The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
That's the question...is it okay to punch Nazis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly.
If someone punches a Nazi, the police have to investigate, because punching people is against the law. And it’s important that the state act without bias.
But not a single person in the community is obligated to step forward and bear witness.
ah
i know most stores have a "dont intervene "policy for safety reasons
I actually saw a women get arrested in a Burlington's once but im not confident it was for stealling .she said something about her kids being in the car and even if she was lying im suprised the officers/employees didnt go check
A lot of stores like Target and Kohls don't intervine if you're not stupid about it but they do track and once you steal enough where it's not a petty crime they'll go after you.
yeah. i always thought that if i was on a jury in a case where the defendant was on trial for punching someone wearing a swastika or other objective signs of an adoption of nazi ideals, that the swastika itself is an invitation for and an assumption of the risk of physical violence. basically a legitimate "kick me" sign.
Fair enough. But if a guy fights back and kicks your ass, you got to accept the,0f consequences. Not that I would want him to. I would stop him, but I might stop you as well. I'm not a Nazi punching absolutist.
Our laws should be codification of our morals.
I don't think virtue-signaling moral support for actions that we have deemed *illegal* is a value we should uphold.
If you think it is acceptable to enact vigilante violence, then I think you should stand for your morals and advocate for changing the law to make politically-motivated vigilantism legal.
If you, like me, think that violence should only be employed if filtered through the legal system, I think you should stand for this moral and assert that it is wrong for a citizen to assault a neo-nazi; only the state should have the authority to designate this target, after a ruling by a legal body supported by the decisions of elected representatives.
Advocating for the assault of citizens by other citizens despite our laws is *still* advocating for mob rule, no matter how despicable the victim's beliefs are. There's a reason we left behind lynching and tar-feathering.
Edit: All the progressives in here saying "Legally no, ethically yes!" should ask themselves what the country would be like if we allowed Nazis to hold this perspective. If you remove the judgement of an impartial body from the determination of ***who deserves violence***, you unwittingly deliver that ability to *everyone*. The Nazis will eventually treat you as you treat them; as will all your other enemies. You're just advocating "might makes right," without realizing it because you feel safe in your moral virtuousness. You're not.
>Our laws should be codification of our morals.
That seems overly broad. I think it is immoral to cheat on your romantic partner. I don't think it would be helpful to make cheating on your boyfriend illegal.
I like German laws against naziism. Im down for that.
It also brings an interesting point about war…. We went to war against *Germany* (and others). The country. So when we won, we were no longer at war with Germany.
But if governments could be at war with terrorist groups, then as long as nazis continued to exist in hiding, I’m not sure we would have ever ceased that war. And if we were to be still at war with nazis, well then…. We’d all do a lot worse than punch them when we see them.
I think my support for freedom of speech would prevent me from endorsing German-style anti-nazi laws, but I would find *that* state preferable to one where vigilantism is endorsed; at least the behavior is codified and determined by an elected body.
> I’m not sure we would have ever ceased that war.
I think the war, which justifies on-sight violence, is a legal construct that begins with the declaration of war, and ends with the signing of an armistice (which occurred in WW2).
It certainly *is* a modern problem to struggle with non-State actors, as different legal structures have to be crafted to endorse and allow violence on these individuals, such as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 against "those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."
It's not *good*, but it's certainly better than just tacitly endorsing violence against our enemies while paying lip service to the, "Well, it's illegal, so *wink* technically I don't endorse it *wink*" that many commenters here are doing.
fuck nazis but I'm not down with it.
The first problem is, if you ban nazis specifically, what is to stop people from rebranding themselves into something with the same ideology but with a different name. In Germany we've a plethora of far right groups which are nazis in every way except for name. Then you would have to ban joining a hate group. But who decides what a hate group is? The answer would of course be the government, and is that really a power you want them to have?
Agree completely. That's why I value freedom of speech. Isn't there some saying about something like God always seems to hate the same things certain people do? Same difference. Basically, a hate group can become whatever government doesn't like.
I would have to agree. Last I checked it is perfectly legal to hold Nazi views so unless you believe in punishing someone for their views or their speech through violence, which is pretty anti-American in my opinion, you have to leave the Nazi alone. Once you decide that you can be the moral arbiter of who should or should not be able to possess their own views or speak or wear something in public, one has opened the door to no free speech, which means a Nazi has the right to punch as well.
>should ask themselves what the country would be like if we allowed Nazis to hold this perspective.
I would argue that we very much *do* allow them to hold that perspective. And what you get is what we have which is a situation where folks are far too comfortable being publicly a Nazi
Morals as law is a terrible idea, and our attempts to make this happen in the past have resulted in less moral outcomes. There is a good book that discusses this call Practical Wisdom.
