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.)
don’t use violence, if you value your life. violence is for idiots.
there’s the tolerance paradox: you should use the least amount of violence that keeps society (and your own life) stable.
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.
Maybe if we just don’t fight the Nazis, they won’t be able to justify violence against us 🤡
Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don’t they might stage an attack and the “atmosphere of violence” we’ve created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.
This is nonsense. Nazis don’t need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn’t matter if it’s true because it’s directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they’re done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.
Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities
There are mechanisms to stop, apprehend, and punish those who attack and terrorize communities already, without regard to ideology, and without violating the state’s monopoly on civil violence. There’s even recourse when those mechanisms don’t get a fair result.
Yeah, and those same mechanisms existed in the Jim Crow South but that didn’t stop the Klan from lynching people and getting away with it.
Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities
Well that’s blatantly not the argument at all. The question isn’t whether to react, but what do you do about it?
The vast majority of fascist movements are destroyed through nonviolence rather than violence, which itself is typically inseparable from fascism. To refer to the post below, what ended Jim Crow? Was it a bunch of black people going around punching suspected Klan members? On the contrary it was the reverse. The Klan “lynching people and getting away with it” included key rallying points like the murders of Emmett Till, or the Mississippi Burning murders, along with state violence like the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Sure, maybe the fascists themselves got away with it, but fascism didn’t. The things the Klan and other segregationists fought for were dismantled, in large part thanks to their own violent efforts.
Nazis don’t need a justification for their violence, but their enablers - Von Papen, or the would-be modern equivalent Mike Pence - do. And these enablers need to tell themselves, their family, and their neighbors, that they have good reasons for their decisions. Exposing fascism as the senseless violence it is robs them of that justification, while giving the fascists a threat to refer to provides it.
I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn’t. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.
The “fascist enablers” don’t have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.
You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.
Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn’t matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don’t have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.
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.
An actual, real, self-confessed, Hitler-loving Nazi? Yes. I’d punch them until my arm fell off and then I’d borrow my friend’s arm to punch them some more…
I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there’s clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn’t get him to shut up. Maybe there’s situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it’s some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.
The one thing fascists can’t stand is to be laughed at. Don’t take them seriously - laugh at them and it hits harder than a gut punch.
I see some of that rhetoric and I think it’s mostly the younger folks. The virility of youth combined with the challenges they are faced with leave everyone more on edge. There are other factors of course, lack of wisdom, Internet anonymity, etc
I don’t think violence is a useful tool when fighting against hate groups. It’s what they want. Then they have a claim that they are oppressed. You let them make the first move.
That being said, I’m ready to fight back against them at a moment’s notice and will use all means. I see the luxuries most of us enjoy (food, electricity, clean water) and hope it never comes to that for all our sake. Our just-in-time economy depends on stability and COVID showed us how easily it can all get fucked up. Out of control violence is one of those ways.
If you’re punching with you fist, you are probably punching wrong.
The most serious. I will go to court over it.
Its something people say to feel powerful and punk. Most of the people saying it couldn’t snap a twig let alone throw a punch.
Its similar to the fat boomers on the right who say they are ready to go to war.
If they were serious about it I do think it would hurt their cause given how easy it is these days to take an event and spin a narrative out of it.
Tell me you’ve never been to a punk show, without telling me you’ve never been to a punk show
Ive been to a few punk shows but there were no nazis. Majority of the dudes were pretty skinny.
The meme of punks fighting nazis is the same as every group that age. You walk into a bar wearing the wrong sports jersey and you’re getting punched. Ive been punched over not giving someone a lighter. Young males will fight for any reason. Once people stop being 21 and drunk it becomes less action and more talk.
https://www.gq.com/story/punks-and-nazis-oral-history
You have no clue what you’re talking about.
50 years ago…
Good now that you understand the historical context, you just might understand what’s been happening around the world currently. Maybe even you’ll start to understand that going to a few punk rock shows doesn’t reflect on the rest of the world at large.
Archive of the above here https://archive.is/4grey
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cl7yy2zevy2o
And since I’m tired of finding sources to educate you here’s a timeline of events
https://counter-currents.com/2023/12/the-punk-rock-roots-of-punching-nazis/
You aren’t “finding sources” you are googling something then picking headlines you think are relevant. Don’t act like you are trying to educate anyone. I doubt you read a single think you linked.
You’re not reading the articles or using context clues. See we can both diminish and dismiss each other.
That’s a lot of strawmanning you’re doing on behalf of Nazis.
None of what I said is strawmanning for nazis.
The definition of the Strawman Fallacy may beg to differ.
I know what a strawman is now what part of my comment was a strawman?
Its something people say to feel powerful and punk.
Diminishing and assigning motive
Its similar to the fat boomers on the right who say they are ready to go to war.
And these fat boomers you’re equating are the literal strawmen.
Are you sure you read the article?
None of that was used to refute and argument. No where in my comment did I refute an argument or even use that as evidence.
If you read one line further I say “If they were serious about it I do think it would hurt their cause given how easy it is these days to take an event and spin a narrative out of it.” Thats me assuming they are as serious as they say and giving my reason why I think it harms more than helps.
If they were serious about it I do think it would hurt their cause given how easy it is these days to take an event and spin a narrative out of it.”
You’re directly refuting the sentiment of the argument in that very line. “Nobody wants to actually punch a Nazi because they’re all skinny punks.” Is that not the crux of your argument? Serious question as I’m not trying to misquote or oversimplify.
You’ve also said that from the punk shows you went to personally you never saw any Nazis, I posted articles about current Nazis infiltrating punk scenes and the historical context of them doing that.
Are you willfully ignorant?
That’s cause they are a Nazi. Take a look at their apartheid justification in their comments.
Well, see. I like to call out folk like this, to get their justifications out in the open. Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all.
Your entire instance advocates genocide on a daily basis. You have no morals.
I have the moral belief that genocide is wrong.
I use a more strict definition of genocide than the ICJ: Any government that intentionally blocks food, medicine, and potable water to a population it considers problematic is a government intentionally committing genocide.
Again, that is a more strict definition then the ICJ uses.
Never again meant for everyone.
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.
My great grandfather would have shot them. He did shoot them. For King and Country. And I’m proud of this fact 😎🇬🇧
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.
(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?
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.
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.
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/
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
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.
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.
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)
