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.)
I’ve punched plenty of nazis. They try to infiltrate our punk and metal scenes and cause shit, being one of the bigger guys there who also has training, it’s my responsibility to help make sure they don’t fucking stick around.
You can try and go the pacifist route with these people, but I know from experience that it doesn’t do Jack shit, and they’ll keep coming back with their dumb bullshit, and more and more will start showing up unless you shut that shit down hard.
just like violence isn’t applicable everywhere, non-violence isn’t applicable everywhere.
back in the day, nazis used to get violently run out of shows because they tried to infiltrate the punk movement and punks said “Nazi punks fuck off” and then punched them until they left.
people think we didn’t try talking first. telling them to fuck off, refuting their trash ideology or even trying to persuade them out of it. they loved that shit. they were there to talk but they were not there for any great debate. fuckers were there to recruit, it was preditory. they did not fuck off until it was clear we would make them, AND that we’d do it before they opened their mouths. they fucked off when the recruitment pool was closed to them.
guess i can see how on paper a bunch of kids living off pabst and shoving eachother around to loud music, was a good hunting ground. they read that particular room wrong though. and “punch them until they left” was they only way they were gonna go.
Obvious OP never saw the movie SLC Punk. Yes you punch nazi in the face. Beat them until either the hate leaves their body or they vacate the area.
It is literally. Far as guillotines are concerned we save those for the billionaires.
This unlocked a memory of a punk show i was 15 or so years ago. It was a pretty small show of a local punk and Oi show. It was pretty damn bad, but the small show was packed with drunk as fuck oi punks. This was around the time i quit drinking, and everyone being super drunk inside, i often went outside to get some fresh air. I was outside with a friend when 4 neo nazis walked by, also super drunk, starting some shit. It was late and i assume they were on their way home. Since i was sober i just told them to get lost, because they are absolutely fucked if anyone saw them out here.
They left, but were still droning around, and suddenly they were twice as much and i knew that it’s gonna turn into a shitshow, so i went inside. On my way inside, two locally famous brothers who were twice my sice held me back, asking me: "where are the nazis? And i pointed outside. They said: “show me”, it the most serious voice i have ever heard from them. So i went outside, followed by two fridge sized guys. By that time, there were around 12 to 15 nazis outside. I tried to make a joke or something, but before i could open my mouth, they threw bottles and just CHARGED them. By that time, word got around and the whole venue inclusive the bands were there too. They ran off, some got fucked up, and i was quite literally the only sober guy there, so i kinda just followed them, like i was their caretaker or something. We chased them around.
Some of the guys were so hammered that they just face planted at full speed. It was a sight to behold. Some got away, but some didn’t and they got fucked up. Like i’ve seen people get punched in the face and i’ve been in brawls, but this was bad. So i did what i felt what i had to do and pulled some of the gus back. I yanked a guy who was probably the scariest dude i ever met in my life to this day and made him drop on his drunk ass. His aggression was suddenly pointed towards me. I thought great, now i’m gonna catch some fists, because i has helping a nazi, the very same nazi who called me a faggot not even half an hour ago. But there was no time to think about that, because some other dudes wanted a piece of these 5 or so remaining nazis. The scary guy had no voice anymore, grabbed me and i heard his fucked up voice saying, if you are helping them, you are against all of us. I pointed at the guy and said: you are gonna kill a guy today. And the guy looked FUCKED. so he suddenly sobered up, and said: i think you’re right. Police sirens went off and we scattered.
I felt like the biggest traitor for years, because to be honest, because i wanted to punch some nazis really really bad that day, but i did quite the opposite.
it sounds like you were protecting the Nazi-punchers rather than the Nazis.
That’s the right call!
See the thing about the supposed cycle of violence is that it implies equal fault and innocence of both sides. It relies on toleration theory.
Toleration is a treaty, when you break it you are no longer protected by it. It is an entirely justifiable and moral act to instigate violence against fascists, because their very ideology is a violation of the treaty of toleration, and their organization is one which cannot sustain itself in the face of repeated attacks.
You often hear complaints about how enforcing internet rules against the fascists just leads to whackamole bans, but the thing is that every successive ban leaves the fascists less coordinated, less emboldened, and more isolated. There is a critical point of punitive and preventative acts where a fascist org is effectively atomized and anyone worth pulling out has been rock bottomed into a holding space where they can be rehabbed.
Peaceful methods are what can be achieved after you’ve destroyed them, either through hounding operations making it less and less possible for them to group up and act together, or by normalizing violence and intolerance against them to the extent that they are at least afraid enough to stop trying to not be sniveling cowards such as the fascist naturally is.
The true fascist is only kept quiet in an environment of fear, where they know that trying to stick their heads up will get it lopped off in short order. An environment where even peacible means of antifascism still include complete social ostracism and career destruction, and where persistent fascism is met with swift and appropriate violent rejection.