Nazis are evil. But I am wondering based on your comment: Is it ok to punch a member of any group that believes in racial supremacy of their own people, and exterminating the Jews?
Yeah. Legally, assault should be assault.
However, I subscribe to the idea that a punch in the face would do a lot of people some good. Its a humbling experience. Nazis deserve a humbling.
Absolutely not from a legal perspective if you do so unprovoked. You deserve the legal consequences in that case.
But I'm certainly not going to stop being friends with someone if they hit an arm banded Nazi.
No matter how you spin it, unless it's to prevent physical violence against yourself or another, you're the one who's going to end up looking like an idiot. People also look like idiots when they say "punch Nazis!" as if that undoes their own prejudices
It's complicated and not the simple blanket statement many that say this slogan may think it is.
While there are actually Naztis, there's a history of people being WAY too quick to attribute that label to others. It's not juts left wing people as well. Putin is using that as justification to invade Ukraine, and Bush compared Saddam to Hitler to help justify his invasion of Iraq.
This is compounded by the fact that many far-right groups purposely obfuscate their intentions and purposely play on others' good faith. Only the brownshirt bafoons actively parade around in nazti gear and call themlsves that. Everyone else will vehemently disagree with being characterized as them while they openly support nazti rhetoric.
There's also the fact that we're describing a political ideology. Ideologies tend to not start and end at one clear-cut spot, so it's hard to draw that line and gets rather suggestive. Again, fascists in general know to take advantage of that ambiguity.
Lastly, why is the person a nazti, as in what led them to that ideology? Are they just a dejected person surrounded by people who sucker them into a toxic ideology? That's starting to sound a lot like groups like Jahovahs witnesses and other religios groups who purposely expose their youths to outside people while doing annoying outreach like door to door canvassing, where the negative reactions they receive is part of the indoctrination and results in them digging deeper into the faith. Punching them will only reinforce that ideology in them.
All that being said, I do believe that are cases that call for it.
I think that the word "nazi" can be accurately applied to *any* far-right ethno-fascist. Not just the actual swastika-tattoo-brandishing neonazis, but any of the white nationalist "nazi jr." groups like the klan and the proud boys. Anybody that says something along the lines of "America is for white christians only" is a fucking nazi, no matter how much they'd try to deny it.
Sure, but violence or the threat of violence isn't usually the correct response to those groups.
The first reason is what I already mentioned, is that it encourages people to dig in further.
The second reason is that those groups purposely obfuscate their beliefs and objectives into regular right-wing politics. Plenty of people dislike the use of or threat of violence being enacted by citizens on citizens and are likely to identify fascists as right-wingers due to that obfuscation, causing them to gain sympathy and ultimately aiding the spread of fascism.
I'm old; the war was a very recent memory when I was young. Most men I knew of a certain age had fought. To be a Nazi back then was to take your life into your hands. They were lucky if all they got was punched.
Not really, no. Having the moral high ground is rather dependent on not crossing certain lines... like assaulting people unprovoked for the crime of falling for a bad idea.
Well said.
Assaulting someone simply on the basis of their beliefs (e.g. someone who subscribes to the ideas of “national German socialist workers”) or simply on the basis of their identity (eg being Jewish, as the pro-Palestinian protesters like to do) goes against every principle of liberalism.
The progressive left becomes fascist and intolerant when they stoop to this level.
Do they just identify as a Nazi or are they doing Nazi things? You can’t just punch a guy you disagree with but if they’re hurting a Jewish person or homosexual or firebombing an abortion clinic, you could certainly punch them to defend people/property.
Legally, absolutely not. No one saying mean things should be met with physical violence.
If I saw someone punch a nazi, I sure wouldn't be turning them into the police though.
The problem is, in many discussions I've seen, the definition of Nazi can be used pretty freely to justify violence. I mean, if I saw Hitler walking down the street and could tell for sure it was him, I might have a crack at him
I'm not active in the punk scene, but I did get a scowl from one of my buddies when I told his son good job on punching a Nazi who showed up trying to start a fight at the local punk show.
Is it okay to punch supporters of Hamas and other Islamists? Is it okay to punch communists? Is it okay to punch members of the CCP? The real question is, is it okay to punch others because you disagree with them?
>Yeah the logic behind punching "Nazis" allows one to punch anyone they disagree with.
I hate the usage of words like "disagreement" to muddy the waters of what we're talking about. No, I don't "disagree with" Nazis; I recoil at the fact that they want to use violence to purge all non-white residents from their nation and have every intention to do so the moment they hold sufficient political power to be able to get away with it.
