The group left in a U-Haul box truck that was driven out of the county, police said, indicating the demonstrators were outsiders.
A small group of neo-Nazis marched in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday, drawing a few vocal opponents and ultimately leaving following a “challenge,” police said.
The demonstrators, all men, wore red, long-sleeve T-shirts and black pants, and some carried black Nazi flags, according to verified social media video from the scene.
“Neo-Nazi demonstrators … carried flags with swastikas, walked around the Capitol and parts of downtown Saturday afternoon,” Nashville police said in a statement.
No arrests were reported, and the group left in a U-Haul box truck that ultimately exited greater Nashville, police said, indicating the demonstrators may have been from out of town.
“Some persons on Broadway challenged the group, most of whom wore face coverings,” the department said. “The group headed to a U-Haul box truck, got in, and departed Davidson County.”
People need to start taking the paradox of tolerance seriously.
“How do I compromise with someone who wants to put me standing at a wall and shoot me? Stand sideways?”
The compromise is to put them in jail.
They want to kill you, so instead of killing them, just jail them.
I know it was rhetorically, just wanted to give that answer.
And how well did that work with Adolph Hitler? History seems to suggest that jailing would-be Fascist dictators only delays the inevitable, and tends to work in their favor by galvanizing their followers over the “injustice” of their incarceration. For moral and ethical reasons, I truly wish that were the appropriate response. History says it isn’t nearly as final as the solutions these maniacs devise for their scapegoats.
Fascism doesn’t happen cause of single individuals, it’s caused by a country going through turmoil. Those individuals, that always existed, finally get a significant audience at that time.
If your talking about root cause fixes, you got to fix the decaying system.
The way I see it if very simple. The umbrella of tolerance only stretches over the people who agree to support it. If you are someone who subscribes to an ideology of intolerance you cannot expect to be protected by the very thing you are trying to eliminate.
Is there a general paradox of compromise, where the assumption that everything has a middle ground is wrong? The paradox of intolerance would be a specific example, but there is also the idea that common ground can always be found between two opposing sides.
For example someone against the death penalty because the courts keep putting innocent people on death row aren’t going to compromise on some acceptable number of innocent people dying.
Edit: bunch of morons downvoting because they apparently assume the worst in someone being curious while still on topic. Someone answered that what I was looking for was the Golden Mean Fallacy.
Tolerance of intolerance breeds intolerance. It’s the ‘Nazi Bar’ scenario.
You run a bar. One day, a blatantly obvious Nazi comes in, be he keeps to himself and doesn’t bother anyone. A week later, he comes back but he has some Nazi friends with him. You notice some of your regular patrons get up and leave. Over time, the number of Nazis that show up to your bar increases while the number of regular customers dwindles to nothing. Without intending it, you now have a Nazi bar. If you’d have just kicked the first Nazi out, it wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, I said I already knew.
Maybe the golden mean fallacy
That is it, thank you!
While I understand that you actually wanted to ask about a specific theory, it did not come out very well.
The neo-nazis are everywhere, getting more and more in the open, and it’s getting very scary for many people.
So I don’t question why they buried you with downvotes.
I wish there was an easy solution to this problem, and I worry a lot about what is to come.
I don’t understand why it did not come across well, as I was expanding on the paradox I already agreed with. You don’t need to answer, just expressing thoughts since the message I intended to convey did not land.
Did asking about the death penalty from the opposition’s standpoint instead of a proponent asking to compromise with just a few executions make it seem like I was disagreeing with death penalty opponents?
I used that example because I am personally opposed to the death penalty for that reason. No, I don’t want to compromise on the death penalty any more than I want to tolerate intolerance because both allow for worse and worse actions from the evil side.
It’s just a touchy subject right now, and it helps explaining yourself as much as possible before going into theory.