Don’t just punch the Nazis, dox them to their families and employers and communities, encourage others to be armed and ready to attack preemptively in their presence, organize around making that Nazi specifically know their rightful place is silent and afraid until they’ve cut the shit and stopped being a nazi, before someone ends up killing them in self defense.
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 this failed logic is exactly why we are where we at right now, on the brink of the Fourth Reich rising across the US and Europe.
Because tolerant people have forgotten the most important thing about a tolerant society.
That it must be rigorously and viciously defended from those who seek to exploit the social contract to elevate their attacks on it, and it requires far more than words and wind to achieve that… again, as evidence of where we are now as a society. Because their ultimate goal is to undo the society we love, and replace it with oppression, fear, and hatred.
I’m surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize 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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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)
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.
OK. Not sure how far that recipe gets us in practice, but it’s a respectable argument.
- “Self-defense is not violence!”
- “No tolerance for intolerance!”
- you don’t want your place becoming a Nazi bar
If you don’t punch back they will simply continue to steamroll anyone they see as inferior.
We should punch first, lest we end up with Nazis on public street corners. Oh wait…
Nazis get worse if you don’t actively oppose them. That can look like punching them, but it can also look like actively ostracizing them by taking away their jobs, denying them participation in community events, or just straight up shaming them in public.
Pacifism only works if the other side isn’t willing to kill you. These jackasses fantasize about genociding people as a hobby, so if you think pacifism is going to work for you then go right ahead but I’ll be over here working on my defensive skills.
In many situations nazi-punching is not your best tactical decision, especially in the presence of cops. Using your words to hurt the poor Nazi snowflakes feelings works just as well and has the added benefit of potentially provoking them into getting themselves arrested if there are cops watching.
has the added benefit of potentially provoking them into getting themselves arrested if there are cops watching.
As long as the cops don’t sympathize with the nazis
Oh, they totally do. That’s why I’d suggest not punching a Nazi in front of the cops, even if they 100% deserved it. The cops will arrest you much quicker than they will a fascist even if you do the same exact thing.
And also definitely YMMV on whether this works at all, I’m in Massachusetts where the cops have to at least pretend they’re doing their jobs so they will typically detain Nazis if they take an actual swing at someone. Other states this might not work at all.
If two parties are at odds with one another, and one on them is willing to use violence and the other isn’t, the violent party wins.
Non violence works when people care about what you’re going through. If the right people know and care they’ll come in and do violence for you to make it stop. Or at least verifiably threaten violence. But violence is happening whether you did it or not.
Nazis don’t give a shit about you, they’re eager for violence. They want to exterminate entire classes of people. Non violence does not work on Nazis, we’ve already seen this play out once before.
If two parties are at odds with one another, and one on them is willing to use violence and the other isn’t, the violent party wins.
Is that a Martin Luther King quote?
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.
I am serious that they should be punched. I am a non-violent person, so I hope that someone better fit for the job does it. If faced with a nazi that I think I can take or one that I think I can sorta take, I might punch them myself.
I didn’t think this way until I read, Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy, by Talia Levin. After, I am firmly in the “punch a nazi” camp.
This is the typical impotent opinion I hear from mentally healthy people. I am not.
So if I see one in public, even if they are surrounded by their friends, I will punch the ever living fuck out of them for you, since you are too limp-dick to do it yourself.
All the edge of a plastic spoon
I have a good life and don’t wish to encounter physical harm, so thanks for offering to do it for me. Too bad you won’t be there if / when I encounter a nazi. It would have been great to have you fight on my behalf.
I’m not big on violence, and I don’t enjoy hitting people, but I’ve done it a couple of times and I’m always willing to throw down with nazis. If we’re not willing to defend ourselves and others, we might as well just hand them the keys and let them do whatever they want. That’s gonna be a hard no for me.
This. There are just certain ideologies that are so anti-human that the only way to deal with them is violence because they can’t be tolerated or reasoned with. Nazis know exactly what history says about them and they actively choose these hateful ideologies to believe in and follow. I wouldn’t punch a random person on the street unless they were a threat. Nazis by their very existence are a threat. That threat is not existential.
I’m just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that’s such a common argument for punching nazis and it’s really quite wrong on so many levels.
“But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII.” That’s a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we’re not in a military battle with Nazis, we’re in an ideological battle.
So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren’t punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically “desperate times require desperate measures”. So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.
Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.
Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it’s the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it’s actually counterproductive.
*Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.
An under-appreciated fact about fascists is their karen-adjacent sense of entitlement and victimhood. Which will be amplified if they become the target of violence.
The contract of tolerance requires swift shutting down of the intolerant 🤛
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.