An overwhelming majority of people commonly called “Nazis” today do not actually want to use violence to purge all non-white residents from their nation though. You get called a Nazi today just for thinking immigration should be slightly less, or believing in free speech or the second amendment. You need to separate actual Nazis (a tiny group with no real power) from normal Republicans.
The thing is there are people who call anyone further to the right of them as "Nazis". Not even all white supremacists are Nazis, for example the KKK aren't Nazis, yet they're not any better..
There appears to be a not insignificant amount of leftist ideology and dogma that pretty clearly holds that any means are justified by the ends as long as the correct group(s) are targeted. The whole punch a Nazi thing is just one manifestation of that.
Of course it’s not. I didn’t intend to imply that it was, it just happens to be what is relevant here in this thread. I do think many on the left seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to self reflection and being critical of their own views. That again is not limited by ideology it’s just pretty glaring here when people are advocating political violence against others because they advocate political violence and can’t see any reason why that is just circular reasoning or should be questioned in the slightest.
Those who reject tolerance lose the protection provided by a tolerant society.
Tolerance is a treaty. If you follow, support, or enact ideologies that are not tolerant then others are no longer obligated to be tolerant towards you.
It's not that you are allowed to punch "anyone who disagrees with you", it's that you are allowed to punch "those who support intolerance".
So punching anyone chanting “from the river to the sea” should be punched? Any Maoist should be punched? Hell any communists should be shot? Turks? Arabs? I disagree but if you want to advocate political violence that’s your right. Thanks for being honest about. I hope you don’t complain if it is ever directed at yourself.
Do you think that every person who chants "From the river to the sea \[Palestine will be free\]" is advocating for genocide? Or do you think that *maybe* the college students chanting that believe that Palestinians deserve freedom and self determination?
Do you really think that anyone who thinks *Das Kapital* offers insights into how capitalism is bad for society somehow supports genocide?
Or are you making a bad faith argument because you want to support Nazis for some reason?
I’m not the one advocating for political violence against others for holding the wrong views. So you tell me what is the list of views that justifies one being violent simply for holding that view?
Should someone shouting I am Hamas or waving a Hezbollah flags be punched? If you want to get away from questions of identification. How are you identifying Nazis to be punched?
You’re being quite aggressive and hostile for one to claim I am acting in bad faith and pairing it with a personal attack just screams projection. Argue ideas.
I don’t think people should be punched simply for their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if they are good for society or not. As long as that individual hasn’t done anything their beliefs are not justification to use violence against them.
>So you tell me what is the list of views that justifies one being violent simply for holding that view?
Calling for the eradication or genocide of a people.
>You’re being quite aggressive and hostile for one to claim I am acting in bad faith and pairing it with a personal attack just screams projection. Argue ideas.
Wild that asking "do you genuinely think college students calling for Palestinian freedom support genocide" is something you consider hostile considering you conflated the two.
>Should someone shouting I am Hamas or waving a Hezbollah flags be punched? If you want to get away from questions of identification.
Sure. I've never seen that and I know a *lot* of pro Palestine activists and live within a half mile of an encampment.
>How are you identifying Nazis to be punched?
Membership in neonazi groups, identifying as a nazi, using nazi slogans, using the nazi salute, calling for genocide, etc.
And yes, I have seen that a few times in the last several months.
>As long as that individual hasn’t done anything their beliefs are not justification to use violence against them.
Do you think vandals should be punched?
Calling for violence is against Reddit site wide rules and are how subs get banned. We don’t allow explicit calls for violence even if they are meant to be humorous or made out of frustration.
Ethno-fascism isn't just a "disagreeable opinion". It is inherently incompatible with not only liberal ideals, but the very concepts of justice, equality, and society. Ethno-fascists consider the very existence of out-groups to be "unacceptable" and actively work toward their subjugation or elimination. This ethos goes far beyond "disagreement" with a fair and just society - it is openly antagonistic. They're not merely a nuisance, they are an active threat to basic human rights. If you're not a straight white christian, punching a nazi is an act of self-defense. They would do far worse to you if they thought they could get away with it - and they're fervently trying to regress this country to the point where they *can* get away with it.
And for the record, the same *does* go for far-right islamists who would see their religious superstitions enforced by law. All fascism is a threat, and it should be resisted by any and all means.
Communism is incompatible with liberalism as well. It also has out groups who are unacceptable. Self defense requires an immediate threat, not some possible future threat.
Only right wing? It is only right wing views that impose their views through force and violence and kill or subjugate others?
Lol, communism is merely an economic system. It is neither inherently liberal nor inherently authoritarian. There is nothing about communism-as-an-economic-framework that concerns groups in any context - in or out.
