How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
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.)
You're viewing part of a thread.
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 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)
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.
contact the police and allow actual justice to take place
And when the police are KKK? When the police are the Nazis? This is such a privileged perspective it's not even funny. "Cawl the poweeeeccee" as if they haven't historically sided with the intolerant. You have so much faith in the justice system. Law isn't morality it's an enforcement of what those in power want.
This is also ignoring that intolerance isn't illegal. So cops won't do shit and might even arrest you for wasting their time. Fucking libs I swear. Don't worry about it someone will do the punching for you while you stay back and call the cops for them to shoot a nearby dog or arrest the black person in the situation.
Also I said why other than law because I assumed you knew that law doesn't function to enforce tolerance. Clearly I overestimated you.
Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different
Left your reading comprehension at home?
The argument I was supporting is that you don't have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.
Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can't just stab people who are being racist.
The justice system is failing by allowing them to spew and spread their intolerance. They are creating a society that make minorities fear (look at Springfield with literal kkk fliers going around). We should create a society where the intolerant are fearful of spreading their message.
And nobody suggested carte blanche except you and the person you're supporting (aka a strawman). A punch isn't a gunshot, it isn't a stabbing, and it isn't torture. Their violent rhetoric should be met with violence to make them fear spreading their message.
When the law doesnt align with what's right then relying on the law is pointless. The law will defend their ability to spread intolerance because the law is tolerant of the intolerant.
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
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.
Wrong. Not giving my age on here but you're way off the mark here
Yet I say again the untouched point: It does not give you carte blanche to react however you see fit.
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
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."
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
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.
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
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!"
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.
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
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
This doesn't hold up in court. You will get charged with battery and receive a felony while the nazi goes free.
Congrats you discovered law isn't morality. I will happily give the homeless food in cities where that is illegal.
Your time is better served dismantling the rhetoric online.
Lol, lmao even
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 law isn’t morality. I will happily give the homeless food in cities where that is illegal.
Congrats, you discovered what feels good isn't necessarily effective in your end goal.
Lol, lmao even
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.
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.
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.
You're arguing from the belief that Nazis would give you the same benefit of a doubt that you're giving them. Then tying yourself up in knots to justify that naive assertion. Then strawmanning others in this thread and calling them naive in turn. Do you also project films as well? If so may I request "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" ?
Don't get me wrong, I know they won't afford me the same benefit of the doubt. It just hasn't yet been evidenced to me that punching nazis actually creates less and not more. So I find it kind of amusing I get these unsubstantiated claims of straw-men despite one's own massive amount of deflection to my points.
You really want to stop the nazis? Quit the IAmVeryBadass bullshit about punching nazis — instead, get off your ass and go punch on doors by canvassing and getting out the vote. Your time will be better served than this romanticizing of punching a nazi online when you'll never do it anyway.
Quit the IAmVeryBadass bullshit about punching nazis instead, get off your ass and go punch on doors by canvassing and getting out the vote. Your time will be better served than this romanticizing of punching a nazi online when you’ll never do it anyway.
That's literally strawmanning.
My argument is that you don't understand the phrase or it's history. It's not literally punching anyone who I think "might" be a Nazi. Also you may want to look deeper into my comment history. I do not romantisize violence. I do however mock and deride language where a nazi or fascist might hide. Much like your defense of a Nazis' right to exist.
It would be a pretty easy argumentative strategy to simply accuse everything as being a straw-man when your arguments are repeatedly, consistently undermined by both facts and sources. At this point, I feel like I'm having a discussion with a Trump supporter the hop-scotch deflection is so profound.
I explained in detail that I know the phrase and its history better than you; that you haven't evinced a cogent counterargument is not my problem.
Notice: I am STILL waiting for any semblance of evidence that "Punching a nazi," actually reduces radicalization in any way. Several comments and nothing.
So in the meantime and until you actually produce said evidence, if you want to stop fascists then just get off your computer and go ask your local Democratic campaign what you can do to stop Trump. $10 they won't say, "Punch a nazi" is the most effective use of your time. After all, you don't want to be a convicted felon prior to November, do you?
I do however mock and deride language where a nazi or fascist might hide. Much like your defense of a Nazis’ right to exist.
Now that is a straw-man; and unlike you, I will actually back up the reason why: I never defended Nazi's right to exist; to the contrary and on the record, I'd much rather they not exist — but since at least me and the other user have established that we aren't going to utilize genocide to get to that point, let alone exclaim that justifies their actions, then we need put our little thinking caps on and figure out more constructive ways at deprogramming them. I'm betting you didn't even watch that Ted talk, did you? Finally, I don't mind mockery; I mind preemptive physical violence. Therein lies the difference.
The reason Nazis and the KKK rally is partially the same reason the Westboro Baptist yell incendiary remarks: because it's legal
Cool, shouldn't be.
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.
Only because not enough people punch them. The fear that they instill in others should be instilled in them. Every time they say some shit they should be thinking "will this get me punched if i say this right now?" Every time.
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
I don't care what the law says. It is wrong. "Bury the removeds" is inciting violence. I don't care what a bunch of old fucks in 1969 said. They were wrong. You deserve to be punched if you call a black dude a "dirty removed". If you disagree then we are at an impass. Law isn't morality, it was illegal to take slaves to free states, it was illegal to hide Jews from nazis, it was legal to rape your wife till the 90s, it is illegal to punch bigots that call you a slur, and it's legal to steal someone's home in the west bank. The law is wrong in this case.
