teawrecks

Honestly, once Trump gets sworn in, I assume the people around him who want to implement Project 2025 won't have any more use for him. That's why Vance is there, just look at his track record, he knows how to play ball.

We're still not on the same page. The intention of the analogy is that he's doing the same thing in public as he is out his window. Waving a flag and yelling are both first amendment protected actions, so I wasn't drawing a distinction between the two, but apparently it's causing confusion, so for the sake of the discussion, let's say he's flying a swastika out his window vs flying it in front of a theater.

So now my question is: is there a difference between you punching him in the face in public vs breaking into his house and punching him there?

Because the answer is no, in either case (for better or worse) you are violating his autonomy.

But my original point that got us here is: you shouldn't want to punch him OR break into his house, because if whatever he's doing is actually encouraging violence, you should want to have a functioning police and justice system to handle the situation in a fair and consistent manner. To do anything less is to admit you do not live in a functioning society. Which, sure, maybe that's the case, but as long as we agree on what "ideal" is, my hope us we can agree to work towards that. Punching a nazi is treating a symptom, it's not a solution to any problem.

That's the same thing. It's inconsistent to argue that it's ok to violate a person's autonomy for what they yell in public, but not for what they yell out their window.

I mean, realisticly I'm not going to stop you from punching a self-described nazi, I'm just going to ask that you be consistent about when you believe it's ethical to do so.

Edit: the US actually has a legal grey area around this topic deemed "fighting words", which is speech that the jury agrees is immediately threatening enough that the person had no choice but to physically respond. This obviously can get pretty unethical in its interpretation. If a nazi yells "fuck the jews" outside an Anne Frank play, I think no jury would have a problem if they get hit. Does that also mean if someone else yells "fuck the police" outside a police station, the cops are justified in beating them?

Yeah, notice I'm not advocating for tolerance of hate speech. I'm advocating for a working society where we don't need to resort to vigilantism. We should be demanding that our police shut down threats of violence and hate speech without tolerance.

Btw, memes are fun, but I don't recommend distilling philosophical concepts about ethics to memes. Much less lazily sharing them in place of thoughtful discussion. You run the risk of sharing them in a moment that makes it appear you weren't paying any attention to the discussion at hand.

Well until now in this discussion we haven't established that cops were the ones committing waving the flags. But unfortunately you're right, "some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses."

Speaking ideally, yes obviously we all expect cops to arrest their friends when their friends are committing crimes. Unfortunately that doesn't happen nearly as much as it should.

When our police and justice system fails, and we officially live in a failed state, then all bets are off.

But until then, if your neighbor yells "I think you all should die" out his window, it doesn't suddenly justify the neighbors taking matters into their own hands, busting down his door, and "overwhelming" him. That's wild west law.

No sir, scroll up and re-read the suggestion about "meeting violence with overwhelming violence".

"ReDUMBlicans"? Don't you mean " RePOOPlicans"?

Then let's make one.

What you're advocating is vigilantism. In a working society, if they are committing acts of violence (aka crime), you shouldn't need to advocate "overwhelming violence" in response, you should be advocating a working police force who can arrest them, and hold them safely until they can be judged by a jury of their peers.

I feel like vigilantism is the left making an equivalent argument to the right's "more guns = more safety". Unless you live in a lawless warzone, you shouldn't want either.

I'm convinced a good number of these accounts are divisiveness bots, running a psyop to intentionally stoke the flames in left-leaning forums the same way they continue to do on the right. I assume at least one will respond to this calling me a nazi sympathizer. It's happened before for much less.

I don't know what to do about this, because I also acknowledge that there are actual anti-fascist protesters being pulled into the narrative.

I'm as anti-fascist as they come, but (in addition to your points about winning people over) I also believe in preserving free speech, and acknowledge that there is a very fine line here. It's free speech to wave a flag with a symbol on it, it's free speech to say you think that flag represents hate speech and shouldn't be allowed, but it's hate speech to openly endorse genocide, and vigilante justice subverts the point of a justice system. If our justice system falls apart.....we're screwed.

"Mothers" does not imply "wives". He has only been married to two women. But he has children with many more than that.