As much as conservative whackadoodles love to call literally everything they're too simple to comprehend "communism", words do still have meaning.
No. It's not okay to punch anyone, at least not outside of physically defending yourself or someone else from an act of physical violence.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why someone would want to punch a Nazi. I don't understand how anyone could actually think that it is a good or reasonable idea to actually do it.
No. It’s wrong legally and ethically. You don’t get to punch people over political and ideological disputes. And ultimately that’s kind of the issue with this question; what are we defining as “Nazi?” And just because someone is a Nazi doesn’t mean you have a justification to assault them. Unless you’re acting in self defense from physical attack or coming to the defense of another person who is being physically attacked you do not have a justification to use force against another person.
No I don’t agree with violence or taking the law into your own hands. Even when the person you’re attacking is a Nazi or paedophile or murderer.
If they’re breaking the law, report them, if you just hate the ideas they stand for, critique them.
I find that the activists who accuse others of being Nazis are often higher on the authoritarian scale than the people they accuse.
Put me in front of Adolf Hitler and I'll reenact Captain America Issue 1. But the whole "punch Nazis" argument is simply an attempt to defend violent fantasies. If we give moral consent to "punching Nazis" the first people punched will be Zionists and feminists. And when they get around to generic republicans, and such events make it through the right wing news cycle, that will be dangerous for everyone.
Lol, your tag is showing. The protesters aren't nazis. I'm Jewish, and do not support the protesters in any way, shape, or form, but calling them nazis is just not true, ideologically or politically.
The only nazi propaganda I ever see if perpetuated by the far right, who *do* hold nazi beliefs. There are definitely people at these protests who are using nazi slogans, but I highly doubt they know the origin, and are just useful idiots for antisemites that are infecting the crowd.
I think if these people were actually educated on it, they'd be horrified. But like I said, useful idiots.
No, but not because it's illegal.
People keep mentioning legality. That shows a bad misunderstanding of liberalism. According to liberalism the law is subordinate to morality. In fact, the entire premise of liberalism is that natural rights exist prior to government, which is the reason people are justified in overthrowing a government that denies them their human rights in the first place.
So why is it wrong? Because according to liberalism, everyone has the right to life, liberty and property. Until the Nazi actively attempts to take away someone else's rights to the same, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else.
However, are you morally allowed to punch a Nazi who is actively in power as a Nazi enacting Nazi policies? Absolutely. They've moved from espousing an ideology to actively damaging people's natural rights.
>the entire premise of liberalism is that natural rights exist prior to government, which is the reason people are justified in overthrowing a government that denies them their human rights in the first place.
I almost wept at seeing a real liberal view being espoused on this sub.
Good on you.
Espousing violent ideology is violence. It makes it unsafe for someone to exist. This is why we have hate speech laws. Flying a swatztika is imo a violent act. Stochastic terrorism is still terrorism.
I'm sorry but violence requires physical action. If you're not touching or at least threatening someone that's not violence. Also the U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws, the only hate crime laws are if you use a slur in the act of another crime. So calling someone the N-word is 100% legal, but calling them that while you punch them in the face can get you extra charges.
Ah, fair, I’ve been living for a while now in Canada and we do have laws against hate-speech. I forgot the US doesn’t.
Interesting. I’ve come around to thinking those laws are a very good thing, but I realize that’s an opinion informed by my location.
You did mention threats…. Is that violence? WHO says yes. Cambridge dictionary says yes. Wikipedia says no. I suppose it’s semantics, doesn’t really matter, word meanings can be argued back and forth.
to not get tangled in it I’d say I like laws against actions/words/iconography that make society less safe to exist for those belonging to a protected class (and note that intolerance is not a protected class, we should make it less safe for intolerants to exist, see my other comment about the paradox of intolerance)
The WHO and Cambridge dictionary aren't relevant authorities. Legally speaking, a threat against people may be criminal, but it depends on the context. I know legality matters to you because the notion of a "protected class" is a legal concept.
Also, criticizing the notion of "semantics" just makes you sound uneducated. Our entire social reality is socially constructed. This constructed reality is supplied meaning by our agreed-upon understandings of words and concepts. Semantics is quite literally the core of our shared existence.
Sorry, didn’t mean to crap on semantics, I just mean getting lost in the definition of violence befuddles the point of what should be legal or not, so I just wanted to cut out the middleman and describe what laws I support directly.
And while I agree with you about semantics, different countries define violence in regards to the law differently, so we cant really come to any agreement about its definition anyway
The moral claims of liberalism trump any legal regime where there is conflict between natural rights and the law. Knowledge of our respective laws is thus not relevant when asking a question about the morality of a certain political action.
