Punching Nazis

[Synobun]

And if only this intolerance towards advocating violence is also directed at the Nazis.

Nazis are human beings and it's a view I hold towards all humans, so yes, it's directed to them as well. I generally hold a view that violence should be avoided until you are forced to use it. The fate everyone wants to avoid is better served by ensuring a fascist doesn't get voted in instead of getting ready to play Rock Em Sock Em: Nazi Edition.

 

[Arwon]

Your pictures convey the exact opposite of your post. Which one is your intended meaning?

Incorrect

 

[Synobun]

Incorrect

The incorrect one is your intended meaning?

Which one is the incorrect one?

 

[W|M]

Nazis are human beings and it's a view I hold towards all humans, so yes, it's directed to them as well. I generally hold a view that violence should be avoided until you are forced to use it. The fate everyone wants to avoid is better served by ensuring a fascist doesn't get voted in instead of getting ready to play Rock Em Sock Em: Nazi Edition.

Ensuring a Nazi doesn't become powerful involves being violent to them. Nazism is reliant on its followers thinking of themselves as the strong master race, so if they get punched, their position becomes invalidated.

 

[Perfection]

On the contrary, 2 punches and the snivelling grease-stain is publicly questioning the viability of his little movement and acknowledging both that denial of public spaces is effective and that punches raise the personal cost of being a bloody nazi.

View attachment 464440
View attachment 464438
View attachment 464439

Are you sure he got punched for being alt right? Maybe he just got punched for looking like a total douche.

 

[Synobun]

Ensuring a Nazi doesn't become powerful involves being violent to them. Nazism is reliant on its followers thinking of themselves as the strong master race, so if they get punched, their position becomes invalidated.

The Nazis who hide and change their minds after being punched are not the Nazis you need to worry about.

 

[ThERat]

Just for the record, Nazis in Germany weren't voted into parliament as a majority. Despite all their fear mongering, they still had to rely on other parties such as the conservatives, to hand them the ultimate power.

I think, punching a Nazi, while it might make you feel better, doesn't achieve a thing. Removing the leader of the movement is a much better solution. And it has to be done way before said leader gains ultimate power.

 

[W|M]

Richard Spencer was the creator of ''alt-right'' and was influential among them, and he's scared now that he's been punched, and alt-rightism has been weakened

And yes, liquidating Nazi leaders is better than punching them, but sometimes we only have our fists at hand

 

[Synobun]

Has it weakened them?

Seems to be going just as strong, if not stronger, based on the actions of the currently reigning American government. Don't get me wrong, I hope you're right, but that doesn't seem to be the result I'm seeing from all of this.

 

[W|M]

The current Administration is being challenged every step of the way by far more numerous and emboldened antifascists than there used to be, and alt-rightism itself has a lot of adherents questioning themselves.

 

[Perfection]

 

[aelf]

Nazis are human beings and it's a view I hold towards all humans, so yes, it's directed to them as well. I generally hold a view that violence should be avoided until you are forced to use it. The fate everyone wants to avoid is better served by ensuring a fascist doesn't get voted in instead of getting ready to play Rock Em Sock Em: Nazi Edition.

But to advocate non-violence towards Nazis means to tolerate their advocacy of violence. Or do you have some other plan for stopping Nazi advocacy for violence? How about Nazis who have been elected?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not really, but people being eager to consider themselves better should take a look at themselves when they're gleefully clapping their hands over an act of violence upon another human being.

Funny. I don't consider myself better at all. If I were spewing hatred at random people I would fully expect to get punched in the face, and in fact would much rather live in a world where such an expectation would be very likely to be met.

Now, here's the funny part...I learned how good a world that could be by living in one. In my entire long life the only place I ever found where common courtesy is actually common is prison...because in prison you are always aware that someone you just decide to be snotty to because you don't like their looks or you are in a bad mood could be down to their very last nerve, and if you get on that nerve they might feel like they have nothing to lose by shoving a pencil in your ear to see if it comes out the other side of your head.

So a little punch to the face of a hate spewer is something I can live with...because it makes for better human beings that might be worth protecting from violence.

 

[Synobun]

But to advocate non-violence towards Nazis means to tolerate their advocacy of violence. Or do you have some other plan for stopping Nazi advocacy for violence? How about Nazis who have been elected?

You can advocate whatever you want. It's not my place to decide what can be uttered and what can't be.

I have no plan for stopping someone's advocacy. My plan to prevent it from coming to fruition is to vote for people who don't subscribe to that belief and to educate those around me of a better way of doing things. If there is a Nazi on the throne that's already enacting their intended policies, we enter civil resistance territory (in which case this whole "punching Nazis" debacle is bunk and invalid anyways).

@Timsup2nothin: "It's not the worst thing you could do" isn't an argument that convinces me that we should all go out to punch a Nazi. Although I do respect your right to want to live in a world where wanton violence is cool beans. You mostly do right now, with some exceptions.

 

[Bootstoots]

The problem with all the comments to the effect of "punching Nazis could have prevented them from reaching power" is that there were lots of left-wing people punching Nazis in street battles in the years before their seizure of power. It didn't help, because the Nazis were better at violence than the Communists and they were clearly preferred over them by the people with power in late Weimar Germany.