Like
I absolutely disagree with fascism, and am not here to argue about it. What I do want is to ask about a specific theory when talking about the implications of the paradox, which I understand, but want to start a meta-conversation about the deeper philosophy
Or something like that
Oh, I always associate those kind of intros with someone ‘just asking questions’. Reminds me of ‘not a racist, but…’
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t I guess.
Damned either way indeed. I think your original question was clear and people getting angry about it either have poor reading comprehension or critical thinking. Explaining yourself as much as possible before asking an innocent question is an undue burden that discourages people from learning more and is ultimately an ineffective defense against people who view others uncharitably by default.
There is a very easy solution to the problem but it requires the cuntservatives to kick the ‘freedom caucus’ to the curb.
Which won’t happen.
There is also a very hard solution that we needed to employ in Germany a few years back.
If the right doesn’t take the easy solution, we will have no choice but to take the hard.
I worry about the hard solution not being as straightforward as it used to be.
If the richest support the far right, it’s going to be one hell of a war.
Possibly, but I’d at least hope that some of the military wouldn’t support a fascist dictator. I mean its no guarantee but its still a hope.
Is there a general paradox of compromise, where the assumption that everything has a middle ground is wrong?
If i understood your question right then i might have something close for you, rather than being called a paradox an informal fallacy called “argument to moderation”
The “Argument to Moderation” (argumentum ad temperantiam) is the fallacy that the truth always lies somewhere between two opposing positions.
For example someone against the death penalty because the courts keep putting innocent people on death row
I know it’s not the point of your comment but that’s not the only reason people are against the death penalty.
Doesn’t matter why in this analogy. Meeting in the middle between 0 and X innocent deaths, is still going to leave more than 0 innocent deaths. Which should be unacceptable to all non-sociopaths.
It’s illustrating the fallacy of assuming there is always a compromise in an argument. Sometimes there are, but not with Nazis or any intolerant groups, with the exception of intolerance of the intolerant, which is necessary to keep a society tolerant.
I just gave my own personal reason and did not imply it was the only reason.
That’s probably the worst example you can give.
Why is that the worst example?
I call it the treaty model, they broke it, so they’re not under its protection.
Police doing police shit: “They drove away … indicating that we think they were outsiders.” Uhauls can be rented and picked up anywhere. Pigs won’t lift a finger to stop nazis.
It’s gonna be awkward at home and at work when they arrest people they know.
You forgot about when they get together in the social club later.
“It’s just a prank bro!”
It’s not their job, our constitution protects nazi protestors the same way it protects climate protestors. The right to assembly.
Confronting these things is our job, as citizens. Not the police’s job. If they weren’t causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.
I think the thing in this case is that it is the job of police to pull over a box truck full of human cargo. The implication here is so you think they’d have let a truck they knew was full of immigrants just drive away?
Right, they didn’t have seat belts, they should get tickets.
not just tickets but checked for outstanding warrants and plain ol’ pressured to ID themselves before being allowed to leave
JUST LIKE THE COPS DO TO LIBERALS PROTESTING
They would at the least be booked on charges that will obviously not stick, so that there face and name becomes public data and they get added to lists by political rivals. This was the MO throughout 2020, there were several popular twitter accounts that would just post the mugshots and names of people arrested, the majority of which weren’t charged or often weren’t even part of the protest but ended up doxxed and harrassed by chuds.
Fair point.
It’s not cops job to pull over dozens of people not following traffic laws like wearing a seatbelt?
Sure seems like it’s literally their job, but they just didn’t want to do it when it Nazis. Wonder why that is?
TN only requires seat belts for driver and front seat passengers. It’s even perfectly legal to ride in a truck bed on a highway.
F’n hillbillies.
If they weren’t causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.
It’s neat that this is a consideration now that it benefits nazis.
It has always been this way.
You’re almost there. Yes their primary role is to protect capital interests through systemic oppression. They selectively enforce certain laws over others.
