Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention

[smac97]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.
We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.
We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree.
We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to.
We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.
We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.
We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.
In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

Sounds great. So how do you deal with bad actors and those acting in bad faith?

First, let people have their say.

Second, apply the foregoing principles.

Third, as Shakespeare put it: "{T}ruth will come to light ... at the length truth will out."  Let's not presuppose someone as a "bad actor" or "acting in bad faith."  Let's have discussions, share viewpoints and evidence and reasoning, let's hash things out with civility and decorum (as Elder Corbitt put it, "with honesty, dignity and respect"), and in time bad actors and bad faith will become manifest.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of this is based on the optimistic Star Trekesque idea that if we just understand each other more and listen to each other more things will be better.

I think that is so, and that concept is only reflected in Star Trek, and is not unique or original to it.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite is more likely to be true.

With respect, I strongly disagree.

Some years ago the Utah Supreme Court promulgated a set of "Standards of Professionalism and Civility" for attorneys in that jurisdiction.  Take a look at how many of these standards reflect the principles laid out by Elder Corbitt (emphases added) :

Quote

Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility

To enhance the daily experience of lawyers and the reputation of the Bar as a whole, the Utah Supreme Court, by order dated October 16, 2003, approved the following Standards of Professionalism and Civility as recommended by its Advisory Committee on Professionalism.

Preamble

A lawyer's conduct should be characterized at all times by personal courtesy and professional integrity in the fullest sense of those terms. In fulfilling a duty to represent a client vigorously as lawyers, we must be mindful of our obligations to the administration of justice, which is a truth-seeking process designed to resolve human and societal problems in a rational, peaceful, and efficient manner. We must remain committed to the rule of law as the foundation for a just and peaceful society.

Conduct that may be characterized as uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile, or obstructive impedes the fundamental goal of resolving disputes rationally, peacefully, and efficiently. Such conduct tends to delay and often to deny justice.

Lawyers should exhibit courtesy, candor and cooperation in dealing with the public and participating in the legal system. The following standards are designed to encourage lawyers to meet their obligations to each other, to litigants and to the system of justice, and thereby achieve the twin goals of civility and professionalism, both of which are hallmarks of a learned profession dedicated to public service.

We expect judges and lawyers will make mutual and firm commitments to these standards. Adherence is expected as part of a commitment by all participants to improve the administration of justice throughout this State. We further expect lawyers to educate their clients regarding these standards and judges to reinforce this whenever clients are present in the courtroom by making it clear that such tactics may hurt the client's case.

Although for ease of usage the term "court" is used throughout, these standards should be followed by all judges and lawyers in all interactions with each other and in any proceedings in this State. Copies may be made available to clients to reinforce our obligation to maintain and foster these standards. Nothing in these standards supersedes or detracts from existing disciplinary codes or standards of conduct.

