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.)
It has nothing to do with tolerance.
There is no tolerance for the intolerant. Nazis are intolerant. You understand this correct?
Paradox of tolerance doesn’t grant carte blanche in preemption. You understand this, correct?
That’s literally the paradox… I think you might want to reread the wiki
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.
Intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a tolerant society.
Give me a reason you can’t other than law (and I’m ignoring you jumping from punching to shooting)
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.
The social contract only applies to the tolerent. By allowing the intolerant to spread their hate you allow them to spread their ideas. Physical violence isn’t the only kind of violence. Allowing the intolerant to speak intolerance you are being tolerent of the intolerant.
But there’s an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.
Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.
YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they’re mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they’re also a victim of abuse.
Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.
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.
Ya know for a bird you sure build a lot of strawmen
K
Wrong. Not giving my age on here but you’re way off the mark here
Here is the biggest strawman, I never said you could do whatever. Don’t rape them, don’t torture them, hell even killing is too far 99% of the time. Fascists thrive on being viewed as strong men and nothing is more humiliating to them than being taken down physically. Words mean nothing to the antisemite
And yet here we are in 2024 with the far right rising globally and “counter protesting harder and voting harder” has done nothing to stop the spread of their messages
Their words are violence. Physical is not the only form of violence. They make minorities fear going outside. It is proportional to make them fear spreading their message through the only means they understand. They are violating the social contract they are no longer covered by the contract
When was the last time you heard from Richard Spencer in a serious/public manner? For me it was not too long after he got humiliated by a fist in the face.
Or, more likely, the someone who git hit now thinks twice about saying that shit publicly because the remember the feeling of fist on skull. Also innocent? Its not hard to tell when someone is spreading intolerance so that’s not likely to happen
Congrats you discovered law isn’t morality. I will happily give the homeless food in cities where that is illegal.
Lol, lmao even
Really? They believe you should only attack the intolerant? I thought they wanted to attack me a trans person for existing in front of society, or interacting with children, or because I’m simply an abomination.
I’m glad we have established the fact that there ARE limits to Intolerance to Intolerance. We can work from here.
The reason Nazis and the KKK rally is partially the same reason the Westboro Baptist yell incendiary remarks: because it’s legal, and along comes some dumbass who can’t contain his temper and they throw the first punch. It gets recorded, then their recruitment surges and that person gets thrown in jail for battery charges while they bait lawsuits for damages. Being taken down physically doesn’t do jack shit. You know what strong men actually hate? Mockery. There’s a reason the mockery and satire of Charlie Chaplin got under the skin of Hitler so much. There’s a reason from Mark Twain to Jon Stewart have been so influential, because they tend to belittle the strong man… And they like nothing more than being belittled.
They know no shame, but they do HATE embarrassment. It’s why Putin has images of him being perceived as a gay clown. It’s why Xi of China outlawed images of Winnie the Pooh. You don’t even need violence to undermine these dumb fucks if you act early enough.
What astounds me is that people will spam the wikipedia page for Paradox of Tolerance, but where’s the spamming of the Ethics of Reciprocation? The Golden Rule? The Silver Rule? A remarkable double-standard where you are actually elevating the violence before anyone else.
So hopefully you’re not making the case that preemptive violence is the only means at stopping nazis.
So please show me: Is there any actual, substantive evidence whatsoever that preemptively punching nazis prevents rising fascism? Or does it just make you feel good and tough because you punched a guy with a swastika in a mosh pit and you’re trying rationalize it? As though in that moment you were storming the beaches of Normandy or something…? Anyways it shouldn’t even be hard to convince me because I, too, hate fascists and if this was a legitimate strategy then that’s great. But what ultimately, almost inevitably, happens is that it seems to backfire, muddy the waters, serve you prison time, and then foster greater recruitment among these sad individuals.
Sorry, that’s not how it work. Again, review Brandenburg v. Ohio. Someone saying mean things to you that doesn’t amount to an imminent violence or a direct threat doesn’t warrant punching. If so, then you’re falling for the exact same sort of ends-justify-means trap that Nazis themselves use and that should concern you. Hate speech is protected as free speech in America for a reason because if it wasn’t then the definition of Hate could easily be skewed into suppressing whichever “Them” group is unpopular in the moment.
The problem is that you’re going about fighting fascism the wrong way. If you didn’t put the cart before the horse, then it should already be self-evident that fascism is wrong. So this requires going backwards and analyzing why your messaging strategy is failing. Why there is a vector into this radicalization in the first place. Is it genetic predisposition? (hopefully not or at least the bar for evidence is enormous, lest you’re a racist yourself). Is it simply a matter of environmental factors from low education to toxic parenting and diminished opportunity? No differently than the inner-city violence to the white Appalachian poverty & crime, this is probably more likely. So instead of going, “hur let’s punch nazis!”, perhaps we need to assess what are better strategies, from satire & mockery, to actually tackling the key vectors into which a “normie” gets radicalized in the first place. Is this as exciting? No. It’s the harder, more constructive work.
TED Talk - My Descent into America’s neo-Nazi movement — and how I got out
You ask about Richard Spencer. The reason you haven’t seen him, or Michael Flynn, or any of the other ostensibly right-wing nationalist scum is because Trump isn’t in office and their job is to drum up attention from within their own base of echo-chambers. A year later following that interview, he held a neo-nazi rally. What if I told you that recruitment following that video probably ticked up?
Like, I don’t know if you recognize that what you’re doing is opening the pathway to radicalization in your own right. Let’s take an extreme example to prove the point: A terrorist group, such as Hamas. People don’t wake up and go, “gee, let’s go murder civilians!” First it starts with, “punching an Israeli occupier to our land is okay!” and steadily progresses. This sort of behavior is emblematic of quite literally every single fucking extremist group in the world, and that’s not different if you’re fighitng for a just cause or not.
Congrats, you discovered what feels good isn’t necessarily effective in your end goal.
I love how this was completely and entirely deflected with a modicum of substance. Once again, proving the point that you’re in the “Punch a nazi” thing based on how it feels good to you — not because it actually yields productive results.
I mean, let’s put aside that they threw the first actual punch in the following scenarios but — didn’t we collectively “punch” nazis in the 1940s? Didn’t we collectively punch nazis during the American civil war, and how did that turn out for us… They all vanished, is that right…?
So maybe… Just maybe… We need to put our thinking hats on to figure out an alternative solution to the problem.
Let me make this very clear: I am not excusing the fallacy of their belief set, but yes, they do (wrongly) feel they are fighting an intolerant takeover of their own existence. That’s how THEY would frame it, wrong though it may be. They then justify their actions because of this perceived preemptive intolerance. Naturally it’s total bullshit and what they’re really fighting for is the maintaining of their historically privileged positions in society. Still, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making. Both circumstances justify preemptive physical violence via ends-justify-the-means mentality.
I mean fuck, man, we teach our kids the same shit: That crossing the verbal-physical barrier of aggression is a no-go with your siblings. Now if they throw the actual first physical punch, then sure.
By the way, if you think it’s too far to kill, punching also more frequently than you realize can easily lead to death. If you’re uninformed on this, I can provide further sources.
Please define my argument for me.
You didn’t answer my questions. You first.
Edit: He couldn’t answer.
Ah the venerable “No you” form of argument.
I mean, I’m just being intolerant to bullshit. You start bullshitting me, I’ll start dodging just the same buddy :)
Don’t dish out what you can’t take back.
deleted by creator
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?
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.