They will beat down peaceful leftist and progressive demonstrations through the enforcement of petty law breaking like jay walking. I’ve been witness to this. They could do this here but they choose not to because capitalism requires systemic racism.
Their primary role is whatever the local governance makes it. There is no universal set of regulations governing local police. Though we might need some.
Additionally, what one person witnesses and attests to is not a sound basis for making policy decisions.
All that said, I do agree that leftist protestors frequently get treated more harshly than right-wing protestors, and that is a problem we need to address.
Thanks for invalidating my experience and those of black and brown people across the US. It is a systemic issue, their job is policing capital interests. History books and plenty of fields of study show this.
I didn’t intend any offense, but validating individual personal experiences is not what policy is for. It’s a statistical thing. Those fields of study are vastly more valuable than any anecdotes, which can be subject to a lot of different potential problems.
Particularly on the internet, which is absolutely full of people saying shit that is not actually true, and pretending to be things they are not.
It’s not personal, it’s very coldly impersonal. On purpose. I would discount an individual experience regardless of who the person was, or what they said.
Nazi ideology is explicit violent and encourages murder of non-white people and others, there is no constitutional protection for literally threatening someone’s life even if only through words.
If you menancingly say to someone “I’m going to kill you” you can be charged with a crime for that in the US. Supporting Naziism is little different than saying “I encourage the murder of Jews and other non-Aryans.”
I like that line of reasoning. Would probably be tough to get the SC to rule that way though, in the current judicial climate.
They need to be baited to say the quiet part out loud so everyone’s aware
Nazis marching are an explicit threat to all minorities and queer people. It should be treated as any other threat of violence is- as a violation of the law and disallowed.
You are right of course.
I don’t think the Constitution should protect them. Hell, I don’t even think laws against murder should protect them.
But they do. If they break the law, throw the book at them. Until then, it’s our job to try and change the law or fight them on other fronts, such as in civil court, like they are doing in Massachusetts.
Childish take.
Tolerance will never extend to protect intolerance. Hate and violence will never be considered protected. It’s not “for better or worse” douche, it’s for WORSE because they are a violent hate group that wants to kill. Is this really so hard to comprehend?
lol No, it’s not. However, the law is not subject to any kind of broader ethics. It’s subject to laws written by people, whoever those people are and whatever they want, and the interpretations, which are again, done by people.
The law is not inherently “good”, so the ethical interpretation of it is just one consideration. The law is blind.
If everyone voted for nazis, and those nazis made laws banning being jewish on pain of death, then that is what the law would do. This is why we need to rely on ourselves, as citizens, to fight this battle and not merely hope in the law.
No, the law forbids hate speech at least in my country. As it should.
Just remember the importance of fighting to keep that law in place. They can change laws, and even constitutions, if we let them.
Nobody thinks it’s weird they didn’t rent a bus? They rented a UHaul box truck and just piled in and sat on the floor? Folding chairs? Like this sounds like some low budget human trafficking cosplay.
It’s because they want to be able to hide. You see a bus, not only do you know it’s full of people but you can often see through the windows, and they can see you. A box truck is a stealthier way to move those people, and it also prevents a bunch of wanna-be tacticool fascist shitfucks from seeing the crowd telling them to emulate their hero and kill themselves.
It could just be way cheaper too
That’s probably the real reason. You can get a Uhaul for $20-30 for the day, a bus would be much higher.
There aren’t really a lot of places around where you can rent a bus, either. And the driver would need a CDL (with passenger endorsement) if it has more than 15 seats. Any schmuck can rent a box truck.
Like a factor 30 higher…
It seems like a really reckless way to travel. Those things don’t open from the inside. If their driver was somehow incapacitated or if someone were to put a lock on the back latch, the nazis in that uhaul would be in serious jeopardy.
But even without that consideration, the idea of getting into a cramped unventilated vehicle that wasn’t designed for humans and trusting a nazi to transport you anywhere seems ill-advised.