1. Lawyers shall advance the legitimate interests of their clients, without reflecting any ill-will that clients may have for their adversaries, even if called upon to do so by another. Instead, lawyers shall treat all other counsel, parties, judges, witnesses, and other participants in all proceedings in a courteous and dignified manner.
2. Lawyers shall advise their clients that civility, courtesy, and fair dealing are expected. They are tools for effective advocacy and not signs of weakness. Clients have no right to demand that lawyers abuse anyone or engage in any offensive or improper conduct.
3. Lawyers shall not, without an adequate factual basis, attribute to other counsel or the court improper motives, purpose, or conduct. Lawyers should avoid hostile, demeaning, or humiliating words in written and oral communications with adversaries. Neither written submissions nor oral presentations should disparage the integrity, intelligence, morals, ethics, or personal behavior of an adversary unless such matters are directly relevant under controlling substantive law.
4. Lawyers shall never knowingly attribute to other counsel a position or claim that counsel has not taken or seek to create such an unjustified inference or otherwise seek to create a "record" that has not occurred.
5. Lawyers shall not lightly seek sanctions and will never seek sanctions against or disqualification of another lawyer for any improper purpose.
6. Lawyers shall adhere to their express promises and agreements, oral or written, and to all commitments reasonably implied by the circumstances or by local custom.
7. When committing oral understandings to writing, lawyers shall do so accurately and completely. They shall provide other counsel a copy for review, and never include substantive matters upon which there has been no agreement, without explicitly advising other counsel. As drafts are exchanged, lawyers shall bring to the attention of other counsel changes from prior drafts.
8. When permitted or required by court rule or otherwise, lawyers shall draft orders that accurately and completely reflect the court's ruling. Lawyers shall promptly prepare and submit proposed orders to other counsel and attempt to reconcile any differences before the proposed orders and any objections are presented to the court.
9. Lawyers shall not hold out the potential of settlement for the purpose of foreclosing discovery, delaying trial, or obtaining other unfair advantage, and lawyers shall timely respond to any offer of settlement or inform opposing counsel that a response has not been authorized by the client.
10. Lawyers shall make good faith efforts to resolve by stipulation undisputed relevant matters, particularly when it is obvious such matters can be proven, unless there is a sound advocacy basis for not doing so.
11. Lawyers shall avoid impermissible ex parte communications.
12. Lawyers shall not send the court or its staff correspondence between counsel, unless such correspondence is relevant to an issue currently pending before the court and the proper evidentiary foundations are met or as such correspondence is specifically invited by the court.
13. Lawyers shall not knowingly file or serve motions, pleadings or other papers at a time calculated to unfairly limit other counsel's opportunity to respond or to take other unfair advantage of an opponent, or in a manner intended to take advantage of another lawyer's unavailability.
14. Lawyers shall advise their clients that they reserve the right to determine whether to grant accommodations to other counsel in all matters not directly affecting the merits of the cause or prejudicing the client's rights, such as extensions of time, continuances, adjournments, and admissions of facts. Lawyers shall agree to reasonable requests for extension of time and waiver of procedural formalities when doing so will not adversely affect their clients' legitimate rights. Lawyers shall never request an extension of time solely for the purpose of delay or to obtain a tactical advantage.
15. Lawyers shall endeavor to consult with other counsel so that depositions, hearings, and conferences are scheduled at mutually convenient times. Lawyers shall never request a scheduling change for tactical or unfair purpose. If a scheduling change becomes necessary, lawyers shall notify other counsel and the court immediately. If other counsel requires a scheduling change, lawyers shall cooperate in making any reasonable adjustments.
16. Lawyers shall not cause the entry of a default without first notifying other counsel whose identity is known, unless their clients' legitimate rights could be adversely affected.
17. Lawyers shall not use or oppose discovery for the purpose of harassment or to burden an opponent with increased litigation expense. Lawyers shall not object to discovery or inappropriately assert a privilege for the purpose of withholding or delaying the disclosure of relevant and non-protected information.
18. During depositions lawyers shall not attempt to obstruct the interrogator or object to questions unless reasonably intended to preserve an objection or protect a privilege for resolution by the court. "Speaking objections" designed to coach a witness are impermissible. During depositions or conferences, lawyers shall engage only in conduct that would be appropriate in the presence of a judge.
19. In responding to document requests and interrogatories, lawyers shall not interpret them in an artificially restrictive manner so as to avoid disclosure of relevant and non-protected documents or information, nor shall they produce documents in a manner designed to obscure their source, create confusion, or hide the existence of particular documents.
20. Lawyers shall not authorize or encourage their clients or anyone under their direction or supervision to engage in conduct proscribed by these Standards.

Lawyers spend much of their time in an adversarial context.  The temptations toward incivility, discourtesy, etc. can be strong.  I am glad that the Utah Supreme Court has set a high bar for attorneys.  Most of society, however, is not bound to adhere to the foregoing standards, hence Elder Corbitt's encouragement to voluntarily adopt high standards.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Finding out that someone actually sincerely holds views that you find vile and repulsive makes you less likely to respect them.

And yet we can still interact with, and treat with "honesty, dignity and respect," people who have "vile and repulsive" views, and whom we do not "respect."  

As Elder Corbitt put it: "We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, provoman said:

Zinda, his face black, eyes red. Temba, his arms wide. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

"Brothers. Your bravery as fighters is known. Now you must demonstrate courage in a new way. Cease hostilities. Allow us to meet. ... To come here proves not only your courage, but your wisdom. Please, give this conference a chance."  -Riva, Loud as a Whisper (ST:TNG S02E05)

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A 2022 article that is a cautionary tale:

Quote

In March 2020, I attended the sentencing hearing of a fifty‐five‐year‐old Utah resident and health‐insurance salesman named Scott Brian Haven. It was a chilly late‐winter afternoon in Salt Lake City. There were no other reporters or spectators in the federal courtroom, except for a few family members and church friends of the defendant and his wife.

Haven wore a shirt and tie, as well as a hooded black jacket. He was pale and his eyes were puffy. Over and over, he muttered tearfully: “This wasn’t. This wasn’t me. This wasn’t me.”

