I have been seeing plenty of guillhotine and mollotov jokes here, and as the title says, punching nazis.

I’ve been reading a book about nonviolence and anarchism, and he basically shows how we shouldn’t use violence, even in extreme cases (like neo nazis).

The main argument is that the means dictates the ends, so if we want a non violent (and non opressing) society, punching people won’t help.

And if it is just a joke, you should probably know that some people have been jailed for decades because of jokes like these (see: avoiding the fbi, second chapter of the book above).

Obviously im up for debate, or else I wouldn’t make this post. And yes, I do stand for nonviolence.

(english is not my first language, im sorry if I made errors, or wansn’t clear.)

(if this is not pertinent, I can remake this post in c/politics or something)

(the book is The Anarchist Cookbook by Keith McHenry, if you are downloading from the internet, make sure you download it from the correct author, there is another book with the same name.)

        • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
          104·
          3 days ago

          There is no tolerance for the intolerant. Nazis are intolerant. You understand this correct?

          • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
            113·
            3 days ago

            Paradox of tolerance doesn’t grant carte blanche in preemption. You understand this, correct?

              • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
                85·
                3 days ago

                I did. Many times over the years. Did you?

                Again, intolerance to intolerance does not grant carte blanche reaction. If you see a KKK person expressing free speech, one cannot simply shoot them. You understand this, correct?

                Like, I know this is cool and bad ass in the punk rock scene but when you unpack it at a societal level, it has seriously flawed logic and risks.

                • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  3 days ago

                  intolerance to intolerance does not grant carte blanche reaction.

                  Intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a tolerant society.

                  If you see a KKK person expressing free speech, one cannot simply shoot them.

                  Give me a reason you can’t other than law (and I’m ignoring you jumping from punching to shooting)

                  • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                    32·
                    3 days ago

                    Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.

                    Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.

                  • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    22·
                    2 days ago

                    I know what the paradox of tolerance is. Some of you here sound really young — like under 20 — and you’ve just recently learned about this concept and it’s blowing your mind and so you repeat for lack of a better, deeper understanding. Yet I say again the untouched point: It does not give you carte blanche to react however you see fit.

                    That’s not to say we shouldn’t call out fascist behavior; that’s not to say we shouldn’t counter-protest when they voice their own bullshit. That’s not to say that when they throw the first punch that we don’t deliver two punchers harder in return. That’s not to say that when they try to vote, we ensure that we vote in greater numbers to marginalize them. Across the globe we’ve sustained tolerant societies for quite a degree of time without a law that says, “to maintain civil order, we must all punch Nazis, or worse.”

                    Yes, people should be intolerant to intolerance; but there still requires a degree of proportionality at play here. Punching a Nazi violates countless other laws of society we’ve identified for ourselves that help to also maintain a tolerant society, and until that Nazi punches someone themselves, then there is no reciprocation.

                    Please review the landmark case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

                    Preemptively striking nazi (or kkk, etc.) consequences:

                    • It’s a bait that often leads to martyrdom and increased recruitment. They take said video and go, “look at the tolerant left! Look at their hypocritical ideals about free speech!”

                    • Vigilante justice is risky, both for the victim and yourself: 1) The bar for evidence of vigilante justice is tenuous at best, and you may attack someone innocent, or more importantly someone who may escape from the propaganda in time but now may simply double-down. 2) This doesn’t hold up in court. You will get charged with battery and receive a felony while the nazi goes free. Your time is better served dismantling the rhetoric online.

                    Don’t become what you hate. Ironically the rhetoric you use here is also the logical loophole for which right-wing extremists rationalize their violence as to why they are the good guys.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            43·
            3 days ago

            So you think literally the only way to show you don’t tolerate Nazis is to punch them? No other possible route than getting in a fistfight?

            You’re not very imaginative in that case.

            Furthermore, considering I have never been in a fight, as I said, do you think I would be successful if I got into a fight with a Nazi?

            • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 days ago

              Don’t worry, someone will do it for you

              I never said anything about you personally punching a Nazi… I said due to the paradox of intolerance that someone is likely to do it for you.