Hmm It’s not them who want to take away the citizenship of flag burners, ban books and prevent mosques from being built.
Thing is, that’s not what they asked. I looked at the report footnote and methodology. It said what I said - NAZIs. Just Nazis. Who, despite the irrelevant reference to Indiana Jones, do in fact exist in 2017.
Cato explains the Yougov poll wording (that’s where it came from) very clearly.
True, but it is the left that supports the banning of speech, in far larger numbers. The left also supports the use of violence to drive their agenda by +30%.
Everyone who took the poll knew exactly what was meant. Come on. Do you really think that if people truly believed that the question had to do with real Nazis that 56% of Democrats would have said it was unacceptable to “punch a Nazi”?
And if that won’t convince you, why did the survey use “punch” at all? Why not use the broader more descriptive term violence? This would have been the choice of, I don’t know, every other poll in the history of mankind if the effort was to truly capture attitudes about a physical attack on national socialists rather than attitudes about shutting down speech with which you disagree, which was, lest we forget, the entire purpose of the survey. It isn’t like CATO doesn’t know what “violence” means, they used the term in the in the questions about shutting down college speakers (you know, where 78% of democrats said a college should just cancel a speaker if students threatened violence). Wouldn’t that be a clearer question? I mean, when I am on my way to Whole Foods and see a Nazi being his racist self (they are everywhere here in the midwest, and one must be every vigilant, as you know) I personally prefer to kick them, so I don’t get Nazi cooties on my hands is there a separate question for that? It couldn’t possibly be that the question was worded as it was because the phrase “punch a nazi” gets a million plus google hits, could it?
Well as the survey was only taken online for two days, I doubt that was the motivation. Cato’s motivation for the entire thing? Clicks and eyeballs, duh, of course. This thread is exactly what Cato hoped for.
If your argument is down to “Everyone who took the poll knew exactly what was meant. Come on.” then my rebuttal is “The poll said what it said. Come on.”
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Are you asserting that people who took an online survey are unaware of the byword “punch a nazi”?
But if we must take the survey as meaning something other than what it its obviously does, do they have to be actual members of the National Socialists before punching them? Do you need to check membership cards first?
You yourself clearly do not read the survey as narrowly as you now propose, because you directly allude to James Field not three posts up. I don’t believe that Field was a member of the national socialists. So how is he or his actions implicated here?
No @Ohiodad51 it means no one designs a survey that will be online for 2 days to, as you put it, “It couldn’t possibly be that the question was worded as it was because the phrase “punch a nazi” gets a million plus google hits, could it?”
I alluded to Field in this discussion, Cato didn’t.
…and I don’t want to punch him. I want him in prison for the rest of his life.
But Cato aside, if a group promotes, encourages and actually commits violence against innocent people, is it wrong to think it’s OK to punch them? Leaving aside WW2 and the millions of Europeans, Americans and everyone else killed by the “OG” Nazis, just looking at the current groups who self-identify as Nazis.
I still don’t know what this means. I assert the phrase “punch a nazi” is well understood, and derives from Richard Spencer getting slugged on youtube during the inauguration. I believe this is widely known, and the phrase was used in the survey in accordance with its generally accepted meaning. You apparently argue that it must be taken strictly literally.
Yes, because you interpreted the statement “punch a nazi” at that point in the same way that everyone else does.
And now we are down to it. So the phrase “nazi” now means “a group promotes, encourages and actually commits violence against innocent people”. Which begs the questions who decides whether someone “promotes or encourages” violence? Most people would equate nazis with white supremacists. But I don’t think it is ok to punch Charles Murray, to cite the obvious example
Personally, and more specifically, I am not a fan of vigilantism. I am even less of a fan of vigilantism by uneducated children, like we see on campuses. I have found over the years that often times if you let people speak they will justify the regard in which you hold them.
No, it does not. Maybe it means that to you.
I used it to describe a PARTICULAR group - or set of groups - that call themselves Nazis or express admiration for Nazis and Nazi actions and seek similar aims - which means that by definition they admire violence. Some promote violence, some don’t.
I would not put Charles Murray in that group.
I would put these people in that group: http://www.americannaziparty.com/ and I would put some white supremacists - certainly not all - in that group as well.
So the guy who shot the Texas church murderer outside that church should have waited for the police, got it.
Anyone who doesn’t think certain viewpoints are privileged and promulgated, while others are silenced, should spend some time on a college campus.
This is exactly where opposing views should be heard, spread, and analyzed rationally.
The “everyone else” would be the 6,000,000 Jews who were exterminated by Hitler.
