- Acid Test by Quixote - http://www.molvray.com/acidtest -

Punching Nazis and the Rule of Law

Christ on a cracker. It’s a meme already. It’s a way of performing virtue at each other.

And if you disagree with punching Nazis, I assume you're a Nazi sympathizer. And I agree with punching Nazi sympathizers too. [quoting text saying:] We're on the same side. I just disagree with punching Nazis. ... Then we're not really on the 'same side'. I'm on the 'punch nazis' side.

Just one sample from the twitter machine

Look. If you can punch them because they’re awful people, they can punch you because they think you’re an awful person.

I know that’s not how it works in their world. They get to stomp on anybody they want because they’re so much better.

That does not make it a good idea to do the same thng. It does not reduce the number of nazis if you use their rules.

(What we should be doing is making their hate speech illegal. That’s the problem. Nobody should have to listen to hate speech of any kind. So, before the laws catch up, I guess we could shout in their faces to make it impossible for them to be heard. But punching them is just being part of their world.)

And — think about this now, really, think about it — the more of their rules you use the more of a nazi you are yourself. Punching people is just the first step down their road.

I know it feels right. But if it does not feel right when it’s done to you, then IT IS NOT RIGHT.

That’s the point of a rule of law. That’s the point of the rules applying to all equally. That’s the only way to live together without dodging people punching you all the time.

12 Comments (Open | Close)

12 Comments To "Punching Nazis and the Rule of Law"

#1 Comment By Branjor On 15 Feb, 2017 @ 14:41

The “punching nazis” business is a lot more sneaky and insidious than what it appears to be at face value. Transgender activists and their allies have been very hard at work lately trying to equate lesbians/TERFs* with nazis/the alt right in the public’s mind. They are growing increasingly comfortable with real life violence against women, especially lesbians. Trans activists have been making death and rape threats and spewing hatred at lesbians/TERFs for years now. In November 2016 a prominent trans activist, Dana Rivers, brutally murdered two lesbians and their son and the LGBT press did not even cover the story, except for the trans critical LGBT blog Gender Trender. The handle of the tweeter above, “Cishet” Michele indicates that she (or he, who knows) is a trans ally and one who has fully drunk the kool-aid of the trans movement. Here is a link to a blog post on the subject of “punching nazis/TERFs”: [1] Here is a link to Gender Trender’s coverage of the murders: [2] You might want to check out all the stuff at Gender Trender, it is an excellent site.

(*TERF, in case you don’t know, stands for “trans exclusive radical feminist.” It was made up by trans activists and is used as a slur against women who are not in favor of opening up every women-only space to male trans, including restrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, prisons, dorms, girls’ sports teams, all lesbian meetings and events, all lesbian bedrooms, etc. etc etc.)

#2 Comment By Branjor On 15 Feb, 2017 @ 16:09

Excuse me, TERF stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist”, not “exclusive.” Don’t know if my comment is in spam or moderation, but I can see it above under No Responses to ‘Punching Nazis and the Rule of Law.’ Maybe because there’s two links in it?

#3 Comment By quixote On 15 Feb, 2017 @ 20:14

If I understand you right, you’re making the same point?

I.e. trans activists saying violence against women is a good idea because they (women) are such useless blots. That’s exactly my point: punching people because you think they’re crap makes a civilized life impossible.

You don’t even need to get into the (de)merits of the t-activists’ views. Which is lucky. I mean, if I was supreme dictator they’d be in therapy for ingrowing confusion, but as it is they get to live their lives and I get to live mine. More or less. Funny (by which I mean awful) how punching women is either fine or it’s a joke.

(Yes, your longer comment was in moderation for some reason. Probably because it had two links. Wp usually allows one without choking.)

#4 Comment By Branjor On 16 Feb, 2017 @ 07:00

Really don’t know if I got that tag above right. Trans activists are saying that violence against “TERFs” is a good idea because we are ‘transphobic bigots’ ‘nazis’ and ‘literal murderers’ if we question their dogma AT ALL and that is it ‘literal violence’ that causes the suicides of thousands of transwomen to question them at all or call them by the ‘wrong’ pronoun. Any woman who does the above is a ‘TERF’, but it is especially directed at lesbians, whom they are dead serious about heterosexualizing at all costs. The majority of ‘transwomen’ these days are heterosexual males who claim to be ‘lesbians’ and demand access to lesbians or else we are ‘TERFs’ bigots, nazis, murderers, the whole nine yards and killing us is OK. This would all appear laughable except that liberal (not radical) feminists and most of the ‘progressive’ left actually support them and hate TERFs/lesbians. Hell, there are LESBIANS who support them (want to be ‘good’ and not a ‘bigot’, right?). It is really bad. Read the links! Google the ‘cotton ceiling’!