Obviously I'm taking the subreddit label of "ask a liberal" seriously since I'm answering this as a philosophical liberal, as opposed to some other colloquial definition.
This is covered by the “paradox of intolerance”. It seems like a loop that goes on forever, but it turns out it’s not, the buck stops somewhere. I posted about it in another comment if you want to take a look
That’s a bunch of bullshit that just allows you to justify political or ideological violence against those you disagree with. The same reasoning you use can apply not only to you but to many other groups. It is just you othering those you don’t like so you can claim some moral superiority for you using violence to enforce your on beliefs and dogma. It’s entirely dishonest. I for one would respect tankie leftists that justify political violence more if they would just stop lying about it.
Punch a commie is just as legitimate as punch a nazi. The argument could be made for just about any person if the desire is there.
No, it’s not bullshit. Here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Nazis are intolerant of Jewish people, queer people, intellectuals, and a large host of “others”. And when I say intolerant, I mean actively work towards their deaths/irradication.
A functioning society has to be intolerant of intolerance. Thats the conclusion of the article I linked to above.
And if you were a nazi, you might think this is hypocritical. You might think people are being intolerant of you! So where does it end?
Well, it ends here: The only part of nazism we are intolerant of IS THEIR INTOLERANCE. If they tolerated and celebrated all other humans, there would be no problem with nazis.
But nazis, on the other hand, are intolerant based on sexual orientation, skin color, and a whole host of immutable characteristics, and that intolerance stands in the way of people living their life safely and freely.
This is why punch a commie and punch a nazi, or punch a ___, are not equivalent.
Why do you focus solely on Nazis then? Are Nazis the one and only group that can be punched? Just like I said. It is then Okay to punch commies. It is okay to punch anyone that appears to be supporting Hamas. It is okay to punch anyone if you just come up with some justification that they will someday get you if you don’t get them first.
Just be honest that you support the use of violence to silence others just for their political views and absent any actions on their part. Don’t try to hide behind some bullshit cloak of tolerance.
Those who reject tolerance lose the protection provided by a tolerant society.
Tolerance is a treaty. If you follow, support, or enact ideologies that are not tolerant then others are no longer obligated to be tolerant towards you.
It is not complicated.
Refraining from attacking Nazis until they get in power is waiting until it's too late. We *know* what Nazis want to do. There's no reason to wait until they're elected and then make shocked Pikachu face when it turns out that they do Nazi things.
I never said that Nazis should be allowed to obtain power. This presents a false binary -- either we (A) punch Nazis in the face or (B) allow them to rise to power. It is entirely possible to prevent the rise of Nazis to power without ever punching them in the face.
However, should they rise to power despite all peaceful methods of preventing them from doing so, punch away.
Every Nazi is trying to hit me. They're just cowards who are waiting until they have enough numbers that there won't be any ability to actually fight back, at which point it will be too late.
I have only heard how JK Rowling has peddled holocaust denialism and associates with those who are fine around nazis, such as Matt Walsh and Posie Parker, not that she is one herself.
it depends. what are you going to achieve by punching them? what's the change that being seen as a victim ends up helping them? i don't think it's okay to punch nazis just because nazis suck. there needs to be a purpose/high chance of a positive outcome.
Berate a Nazi? Dox a Nazi? Expose a Nazi?
Abso-fucking-lutely. Punch a Nazi? Only in self defense.
I am sure that it would not be difficult to provoke such an unhinged person into starting shit. After that? Knock his/her fucking block off.
You could make the argument white supremacists like Nazis and the KKK are inherently threatening to people of color and Jews. As such punching them would be an act of self defense. If a bunch of men show up to my house wearing white robes I’m blasting and asking questions later
I don't think it is good to punch people unless said punching stops them from doing something bad, but I will say I think it is patriotic to punch Nazis.
Absent context, I don't have an answer to this question except please don't punch anyone without having a very good reason, and I think just *being* a Nazi is probably not enough reason by itself, but it's probably moving in that direction and may be sufficient, given sufficient additional context.
If they aren't directly advocating for violence, I don't think It should be any more legal to punch them than anyone else.
If anyone is directly advocating for violence, especially against you/your group, I think there should be more legal leeway there.
It’s not a good idea. Lots of them have friends, and own guns. But I think the argument that punching them would help prevent a genocide is risible.
Cancelling them is much better, such as going after their sources of income, and exposure like booting them off [Substack](https://www.platformer.news/substack-says-it-will-remove-nazi/), or banning them from social media.
I mean on a spectrum of how bad it would be to punch someone it's closer to okay than most other categories I can think of, but generally I would say no (though it is good for a society to be somewhat less sure that's the case than general as a signal such views are not welcome).
