Is Offensive Political Violence Ever Justified?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Caleb8844

War Child
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
662
With the Richard Spencer incident in the news, I'm sure this is a topic being discussed elsewhere in the more page-heavy threads of this forum.

I want to discuss offensive political violence generally and from a perspective of moral/ethical theory. Instead of discussing Spencer, whether he deserved it, whether he promotes violence, whether he's a neo-nazi, etc, I'd like to discuss whether different meta-ethical philosophies justify or prohibit offensive political violence when the receiver is:

1) Not initiating violence
2) Not reasonably expected to initiate violence in the near future
3) Not actively soliciting others to engage in violence

What's everyone think? Can this ever be justified? If so, what logic did you use to conclude that? If not, what moral precepts prohibit it? Not overly interested in feel-y shit -- let's just discuss the ethical logic.

Political Violence from the Left:


Political Violence from the Right:
 
Last edited:
So what ethical philosophy would you use to justify it, though? That's what I'm curious about.

I don't believe that a utilitarian philosophy works, because it's not as though racists are going to stop being racists out of fear of being punched, and it likely only brings more sympathy to their causes.

Anything that requires generalization also probably won't work, such as Kantian ethics with its Categorical Imperative. The reason it won't work is because it would require you say that "I am allowed to commit violence against those whose opinions i deem unacceptable," is a universalizable rule. If everyone is hitting everyone else who they think has bad opinions, what you've actually created is a "Might = Right" ethic. I'm sure that's not intended.

So, I actually have a pretty hard time finding a way to reasonably justify political violence with any moral theories I can come up with.

Additionally, as I stated in the introduction, it's more interesting to discuss political violence in general rather than in specific cases. It's philosophically useless to judge anecdotes.
 
The philosophy that nazis should be punched in the head.

Seriously. I get where you're coming from but I don't think hands-holding or rational explanations stop them from being racists either. So might as well punch the cunts.

Strong language I know but I'm yet to see a gentle loving nice quiet approach change the mind of these scum-sucking pricks.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So, at what point is a thought dangerous enough to invite physical violence to rid the world of it? Because, while I fully understand the gut reaction you have to this and am not immune to such a reaction myself, there is an element of Thought Crime policing at play, undoubtedly.

I am, however, talking about political violence in general. Note that Gavin McInnes is also included in the original post
 
Last edited:
I think we have to be careful calling either of these "political violence from the ________".

That label seems to give it some legitimacy, or at least a sense of organization rather than an individual or personal nature. Sure there's overlap; but in the instance of the first example we don't know where he stands politically he may have just been personally angered by someone who doesn't think his existence is as important as those of white skin.

The second is probably closer to an example because at least we can presume they are aware of each other's political stances, but still it just comes off as an asshole easily provoked.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think it's almost impossible to have this discussion with anybody who doesn't have a philosophy degree because truthfully how many people have any idea what Kantian ethics are?
 
I can't say that I condone punching someone in the face for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

i can say, however, that i've watched the video of this douche getting sucker punched set to Born In The USA about 5 dozen times already.

https://twitter.com/prttybadtweeter/status/822620848897069056


in the end, it's a reminder that free speech is not without it's consequences. if you're going to spew hateful shit, somebody might just punch you in the face.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty satisfying watching that nazi's face melt off at the end of raiders of the lost ark. :shrug:
 
My maternal grandparents were part of the Polish underground smuggling Jews out of the country. They were both imprisoned by the Nazis, and my grandfather (who died when my mom was a teenager), was tortured and would have died at Auschwitz had he not managed to escape from the train ride there (evading Nazi patrols by hiding in the woods for nearly a month).

So I'm not too sympathetic to the plight of a well-dressed, articulate white man attempting to make Nazi ideology appear mainstream and normal. That said, I don't believe that sucker punching people satisfies anything other than a base level sense of revenge/karma (which I'm definitely not immune to - I admit to a not-insignifcant sense of satisfaction watching that racist asshole get punched). What I wish would happen is that news organizations don't simply allow someone a (literal) microphone to spout their hatred unchallenged, but take these people to task and challenge their extremism at every opportunity.

In our current journalistic climate, I'm not sure if I can hold out much hope for that.
 
free_speech.png
 
I can't say that I condone punching someone in the face for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Agreed. In this case, I would have no problem with the puncher being charged with assault.

On the other hand, I sure don't feel even remotely bad for the punchee.
 
I know caleb is looking for a deeper conversation, but unfortunately I can't contribute much more than that.
 
I'll offer something.

