@SocialJusticeMonk, @anon61221983, @dommerdoodle, @gracchus, @Melz2 and anyone else I might have missed.
I’m not handwringing over anything, my position is clear. I’m in favour of the rule of law which involves not punching anyone (self defence is an exception) over vigilantism.
If you’re advocating vigilantism (which is what this is) then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask what framework you’re making those decisions in. Who you’re willing to attack, under what circumstances you’re willing to attack them, what damage you’re willing to do to them (and still no-one has answered this).
There’s a general consensus around punching nazis if they attack you, but what if they’re not attacking you, what if you’re not 100% sure they’re nazis?
In the punching video, Richard Spencer specifically states he’s not a nazi, and is not confronting anyone so if it’s acceptable to punch him there how does that fit with your vigilante framework?
Why does your framework support punching but not anything else, especially given the threat they represent? Why stop at a punch? Punch a nazi and you’ll stop him for a day, shoot a nazi and you’ll stop him for the rest of his life.
Where do you draw the line? And why?