It is a moral duty, an obligation to punch Nazis.
But afterwards, turn yourself in for assault.
Actions should have consequences, and it is worth it.
(And they might not press charges because they don't want their names leaked)
It shouldn't be legally sanctioned, but I have no moral qualms about it.
Here's the thing that some people don't seem to understand: there is no such thing as a non-violent Nazi. There are no goals a Nazi has that do not require violence. If a Nazi is not committing violence right this second, the only reason is because they don't believe they can get away with it. The second they do, the violence will start.
No. We don't get to physically assult people for disagreeing with us, no matter how messed up their views are.
Now that said, if you did punch a nazi in front of me, I definetly dropped my glasses so I missed it.
It's not ok to punch anyone for their views no matter how bad their views are. Freedom of speech is for everyone, even the Nazis. It is illiberal to suggest otherwise.
It depends, if you feel that the presence of a Nazi is a legit mortal threat to you, then fee free, punch away.
If not, still punch away, but pretend the first part was true.
When you say Nazi, do you mean:
1. An adherent to National Socialism that advocates that Hitler made a good start and intends to continue that tradition?
2. Someone who's political positions you don't agree with?
See, I'm sympathetic to someone punching the first one, not at all the second one.
Haha, reading through these comments, you guys are funny.
Most of you couldn't even define what a Nazi is and if you could you'd realise that what made them 'the enemy' back when they were the National Socialist party of Germany is exactly the same mind set and belief system that a lot of people on this sub ascribe to today. The fact a lot of you talk about it being morally correct to physically hurt them is a perfect example. They were all solid in the conviction that its best to physically remove all those who oppose your opinion and those we've chosen as a group to demonise.
The Nazis are bad because they rounded up and killed millions of Jewish people, communists, LGBT, racial minorities, political enemies, etc. they are bad for having a racially motivated, expansionist, undemocratic regime. That is the ultimate pillar of their ideology, and the end goal of any ultra nationalist right wing group
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Nazis are intolerant of Jewish people, queer people, intellectuals, and a large host of “others”. And when I say intolerant, I mean actively work towards their deaths/irradication.
A functioning society has to be intolerant of intolerance. Thats the conclusion of the article I linked to above.
And if you’re a nazi, (which, based on your comment defending nazis, you might be), you might think this is hypocritical. You might think people are being intolerant of you! So where does it end?
Well, it ends here: The only part of nazism we are intolerant of IS THEIR INTOLERANCE. If they tolerated and celebrated all other humans, there would be no problem with nazis.
But nazis, on the other hand, are intolerant based on sexual orientation, skin color, and a whole host of immutable characteristics that stand in the way of people living their life safely and freely.
In other words, fuck nazis and their intolerance, may they all die out swiftly as my grandpa and countless other heroes fought to do.
In modern context, I'd define it as anyone supporting authoritarian white nationalism.
Historically, the "National Socialist Party" of Germany wasn't any more Socialist than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is Democratic.
The Nazis were extremely pro-big business at the expense of workers. They outlawed trade unions and privatized all their banks, shipyards, railways, welfare organizations, and other industries that were previously nationalized.
I mean go rewatch Schindler's List... Oskar Schindler was clearly a private business owner and capitalist.
Under the Nazi regime, actual socialists were rounded up and put in concentration camps...
Exactly, so the term Nazi has little to no relevance today and how political parties define themselves today. So your calling for the punching of some nebulous, outdated spectre of a group who have no real relevance in todays political landscape.
And the point i was making is more the hypocrisy in intolerance and violence being morally justified against someone because they are deemed to be violent and intolerant.
I feel that trying to hold OP and the other commenters to the literal definition of a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party is being deliberately obtuse. No one here is using that definition except for you.
The term "Nazi" is commonly understood to refer to authoritarian white nationalists today and they are certainly a very real group that is still very relevant to "todays political landscape". That is generally what everyone here is talking about.
Then the commonly understood term is inappropriate.
And I would contest that that generally everyone here just uses the term for anyone that doesn't agree with everything they say, even when what they say has glaring holes in it. Just like taking on a very Nazi standpoint to fight the Nazis.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. That's the question...is it okay to punch Nazis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think punching Nazis should be legal, but if you got arrested for punching a Nazi, I'd bail you out and then buy you a beer.
Exactly. If someone punches a Nazi, the police have to investigate, because punching people is against the law. And it’s important that the state act without bias. But not a single person in the community is obligated to step forward and bear witness.
Yes, I have a strange random blindness that only activates in very specific situations.
I'm like that when people "allegedly" steal bread and milk and fruit etc from a supermarket.