Haven was a Mormon who served meals to the homeless in downtown Salt Lake. He had also gone through two divorces and was struggling to make ends meet, a precarious financial condition that he blamed on Obama and the Affordable Care Act.
...
From March 2017 until his arrest in June 2019, Haven had placed 3,950 calls to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. All of them were made to House and Senate Democrats. His three principal targets were Senator **** Durbin, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. The three Democrats were not randomly selected by Haven. He focused his attention on them because Limbaugh and Hannity had themselves done so—even going so far as to supply their Washington office numbers while on the air. Haven dutifully jotted them down. Then he began calling, sharing sentiments like the following:

"The following" sentiments are not appropriate for a family website like this.  Suffice it to say, the law eventually caught up with this fellow:

Quote

When U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups asked the defendant if he wished to say anything before being sentenced, Haven stood and fumbled with a piece of paper. “I realized I made a mistake when I got caught up in hate that got stirred up when I listened to the radio,” Haven said in a trembling voice. It had never occurred to him, he said, that there might be more to Nadler than the rancid image presented by the conservative media. During his time behind bars, Haven had learned that the Democratic congressman was in fact a father and grandfather, just like Haven was.

“There’s so much more to know about people than we hear about in the news,” he marveled, while apologizing to Nadler and his staff.

Though Haven did not in any way disavow his admiration for Trump and his contempt for liberalism and the media, he confessed to Judge Waddoups that such beliefs had become a toxic force in his life. He no longer listened to the news. He had disengaged from politics altogether. “I cannot live a peaceful life when I’m involved,” he admitted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

An article about sound counsel from Pres. Nelson:

Quote

On World Forgiveness Day, President Russell M. Nelson shared a message of forgiving “seventy times seven.”

In Instagram posts in English and Spanish, President Nelson wrote that the Apostle Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who had sinned against him, suggesting seven times. But Jesus responded not seven times, but “seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22).

“Forgiveness is not just a one-time act but a continuous process that requires patience, compassion, and understanding. It is not always easy to forgive those who have hurt you. You can receive strength from Jesus Christ,” President Nelson said.

President Nelson invited all “to remember the principle of seventy times seven and extend forgiveness to someone who has wronged you.”

And as people do this, Jesus Christ will relieve them of anger, resentment and pain.

“The Prince of Peace will bring you peace,” President Nelson said.

The whole thing is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, let people have their say.

If you want to. If not, leave. And if they are a Nazi and you can get away with it it is punching time, preferably punching at some dramatic moment in whatever Nazi rubbish they are spewing out.

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, as Shakespeare put it: "{T}ruth will come to light ... at the length truth will out."  Let's not presuppose someone as a "bad actor" or "acting in bad faith."  Let's have discussions, share viewpoints and evidence and reasoning, let's hash things out with civility and decorum (as Elder Corbitt put it, "with honesty, dignity and respect"), and in time bad actors and bad faith will become manifest.

And then we can punch them.

Oh, and the idea that truth will prevail is naive unless you are talking on a supremely grand scale. History shows that the followers of the gospel are routinely crushed from without and from within and truth is regularly lost.

I refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to those with morally abhorrent views that deliberately do morally abhorrent things. I just label them as wicked. Pretending sweet reason will win them over is silly.

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As Elder Corbitt put it: "We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to."

So the church’s recommendation to avoid people who intentionally disparage and try to lead people out of the Church are worth talking to?

Do the devils who tempt us deserve a fair hearing and are they worth talking to?

I guess I can listen to Nazis a little. The whining after the punching can be quite entertaining.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

First, let people have their say.

If you want to. If not, leave.

Pretty much.  

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if they are a Nazi and you can get away with it it is punching time, preferably punching at some dramatic moment in whatever Nazi rubbish they are spewing out.

You have previously complained about me bringing up your advocacy of extralegal physical violence against people with whom you have ideological/political disagreements (and whom you therefore arbitrarily designate as "Nazis"), yet here you are, reiterating that very advocacy.

I encourage you to listen to what Pres. Nelson and Elder Corbitt are saying, both the letter and the spirit of their remarks.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Third, as Shakespeare put it: "{T}ruth will come to light ... at the length truth will out."  Let's not presuppose someone as a "bad actor" or "acting in bad faith."  Let's have discussions, share viewpoints and evidence and reasoning, let's hash things out with civility and decorum (as Elder Corbitt put it, "with honesty, dignity and respect"), and in time bad actors and bad faith will become manifest.

And then we can punch them.

No, we can't.  