“The farther left you move on the political spectrum the more you are in favor of banning things/using violence to do so.”
I think a truer statement might be the further you move towards an extreme the more likely you are to want to ban things/speech and use violence. I look at extremism as the convergence of a line formed into a circle. If moderation and understanding is at 6 o’clock and totalitarianism is at 12:00 if you head left and right there is little difference between 11:59 and 12:01. In the end you lose your freedoms. Currently there is more sympathy for leftist extremism than right wing extremism so it might seem more acceptable. Antifa is a much larger and active group than the alt right but gets much less negative press. Neither, however, are interested in freedom for all.
@sushiritto I was counting them as Europeans but of course many were not.
I think that it is generally better for society that those charged with responsibility for maintaining public safety are the ones to do so. Are there exigent circumstances on occasion? Yes. And in this particular circumstance it was beneficial that an individual with a firearm who knew how to use it appropriately was on hand. But on balance I do not believe that people should go running to their gun safe every time a crime is being committed. Nor do I think acting to stop a shooting in progress is remotely like going to a rally and attacking people you don’t like because they are “nazis”.
I have no idea what position you are asserting anymore quite honestly. So I am off of this particular merry go round.
“OhMomof2: Weird cherry picking of stats you did there,”
Well, if we are cherry-picking, you managed to leave these out:
51% of strong liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
Supporting someone’s right to say racist things is as bad as holding racist views yourself (65% (African American), 61%, (Hispanic) 34% (white)).
People who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right of free speech (59%, 62%, 36%, respectively, as above).
Here is a terrifying trend: More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.
For an entire long list of potential speakers I won’t bother enumerating here: Excluding a speaker who would disrespect police, Democrats are about 15 to 30 points more likely than Republicans to say each of these speakers should not be allowed to speak.
Silencing opposition is the first step of totalitarianism.
@OHMomof2 Not sure what you mean, but I was only clarifying, because Hitler’s “Master Plan” was to exterminate Jews, not Europeans. He didn’t exterminate the French, the Polish, the Italians, Czechoslovakians, Russians, etc.
@sushiritto understood. I get the difference between people Nazis set out to exterminate based on ideology (Jewish people, mostly) and people Nazis killed in the course of war (Americans, Russians, etc). Since I was making a point about the latter, I emphasized the latter.
Probably best we retreat to our corners, I doubt we will come to an agreement or even find common ground on this one.
Yes I did. That’s what cherry picking means. Zinhead did his, I did mine, and you are doing yours. Cato has something for everyone!
You understand that this statement refers to what 76% of people THINK right? Is the fact that so many people think that terrifying? Don’t you also think that? Is it terrifying to you that so many agree with you or what?
Alt-right has been more successful at getting their views adopted by powerful politicians in the mainstream right (e.g. who call them very fine people, make textbook definitions of racist comments, and support racial profiling), while the black-mask antifa types still have little mainstream support and are much less powerful (though still occasionally violent and dangerous, like the alt-right).
“OhMomof2: Yes I did. That’s what cherry picking means. Zinhead did his, I did mine, and you are doing yours. Cato has something for everyone!”
You missed the point. You were mocking Zinhead for cherry-picking yet suggested you were presenting a truer picture.
You weren’t.
As to the statement (mine):
Here is a terrifying trend: More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas.
You: You understand that this statement refers to what 76% of people THINK right? Is the fact that so many people think that terrifying? Don’t you also think that? Is it terrifying to you that so many agree with you or what?
Are you making some nonexistent distinction here? That is what 76% polled SAY, that silencing offensive viewpoints seems to be the go-to on campus. Are you saying you don’t believe it is true, or that you don’t like it that they say it is true, or what?
Because it’s true. Just watch the news as to how many speakers have been shut down because college students couldn’t even exist on campus with someone speaking to OTHERS about something which with they disagree. Whatever happened to staying home when you don’t want to hear some nonsense someone is spouting? We’ve all done it. Why can’t they?
Nope. I said “I’m just here for sorely needed balance.”. Meaning I cherry picked stats from the article also. You may have missed post #18 and the ensuing exchange.
"But @Ohiodad51 the question wasn’t about punching people in MAGA hats, or people like Richard Spencer. It was about punching Nazis. Presumably that meant what it said - actual Nazis.
Or Cato is messing with us all. "
This is disingenuous. You know darn good and well that today’s far leftists mean “those with whom I disagree and smear as racist sexist blah blah”, which they perceive as today’s “Nazis”.
They aren’t really saying they would punching only actual historical Nazis, of whom I’m pretty sure there are few if any remaining.