Have fun glorying in your power fantasies and then doing nothing and grumbling about how you really would have.

P.S. On the very, very slim chance you really are mentally unstable enough to do so, don't kill anyone. It's not going to end well for you or the nation.

I AM a leftist. I'm a socialist (not communist) who believes in systems akin to Scandinavia's. I support Bernie Sanders and policies like universal healthcare, living wages, and a strong social network of supports. What I'm not is a short-sighted violence advocate convinced that they're in a group of untouchable heroes that will save the world via illegal murder and get away with it.

Ok buddy, you kill your way to a safe nation. What's actually going to happen is you'll die or ruin your life, and Trump will get all the proof of radical left terrorism he needs to do things like deploy the military in civilian areas.

To people advocating violence in this thread - let's just ignore the immorality of convincing civilians to assault and kill other civilians. It's clear that premeditated murder is something these folks are unrepentant about if they're sure it's justified. So instead:

• If people start dying Trump will have the outrage-inducing incidents he DREAMS of. If someone kills Fuentes/others the cops will seize and search all their electronic devices and social media accounts. They'll uncover all this violent vigilante rhetoric that radicalized the murderer and it will make the news. Trump will get all the proof he could want that "the enemy within" is a lethal threat, and he'll make national headlines out of these social media posts about "Trumpers are Nazis and Nazis aren't people and only deserve bullets in their heads". Fuentes and any others killed will be martyrs. Legal opposition that state governments, courts, civil liberty organizations, etc. are mustering will be swept away in the wake of radical left domestic terrorism and the fear it brings. Similar to how post-9/11 fear turned into 20 years of war.

• Some people here are apparently living in a magical world where they punch millions and the Nazis fall to the ground wailing "Mein gott, I am undone! What a fool I've been. I'll be a better person!" and everyone around them cheers and promises to depose Trump and vote Democrat. Even worse are the ones who want to start shooting people, as if killing extremist, insane media figures like Fuentes will make their hateful audience concede and become good citizens. This morning I literally had someone reference Inglorious Basterds as proof the nation would rise up and support them. Life isn't a Tarantino film and you aren't Brad Pitt.

• What is actually going to happen if you punch these people is they will pull guns on you in self-defence and kill you, then get acquitted in conservative courts because you assaulted them. Remember crybaby Kyle Rittenhouse? If you shoot them, they will start killing people back. The plan to beat up and shoot fascists en masse is a wet dream for domestic terror organizations/militias like the Proud Boys. Violence won't prevent purges, it will start them.

• Basically all of these keyboard warriors aren't going to actually do any of the really illegal punching and killing they are so proud to demand. They're quick to say all Nazis must die right now to prevent "tens of millions of deaths", but THANKFULLY it doesn't seem like they're actually killing the Nazis near them (and they really, really shouldn't). So far it's all "I don't live near him" and "it sure would be a shame if someone else did it

  <wink>

  ". For essentially everyone posting this crap, again thankfully, it's just internet power fantasies and hoping someone impressionable commits the crime and takes the consequences.

I'm not defending fascist trash like Fuentes, but I am opposing these calls for angry internet "warriors" to start killing. Instead of telling everyone to murder their fellow citizens, how about protesting and visibly showing support for the women and minorities being targeted? How about making sure every American knows about measures like Gavin Newsom "Trump-proofing" California, or all the people and states already setting up legal challenges to things like mass deportations. What about making sure people know the Pentagon is furiously planning to resist and delay controversial orders? I assure you the Pentagon, state authorities and civil liberties organizations have far more effective and legal plans than angry Lemmy users convinced they're going to punch and kill their way to a safe nation.

Nazis deserve nothing but bullets to the head

I thought you just wanted him afraid? Sounds like you too actually want him literally killed without charge or trial - good thing you don't consider it worth the drive since the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. And spur revenge violence either way when people turn him into a martyr. Fuentes is an awful human being for advocating terrible things, don't be like him but just on an opposite side. Thanks for a quote to add to my main post that really illustrates people actually wanting violence and not just "innocent" doxing btw.

Nothing? I addressed and rebutted your argument that your "there’s not a lot that wouldn’t be justifiable if necessary" (aka killing Fuentes) would prevent "tens of millions of deaths". You seem to think "killing mouthpieces" is going to be some magical event that makes hateful people reconsider (as opposed to spurring them to violence of their own). Also, I'd like to add it's ridiculous hyperbole - 3.8 million people are estimated to have died in the 20 years of the Vietnam war. Just over 900k died to violence in all the post 9-11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Finally, even if you don't care about going to prison or dying, hopefully others reading will.

You go ahead and be "guided by morality not legality" while you do try to convince others extrajudicial violence is alright. All because you believe killing people outside the law, and getting people killed in return, is productive if you're sure it's right. You use the example of cops carrying guns, but they're not under license to kill everyone they disagree with nor is it considered moral (since you don't care about legality). Can you imagine if your example cops were guided by your principles, ignored law, and killed everyone they suspected might be a dangerous criminal on the chance it would reduce suffering? I'm thankful you're almost certainly all talk, and let's hope no one else listens to your posts about "silencing mouthpieces" and "making it dangerous". That's a recipe for mass violence, lawlessness, and associated suffering.