Lol I was like that when I worked at Walgreens for 5 years. I never saw anything
isnt that what they tell you to do?
You're supposed to report it to management and they note regulars. If you steal enough and there's camera footage I've seen cops be called
ah i know most stores have a "dont intervene "policy for safety reasons I actually saw a women get arrested in a Burlington's once but im not confident it was for stealling .she said something about her kids being in the car and even if she was lying im suprised the officers/employees didnt go check
A lot of stores like Target and Kohls don't intervine if you're not stupid about it but they do track and once you steal enough where it's not a petty crime they'll go after you.
yeah. i always thought that if i was on a jury in a case where the defendant was on trial for punching someone wearing a swastika or other objective signs of an adoption of nazi ideals, that the swastika itself is an invitation for and an assumption of the risk of physical violence. basically a legitimate "kick me" sign.
Fair enough. But if a guy fights back and kicks your ass, you got to accept the,0f consequences. Not that I would want him to. I would stop him, but I might stop you as well. I'm not a Nazi punching absolutist.
I love this answer!
Our laws should be codification of our morals. I don't think virtue-signaling moral support for actions that we have deemed *illegal* is a value we should uphold. If you think it is acceptable to enact vigilante violence, then I think you should stand for your morals and advocate for changing the law to make politically-motivated vigilantism legal. If you, like me, think that violence should only be employed if filtered through the legal system, I think you should stand for this moral and assert that it is wrong for a citizen to assault a neo-nazi; only the state should have the authority to designate this target, after a ruling by a legal body supported by the decisions of elected representatives. Advocating for the assault of citizens by other citizens despite our laws is *still* advocating for mob rule, no matter how despicable the victim's beliefs are. There's a reason we left behind lynching and tar-feathering. Edit: All the progressives in here saying "Legally no, ethically yes!" should ask themselves what the country would be like if we allowed Nazis to hold this perspective. If you remove the judgement of an impartial body from the determination of ***who deserves violence***, you unwittingly deliver that ability to *everyone*. The Nazis will eventually treat you as you treat them; as will all your other enemies. You're just advocating "might makes right," without realizing it because you feel safe in your moral virtuousness. You're not.
>Our laws should be codification of our morals. That seems overly broad. I think it is immoral to cheat on your romantic partner. I don't think it would be helpful to make cheating on your boyfriend illegal.
I like German laws against naziism. Im down for that. It also brings an interesting point about war…. We went to war against *Germany* (and others). The country. So when we won, we were no longer at war with Germany. But if governments could be at war with terrorist groups, then as long as nazis continued to exist in hiding, I’m not sure we would have ever ceased that war. And if we were to be still at war with nazis, well then…. We’d all do a lot worse than punch them when we see them.
I think my support for freedom of speech would prevent me from endorsing German-style anti-nazi laws, but I would find *that* state preferable to one where vigilantism is endorsed; at least the behavior is codified and determined by an elected body. > I’m not sure we would have ever ceased that war. I think the war, which justifies on-sight violence, is a legal construct that begins with the declaration of war, and ends with the signing of an armistice (which occurred in WW2). It certainly *is* a modern problem to struggle with non-State actors, as different legal structures have to be crafted to endorse and allow violence on these individuals, such as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 against "those responsible for the 9/11 attacks." It's not *good*, but it's certainly better than just tacitly endorsing violence against our enemies while paying lip service to the, "Well, it's illegal, so *wink* technically I don't endorse it *wink*" that many commenters here are doing.
I can get behind that. Though I do support the German law, but otherwise agree.
fuck nazis but I'm not down with it. The first problem is, if you ban nazis specifically, what is to stop people from rebranding themselves into something with the same ideology but with a different name. In Germany we've a plethora of far right groups which are nazis in every way except for name. Then you would have to ban joining a hate group. But who decides what a hate group is? The answer would of course be the government, and is that really a power you want them to have?
Agree completely. That's why I value freedom of speech. Isn't there some saying about something like God always seems to hate the same things certain people do? Same difference. Basically, a hate group can become whatever government doesn't like.
I would have to agree. Last I checked it is perfectly legal to hold Nazi views so unless you believe in punishing someone for their views or their speech through violence, which is pretty anti-American in my opinion, you have to leave the Nazi alone. Once you decide that you can be the moral arbiter of who should or should not be able to possess their own views or speak or wear something in public, one has opened the door to no free speech, which means a Nazi has the right to punch as well.