As to the point you were making about punching nazis being a bad idea and just an example of us acting like them, agree 100%!

#5 Comment By Branjor On 16 Feb, 2017 @ 07:56

You said:
“(What we should be doing is making their hate speech illegal. That’s the problem. Nobody should have to listen to hate speech of any kind.”

But what about freedom of speech? And who decides what is hate speech? The trans activists and many of their allies, unfortuanately, would say that both of my comments above are ‘hate speech.’ Women have been BANNED from Jezebal and many other trans, leftist, and liberal feminist sites and their comments deleted for saying exactly what I have said above.

#6 Comment By quixote On 16 Feb, 2017 @ 08:26

Branjor, yes, the whole business of defining hate speech is a vexed question. I’ve been working on a post about free speech and all those ramifications for years now. (Really, earliest drafts go back to the 1990s!)

The problem is that events keep overtaking me, so I think “oh, gotta include something about that!” and back the thing goes for revision 52.3-a.

Briefly, though, I think there’s one thing we could be doing easily: threats of any physical violence automatically put you in the “hate” bucket.

I can’t think of any legitimate argument about politics or principles that requires physical threats to make its point. But there’s lots of things I miss, and none of the free speech experts I’ve tried to ask about this respond, so I’m probably missing something major. Don’t see what it is though, and it seems like it would be a good start.

(And, yes, I do realize that means people would have to stop yelling “Fuck you” at each other. Seems like a small price to pay.)

As for the more difficult issues, which basically come down to who gets to speak, I think an application of a principle that forbids double standards could provide useful guidelines.

So, if one side requires the other side to shut up, then equally applied, nobody would be able to speak. Thus in the zomg!-terfs! battle, feminists are not trying to limit trans activists’ speech. so the feminists aren’t the problem in that case. The activists are trying to limit feminists’ speech — even though the feminists are no threat to them except in their own minds — so they’re the problem.

Again, if you tried ot limit speech based on your own feelings about how awful it was, nobody would be able to speak. That’s a problem for free speech rights. That problem is solved by the hurt person not having to listen to the speech in question. (Don’t like feminists? Don’t go to their events / libraries / and so on. How hard is this??)

I know nobody is about to pay attention, but doesn’t that seem like it could work if they did?

#7 Comment By Branjor On 02 Mar, 2017 @ 15:00

Quixote, forgive me for not having replied in a reasonable time. I become overwhelmed sometimes and just can’t talk for a while. Yes, I agree that threats of physical violence should put one in the hate bucket. Trans activists have directed many rape and death threats at radical feminist and other “TERFs” and liberal feminists still support those males and even say it is understandable and justified because the radical feminists and TERFs commit TERRIBLE violence against the “transwomen” by disagreeing with them and “misgendering” them. As to who gets to speak, trans activists campaign, often successfully, to “no platform” such radical feminists and TERFs as Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys due to their views on gender, even when they are speaking on topics unrelated to transgender. We are undergoing a real censorship of women’s voices by males and their handmaidens in this day and age of backlash. The “war on women” is usually understood to be the right wing backlash against abortion and contraception rights, and so it is, however, since when does a “war on women” leave lesbians out? It doesn’t – the transgender movement is the anti-lesbian arm of the war on women (it also wars against the rights of all women). The majority of male “transwomen” today are heterosexual, white men with intact male genitalia, who claim to be lesbians. They call lesbians “bigots” for not being willing to consider them for sex partners and liberals and the rest of the lGBTQ “community” support them in their rapist attitudes towards us.

You said: “That problem is solved by the hurt person not having to listen to the speech in question. (Don’t like feminists? Don’t go to their events / libraries / and so on. How hard is this??)”