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, and the idea that truth will prevail is naive unless you are talking on a supremely grand scale. History shows that the followers of the gospel are routinely crushed from without and from within and truth is regularly lost.

The use of violence (and the threat to use violence) to suppress viewpoints with which you disagree has a very ugly pedigree.  The Blackshirts in Italy, the Brownshirts in Germany, the Red Guard in China, Antifa and BLM and neo-Nazis and white supremacists and Proud Boys and other groups in the United States.

What you advocate here is straight out of the playbooks of these groups.  I hope you reconsider what you are saying here.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to those with morally abhorrent views that deliberately do morally abhorrent things. I just label them as wicked. Pretending sweet reason will win them over is silly.
...
I guess I can listen to Nazis a little. The whining after the punching can be quite entertaining.

Again, I hope you listen to what Pres. Nelson and Elder Corbitt are saying.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You have previously complained about me bringing up your advocacy of extralegal physical violence against people with whom you have ideological/political disagreements (and whom you therefore arbitrarily designate as "Nazis"), yet here you are, reiterating that very advocacy.

I only complained about your mischaracterization of my targets as arbitrary and expanding it to include any ideological/political disagreement. That is your libelous addendum.

I advocate for punching Nazis and fascists. I do not deny this.

PUNCH FASCISTS!

Enjoy a good Nazi punch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFHOHfnYruI

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, we can't.  

That video shows otherwise.

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The use of violence (and the threat to use violence) to suppress viewpoints with which you disagree has a very ugly pedigree.  The Blackshirts in Italy, the Brownshirts in Germany, the Red Guard in China, Antifa and BLM and neo-Nazis and white supremacists and Proud Boys and other groups in the United States.

I dispute your “both sides” nonsense in categorizing groups.

Also the “give the Nazis a fair shake and listen to them and understand them and let them into government because that will get them to calm down” thing didn’t go very well. Hitler being punched more might have prevented it. Maybe it wouldn’t have but it can’t hurt to try. If you don’t like punching there are other methods:

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I only complained about your mischaracterization of my targets as arbitrary and expanding it to include any ideological/political disagreement.

In this post, I included a link to a video of protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum." 

And your response to the treatment of this woman:

You are indiscriminate and arbitrary in your designation of "Nazi."

And violence or threats of violence against people with whom you have ideological/political disagreements is wrong, and incompatible with the counsel provided by Pres. Nelson and Elder Corbitt.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is your libelous addendum.

A true statement is not libelous.  You have presented zero evidence that the old lady with a walker fits the dictionary definition of "Nazi."  So you are using some other definition of "Nazi" when you approve of it being applied to that lady.  I strongly suspect you likewise go outside the dictionary definition of "Fascist."  These are just labels you arbitrarily thrown out against people you dislike.  And you use these labels to preemptively justify physical violence against such people.

Meanwhile, here you described me as "being concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists dedicating to overthrowing things {you} love and care about."

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I advocate for punching Nazis and fascists. I do not deny this.

I know you don't.  You have advocated this over and over.

Meanwhile, I am hoping that people who are listening to you will instead give greater credence to the counsel from Pres. Nelson and Elder Corbitt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In this post, I included a link to a video of protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum." 

And your response to the treatment of this woman:

 

Was she punched?

Edit: Also flattered that you save this somewhere for ease of access. So what does your dossier on me look like?

Edited July 7, 2023 by The Nehor

[Emily]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

His goal was to destroy the KKK and not to come to an understanding with it and some kind of mutual appreciation of their different viewpoints. I doubt he would be welcome at a “Braver Angels” event using that kind of rhetorical strategy. He would run up against their principle of “neither side is teaching the other”.

Teaching doesn't always require words. And I doubt he was arguing with the members of the KKK. He simply allowed them get to know him, thereby dispelling many of the myths that the KKK perpetuates to justify their position of hatred. (IE: That other races are sub-human, etc.)

"Appreciating" different viewpoints doesn't mean accepting their viewpoint. It's more about learning to understand what the person believes from their own perspective, and not through a distorted lens built from hyperbole and fear. 

We would, for example, appreciate if other religions explained our beliefs regarding exaltation in the terms we actually use, such as... "we believe we will be joint-heirs with Christ" and not by saying "we believe we are all going to get our very own planet."

I'm sure there are people in the LGBTQIA2S+ community who would, first of all, like people to understand they aren't really all part of the same community, they aren't all hedonists, they aren't all even Democrats. They simply share some similar political goals, such as being able to live in any state they want to live in without having to register as sex offenders before they've actually been convicted of the crime. 