Nazis are historically stupid. Modern Nazis aren’t any different
They are neo-Nazis, thinking skills are not one of their strong suits. If the Nazis actually came back they’d have them all executed (like they did last time) because these people are useless. They are all far too self-important to follow orders, and too thick for command.
You just described the SS, my guy.
Brownshirt types might be useless on a battlefield but you don’t use them for that, you use them for paramilitary actions like intimidating citizens and rounding up isolated “enemies of the state.”
– and once the revolution succeeds what you have is a group of independently minded and experienced “revolutionaries”. So naturally they need to be purged to protect those now in power.
The SS came later. Look it up.
deleted by creator
they’d have them all executed (like they did last time) because these people are useless
The Night of the Short Knives.
So what you’re saying is, “keep taking uhauls Nazis”?
I mean, if you could think of any group that would put a pile of people in an insafe unventilated box Nazi is pretty high up there.
I say they should do it again.
continued
Which seems illegal. Why couldn’t they have been pulled over and at least cited for not wearing a seatbelt?
Who would be available to cite them? All the cops are in the back of the U-Haul.
Someone would have had to call it in that saw them getting out (or piling in), otherwise nobody knows what’s inside.
deleted by creator
Is that even legal? Shouldn’t the cops ticket them all for unsafe travel and make them take a bus home?
Some of those that work forces
Buses are expensive to rent. A u-haul is like $20 for the day.
But what about all the Good Guys that show up in U-Hauls?
Hey the only thing that can stop bad guys with U-Hauls are good guys with U-Hauls
It’s easier to avoid detection until it’s too late if no one can see you.
probably cheaper
The only good nazi is a dead nazi.
In the corpses of fascists, the most beautiful flowers grow.
Time to give them a pocket of sunflower seeds.
I always assumed it would be like Lord of the Rings. When evil creatures die, they get burned, and nothing ever grows there again, the landscape permanently defiled.
While I do like that metaphor and gave such texture to Tolkien’s world, I prefer a more eastern philosophy that corruption and rot is a part of the cycle of life, and the vilest filth over time becomes nutrients for a new generation through immersion in earth and transformation.
I was ban of reddit fur saying that x3
Lemmy is actually leftist unlike Reddit.
Telling Nazis they should follow Hitler’s lead and kill themselves is just a Tuesday here.
Everyone, may I present the proud white race.
Just want to say, if I’m on your jury after you have t-boned or firebombed a truck full of nazis, you will never see prison.
It is just self-defense at this point.
Yeah, just make sure you don’t make that known during jury selection or you won’t get to help.
Or during the trial, or during the deliberations. The first rule of jury nullification is you don’t talk about jury nullification. I believe that’s also the second rule.
3rd, 4rth, 5th, etc
If you openly try to stear the jury to nullify you’ll be tried for perjury because jury questioning basically amounts to “are you going to nullify if the evidence doesn’t agree with what you think should happen here? Yes or no?”
Don’t be too gung ho either though, if you’re going that route you have to be able to defend the idea that you argued based on the evidence of the case, because otherwise they’ll try to charge you with perjury for lying during jury questioning, they’ll do this because they designed the questions specifically to adversarially try to weed out anyone who’ll blatantly ignore the law and evidence in favor of how they think the case should be decided.
Don’t be too mad at them though, if everyone started doing that, they’d basically have no job.
Yeah, I know.
Killing nazis is both a moral and ethical good.
Fuck yes.
the fact they’re not in jail atm is a failure of the system
All the cops were busy at a march themselves.
Man you know… Thats the thing… I support their right to march and voice their opinion. Is it a shit opinion? Yes. Does middle Tennessee have a Nazi problem? Yes.
But I don’t want the government to stop them from marching. Because if they can’t march… Then the groups I support and agree with can’t either.