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.
Did i ever say we should only punch them? All of the reasons they turn into Nazis need to be addressed, it's social/economic, not genetic.
First it starts with, "punching an Israeli occupier to our land is okay!" and steadily progresses
Actually first it starts with being kicked from their homes and being forced into apartide. Were the slaves who killed their enslavers wrong for doing so?
Congrats, you discovered what feels good isn't necessarily effective in your end goal.
Okay so I shouldn't feed the homeless because the end goal is to fix homelessness and poverty and that requires systemic change? Fixing fascism requires systemic change but in the meantime we need to make them fear spreading their ideas. Fixing homelessness/hunger requires systemic change but in the meantime we should feed the homeless.
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.
You literally said time is better served arguing online lmao. If you would have said canvassing or something (like you did in another comment) I would have agreed with you, but also. You can do both.
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.
Dude they frame it that way anyway so if changes nothing. It doesn't matter. How many of the past few shooters have they accused of being trans based on nothing just so they can frame it like they're fighting for their existence. Like they scream white genocide at every turn they get.
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.
Because kids aren't mature enough to grasp nuance and fully understand when words are violent. And frankly? I'm going to teach my kids that it's okay to punch people that call them or someone else a slur. Maybe not until they're early teens (because again nuance), but it's not okay to call someone a "dirty removed" like the old white fucks (and one old black fuck) who decided your coveted Brandenburg v. Ohio thought. Because unlike them and unlike you I do not tolerate the intolerant
Only because not enough people punch them. The fear that they instill in others should be instilled in them. Every time they say some shit they should be thinking “will this get me punched if i say this right now?” Every time.
You're probably not familiar with the fact that ProPublica uncovered that right-wing extremist groups both want to incite a race war and they want to see an armed left to both muddy the waters and instigate further violence. They in effect want to bait the left into more preemptive violence because then their BoTh SiDes rhetoric only gets stronger with the apathetic fence sitters.
All this fucking time and all this bluster about punching nazis, and nobody can cite one fucking study or indicator showing that it is actually effective and not incredibly backfiring. You think these fuckers will just sit down quietly? No, they'll increase their recruitment numbers by targeting the likes of the insecure, then point to these videos about showing how these people don't even respect their own laws of their land, so why should they? Then they'll simply continue dehumanizing both you and any other minority group to these gullible suckers, their ranks will rise, and some dipshit will become radicalized and because YOU allegedly punched a nazi, some other dude just went over the breaking-point and decided to shoot up some innocent people. If you're not going to bring sources, then we're all juts speculating and I wager I'm far closer to reality.
Besides, in what realm do you live in that you think you're going to be able to identify nazis outright by obvious tattoos. Yeah, I'm sure you're going to bust into a dive bar in Mississippi and raise hell. The vast majority of these modern nazis have learned that the power of anonymity and blending in is far more useful.
So let's just cut the shit with the IAmVeryBadass punch-a-nazi trope, and sure, you're right... Forget arguing with them online; yes, just cede ground to them — I'm sure that'll do wonders. But hey, yes, go door knocking instead of fist-punching. Whatever is actually productive at preventing fascists from taking over because we sure as shit know there is zero evidence to support preemptive violence against these groups you perceive to be irredeemable nazis.
And if you don't like the laws, then fucking do something and change the laws. But shouting about punching nazis on an online forum is the equivalent of shouting at clouds and pissing in the wind. In a way you prove my point, though: we changed many of those laws. We evolved as a society and we clamped down on a lot of fucked up shit. And despite our grievances today, the reason we're seeing such a backlash from these right-wing extremists is because for the first time in recent history they are actually becoming marginalized from their stranglehold of power from which they once governed behind a thinly-veiled "good Christian" narrative. The rat is backed into the corner and they're lashing out for fear of their diminished position in society. These are growing pains and we're working through them.
But the path to violence will muddy the waters for the dumb fucks in the middle who are so easily duped by their recruitment propaganda in the first place, so naturally you must appeal to the lowest common denominator in society
Okay so I shouldn’t feed the homeless because the end goal is to fix homelessness and poverty and that requires systemic change? Fixing fascism requires systemic change but in the meantime we need to make them fear spreading their ideas. Fixing homelessness/hunger requires systemic change but in the meantime we should feed the homeless.
I'll make a point here to say that I'm not trying to say your feeding the homeless is a bad thing. With respect to addressing symptoms versus root causes, I agree with you. But if feeding the homeless actually led to more homelessness, you wouldn't be doing it, correct? Just as we all thought feeding ducks was so nice but it turns out that's the last thing you're supposed to do. Now this doesn't directly apply to the homeless, but it does directly apply to punching nazis.
Look man, we're all on the same side here generally. I'm not here to defend nazis and I hope you see that. I'm trying to just say to consider an alternative avenue for passion because I don't want you in prison for a felony charge while quite possibly just increasing nazi recruitment when you could've been out doing something far more substantive like door-knocking for Harris instead.
As for teaching kids, I guess to each their own. Words only have power if you give them power. I'm not going to let my kid be baited into felony charges because some dipshit easily baited them into throwing the first punch simply because they said some words that says more about them than it does my kid.
And that's about all I have left in the tank for this conversation. Back to my kids.
-
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.
mean, I’m just being intolerant to bullshit. You start bullshitting me, I’ll start dodging just the same buddy :)
You're definitely dodging
Permanently Deleted