be defined as "foisting one's view of yourself on to society including Mr. and Mrs., why should a teacher foist their arbitrary view of themselves as a teacher unto me? This logic can only lead to total absurdity.

>>15358537
>every form of identifying yourself in a particular way could be defined as "foisting one's view of yourself on to society including Mr. and Mrs.
No. See the first part of my post.
>why should a teacher foist their arbitrary view of themselves as a teacher unto me?
They are a teacher by virtue of their objective position in life. They are employed as a teacher. They went to school to learn to be a teacher. They have been assigned to you as your teacher. They are your teacher.
>I'm making the argument that you should as a niciety not that you have to.
I see no reason to do so other than a desire to avoid conflict.

>>15358561
>No. See the first part of my post.
I really don't see how the first part explains in any way how pronouns which match the gender assigned at birth, professions, or general pronouns (like you/I) are any different or less arbitrary. They're all just social conventions we uphold to respect the wishes of the person. There's no "objective" reason why I should be called "you", and yet most people agree to call me by this pronoun out of a basic social convention. Referring to transgender person's by their pronoun is no different from any other implicitly agreed upon social convention, and no argument you've advanced thus far has shown why we should treat it any different.

>>15358592
>I really don't see how the first part explains in any way how pronouns which match the gender assigned at birth, professions, or general pronouns (like you/I) are any different or less arbitrary.
Because they're not arbitrary insofar as they are set in stone. I have no choice in whether or not I will be called Mr., because I am male.
>They're all just social conventions we uphold to respect the wishes of the person.
This is literally, factually, incorrect.
> There's no "objective" reason why I should be called "you", and yet most people agree to call me by this pronoun out of a basic social convention.
No. That's a question of English grammar. You are called you because that is the only second person singular pronoun still used in contemporary spoken English.
>Referring to transgender person's by their pronoun is no different from any other implicitly agreed upon social convention, and no argument you've advanced thus far has shown why we should treat it any different.
It's not the same, because there is no "agreed upon" there. The pronoun to be used is entirely at the discretion of the speaker. It removes any form of social agreement from the equation and makes pronouns the property of the person being addressed, to be changed at their own discretion.

>>15357769
extremely based post

>>15357769
Based, woke brainlets BTFO

if you hold a liberal morality then yes.

>>15358616
You have correctly written that "you" is part of English grammar but that ignores how the word itself is socially learned. Language is social, you learn to call other people "you" by hearing other people do it over and over again at a young age, and perhaps by mistakenly referring to people by the wrong pronoun and being corrected. I could just as easily call you "xbt" but that would be inconvenient and even obnoxious. Similarly calling a person something they are not also serves no purpose and is cruelly obnoxious for no reason other than a desire to be a cunt, a desire you seem keen on defending for a reason you have still not told me. Also you say there's no "agreed upon there" but that's simply not true. Imagine a person you are addressing looks rather androgynous, you don't know what to call them so you refer to them as he, and then the person corrects you and says she'd prefer to be called "she", and you apologize and agree. Such an example is something agreed upon, a basic social nicety.

>>15357055
Morality of punching someone is a question not even of relevance.

>>15357769
Immensely based

How I wish americans get a taste of their own medicine, this pandemic is nothing

>>15357055
>Philosophically speaking

>>15357217
Is punching whoever punches all these people wrong?

>>15358469
Loosely associated groups of LARPing Satanists don't constitute a serious political threat. David Myatt sounds like a genuine human bean though, I'll give his autobiography a read.

Lets be honest, you live in a country where state sanctioned slavery is codified in the constitution. When you say "punch a nazi" it's a reaction to a ridiculous status quo that's in many ways worse than what happened to Germany. "Punch a nazi" is a using self-important retards like Richard Spencer (who is a purely American phenomenon and probably wouldn't exist if you morons didn't insist on shoving cameras in his face) as a scapegoat for the broken system that all Americans participate in and form a part of.

But what I don't get is why does your insist on so many scapegoats? Either it's communists, or it's fascists, or its blacks, or its white nationalists, or its pedophiles, or its satanists, or its video games or jews or this thing or that. Just name the elephant in the room: your own ruling class. Until you collectively grow a set of balls and burn New York and Washington DC to the ground with no survivors everything will continue exactly like it is.