Violence should be a last resort, used only within bounds that keep if from being a crime/war crime, and definitely not exercised by everyone at will if they're pretty sure it's productive.

Maybe you just want him to stew. But the whole point of my post is that people providing the specific examples I give don't just want him doxed or even just protested - they're actually calling for violence or murder. I don't like Fuentes, and I'm not defending him as a person AT ALL. It took 3 minutes of looking up who he was to be disgusted by him. That doesn't justify the blatantly illegal violence people are pushing for. Most of the big talkers will never do a damn thing either, which is actually a good thing because the most likely outcomes are they die or ruin their lives. I just hope their posts about teaching Nazis via violence don't get someone more impressionable to ruin their life.

It's insane to think killing Fuentes is going to prevent tens of millions of deaths. For starters, even a lot of Republicans want little or nothing to do with him. 2nd, if he is so dangerous, do you think his followers (who you argue are capable of killing many millions) are just going to throw up their hands at his death and go "whelp, that finishes it for us"? They'll become more hateful, and much more likely to become violent in return.

What you are pushing for is also very illegal. If you ever stop talking big and start doing, the most likely outcomes are you die or ruin your life. I'd say put up or shut up, but please don't - vigilantism is wrong and I don't want to see deaths or you and others suffering the outcomes even if I disagree with you. Worse, posts like yours might convince someone impressionable or less mentally stable to attack Fuentes and ruin their life instead because folks like you got angry. Plus the whole cascade of violence or even revenge killings situation.

The tolerance paradox is the idea that the one thing tolerant people cannot tolerate is intolerance. Doing so allows intolerance to take root and potentially win because it's unopposed. Which I agree with. Where I split from some people in this and other threads is I don't believe that not tolerating intolerance = killing those you consider intolerant. I know you only said punching, but if people start beating people en masse (and a lot of people are considered Nazis nowadays) it's going to escalate very quickly. Plus some are already calling for more than punching.

So instead of opposing them legally, you want to jump straight to violence? I guarantee that will make a martyr out of Fuentes, give Trumpers evidence about how "the enemy within" is dangerous and destructive, and lead to people you support and care about being killed in return.

Telling people to use violence first is not a plan for a safe nation, and it's very illegal as well. If you ever stop talking big on a forum and actually commit the violence you push for others to do be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison, and rightfully so. Even worse, someone mentally unstable might read all these posts and go do it themselves and ruin their life. In no way is that the ethical choice, even if you are personally convinced it's worth it.

Violence should be a last choice, it should be kept within bounds that prevent it from being a crime/war crime, and should never be done by whoever is angry enough to kill people identified as dangerous by an internet forum.

Yeah, I've proven to be a real fan of Fuentes in other parts of this thread... Take off with the insults and assumptions. You think someone like Bernie Sanders is going to tell his followers to kill Fuentes? I guess he's a fascist too huh? Here's what I actually oppose - blatantly illegal mob justice. Fuentes is a bastard, but that doesn't justify some angry internet dude committing an act of premeditated murder. Are you going to kill everyone with an ideology you consider dangerous? While convinced it's to prevent suffering no less. What about when, if Fuentes dies because of things he says, the right makes him a martyr and example of how dangerous "the enemy within" is making America? What if the fellow countrymen who you so hate start killing you and people you support/care about in return? Is that your plan for a safe nation?

It's taken like 4 days post-election for people to escalate to calling for violence against people they've identified as Nazis. All in the name of ethics no less. I can empathize with the anger and feeling of helplessness. It's still ridiculous and heart-breaking that less than a week after a loss there's hundreds of upvotes for people pushing extrajudicial cold-blooded murder and violence in the name of righteousness. Unrepentantly so I might add.

P.S. Don't tell me the folks hinting at this crap aren't talking about murder. Even if, and that's a big if, they only meant beatings or the like (still illegal) that would degenerate into lethal violence basically immediately. You personally have already said you don't want to use words alone.

Amen. Defy the urge to race to the bottom, even if it's borne out of genuine, understandable grief and frustration.

If you're in the wrong place, I'm here with you. There are ways to deal with people that aren't dehumanization and vigilante mob justice. We're 4 days past the election. I think we need to see if society can pull through and avert disaster with less escalation and violence.

E.g. there are a lot of legal challenges being prepared for the militarized internment camps that Trump campaigned on. Also, the things he promised are simply outside the logistical scope of agencies to provide. "For one, it’s entirely impractical from an operational standpoint. The law enforcement capacity needed to both secure the border and carry out mass raids in the interior of the US simply does not exist."

Maybe things will get bad enough in the US to justify a civil war or something similar. It's happened before (although even then it wasn't just whoever felt violent killing each other - it was war with rules). Or maybe things like legal challenges, impossible scope, and half the nation's disapproval will keep it from getting to that point. I'd like to keep extrajudicial violence off the table until we know.

Sorry about the length, it's a detailed subject. First, thank you for talking to me in good faith - that means a lot to me. I'm trying to make good faith arguments. It's really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I'm sure ambiguity exists.