In our particular case, neo-Nazism and (more accurately) overt white nationalism are still fringe positions, if worryingly less fringey than they were up until the past couple of years. Punching Richard Spencer makes people feel good, but it mostly just gives him the exactly the publicity he's looking for.

If anyone can show how left-wing activists punching far-right counterprotesters actually accomplishes anything beneficial for the left, I'm all ears. But under the current circumstances I'm convinced it's a very poor strategy. Further, if push comes to shove, it needs to be remembered that most of the people with weapons (ranging from the police to private citizens) are right-wing. Violence is not something the American left would win at, and it should be avoided from a tactical perspective.

 

[aelf]

You can advocate whatever you want. It's not my place to decide what can be uttered and what can't be.

I have no plan for stopping someone's advocacy. My plan to prevent it from coming to fruition is to vote for people who don't subscribe to that belief and to educate those around me of a better way of doing things. If there is a Nazi on the throne that's already enacting their intended policies, we enter civil resistance territory (in which case this whole "punching Nazis" debacle is bunk and invalid anyways).

So you won't vote for anyone who thinks it's acceptable to punch Nazis? Would make for interesting electoral choices in some places.

Does your opposition also extend to the use of military forces? How about policing? If someone who breaks the law resists arrest, what then? Or do you sincerely believe that the state's use of violence is substantively or morally different from individuals'? If so, why? What's your stance on the right to bear arms? And does your "civil resistance" not include the use of violence?

The problem with all the comments to the effect of "punching Nazis could have prevented them from reaching power" is that there were lots of left-wing people punching Nazis in street battles in the years before their seizure of power. It didn't help, because the Nazis were better at violence than the Communists and they were clearly preferred over them by the people with power in late Weimar Germany.

In our particular case, neo-Nazism and (more accurately) overt white nationalism are still fringe positions, if worryingly less fringey than they were up until the past couple of years. Punching Richard Spencer makes people feel good, but it mostly just gives him the exactly the publicity he's looking for.

If anyone can show how left-wing activists punching far-right counterprotesters actually accomplishes anything beneficial for the left, I'm all ears. But under the current circumstances I'm convinced it's a very poor strategy. Further, if push comes to shove, it needs to be remembered that most of the people with weapons (ranging from the police to private citizens) are right-wing. Violence is not something the American left would win at, and it should be avoided from a tactical perspective.

As your argument implies, the left could simply get better at violence. There were places where there were no Nazis because they were violently suppressed. In any case, I don't know of any centralised society that has not used violence to suppress undesired elements.

 

[Perfection]

The problem with all the comments to the effect of "punching Nazis could have prevented them from reaching power" is that there were lots of left-wing people punching Nazis in street battles in the years before their seizure of power. It didn't help, because the Nazis were better at violence than the Communists and they were clearly preferred over them by the people with power in late Weimar Germany.

In our particular case, neo-Nazism and (more accurately) overt white nationalism are still fringe positions, if worryingly less fringey than they were up until the past couple of years. Punching Richard Spencer makes people feel good, but it mostly just gives him the exactly the publicity he's looking for.

If anyone can show how left-wing activists punching far-right counterprotesters actually accomplishes anything beneficial for the left, I'm all ears. But under the current circumstances I'm convinced it's a very poor strategy. Further, if push comes to shove, it needs to be remembered that most of the people with weapons (ranging from the police to private citizens) are right-wing. Violence is not something the American left would win at, and it should be avoided from a tactical perspective.

Damn it boots, I'm sick of being sensible

 

[Synobun]

So you won't vote for anyone who thinks it's acceptable to punch Nazis? Would make for interesting electoral choices in some places.

I won't vote for someone who publicly states such a belief proudly, no. Politicians who are very gung-ho about violence tend to put the state in a position of perpetuating that violence to greater extents.

Does your opposition also extend to the use of military forces? How about policing? If someone who breaks the law resists arrest, what then? Or do you sincerely believe that the state's use of violence is substantively or morally different from individuals'? If so, why? What's your stance on the right to bear arms? And does your "civil resistance" not include the use of violence?

You're welcome to make separate threads about all of those specific issues if you're so inclined.

 

[Arwon]

The problem with all the comments to the effect of "punching Nazis could have prevented them from reaching power" is that there were lots of left-wing people punching Nazis in street battles in the years before their seizure of power. It didn't help, because the Nazis were better at violence than the Communists and they were clearly preferred over them by the people with power in late Weimar Germany.

In our particular case, neo-Nazism and (more accurately) overt white nationalism are still fringe positions, if worryingly less fringey than they were up until the past couple of years. Punching Richard Spencer makes people feel good, but it mostly just gives him the exactly the publicity he's looking for.

If anyone can show how left-wing activists punching far-right counterprotesters actually accomplishes anything beneficial for the left, I'm all ears. But under the current circumstances I'm convinced it's a very poor strategy. Further, if push comes to shove, it needs to be remembered that most of the people with weapons (ranging from the police to private citizens) are right-wing. Violence is not something the American left would win at, and it should be avoided from a tactical perspective.

On the other hand it worked pretty well in the East End of London.

 

[W|M]

São Paulo too