Well bam, I have my valentine for this year: “I’m all over you like a lab experiment with poor safety protocols!”

Well, OK, punch them if you want, but be ready to either be punched back, shot, or face prison, or any combination of the three.

I’ve seen that one thrown around a lot. True, you have the right to tell me I’m an asshole. ...But I have the same right to tell you that. And you do NOT have the right to shut me up through violence or force of government. And, lastly, there’s a definite hypocrisy in someone claiming to be for “tolerance” while…

That argument quickly falls apart. “We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law.” Whose intolerance trumps whose? A hypothetical scenario: Person A sets up a “safe space.” Person B tells them that’s a stupid idea. Person A has Person B thrown out. Who is in the right? Both…

Anti-Milo organizer says that the $100k worth of property damage was “stunningly successful.” http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-Milo-organizer-Window-smashing-Cal-protest-10915758.php

OK, let’s go through this:
1. “Cult of Tradition” Seems many liberals have traditions they hold sacred, like abortion, protesting the right, “tolerance,” etc. Check.
2. Rejection of modernism - Yeah, lots of rejection of Trump and the like going on, check.
3. Action for action’s sake - Punch a Nazi because they deserve…

A true patriot defends the Constitution. The First Amendment gives you the right to PEACEFULLY assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does NOT give you the right to assault another person. Period.

UC Berkeley just last week. When conservative agitator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus, “protesters” (rioters) started throwing bricks, lit fireworks, and rocks. They attacked the doors of the venue where he was scheduled to speak. They lit fires, including one on a gas-powered portable floodlight.

“The appropriate way to deal with fascists and Nazis is to destroy them, not reason with them.” OK, who decides who is fascist and thus deserving of destruction? If I were to call you a Nazi, does that implicitly give me the right to destroy you? The government? You mean the same government that many liberals are…

“When rhetoric actively encourages the violence and destruction of others...” Umm...that’s exactly what you’re doing right now. You’re encouraging violence and destruction to those who disagree with you. Are you saying that Nazis have as much right to punch you as you have right to punch Nazis?

Until they start, yes. Once they start actual preparations, they could be nabbed for conspiracy, but so long as it remains just words, yes.

No, actually it’s very arguable. The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech, not popular speech. You have the right to make a total ass of yourself. You don’t have the right to punch someone else making an ass of themselves.

THANK YOU! Yes yes and more yes. That’s the thing most people are missing.

Hey look, those Nazi’s are shooting. In that case, self-defense is perfectly viable. But if it was just one on a street corner shouting idiocy, then the Cap would be completely in the wrong.

It’s one thing to fight in games against Nazi’s who are actively attacking you. But if it’s someone just spouting nonsense in words only, you have zero right to attack them.

I suppose given that this was done for some other country, I can’t comment on their politics. I just have to say, if it was done in the US, the ones being bowled should definitely include the ones who burn campuses to “protest” (read: riot) or punch “Nazi’s” whose opinions they disagree with.

Wow are you missing the point. If a Nazi started to attack you and enact genocide, of COURSE you have the right to defend yourself. But if they are just speaking WORDS that “Genocide is great!” then you do NOT have the right to attack them. It’s really very simple.

*Rolleyes* Did you never hear the child’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!”? Unless he’s spouting active fighting words (like “Punch this guy!”), all he’s doing is blowing hot air. Assault on one’s intelligence is one thing; assault on one’s person is entirely different.

So, in that case, you’re free to express your disagreement with the position, explain why, and let the idiot prove their stupidity to the public at large. You are NOT free to enact violence to coerce them to shut up.

“Ehrmehgurd yur a nazi lover!” -Many commenters here. They can’t comprehend the idea of disagreeing with speech but defending the right to it without violence. I forget the exact quote, but in Civilization 6, one states something like “The hallmark of education is being able to entertain a thought without agreeing…