And while I feel that they've chosen moral paths which will prevent them from achieving the blessings of exaltation -- I will have to stand with them in their belief that everyone should be able to live where their jobs take them without fear of their rights as American citizens being threatened.

I think the church walks the political tightrope pretty well. It stays out of the muck and even supports the rights of people who disagree with our moral position, provided ours and others religious freedoms aren't stepped on in the process. 

I think the wording of the 11th Article of Faith* is pretty clear of our guiding principles on these subjects. We CLAIM is a pretty strong word. If politics arise that threaten religious freedoms, the church throws all the money, time, lawyers and media at it that is necessary to protect those freedoms. Understanding never means accepting to the point of giving up your own rights and liberties.

At the same time, we ALLOW other people the same privilege. If you regard many of these political stances as religious positions (and they are, to the point that believers accept ideas on faith that defy all logic, data and science) then we need to allow these stances to exist.  We let the tares grow among the wheat. We don't let it overrun the wheat, the field still belongs to God after all, but it stands next to the wheat, unmolested until the final harvest.

*“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Was she punched?

Did you approve of thugs on the street screaming at her?  Calling her "Nazi scum"?

Yes.  Yes, you did.

Again, I encourage you to consider the counsel of Pres. Nelson and Elder Corbitt (which would, I think, extend to refraining from advocating extralegal violence against anyone you arbitrarily designate as "Nazis").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2023 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Did you approve of thugs on the street screaming at her?  Calling her "Nazi scum"?

Yes.  Yes, you did.

Yep. Well done.

Now you are accurately reporting what I actually did. Good job!

Have a cookie.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yep. Well done.

Now you are accurately reporting what I actually did. Good job!

Have a cookie.

Would you be okay if someone hit her physically?  Because as someone who is older and who has cared for people more her age, that yelling is likely affecting her in physical ways, possibly even as significantly as a physical blow might depending on why she using the walker and any other disabilities she has.  I have described on occasion feeling like someone took a baseball bat to me (I have never been hit by a baseball bat, it is hyperbole no doubt, I have accidentally hit myself with a hammer and it feels like that only more spread out) after a stressful event (fibromyalgia screws up how pain is perceived) and nothing I have experienced would be comparable to what she was going through….actually now I think of it, I have been through something similar, though much younger and way before fibro, still left me nauseated and exhausted even then, most likely because I screamed back, irrationally thinking that might get through to them.  It didn’t.
 

Often emotionally stressful stimuli will have a delayed effect, it will be later after the numbness from the shock of being verbally attacked and physically restricted wears off and the adrenaline drops, the pain and other effects might kick in, so you can’t judge the effect solely by her reaction at the time.  That yelling so close to her is a physical attack on her, imo.  Whether it was a significant attack I can’t say.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you be okay if someone hit her physically?  Because as someone who is older and who has cared for people more her age, that yelling is likely affecting her in physical ways, possibly even as significantly as a physical blow might depending on why she using the walker and any other disabilities she has.  I have described on occasion feeling like someone took a baseball bat to me (I have never been hit by a baseball bat, it is hyperbole no doubt, I have accidentally hit myself with a hammer and it feels like that only more spread out) after a stressful event (fibromyalgia screws up how pain is perceived) and nothing I have experienced would be comparable to what she was going through….actually now I think of it, I have been through something similar, though much younger and way before fibro, still left me nauseated and exhausted even then, most likely because I screamed back, irrationally thinking that might get through to them.  It didn’t.
 

Often emotionally stressful stimuli will have a delayed effect, it will be later after the numbness from the shock of being verbally attacked and physically restricted wears off and the adrenaline drops, the pain and other effects might kick in, so you can’t judge the effect solely by her reaction at the time.  That yelling so close to her is a physical attack on her, imo.  Whether it was a significant attack I can’t say.

Yeah, but going to a fascist rally can also have all kinds of effects on the body and mind so might be a net positive.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but going to a fascist rally can also have all kinds of effects on the body and mind so might be a net positive.

Do you have reason to believe it was more than curiosity about candidates that caused her to go?  From her comments, I would judge her as conservative and it was concerning that she appeared to be open to voting for Bernier, but she claimed to not use the internet to do research on candidates, just the news which according to her wasn’t publishing anything on Bernier and given her age, maybe she is just old school enough to want to use face to face encounters rather than videos to find out what someone really believes.  I am not seeing anything definite from her that would lead me to assume she was far right.  She was a longtime social worker and that tends in my experience to be a more liberal group.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Calm

[CV75]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I only complained about your mischaracterization of my targets as arbitrary and expanding it to include any ideological/political disagreement. That is your libelous addendum.