Apparently way too hard for the transactivists. They set up camp outside of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and harassed the festies for years. One even patrolled the perimeter with a machete, until the Festival was forced to close. The “Human rights Campaign” supported them.
There was also the new feminist library in Vancouver, broken into and vandalized by transactivists. There is so much crime committed by them against us that it becomes exhausting to tell of it all. It was covered by the Gender Trender blog, [3]
(And that “Seagrl” entitled male on the Confluence thread asks who is saying not to focus on women’s issues – merely him and the entire trans movement, which thinks feminism ought to revolve around them).
Anyway, I agree with your points above as to how violence and threats of violence should be off limits, there should not be double standards on who is allowed to speak and just not going to events and speeches you disagree with. However NOBODY is enforcing those rights and standards against the trans side. You saw that thread on the Confluence – I did not feel free to say what I thought there without being disrespected or even abused. (I just managed to throw what I consider to be a lifeline to Sweet Sue and I was out of there.)That thread, of course, is nowhere near the worst of what we trans critical types face.I was scared. William said something about not thinking the transgender issue was that important and the “Seagrl” man talked to him like he was a pile of sh*t. OK, so the trans issue is important. Then you came along and expressed great contempt for those catholics who focused almost exclusively on how Hillary wanted to “let men in the ladies room.” Oh, so the trans issue is not so important? Well, it depends on who is talking about it, I guess. If an abusive, entitled male like Seagrl says it is important, it is important. But if conservative catholic women say it is important, it is beneath contempt. I agree there are other issues which are more important – like is Dump going to start a nuclear war? I voted for Hillary despite my disagreement with her on this one issue. I had planned to write to her about it after she got into office. For the good of the world and the country I think it was more important that Hillary, not Trump, be our president, trans in our facilities or not. However, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day and I am glad the Trump admin threw out Obama’s “guidance” on school bathrooms, lockers, sports teams, etc, however they did it for the WRONG REASONS.
Lastly, Quixote, I want to apologize to you for the length of this comment – I had no idea this comment would turn into such an outpouring when I started it. I am sorry and I will understand if you want to delete it, but I hope it is OK with you.

#8 Comment By quixote On 03 Mar, 2017 @ 07:27

Hey Branjor, no prob about length, not on this blog! some of my stuff is novella-length. Nor about lapses of time. I check out all the time. It’s the only way to stay sane now.

I wasn’t meaning to single out Catholic women. Her parish has both sexes and I gather they’re both completely tilt on this topic. And I do think the trans activists who yammer on about feminists killing them by misgendering them — well, it’s so ridiculous it would be funny except for the real damage they do.

When I first heard about that line of thinking I actually had to research it to find out what they meant. Apparently the idea being that not being accepted for who they are and being called “he” when they feel “she” makes them so sad it drives them to suicide. I laughed out loud when I first heard that. All I could think was, “You wanna be a woman? Well, welcome to the human female condition in ye olde patriarchy.”

And then there’s echoes of every abuser ever who moans, “It’s your fault. You’re driving me to drink!”

And even more then, all the leftists who jump on the chance to get back to dumping on women, because what could be more avantgarde than that?

I guess we need some catchy branding back at ’em? Women Exclusionary Radical Trans? Werts.

I lump them all in together into the (enormous) bucket of people who think women are there to be walked on whenever it suits their agenda. I’m not sure I consider them all beneath contempt because I seem to have plenty of contempt to spread their way, even with the massive requirements generated by the Cheeto-topped Dogpile and his satellite flies.

#9 Comment By Branjor On 28 Jun, 2017 @ 08:36

Here’s more on the “Punching Nazis” men from Gender Trender: [4]

#10 Comment By Branjor On 15 Sep, 2017 @ 08:35

Hi, quixote, follow-up to the subject of punching “TERFs.” It is happening and trans orgs are fine with it.

[5]

#11 Comment By quixote On 15 Sep, 2017 @ 15:04

Yes. I saw that. Punching women always seems to be okay. And then they’re all shocked — shocked! — when one day the violence hits them.

Idiots.

#12 Comment By Branjor On 16 Sep, 2017 @ 19:15

When trans women are the victims of violence it is almost always at the hands of men. No radical feminist or “TERF” has beaten or killed a trans person, though the reverse cannot be said. Also, trans women who are beaten or killed are almost always trans women of color working in prostitution, which is a high risk occupation for any woman, especially WOC. Older, white, affluent, late transitioning males, who are almost all autogynephiles and are the majority of present day transgender women, are not being killed.