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.)
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
Fascists don’t respond to logic or reasoning, they know only violence so you should speak to them in a language they understand
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2018.1519772
Violence in a vacuum? Deplorable. Violence against a person preaching or encouraging violence? Questionable. Violence against a known fascist? Absolutely acceptable.
Fascists hide in the grey areas of free speech and often make arguments, much like this post OP, that twist ethics to support their rhetoric.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/19/544641070/explaining-again-thenazis-true-evil
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism_debate
So in conclusion, considering your original points sound similar to the historical defense of fascists, and do carry the language of fascists.
How serious are you about not getting punched?
If two parties are at odds with one another, and one on them is willing to use violence and the other isn’t, the violent party wins.
Non violence works when people care about what you’re going through. If the right people know and care they’ll come in and do violence for you to make it stop. Or at least verifiably threaten violence. But violence is happening whether you did it or not.
Nazis don’t give a shit about you, they’re eager for violence. They want to exterminate entire classes of people. Non violence does not work on Nazis, we’ve already seen this play out once before.
If two parties are at odds with one another, and one on them is willing to use violence and the other isn’t, the violent party wins.
Is that a Martin Luther King quote?
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 this failed logic is exactly why we are where we at right now, on the brink of the Fourth Reich rising across the US and Europe.
Because tolerant people have forgotten the most important thing about a tolerant society.
That it must be rigorously and viciously defended from those who seek to exploit the social contract to elevate their attacks on it, and it requires far more than words and wind to achieve that… again, as evidence of where we are now as a society. Because their ultimate goal is to undo the society we love, and replace it with oppression, fear, and hatred.
I’m not big on violence, and I don’t enjoy hitting people, but I’ve done it a couple of times and I’m always willing to throw down with nazis. If we’re not willing to defend ourselves and others, we might as well just hand them the keys and let them do whatever they want. That’s gonna be a hard no for me.
This. There are just certain ideologies that are so anti-human that the only way to deal with them is violence because they can’t be tolerated or reasoned with. Nazis know exactly what history says about them and they actively choose these hateful ideologies to believe in and follow. I wouldn’t punch a random person on the street unless they were a threat. Nazis by their very existence are a threat. That threat is not existential.
Make the world a better place
Punch a nazi in the face
just like violence isn’t applicable everywhere, non-violence isn’t applicable everywhere.
back in the day, nazis used to get violently run out of shows because they tried to infiltrate the punk movement and punks said “Nazi punks fuck off” and then punched them until they left.
people think we didn’t try talking first. telling them to fuck off, refuting their trash ideology or even trying to persuade them out of it. they loved that shit. they were there to talk but they were not there for any great debate. fuckers were there to recruit, it was preditory. they did not fuck off until it was clear we would make them, AND that we’d do it before they opened their mouths. they fucked off when the recruitment pool was closed to them.
guess i can see how on paper a bunch of kids living off pabst and shoving eachother around to loud music, was a good hunting ground. they read that particular room wrong though. and “punch them until they left” was they only way they were gonna go.
Obvious OP never saw the movie SLC Punk. Yes you punch nazi in the face. Beat them until either the hate leaves their body or they vacate the area.
It is literally. Far as guillotines are concerned we save those for the billionaires.
I’m surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually cease power and make an intolerant society, the only way a society can become truly tolerant is by being intolerant towards intolerance.
It’s paradoxical, but makes absolute sense. If you allow Nazis to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough Nazis to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced. The only way to prevent it is by cutting the evil at the root and prevent Nazis from spreading their ideology.
Personally I believe that punching a person who hasn’t tried to attack me or anyone is wrong. But the moment someone openly preaches that someone else must be exterminated they’re inciting violence which can encourage others to act on it, to me, morally speaking, attacking that person is as much self defense as if they were commiting the act themselves.
Would I personally punch a person because they’re spewing hate? Probably not, I would probably try to talk to them and understand their point of view and try to convince them otherwise, since I believe that punching them would make the person close himself to any reasoning from outside of his group, which would make him more Nazi than before. But I also don’t think it’s morally wrong to do so, it’s just not the optimal way of dealing with it.
It’s not a paradox if you see it as a social contract where every side is equally bound and protected by. Failure to abide by this means you are not protected.
This precise argument can also be made to justify a tightening on immigration from countries where religious intolerance is the cultural norm, on the grounds that “if you allow [them] to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough [of them] to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced”. Reasonable?
Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I’m in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I’m an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.
For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of “all Muslim immigrants are intolerant” you’re the one being intolerant, if you say “People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate” then I’m okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.
Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you’re interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they’re forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I’ve never seen that happen. In fact I’ve even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she’s okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.
Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization
Generalizations are broad by nature, that does not mean they have no value.
But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.
Can’t speak for the USA but that is absolutely not the case in Europe.
Otherwise you make some decent points. In any case, IMO discussions like this would benefit if we accepted from the outset that nobody is going to be convincing others to change their opinions. The best that can be hoped for is to understand the opposing side better. That would be an achievement in itself.
I didn’t say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can’t tolerate intolerance can’t be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.
Congratulations you found the paradox part of the argument! However one of these is not like the other
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/neo-nazi
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/
These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.
These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.
