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.)
Non violence has never worked imo. At most it’s a temporary solution, but even peaceful movements like MLK’s needs a Malcolm x and black Panthers to show what will happen if you ignore the peaceful ones
I’m surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually cease power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.
It’s paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.
Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn’t tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they’re inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.
Would I personally punch a person because they’re spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don’t think it’s morally wrong to do so, it’s just not the optimal way of dealing with it.
What you are describing is actually the simple truth that many worldviews and the beliefs and values that stem from them are incompatible and cannot coexist. This is the fundamental problem with the first ammendment. It assumes that people are exercising beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to each other.
100% agree with your message, but just for clarity’s sake I believe you meant “the intolerant will eventually ‘seize’” as in take, like a seizure of assets. Cease is putting an end to something.
Normally I wouldn’t bother to correct someone, but the irony of the mistake is that it contradicts your intended message by saying that if you tolerate intolerance, it will cease to exist.
Thanks for the correction, I’ve edited the comment, indeed that could be missinterpreted.
This precise argument can also be made to justify a tightening on immigration from countries where religious intolerance is the cultural norm, on the grounds that “if you allow [them] to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough [of them] to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced”. Reasonable?
Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I’m in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I’m an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.
For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of “all Muslim immigrants are intolerant” you’re the one being intolerant, if you say “People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate” then I’m okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.
Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you’re interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they’re forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I’ve never seen that happen. In fact I’ve even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she’s okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.
Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization
Generalizations are broad by nature, that does not mean they have no value.
But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.
Can’t speak for the USA but that is absolutely not the case in Europe.
Otherwise you make some decent points. In any case, IMO discussions like this would benefit if we accepted from the outset that nobody is going to be convincing others to change their opinions. The best that can be hoped for is to understand the opposing side better. That would be an achievement in itself.
I didn’t say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can’t tolerate intolerance can’t be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.
Congratulations you found the paradox part of the argument! However one of these is not like the other
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/neo-nazi
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/
Neither of the links seems to mention immigrants from intolerant countries, so I’m not sure how they’re relevant to the comment you’re replying to.
These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.
These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.
Sources often don’t convince the opposing party in an argument, especially in a political one. You’re not my audience, I already know you’re anchored in your convictions. You may as well be an LLM or a useful idiot manipulated by misinformation. I don’t care.
You’re not my audience. I don’t care what you think. I’m providing a counterpoint for folk that haven’t researched or haven’t made up their mind.
You’re not my audience,
That’s a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.
I already know you’re anchored in your convictions
To the extent you know anything about me, I also “know” that your own convictions are just as unmovable.
Looked at another way, it’s a good thing to have convictions.
K
It’s not a paradox if you see it as a social contract where every side is equally bound and protected by. Failure to abide by this means you are not protected.
Which people are tolerant and which people are intolerant is less obvious than it looks.
Like if you say “the Jews should be eliminated” then most everyone will recognize you as a Nazi unless you say it in Arabic and have a brown face, at which point punching you is a hate crime.
attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.
With what level of force are you going to attack them? Surely a bloody nose isn’t going to be enough to dissuade them. So are we talking broken bones? Loss of an eye? Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.
Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.
Yes, I agree, it’s not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don’t care the language someone says that, “The Jews should be eliminated” is an intolerant statement, just as much as “The Muslims should be eliminated”, regardless of who says it, it’s intolerant and should not be excused by someone’s skin color.
Also we must clarify if we’re talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you’re okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.
With what level of force are you going to attack them?
With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can’t shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating “X should be prevented from voting” should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.
Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.
Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone’s, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming “all X should be exterminated” can morally be killed.
Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.
Yes, that’s why it’s a paradox, it wouldn’t be a paradox if it didn’t have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but “people who wish (non-X) dead” are not, e.g. “people who wish Muslims dead” are a valid X.
Maybe I missed it being mentioned elsewhere, but I think the writeup I’m familiar fits well with this angle of the discussion. Basically, it says tolerance is a social contract that we’re all born into and protected by so long as we uphold our part of the contract (by being tolerant.) If you are intolerant then you break that contract and are no longer protected by it, therefore making intolerance toward you acceptable and not a breach of the contract for others.
(Also, I agree that religions/race/etc are invalid for judging somebody’s tolerance)
Not very many I bet since everyone is an internet tough guy, I never actually fought in my life.