It sucks. But it’s how it should be. :/
the American government and many more literally went to war with the nazis once, it’s okay. It’s okay to say “the Nazis must not have a voice”, and giving the nazis a voice, and a platform, is not how it should be.
if you don’t stop it now, it will get worse.
I don’t think people recognize how much and how strong of an opposition is required to stop the problem in that way. Pre-WW2 germans didn’t just sit on their asses while nazis took over. They fought against it at every stage they could. They fought with politics, demonstrations, strikes and violence. But they lost.
I think our current weakness is that for several decades, ridiculing nazis was the absolutely correct way to fight against them. It worked. They had no leverage beyond comedy. It seems that somehow that doesn’t work anymore.
They fought against it at every stage they could.
Lol no they didn’t, the common german wholeheartedly embraced nazi ideology early on as their national identity was damaged and their economy brittle af.
SOUND FAMILIAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
It’s the slippery slope problem. I agree in general with everything you said, but struggle with figuring out a way to define that problem that isn’t open to abuse by determined bad actors. Imagine for instance that we already had such a law on the books when Trump was in office and consider what he might have been able to do with it.
It really isn’t. many countries have dealt with this. Consider Germany’s outright outlawing of Nazi symbolism and rhetoric entirely.
the slippery slope, if anything, is allowing the Nazis to be open and free Nazis inside your own country.
You are promoting a slippery slope fallacy.
Punishing murderers is not a slippery slope to punishing someone for saying mean words.
Denying nazis the right to March when their entire ideology is based on racial superiority and hatred is not a slippery slope to denying marches for positive things like equality. Hell, there is already a history of positive protests being squashed, so why would we ever waste out breath defending nazis when instead we should promote the ability for positive messages and focus on only denying it when the message is actually harmful.
I’m not promoting anything, I’m just bringing up the very real threat that the GOP represent when provided with anything even vaguely related to restrictions on rights. I’m not saying we can’t or shouldn’t ban Nazis, in fact I very explicitly said I agreed with that, I’m just saying it’s not a simple problem. Any such law would need to be very carefully crafted to make absolutely certain it couldn’t be twisted into a weapon to target a group other than Nazis.
Removed by mod
Laws can be pretty specific. Consider, if you will, a law against Nazis. It can’t really be abused in any way because it’s only targeting Nazis. It’s the same reason why murder is illegal but handshakes aren’t.
The abuse is really simple, they just redefine Nazi to mean something else. Suddenly they’re arresting BLM protesters because they’ve declared BLM to be a Nazi organization. I’ve already had literal arguments with people claiming that BLM are Nazi supporters, as mind bogglingly stupid as that sounds.
It’s probably not impossible to craft the law in such a way that it isn’t able to be weaponized, but the trick would also be in leaving it flexible enough that it isn’t easily bypassed. A German style ban on Nazi imagery would probably be a good start but as we’ve seen in Germany that doesn’t actually stop the ideology, it just removes the “brand” which isn’t nothing, but falls a little short of the goal.
We should be enforcing current restrictions on “fighting words”, which are insults that incite violence. Right now calling someone a racial slur is protected speech, or at least not illegal. Even if the point of that speech is to incite violence, courts have not interpreted that as the fault of the speaker.
This is the original idea:
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[1] It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Here’s a more modern revision:
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court held that cross burning is not ‘fighting words’ without intent to intimidate.
Like what?
It’s an interesting idea. I think I’d be fine if they just redefined fighting words as slurs. It seems like slurs would pretty easily meet the definition of fighting words without bringing in some of the more problematic cases like calling police fascists.
That’s where the specificity comes in. Like you said, the imagery bans etc. I’m not sure the ideology will be easy to get rid of but we can at least implement some common sense laws to help curb it. In Australia we had some nazi rallies and we made it illegal to do the nazi salute or display nazi symbols. We’re a bit backward and racist most of the time, but I’m glad we draw the line at literal nazis.