It's difficult for a gay person to criticize riots, because the modern gay rights movement started with a riot at Stonewall when a bunch of transwomen got sick of being rounded up and harassed by the police.

Violence shouldn't be promoted, confined, or go unpunished. But we often need people willing to take those consequences in order to give voice to the voiceless.
 
Punch white supremacists so they're afraid to go outside. Richard Spencer is now. Good. He should be afraid to go outside.

This isn't a guy using his right to free speech to argue about the tax code. He's calling for genocide, and people who are sympathetic to that viewpoint have already been allowed into our government.

Stop it in its tracks. It's the morally responsible thing to do.
 
I can't say that I condone punching someone in the face for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

see, that's what i never can get my head round, how the US doesn't make a distinction between free speech and hate speech - here in France we have very strong laws against hate speech, i.e. inspiring racial hatred for instance, it's a prosecutable offence, and i really can't see that that's a bad thing - some things should be recognised as being unacceptable and having no place in society
 
Last edited:
see, that's what i never can get my head round, how the US doesn't make a distinction between free speech and hate speech - here in France we have very strong laws against hate speech, i.e. inspiring racial hatred for instance, it's a prosecutable offence, and i really can't see that that's a bad thing - some things should be recognised as being unacceptable and having no place in society


I just don't see how one can draw that line though without making it completely exploitable?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
A guy from various Boston punk bands that i am a fan of got his social media blown the fuck up by neo nazis threatening him the past few days wrongly accusing him of being the puncher. :crack:
 
I just don't see how one can draw that line though without making it completely exploitable?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

you just have to have laws specifically defining what "hate speech" is

it's been a cultural eye-opener for me living in France, learning what kind of things are perceived as acceptable or unacceptable to say... i can only see it as a positive thing...
 
I just don't see how one can draw that line though without making it completely exploitable?

Well plenty of comparable western democracies do it without much fanfare so it's obviously possible.
 
Well plenty of comparable western democracies do it without much fanfare so it's obviously possible.


I just see our politicians(both sides) completely abusing it, but maybe I'm just not familiar with how these laws are written.

So Cass mentioned if it "incites violence"; so there was a story months ago about 2 men attacking random Hispanics and claiming Trump inspired them, would that be grounds to go after Trump?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So Cass mentioned if it "incites violence"; so there was a story months ago about 2 men attacking random Hispanics and claiming Trump inspired them, would that be grounds to go after Trump?

I can only speak for Canadian law, but no, this would not meet the threshold. The threshold is very high, and the prosecution must pass something like a 7-prong test before a case even becomes prosecutable.

In the Canadian instance, there would be many issues. Number one, Trump did not clearly target an identifiable group for violence (saying that he wants to deport Mexicans or that they are rapists does not incite violence against an identifiable group). The other thing is you have to make a deliberate statement of hate speech, not one that is careless or off-the-cuff which basically would get him off in the majority of instances. Oh in the heat of the moment, he said something stupid in a rally, etc. There are other reasons as well.
 
I can only speak for Canadian law, but no, this would not meet the threshold. The threshold is very high, and the prosecution must pass something like a 7-prong test before a case even becomes prosecutable.



In the Canadian instance, there would be many issues. Number one, Trump did not clearly target an identifiable group for violence (saying that he wants to deport Mexicans or that they are rapists does not incite violence against an identifiable group). The other thing is you have to make a deliberate statement of hate speech, not one that is careless or off-the-cuff which basically would get him off in the majority of instances. Oh in the heat of the moment, he said something stupid in a rally, etc. There are other reasons as well.


Gotcha, thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I can only speak for Canadian law, but no, this would not meet the threshold. The threshold is very high, and the prosecution must pass something like a 7-prong test before a case even becomes prosecutable.

In the Canadian instance, there would be many issues. Number one, Trump did not clearly target an identifiable group for violence (saying that he wants to deport Mexicans or that they are rapists does not incite violence against an identifiable group). The other thing is you have to make a deliberate statement of hate speech, not one that is careless or off-the-cuff which basically would get him off in the majority of instances. Oh in the heat of the moment, he said something stupid in a rally, etc. There are other reasons as well.

So Richard Spencer would be in jail, eh?
 
I just don't see how one can draw that line though without making it completely exploitable?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

here is an example, just this second popped up in my news feed:

Henry de Lesquen condamné pour des propos racistes - Libération

quick summary:
An avowed extreme-right racist has just been sentenced to a fine of 16,000 euros for incitement to hatred and denying crimes against humanity. Prosecutors requested a six-month suspended sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros. He was prosecuted for racist and revisionist comments published on his website and Twitter account

that's how we roll here :D
 
Back
Top Bottom