What would someone be if they hit a proto-fascist in the head with a chair in a Bavarian beerhall in 1922?
2 Likes
The Highlander.
1 Like
5 Likes
I don’t know anyone other than white males who have appeared in Nazi punching videos on the internet (you know, that one video that I’ve seen). I knew protesters who fought fascists in the streets when I was in university and they had many non-white people among them. I know non-white people now who are absolutely disgusted that white people sit around talking about whether or not it’s okay to punch (white) Nazis but hardly care about police killing black people (the white people I hang around with feel the same way, it’s like a self-selected who I hang around with). So yeah, it took the entitlement of a young white man to produce the Richard Spencer punching video, but I don’t think “we need to fight Nazis” is an entitled-white-only position.
This actually gives me an idea. What if people went deep undercover to join white supremacist organizations then joined police forces since that’s what white supremacists do and then we’d have anti-racists on the police force!
In support of this, I’ve made this analogy before: we clean our bathroom regularly knowing it will get covered with bacteria again. I am not comparing any humans (even Nazis) with bacteria. I’m just pointing out that sometimes the absolute best solution to a problem is to fight your hardest knowing that you will have to have the same fight again later. Violence failed to completely eliminate Naziism in the past, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best thing to do.
Which is a “paradox” only for those of us who confuse reality with the words we use to describe reality. When we say that nazis are “intolerant” and they say, “You are being ‘intolerant’ of us,” we mean totally different things by the word “intolerant.” There’s nothing similar about saying that a group of people ought to be exterminated because of their heritage and saying that you shouldn’t say a group of people ought to be exterminated because of their heritage.
Might as well say it’s a paradox that I’m welcome in a tolerant society despite being lactose intolerant. I think developmentally we are supposed to realize that one word can mean different things before we are three (though in Popper’s defense he was a philosopher).
Generally, the don’t punch Nazi arguments are really boring. Before you post, “stoop to their level” or “vigilanteism is bad” think about the fact that those are standard arguments that almost everyone has heard before. I 100% respect people who genuinely live by a philosophy of non-violence. But it’s very hard to respect someone who does little to live non-violence but shows up in forums to selectively apply the idea to being non-violent against Nazis.
I think a real debate about the current norms in American society surrounding violence could be very interesting. But I already know that violence is bad, that vigilantes target the wrong person, and that part of why we don’t like Nazis is because theirs is a violent philosophy.
And please with the slippery slope arguments and the “mental illness” defense of this guy. The former is outright stating we can’t tell the moral difference between a Nazi and a tax evader. The latter is a drive-by smear of the mentally ill, implying that a person like me is more likely to be violent and hateful than a person who isn’t mentally ill. A drive by smear of the mentally ill in service of defending a Nazi.
11 Likes
I very deliberately didn’t say lynch mob, and don’t use that term because lynching is a horrific crime that shouldn’t be minimized by being equated to others. So I don’t. Internet mobs is a reference to a phenomenon that social media, and Twitter and Facebook especially, have enabled, where anonymous strangers trade information and act on it in the real world. This time is worked out. My point is that it often doesn’t, which is why even while I enjoy the schadenfreude of watching a Nazi get clocked, I’m aware that it can and sometimes does go very wrong. Our relatively new present-day American antifa movement has so far avoided human collateral damage. As a member of that movement, I want to keep it that way.
Antifascista isn’t an organization, it’s a movement that anyone can be a part of. And I encourage every good person to do so. Emphasis on that precision and restraint is better than simply assuming it will be practiced by everyone who will join the fight.
6 Likes
Incidentally, for those people decrying the obvious danger of vigilante justice:
-
Antifa has killed zero people in modern America.
-
The same can not be said for American police. They are globally infamous for their constant murder and total impunity.
5 Likes
Advising caution is not decrying.
Uniformed mafias and Nazi scum are not the standards by which we should measure ourselves.
7 Likes
Pardon. Apparently I can not Internet today.
Yup.
OTOH, insisting on Marquess of Queensbury rules for your side while the other side is fighting no-holds-barred is not a winning strategy.
5 Likes
After due consideration of the thread I feel worse than before.
I am Jack’s ambivalent position in Pandora’s box.
2 Likes
The point isn’t so much to shut them up, but to unambiguously illustrate society’s intolerance for intolerance. If Nazis know that overt displays of Nazism will get them bashed by random members of the public, that’s a fine thing.
5 Likes
Hmm, how much tax?
The paradox of tolerance has nothing at all to do with how two sides may differ in their use of the word.
I often find that when someone enters into an argument of definition it helps to stop using the word being defined and instead describe the meaning of the word. In this case, the reason the intolerance of these people cannot be tolerated is not how they define the word but rather the impact their actual actions have which cannot be allowed in a tolerant society.
So to illustrate - The reason it is a paradox is because if a society embraces and accepts any and all points of view then it must ultimately accept those who wish to end that society. Therefore, in order to protect society, it becomes necessary to reject and eject those who would seek to end the accepting society. As you can see, the paradox exists no matter how you define the word tolerant because the paradox exists independent of the word.
1 Like
Well, the paradox exists within a philosophy fever dream no matter how I define the word. “If a society embraces and accepts any and all points of view” might as well say, “If I’m a pink rhinocerous.” No society is ever going to do that, no society has ever purported to do that. If someone says that they embrace and accept any and all points of view they clearly have a hidden “within reason” attached to the end of it.
That’s why the paradox “of tolerance” is a paradox only if you are confused about definitions. That’s not what I or anyone means when they say “tolerance” so the paradox does not relate to tolerance.
I hate the “paradox of tolerance” because it suggests tolerance is somehow paradoxical. It isn’t.
5 Likes
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911159036946546688
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911159846237540353
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911160037640409088
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911160468089245696
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911160690156728320
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911161844659838976
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911162105843331072
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911162608824258560
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911163027046699008
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911163340776525824
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911163691688751105
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911163946861830144
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911164259480072194
https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/911164819612618752
4 Likes
No, it isn’t. As @aluchko noted, punching Nazis reinforces their fascist narrative: the strong rule the weak through violence and intimidation and the only message you communicate is Nazis need to bring more violence, which ultimately sucks for everyone. We have better ways to deal with Nazis. We don’t need to stoop to their level.
On the other hand, two fairly ineffectual punches to the head and the self-appointed leader of the Nazi alt-right avoids leaving the house. That seems… effective.
5 Likes
I think you misunderstand the meaning of paradox in general and the paradox of tolerance specifically. No one is suggesting that tolerance is a paradox, only that tolerance can create a paradox.
Correct. That is because societies recognize that some positions are not acceptable and must be eliminated. Or to put it another way, societies have recognized this problem long before Popper gave it a name and have always kept certain influences out. In effect, your assertion proves the point. No society that accepts all viewpoints exists on this earth.
Again, the argument of definition is not in play here other than your misunderstanding of the application of the term paradox.
Ah the “They came for X and I did nothing” approach.
1 Like
Ah, the willful ignorance approach.
Oh hey! They guy who accused me twice of quoting out of context and who never responded when I gave him the complete context is calling me willfully ignorant. Well, considering the source is a person who accuses and can’t back those accusation up, I’m just going to put your rebuke in the kiddie pile.
You know, the real problem I have with your position is that I and others have no problem with you choosing to be a pacifist as your path to reach the common goal of eliminating white supremacy among us but you fail to respond in kind when others choose a different path.
4 Likes