Reverse the order and the same can be said. Free speech has been abused to allow bad actors to rally for the death of people they don’t approve of. By your own logic, this is enough reason to support the issue.
How else you supposed to know who needs a punching?
Haha that’s exactly right.
Everyone deserves a voice unless their message is one of hatred and in support of violent oppression. That is the line, and nazis are on the wrong side of the line.
Many people have said the same, and many people have died. Please take the words of this comment section into your mind and give it a second thought. Nazis can’t share the same privilege to “speak freely” when they only conduct hate speech to rally others to harm people. That’s regulated in a million ways; basically obscenity laws only exist because we don’t want Nazis to.
On the other hand, if you see someone punch a nazi, no you didn’t. That nazi fell.
See nothing, say nothing!!
If you value freedom of expression, that doesn’t mean you need to extend that to people who fundamentally oppose it. To maximize freedom of expression, you can’t tolerate the people who would outright destroy it.
It’s also a slippery slope argument. We can just crack down on Nazis. And as for the government cracking down on other groups… they already do that. We see crackdowns on plenty of other demonstrations, with more repression and violence. Tolerating Nazis isn’t helping the good guys, because people in power don’t care about applying the rules evenly. Besides, even if we took the slippery slope seriously, then we have to consider what happens when we just let literal Nazis go about their business.
Slippery slope argument is not a real counter argument. You support positive change and resist negative change on a case by case basis. If you want to argue about balance of power between branches of government that is fine but it’s separate from the conservative slippery slope means we can’t have nice thing argument.
We can just, as a society, say fuck nazis, and not tolerate them.
Agreed. I’d very much like for them to be gone.
No.
Fuck nazis
This isn’t a ‘matter of opinion’.
There is NO middle ground between genocide and peace. And their ideals ALWAYS lead to that.
The only good nazi is a dead nazi, the fact our country gives them freedom to speak proves how far we have slipped down the fascist ramp.
The system is working as intended, it was always since its inception a tool of oppression and control.
The fact that they are not in jail atm is an indicator of solidarity between fascists and police.
So you’re against freedom of speech?
Nazis are a blight on society, any time you give them a finger they take the whole arm, tattoo it full of swastikas and feed it to their ravenous dogs.
You don’t need to be tolerant to the intolerant. They are the ones who broke the social contract by ascribing themselves to an ideology that is literally about genociding any group that doesn’t conform to their view.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. No exceptions.
That last line got me banned from Reddit at one point LoL.
I got banned for saying ‘punching nazis is a moral good’, and so did everyone else in the building (IP ban).
That’s a hilarious way to find out who in it was using Reddit.
Actually yes.
Because absolute Freedom of Speech is absolutely stupid.
No country should allow you cry fire at a crowded event without consequences because of free speech.
No country should allow you to lie in court without consequences because of free speech.
No country should allow you to make death threats without consequences because of free speech.
No country should allow you to tell lies in verbal or written contract because of free speech
Because there are certain rules our society is build upon.
Freedom of Speech is a right granted to you by the democratic society and framework of laws. Those intentionally leaving the implicit agreements of democratic society or established law behind (and literal nazis qualify) should lose protection of the same.
I used to be a very strong proponent of freedom of speech, but after seeing what that has been used for and the damage it has done I fully agree that limits are necessary.
That said I’m approaching the problem from a different angle. I think you absolutely have a right to say whatever you want, but there’s an equivalent right that other people don’t have to be subjected to what you have to say. To further expand on that idea people must be informed about the content of what you’re saying. You’re perfectly within your right for instance to insist that the world is flat, but before talking about that in public people need to be informed that you’re about to go off on a fringe theory that has literal centuries of evidence that runs counter to it and that if they don’t want to hear it they need to leave now.
In online spaces this problem becomes easier to handle, just apply content warnings, something like community notes, and hide the content by default until people opt into viewing it.
