Poll: Punching Nazis...

[AnimatedDirt]

WJPN?

Skedhd djjrhf jsjdnjf ehchf!!!

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"

I think we should feed the Nazi's to Cthulhu!  Mere punching is too good for them.

But seriously... I agree that freedom of speech means protecting speech you disagree with or it means nothing at all.

When BLM is given a voice but not "WLM" or "BrLM" or "YLM"...etc, there is a problem with the people that insist that only BLM can speak.

Do "WLM" or "BrLM" or "YLM" exist?

Has anybody said that only BLM can speak?

What does this have to do with the OP?

What colour is the sky where you are?

If a WLM, BrLM or YLM were to exist, it would be labeled racist.  But BLM is about racial "equality".

[SPF]

Regarding the OP, I think it really depends on whether I'm the one doing the punching or if Chuck Norris is the one doing the punching. 

[Trinity]

Chuck Norris can punch Nazis without punching them.

[bskeptic]

Bskeptic,

I'm sure you have noticed the biased language in the media. Words such as ''violence erupted'', ''both sides clashed'', this use of language gives people the impression that neither side threw the first stone and things ''just happened''. I don't think such ambiguous language in the media is helpful in informing people what actually happned at these rallies. The media is present, so they should know who started the riots and violence. Further, the police is present as well, so they should not let things escalate. Both the media and the police can be part of the problem in how they approach these things.

I noticed on a recent news report, (it was about that small event where a load of counter-protesters turned up thinking it was a racist event), that the counter-protesters were referred to by their own designation as "anti racist" "anti fascist" without critical examination of those terms, but with the other side they were referenced as "so-called free speech protesters".

[bskeptic]

I don't mean all counter protestors. I mean antifa. They tend to be anarchists/socialists/communists.

Like in the UK, the group "UAF" is tied up with trade unions, the socialist workers party, and you will even see communist flags.

They are a relatively small, though troublesome, fraction of the counterprotesters. Anyway that is another reason for counterprotesters to stay away from the neonazis, then the only people getting in the face of neonazis will be antifa and it will be clear that their actions are not supported by the majority.

Just read this nice article which explains further how it is historically a bad idea to play into the provocations of these groups:

https://theconversation.com/how-should-we-protest-neo-nazis-lessons-from-german-history-82645

I agree that counter-protests should be done in a way that avoids conflict between the two sides. Let each side be responsible for their own bad behaviour/rioting clearly seen.

You shouldn't be trying to block access. You shouldn't be trying to shout people down to the point that they can't speak at a planned event.

[Trinity]

Bskeptic,

Indeed, language shows bias. I'm not saying that bias is bad, everyone has bias. News outlets should be upfront about their biases and not pretend to present a neutral position when they aren't neutral.

[wonderer]

Somewhat relevant...  Christ has spoken at Berkeley.