• Talking about the military: a declaration of civil war to save the country is a lot different than "his house is flammable" or "it would be a real shame if he was dealt with at night" which are exactly the kinds of things being said about Fuentes right now, on Lemmy. He's undeniably a piece of shit, but vigilante killing isn't alright. There are good reasons why soldiers killing others in the context of anti-fascist formal war would be treated differently than mob justice. If soldiers took it upon themselves to kill Fuentes without a declaration of civil war or something similarly legal, that would just be a crime or deployment of troops against American citizens. E.g. Lincoln didn't tell Northerners to head South and start indiscriminately killing to end slavery, it was a war with rules like the chance to surrender, etc.

• Things like actual rape and murder should merit at least an attempt at justice within the bounds of law. And as far as I know, Fuentes hasn't done either - people right now want him dead because of his words. As an example, people didn't kill the January 6 protesters - they got put through the legal system and were punished. I don't think it would have been a proud and just moment in US history if those hundreds of rioters were identified and murdered back in 2021, by other civilians, without trial. I know Trump might release them - does that possibility mean they should have been murdered by a counter mob back then? The J6ers weren't just talking like Fuentes either, they straight up attempted a coup.

• It's the election loss that seems to be fuelling the rapid escalation of rhetoric here on Lemmy. I saw lots of bullying before, but not many people calling for actual killing. Why is it that the election loss, alone because nothing else has happened yet, made vigilantism ethical?

• As far as I know, people are not being killed or imprisoned yet on mass scales. Women are definitely being threatened, but those instances are being investigated and there's a growing pushback against that behavior. People are preparing legal opposition to proposed prison camps for undesirables. What I'm saying is the incitement I am seeing is based on possibilities, with no willingness to see if society figures out less radical solutions like legal challenges and societal pressure. If those measures fail, and they might, I'd probably feel differently about rescuing people by force if need be.

Disingenuous. The Lemmy users supporting doxing him aren't leaving it at that. They aren't even suggesting just protesting his house or otherwise acting legally. From the thread where he's doxed:

• "Hypothetically, if you’re selected for jury duty in a case like 'Someone murdered Nick Fuentes", you can just say not guilty regardless of evidence or truth."
• "Smash a different window every day."
• "sure would be a shame if someone dealt with him late at night, wouldn’t it? :)"
• "Nazis deserve a lot worse than just getting doxxed"
• "Can you tell me if fascists have ever been defeated peacefully?"
• "In the immortal words of my grandfather’s friend, who was the second in command of a state’s Hell’s Angel chapter, anytime something happened, 'You want me to take care of that for you?'"

In this thread:

• "'Bold thing to say when your house is flammable' A screenshot I saw somewhere"
• "Yes, actually, there’s no obligation to extend the protections of the social contract to those actively attempting to destroy it."
• "Violence against self-identified Nazis is 100% ok. We had a whole big war like 80 years ago about this."
• "Nazis get punched and nazis get doxxed." (As if they're going to solve everyone's problems by punching. If you think gun-lovers are going to let you beat them you're mistaken. Violence = fast track to dead people.)
• "All they (fascists) understand is violence."
• "Nazis deserve nothing but bullets to the head, if the admins want to cover their asses that’s their choice."

Do you believe all those quotes are advocating legal things? We're 4 days past the election and people are already talking vigilante violence.

Edit: Any pretense is gone and people are unrepentantly cheering for Fuentes to be assaulted, killed, his house lit on fire, and so on. It's all over the responses. So yeah, "it's just doxing, why are you guys opposed?" is disingenuous. The post I'm responding to would read "It's just killing people to stop the killing of people" if it was representative of the actual opinions here.

I'm going down in flames with you if need be. Wrong is wrong.

• Martin Luther King Jr. "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate..."

I can see scenarios where violence becomes necessary, but not as vigilantes and it should be at the very end of the list.

Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don't change when someone is sure they're right in ignoring them "this time". I want to be clear - I'm not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I'm seeing lately is such a disconnect to me:

• "Woke snowflakes aren't people" "Women are property" "Hamas (aka all Palestinians) aren't people" = outrage at the dehumanization (very rightfully so).
• But then: "Trump voters are Nazis and Nazis aren't people" "The people who didn't vote or voted 3rd party are just as bad as them" = upvotes, "they don't deserve rights" and "when they suffer it will be justice" comments.

This election broke people, and I really don't like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at "woke leftists" or "communists", you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.

I don't know if he coined the phrase, but he's one of the first. "Nick Fuentes, an influential white nationalist podcaster, appears to be one of the early instigators in promoting the phrase on November 5. His X post, “Your body, my choice. Forever.” has since received 35 million views."

No worries, I'm Canadian and I had to look it up. Nick Fuentes is one of the online bastards preaching open hatred. "Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political pundit and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, misogynistic, and antisemitic views." Apparently he's so vile even other extremist Republicans are torn about associations with him - more in that article.

If it's not right for them, it's not right for us. I understand there are times when a person's opinions and character deserve harsh criticism, but providing information that may result in real-world violence is different.