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 worry, someone will do it for you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It has nothing to do with tolerance.
There is no tolerance for the intolerant. Nazis are intolerant. You understand this correct?
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 of intolerance is the only way to maintain a tolerant society.
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.
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
Wrong. Not giving my age on here but you’re way off the mark here
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
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
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
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.
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
Congrats you discovered law isn’t morality. I will happily give the homeless food in cities where that is illegal.
Lol, lmao even
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.
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.
deleted by creator
So you think literally the only way to show you don’t tolerate Nazis is to punch them? No other possible route than getting in a fistfight?
You’re not very imaginative in that case.
Furthermore, considering I have never been in a fight, as I said, do you think I would be successful if I got into a fight with a Nazi?
I never said anything about you personally punching a Nazi… I said due to the paradox of intolerance that someone is likely to do it for you.