I say it’s fine to punch people who say ethnic groups and races should be exterminated. And I think if you disagree, you’re kind of a coward or otherwise morally bankrupt.
And mass extermination; we can’t forget that important distinction.
Your quote exemplifies exactly why we should NOT be punching Nazis.
In your very quote that approves of punching Nazis, it immediately approves of punching people who would disapprove of punching Nazis. (Does the writer approve of also punching people who disapprove of punching people who disapprove of punching Nazis??)
Sure, punching an actual holocaust-denying Nazi in a Nazi uniform who is openly advocating Nazism can be gratifying. But this type of violence is so rarely surgically administered (see above). It almost always is done so roughly and has collateral damage to innocents. The whole “not punching people idea” is why we have the justice system, instead of, you know, lynchings and stuff.
You cannot use the tools of fascism to defeat fascism. [Edit: I guess I have to define
tools of fascism. By which we mean: mob “justice”/ mob violence. With the extreme case being Brownshirts running around on trucks beating up whomever they don’t like. Landing a punch on someone in the face is not equivalent to landing on Normandy on D-Day.]
People who disapprove of punching are approving of democracy. I’m kind of surprised at the number of people on this forum are so resistant to this idea.
Fighting a war has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. See above.
You’re right. “Punching someone in the face” is simple assault and battery.
That’s just wrong.
We killed lots of nazis during WWII. We killed so many of them with guns and bombs and poison and fire that we defeated fascism for a while.
The tools of fascism, eg the axe, were sufficient to rid us of them for a while.
We did a lot of wrong things during that war. Killing nazis wasn’t one of them.
45 posts were split to a new topic: Degrees of hate
Punching Nazis ≠ “the tools of fascism.”
I can see how it is easy to make that mistake, though.
First we were talking about Nazis.
Now we’re talking about White Supremacists.
The box is already growing!
“I think if you disagree, you’re kind of a coward or otherwise morally bankrupt.”
Uh, wow. Thank you for your passion.
I entirely agree. My dilemma - and it is a more general one than just punching nazis, including for example, other physical violence against fascists in general - is ‘do we move from punching nazis to using guns when we need to proactively self-defend against fascists’. I’m not splitting hairs for rhetorical effect (yep - I have been known to) or being provocative for its own sake (also guilty now and then, previously) but am just frustrated (frustrated that it does not happen, and also with my liberal/socialist principles that prevent me doing it) that the right always descends to violence swiftly, if they are not already there, while those who want a civilised and peaceful society, of broadly equal people, are always expected to turn the other cheek.
Where IS the line between punching a nazi and shooting a fascist? What else is on either side of that line? Is it a line, even?
If you don’t punch a few of them enough now, you’ll have to shoot a lot more of them later.
I don’t even think you need to go to “shooting”. You just need to see what the next logical step after “A punches B”. A either keeps punching B (if A’s group outnumbers B). Or, B’s group punches back someone in A’s group and you have a mob riot, with the inevitable baby carriage from Battleship Potemkin bouncing down the stairs.
And if your logic is “Oh, well, A will know when to stop. A always punches exactly as much as required.” Gee, why do we even need a justice system? Just have this A-guy go around and punch or not punch people as much or as little is required.
Seattle police said there is not an investigation underway because no one reported a crime.
Because punching Nazis is no crime
This is how the state, given no public input, deals with nazis:
The goons who marched in Portland on Saturday wore shirts referring to the Pinochet regime’s practice of dumping drugged political prisoners into the ocean from helicopters, and the initials “RWDS” (right wing death squad).
They’re not hiding what they WILL do if they get any political power, or backing by those in power.
I was ARA like 15 years ago, and there was really a lot less popular support for nazi punching than there is now. I always heard a lot of “I don’t like what they have to say but I’ll defend to my death blah blah blah.” I guess it took a solid uptick in violence for people to realize: oh wait, these guys are literal fascists.
No it wasn’t @anothernewbbaccount it was state capitalism according to Trotsky. Oh, well, yeah, same thing, nevermind.
The government is restrained from making any rules that prevent or limit free speech by way of the Constitution, Supreme and appellate court decisions, and statutes further defining the First Amendment.
And by virtue of speech being protected at the federal level, it will also enforce the First amendment on behalf of the people by making sure federal broadcasting license holders, owners of property that allow the general public to pass, and state and local governments comply as well by allowing free speech in those and other venues. So it can prevent other entities, governments, their agents, and agencies from abridging free speech rights.