I’m in my 40’s now, but as a teenager that used to go to a lot of punk shows; I can assure you the sentiment is literal. A group of anti-nazis can give a few nazis a really bad time.
I’ve been called a nazi on here for suggesting precisely that we shouldn’t punch nazis solely for being nazis so I’m assuming it’s serious for at least some people.
solely for being nazis
At what point do you think it’s okay to punch a nazi?
You should never punch them. Ever.
If it comes to war, you should kill them with guns because they’ll certainly use guns against you. Otherwise we’re all just talking.
Either we settle these disagreements as a civil society, or we settle them with civil war. Talking, or guns. It’s never punching, so you never punch Nazis.
If they’re being violent themselves, or actively advocating for it (as in: in a way that could reasonably cause others to be violent). I’m also not gonna try to stop anyone for punching someone throwing out slurs, though I don’t think it’s a great response. If it’s just “i know this person is a nazi for whatever reason but they act like a normal person” I’m clearly against it and think the punching person is also in the wrong (to be clear, both are). Advocating violence against a group for their beliefs is just something I never consider okay, even if I think those beliefs make them the scum of the earth.
And even with all that I’d probably still press the magic button that makes all nazis drop dead, but mainly because I believe that would probably improve society quite a bit rather than because I think it is justified against them (since I would argue that really isn’t any different from genocide even if it doesn’t quite fit the definiton). That might make me a bit of a hypocrite, but it’s not like that button will ever exist.
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
Okay, but what does this have to do with punching? No violence took place in this scenario.
It was the threat of the bartender reaching for the bat. If the nazi didn’t think there was a chance he’d actually use it, the threat wouldn’t work.
The threat of violence is a deterrent to keep nazis from getting too bold, thinking they can do what they want without repercussion.
Some people think the threat of violent response is overreaction to someone who’s just expressing their ideas. As a bisexual man, I think it’s a pretty even response when those ideas are “hey, what if we rounded up you and everyone like you and marched you off to death camps?”
At the very least, you can never let them believe that you’ll just roll over and let them do it.
The bartender first peacefully told the Nazi to leave, and after the Nazi refused, the bartender threatened them with the bat, without actually using it. Do you really not see the difference from randomly punching someone on the street as you walk past them?
Or would you also say that there is no difference between a police officer threatening someone with a gun after they refuse arrest, versus immediately shooting them on sight?
Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.
But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.
I’m conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.
“Talk softly and carry a big stick.”
They want my wife and children dead. If they are near my family, they pose an existential threat. I will leave saving the proverbial souls of neo Nazis to others. I am interested in establishing that my family is off limits and dangerous for them to so much as look at.
Would I throw a punch at a confirmed Nazi? Without hesitation.
Some people learn to shed the racism from their heart and become better people. Some will only get so far as keeping quiet because they are afraid. There will always be severely racist people. It is just as important that they feel unequivocally unwelcome as it is to change those who will change.
Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.
I don’t think it’s a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.
However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:
-
Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.
-
Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn’t gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.
-
Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.
So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.
So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I’ve become fond of the concept of “armed nonviolent defense.” An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.
This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding “correct” usages of violence and non violence doesn’t extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.
-
Not at all serious. If I see a Nazi walking down the street, I’m more likely to ignore or avoid him rather than confront him.
If the Nazis take over and implement Project 2025, among other evil acts, then that’s a different situation.
The Nazies are currently taking over and implementing Project 2025.
Removed by mod
The contract of tolerance requires swift shutting down of the intolerant 🤛
Fascists don’t respond to logic or reasoning, they know only violence so you should speak to them in a language they understand
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2018.1519772
Violence in a vacuum? Deplorable. Violence against a person preaching or encouraging violence? Questionable. Violence against a known fascist? Absolutely acceptable.
Fascists hide in the grey areas of free speech and often make arguments, much like this post OP, that twist ethics to support their rhetoric.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/19/544641070/explaining-again-thenazis-true-evil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism_debate
So in conclusion, considering your original points sound similar to the historical defense of fascists, and do carry the language of fascists.
How serious are you about not getting punched?
This is a false dichotomy. There are effective ways to defeat Nazis beyond punching them or reasoned debate.
Violence is justified in life or death struggles where other options have become unrealistic. That’s not the situation we’re in in the West 99% of the time. Deplatforming, doxxing, civil resistance, and verious other forms of nonviolent struggle all have a better track record than street brawls which have done nothing but empower fascists. In fact, the sense of fear and chaos that these events creates is exactly the environment in which fascism will thrive. Street brawls between fascists and leftists were prominent in the Weimar Republic and did nothing to stop Nazi power—if anything it made it easier for the right to unite and paint leftists as unreasonable extremists. We see similar patterns happening today.