I advocate for punching Nazis and fascists. I do not deny this.

PUNCH FASCISTS!

Enjoy a good Nazi punch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFHOHfnYruI

That video shows otherwise.

I dispute your “both sides” nonsense in categorizing groups.

Also the “give the Nazis a fair shake and listen to them and understand them and let them into government because that will get them to calm down” thing didn’t go very well. Hitler being punched more might have prevented it. Maybe it wouldn’t have but it can’t hurt to try. If you don’t like punching there are other methods:

 

There are clearly situations where violence perpetrated by fascists can be rightly addressed with violence, but not their beliefs or speech alone. Also, physical force can be exacted without the personal animosity that inevitably sabotages personal and group credibility, freedom and liberty. Choice of eggs, pies, fists and weapons notwithstanding.

Controlling feelings of personal animosity is not reliant on constructive engagement with political opponents; civic virtue can be exercised in other ways. Braver Angles isn't for everyone, obviously, since engagement between opposing partisans must be mutually opportune. And there are many valid reasons not to associate with some personalities.

Edited July 8, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

POLL: has any poster punched a fascist for their beliefs or speech alone?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

On 7/7/2023 at 2:58 PM, The Nehor said:

Yep. Well done.

Now you are accurately reporting what I actually did. Good job!

Have a cookie.

The idea that it’s perfectly acceptable and justifiable to call "nazis" and "fascists” scum and punch them because everyone “knows their bad,” is precisely the same logic the nazis used to convince so many under their control to call Jews scum, punch Jews, take away their rights, and ultimately kill them. 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Chum]

On 7/6/2023 at 7:25 PM, pogi said:

Daryl Davis is a blues musician, but he also has what some might call an interesting hobby. For the past 30 years, Davis, a black man, has spent time befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Johnny Lee Clary story pretty well soured the Converted-Klansman trope for me. JLC was a grand wizard who was converted to Christianity by an African American preacher, Wade Watts,[1]. All thru the aughts, JLC was vaunted as evidence of the power of loving conversion.

I listened to JLC's preaching and he did strongly speak against racism. He also routinely advanced islamaphobia and launched the occasional attack on the Church. From what I can see, all WW did was get JLC to change targets. Attacking Muslims and Mormons must have been pretty okay because JLC got a huge fan following and an ordination. Myself, I see a guy who changes the flavor of his poison and suddenly it's delicious to folks. How do I not be cynical?

Having been burned by the JLC scam, the headline of Daryl Davis' story makes me itch. Not DD's fault but I don't think I can give him a fair shot.

[1] Later retelling say JLC met WW shortly after converting.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The idea that it’s perfectly acceptable and justifiable to call "nazis" and "fascists” scum and punch them because everyone “knows their bad,” is precisely the same logic the nazis used to convince so many under their control to call Jews scum, punch Jews, take away their rights, and ultimately kill them. 

Yes, the Nazi punchers are the real Nazis if you don’t think about it.

Edited July 9, 2023 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

POLL: has any poster punched a fascist for their beliefs or speech alone?

10/10, would punch a fascist again.

Edited July 9, 2023 by The Nehor

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, the Nazi punchers are the real Nazis if you don’t think about it.

That’s just like saying that those who punched Jews in 1930s Germany were the real Jews. Brilliant. 

Demonizing someone by calling them a “nazi" or "fascist" and even going so far as to physically attack them because “everyone knows their evil" is the exact same logic that was used to persecute the Jews. 

But if you disagree, perhaps you think it’s perfectly fine to label those on the left as Marxists and demonize and punch them. After all marxists have killed, tortured, and enslaved a lot more people than the nazis ever did. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[CV75]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

10/10, would punch a fascist again.

Details, please? This is quite an education.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That’s just like saying that those who punched Jews in 1930s Germany were the real Jews. Brilliant. 

Demonizing someone by calling them a “nazi" or "fascist" and even going so far as to physically attack them because “everyone knows their evil" is the exact same logic that was used to persecute the Jews. 

But if you disagree, perhaps you think it’s perfectly fine to label those on the left as Marxists and demonize and punch them. After all marxists have killed, tortured, and enslaved a lot more people than the nazis ever did. 

No, it is not the same logic used to persecute the Jews. This whole argument is Soviet style whataboutism propaganda. Doing a good job here Comrade!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Details, please? This is quite an education.

No, probably shouldn’t.