Punch a lawyer. Punch an Ivy League graduate. Punch a military contractor. Punch a political activist. Putsch your congress. But stop fantasying about your glory days and patting yourself on the back because sparing mentally challenged inbreeds against each other has somehow become a national past-time.

I swear Americans are like fucking Ork people; everybody is one medical issue away from dying on the street like human garbage, your diet consists of lab chemicals and corn byproduct, you cant even ride public transport without seeing fistfights breaking out over racial tensions, and the retarded solution to this is that all the inbred mentally defective fats from the countryside drive into the city and walk around with tiki torches while the inbred mentally defective fats in the city throw bottles of piss on them and cry. It's all so tiring.

>>15357055
put the diaper on your face
https://www.brighteon.com/1b47e85f-2020-4f2e-b6f0-440419e869b8

>>15358709
>and perhaps by mistakenly referring to people by the wrong pronoun and being corrected
I've never heard of that, but if it happens, it's a grammatical mistake. It's not a question of courtesy, it's a question of being objectively wrong.
> I could just as easily call you "xbt" but that would be inconvenient and even obnoxious.
It's incorrect and incomprehensible.
>Similarly calling a person something they are not also serves no purpose
You keep jumping from grammar and social conventions that have nothing to do with the individual and are not chosen by them to that gender pronoun crap.
>and is cruelly obnoxious for no reason other than a desire to be a cunt
Nope.
>Imagine a person you are addressing looks rather androgynous, you don't know what to call them so you refer to them as he, and then the person corrects you and says she'd prefer to be called "she", and you apologize and agree.
That's not a question of social niceties. That's a question of grammar.
You might actually be retarded, by the way.

>>15358148
>give political enemies ammunition fueling the idea that leftists are irrational
that's true though

>>15358537
>Nobody's forcing anybody
based ignoramus

>>15358469
lol i didn't know richard spencer was a german nationalist
you dumb fuck

>>15359252
>muh inbreds
nice buzzword m8

>>15359109
>>15359109
No, punching whoever punches all those people is not wrong.

>>15357091
holy shit

>>15357091
They all look like the same person what the hell
>>15357055
Wignats are the equivalent of LGBT "communists"

>>15357182
>Relative peace
>I would punch them

>>15357182

>I would not use violence against the nazi, and that would make me morally superior, hence justifying my use of violence against the nazi

What a miraculous argument indeed.

>>15360150
>>15360180
Yes.

>>15359252
strangely accurate

>>15357182
But there’s no logical connection to your conclusion in that argument

>>15357529

Nice, ill shit diarrea on your shallow grave

Whats wrong with national-socialism again, objectively speaking?

>>15357055
No, might makes right.

>>15357194
The answer is: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and, yes

>>15357091
>They see me rollin'
>They hatin'

>>15359252
Based. One of the most effective functions of conspiracy theory (which many of these scapegoats are part of) is to shift blame away from the ruling elites onto some kind illusionary enemy, therefore expending potentially revolutionary energy attacking a non-existent foe.

>>15360292
First, learn how to spell, Nazi brainlet.

This thread is literally bait for /pol/acks to spew their barely coherent rhetoric, I suggest you stop feeding it.
>b-but anon you just bumped the thread
no I didn't ;)

>>15357091
He has more balls than most able bodies fascists, truly a based lad

>>15359252
Surprisingly good take

>>15357055
The issue with this neoliberal "punch nazis" meme is that they tend to overestimate who gets to be called a nazi. Soon all right wingers will be nazis, regardless of skin color.

>>15359252
This is a good take

>>15357769
Based response

>>15360293
It's incoherent at best. It's economic platform differs from capitalism on only the most superficial level. It's completely empty beyond rhetoric and aesthetics.

>>15357769
>Politically speaking, nazi has become a meaningless phrase used to label anyone politically to the right.
>he says while posting a picture of hitler
^look how easy it is for me to write this one line

>>15357769
Astronomically B A S E D

>>15357217
Based "Right and Wrong don't exist" anon.
It's never wrong to punch spooks.

>>15357476
retard

>>15358297
Each group has their thug sociopaths, anon.

>>15357055
>Philosophically speaking, is punching a nazi morally wrong?