Sources often don’t convince the opposing party in an argument, especially in a political one. You’re not my audience, I already know you’re anchored in your convictions. You may as well be an LLM or a useful idiot manipulated by misinformation. I don’t care.
You’re not my audience. I don’t care what you think. I’m providing a counterpoint for folk that haven’t researched or haven’t made up their mind.
You’re not my audience,
That’s a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.
I already know you’re anchored in your convictions
To the extent you know anything about me, I also “know” that your own convictions are just as unmovable.
Looked at another way, it’s a good thing to have convictions.
K
100% agree with your message, but just for clarity’s sake I believe you meant “the intolerant will eventually ‘seize’” as in take, like a seizure of assets. Cease is putting an end to something.
Normally I wouldn’t bother to correct someone, but the irony of the mistake is that it contradicts your intended message by saying that if you tolerate intolerance, it will cease to exist.
Thanks for the correction, I’ve edited the comment, indeed that could be missinterpreted.
What you are describing is actually the simple truth that many worldviews and the beliefs and values that stem from them are incompatible and cannot coexist. This is the fundamental problem with the first ammendment. It assumes that people are exercising beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to each other.
I’m 52 now so I don’t punch anyone anymore. But back in the mid '80s to early '90s I was one of a few skatepunks that ran around with some ofe the local Unity Skins. We did a fair bit of nazi punching (and ax handling). This was toward the end of lace codes and wearing patches on bomber jackets. I’m not sure we changed anyone’s mind but for a few years, no one was rocking confederate flags or white laces in the open. But I’m just some random guy online so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
(White, red, and yellow laces still give me pause. My teen came home one day wearing yellow laces and we had to have a talk. After some fact checking, and him explaining some stuff, I let it go and got a pair of yellows for my boots. Funny how things change over time and areas).
I’m just curious what your interpretation of yellow laces is. I’m not a punk but am vaguely aware of lace codes, and every list I see online has yellow as anti-racist, but I know it varied a bit from place to place.
Back a few lifetimes ago in this area it was anti-gay.
43 year old here. By the late 90s most of the laces and braces stuff was over in my local scene (Austin, TX). SHARPs learned it was easier to just have a mowhawk or spikes than explaining that yes they were a skinhead but not Nazis or racist.
With that said there were still Nazis that would come around to the clubs from time to time. And it usually ended up with them getting thrown out. Then one night one of them went into the pit and started throwing punches. The whole lot of them got dragged out the back by a bunch of guys a lot larger than me. 10 minutes later they came back in minus the Nazis. After that night I never saw another Nazi at a show again.
See? The system works!
Could you expand on the laces thing? I’ve never heard of laces (white, yellow or anything else) signifying anything in this topic.
Yeah, absolutely. It’s’s an old Skinhead/Bonehead thing. You’d rock different colors to say what you sort of believed. Red was neo-nazi, white was klan or white power, blue I think was pro cop, yellow was anti-gay, green was something bad but I don’t remember what, may be you robbed everyone. This was kind of nationwide but varied by area somewhat. Like blue could mean pro cop or anticop. This was way before think blue line stuff.
So growing up you’d see a bunch of bone heads strutting around with white laces and you’d know they were all racist shiteaters.
Mostly I think it was a way for skins to decide who to fight. Like I say, I was a punk, so not as much into fighting for fun like most skins were. I just ran with some because being a skater and a punk then was a little harder if you got caught alone. And having friends that liked to fight was just good sense.
Thanks, that’s really interesting. I guess black laces were the only safe option!
Just looked it up. White is white pride, red is neo-nazi (and often, willing to spill blood), yellow is anti-racist. Not sure why that last one’s a bad thing, though.
Black was neutral, because that’s the colour doc martens usually come with.
Thank you for being less lazy than me! Still though, white laces are pretty common. I wouldn’t want to be mistaken for a white supremacist just because of that.
Lace codes (and brace or strap codes I’m reminded above) are largely dead now. It started letting up when it was discovered how dope blue Docs looked with red laces.
Ha - fashion > fascism :-)
They are all fun lace colors, and Nazis get to decide nothing.
I don’t think nazis are the ones that decided the gay pride colour though (it was purple). I think it was someone else that decided.
I’m with you. Many of “them” want to get violent and are looking for a reason to do so. By throwing a punch, it provides justification for their violent actions. So many folks here indicate that you won’t change somebody unless you fight them, but I’ve read and heard plenty of evidence to the contrary. One quick source is How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes. I also heard an interview with a woman who grew up in a cult and how she learned how to “deprogram” people.
I like to think of it a lot like fishing. Once you get a fish on the hook, you can’t just pull hard and bring 'em in. You need to set the hook and then reel them in slowly.
nazis aren’t fish. i don’t care to convert them. i want to drive the back under the rock they crawled from under.
Hey, you guys are going Nazi punching? Can I join?
Spent enough time in the punk scene to know some people are very serious about it.
The contract of tolerance requires swift shutting down of the intolerant 🤛
Non violence has never worked imo. At most it’s a temporary solution, but even peaceful movements like MLK’s needs a Malcolm x and black Panthers to show what will happen if you ignore the peaceful ones
My thoughts are that most people in this discussion have little idea what the word Nazi actually means and that therefore this silly question is a bit of an insult to the victims of Nazism.