Politics is not the same as armed struggle. We are not engaged in armed struggle against fascism in the west. Perhaps we will be but right now one of our goals should be to avoid that becoming necessary. In the current moment public relations and persuasion matter immensely. Punching Nazis achieves little other than making people lose sight of the dangers of fascism and focus instead on “extremism” from “both sides”.
And OP has done nothing to suggest they are sympathetic to fascism so your threats against them are extremely rude and unjustified.
You can mock and deride them in media of course. But when a Nazi asks about violence you always respond with language they understand.
I disagree. Fascists want to simply every conflict this way—“They’re coming to kill you, so we need to kill then first”. By accepting the conflict on those terms, you’ve already conceded a rhetorical battle.
Leftists have rarely excelled at martial conflict. It’s not typically our strength. Our strength instead is that we fundamentally want to help people and make the world more free and just. We win by making sure people understand that. Getting into fist fights with Nazis undermines this strategy and doesn’t do anything to fundamentally undermine their power.
Nazis aren’t interested in what communists have to say. A communist, for the record, is anyone a Nazi disagrees with. The only acceptable place for a communist, according to a nazi, is in the ground. If you want to let Nazis come for you, I guess that’s fine for you. When Nazis co.e for your loved ones and you Stans there like a fucking coward and let them take them because “much precious nonviolence” I guess that’s your call.
Feel free to debate your way out of the camps, bro.
We’re not in camps. We’re not fighting a war. Of course military violence is okay when you’re fighting for your life, but that’s not current society. This is an ideological war.
Feel free to punch your way out. You’ll find it equally effective.
That’s what the guns are for, centrist.
Not sure what guns have to do with the ineffectiveness of punching Nazis but OK.
When we had a bunch of white supremacists driving in their lifted trucks, yelling at the BLM protestors and threatening violence against them, there was no use in trying to argue with them. They were just interested in getting into a fight so they could justify using their guns in “self defense”.
That’s not the nature of my argument. You’re talking about an escalation of violence. I’m talking about preventing them from entering cultural space in the first place. I could spend days listing the proof that there are Nazis in our police and armed forces. That leftists are often the only ones targeted by police.
I’m talking about direct interpersonal conversation and action.
Those guys in lifted trucks are useful idiots.
I open carry at counter protests, I open carry at Drag Story Time. I often have to have long protracted discussions with the police when I protest. I am often silent at the protests I attend. Mostly about my protect trans kids and TERF Elimination Squad morale patches and what loadout I have.
However I’ve never seen direct instigation from counter protesters like you’re describing, directed at me. They tend to focus on the vocal protestors. I stand next to the megaphone with ear pro on. I try to move slowly and predictably.
I’m not there to return fire. I’m not there to keep any peace. I’m absolutely not there to instigate or escalate anything.
This is only my personal experience and means nothing. I am not suggesting this is a useful or necessary act. I’m not encouraging anyone to do this. I never bring a concealed weapon. I always coordinate with the organizers of the event or the protest. I will happily leave if asked however I’ve never been asked before or after to not attend. I only carry at the protest and do not bring weapons into planning spaces or enclosed areas.
…do you actually open carry at kids story time?
America sounds fucking insane.
Yes, yes we are. And it’s getting worse in many cultural groups.
In a youtube video by Matt Baume, he discussed two types of protestors against offensive gay representation in the media.
The first group was loud and disruptive. One guy broke into the news room and yelled over the anchor about the injustice. Another guy handcuffed himself to a camera. It was a problem that could shut down production entirely.
The second group was calm and willing to negotiate. However, the only reason they were listened to by the networks was because of the first group. They even had whistles to ruin the filming if they weren’t listened to. But they were, and filming went without a hitch after that.
It’s not the peaceful path, but some people don’t want the peaceful path. They want violence. Give them more violence than they can handle (or at least the threat of it) until they beg for peace, THEN take the peaceful path.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That’s funny because I read a book (The Failure of Nonviolence) that pretty convincingly argues that no movement has truly accomplished its goals without either outright violence or relying on the threat of violence from aligned parties.
The state and corporations will absolutely protect themselves with extreme violence.
Also, it’s nice to see a link to the anarchist library instead of Amazon.