Edit: also we need to reevaluate this whole “corporations are people and have the exact same rights to freedom of speech” thing. I think we should generally be very accepting of a person’s speech, but much more strict about a companies speech, especially commercial speech.
I just wanted to say that this is very well said.
I’m against nazis
Nazis arent people
Not for folks who openly advocate against it themselves.
The rights of a democracy ought not be permitted to protect acts fully intended at undermining the democratic rights of the people.
Encouraging an explicitly genocidal political movement is not protected free speech, similar to how a person can be charged with a crime for threatening someones life.
nazis don’t deserve any freedoms at all.
There is no middle ground between genocide and peace.
Who else do we know that wants to imprison people simply because of their beliefs?
Now, before you accuse me of “bootlicking,” or “sympathizing,” know that I find Nazis to be among the most abhorrent people that have ever existed- but I also also recognize that simply having a belief- regardless of how shitty it is- should never be a punishable offense.
Lest we become what we hate in others.
Sorry no, there is a clear line between ‘people I don’t like’, with ‘people who talk of genocide’.
Cool. You are exactly what you hate. And to me, just as bad as they are. You don’t get to play by THEIR rules just because you believe they are wrong…. .
You play by THE rules because you know you ARE right.
Keep defending nazis, I’m sure it will work out for you.
Point out the part where I did that.
Nazis are literally trying to take the free speech away from others
Among the seriousness of the situation, I just want to say that I find hilarious that after these things happen, nazis online always go “well those aren’t real nazis because look how fit they are, they are all in good shape, and are marching! they must be feds because of all the walking and going outside!
wereal nazis could never!”Bunch of cowardly, destitute morons- all of them
Glad they were challenged.
And chased out of the county.
Run away! Run away!
Brave sir Nazi ran away!
“It the legendary black beast of Aaaaaaaaaaaagggghhhh!”
And were followed to wherever they parked their mom’s cars, and were shot, thrown in a pile, and burned, as is customary with Nazis and Fascists right?
If Inglorious Basterds taught us anything, it’s a big club. Burning works if you have a French cinema, though.
Sounds like self-defense to me.
Nobody said these were good Nazis.
ah yes, glorification of violence.
But to answer your question: no, that would release too much fine dust into the atmosphere and damage the environment and therefore is illegal
I’m pretty alright with killing self-identified nazis.
I’m pretty alright with killing
yeah, go ahead, normalize political Violence. I am sure that totally won’t backfire and will totally not relevate political Violence by said Nazis /s
If someone holds a gun to the head of your child, and you shoot the person to protect your child, who in this situation is normalizing the violence?
Oh, so no burning then, compost it is. Good thinking, more sustainable!
They went back to the library where they work as janitors.
What’s wrong with being a janitor?
Never insult any job people do. What makes you money isn’t who you are, and doesn’t make you better or worse than anyone else
Janitors perform a vital service that keeps society running, their jobs are important and good.
But I will never stop insulting cops, boarder agents, or prison guards. Their jobs do, in fact, make them worse than everyone else.
Apart from the other issue of you insulting janitors, you’re also insulting libraries.
Here’s your downvote
Now the right wingers are trying to say that the two Democrats who were previously expelled from the state house are the ones who invited Polhaus and his Nazi clown car, which is absolute bullshit, but it just shows that right Wingers continue to refuse to take responsibility for their rhetoric and actions.
That is a very russian tactic, we all know what playbook the cuntservatives are using these days.
Are we 100% sure it’s illegal to beat them on sight?
who cares about legality, lets talk about morality, it is 100% moral to punch a nazi and beat the tar out of them, it is also your duty to violate immoral laws, therefor its your duty to beat the tar out of nazis. no self respecting jury will convict…
I live in middle Tennessee and I assure you the only reason they were there is because they didn’t friggin tell us they were. And I’m ridiculously disappointed I missed the opportunity to meet them.
This is really starting to feel like “Man in the high castle”. Fuck Nazi’s