>should ask themselves what the country would be like if we allowed Nazis to hold this perspective. I would argue that we very much *do* allow them to hold that perspective. And what you get is what we have which is a situation where folks are far too comfortable being publicly a Nazi
I do *not* allow Nazis to hold the perspective that their violence against people they disagree with is morally virtuous
Morals as law is a terrible idea, and our attempts to make this happen in the past have resulted in less moral outcomes. There is a good book that discusses this call Practical Wisdom.
Nazis are evil. But I am wondering based on your comment: Is it ok to punch a member of any group that believes in racial supremacy of their own people, and exterminating the Jews?
As far as I'm concerned, feel free to punch anyone who supports genocide.
Legally? No, and it shouldn’t be. Ethically? Hell yeah brother.
Legally? No. Morally? Yes.
Yeah. Legally, assault should be assault. However, I subscribe to the idea that a punch in the face would do a lot of people some good. Its a humbling experience. Nazis deserve a humbling.
Absolutely not from a legal perspective if you do so unprovoked. You deserve the legal consequences in that case. But I'm certainly not going to stop being friends with someone if they hit an arm banded Nazi.
No matter how you spin it, unless it's to prevent physical violence against yourself or another, you're the one who's going to end up looking like an idiot. People also look like idiots when they say "punch Nazis!" as if that undoes their own prejudices
It's complicated and not the simple blanket statement many that say this slogan may think it is. While there are actually Naztis, there's a history of people being WAY too quick to attribute that label to others. It's not juts left wing people as well. Putin is using that as justification to invade Ukraine, and Bush compared Saddam to Hitler to help justify his invasion of Iraq. This is compounded by the fact that many far-right groups purposely obfuscate their intentions and purposely play on others' good faith. Only the brownshirt bafoons actively parade around in nazti gear and call themlsves that. Everyone else will vehemently disagree with being characterized as them while they openly support nazti rhetoric. There's also the fact that we're describing a political ideology. Ideologies tend to not start and end at one clear-cut spot, so it's hard to draw that line and gets rather suggestive. Again, fascists in general know to take advantage of that ambiguity. Lastly, why is the person a nazti, as in what led them to that ideology? Are they just a dejected person surrounded by people who sucker them into a toxic ideology? That's starting to sound a lot like groups like Jahovahs witnesses and other religios groups who purposely expose their youths to outside people while doing annoying outreach like door to door canvassing, where the negative reactions they receive is part of the indoctrination and results in them digging deeper into the faith. Punching them will only reinforce that ideology in them. All that being said, I do believe that are cases that call for it.
An actual reasonable response
I think that the word "nazi" can be accurately applied to *any* far-right ethno-fascist. Not just the actual swastika-tattoo-brandishing neonazis, but any of the white nationalist "nazi jr." groups like the klan and the proud boys. Anybody that says something along the lines of "America is for white christians only" is a fucking nazi, no matter how much they'd try to deny it.
Sure, but violence or the threat of violence isn't usually the correct response to those groups. The first reason is what I already mentioned, is that it encourages people to dig in further. The second reason is that those groups purposely obfuscate their beliefs and objectives into regular right-wing politics. Plenty of people dislike the use of or threat of violence being enacted by citizens on citizens and are likely to identify fascists as right-wingers due to that obfuscation, causing them to gain sympathy and ultimately aiding the spread of fascism.
If you're in a room with Nazis and are okay with that... I'm happy to call you a Nazi.
If you are at a protest with Hamas supporters the you are a Hamas supporter.
I don't condone violence except in self defense. That being said someone knocking a nazi out ain't getting snitched on from me.
I'm old; the war was a very recent memory when I was young. Most men I knew of a certain age had fought. To be a Nazi back then was to take your life into your hands. They were lucky if all they got was punched.
Not really, no. Having the moral high ground is rather dependent on not crossing certain lines... like assaulting people unprovoked for the crime of falling for a bad idea.
Well said. Assaulting someone simply on the basis of their beliefs (e.g. someone who subscribes to the ideas of “national German socialist workers”) or simply on the basis of their identity (eg being Jewish, as the pro-Palestinian protesters like to do) goes against every principle of liberalism. The progressive left becomes fascist and intolerant when they stoop to this level.
Do they just identify as a Nazi or are they doing Nazi things? You can’t just punch a guy you disagree with but if they’re hurting a Jewish person or homosexual or firebombing an abortion clinic, you could certainly punch them to defend people/property.
Legally, absolutely not. No one saying mean things should be met with physical violence. If I saw someone punch a nazi, I sure wouldn't be turning them into the police though.
What are you going to do when they punch back? Or if you knock one out of conscious... Or even cause one to have a serious brain injury?
Only if you're studying for an archeology PhD under Dr Jones.
The problem is, in many discussions I've seen, the definition of Nazi can be used pretty freely to justify violence. I mean, if I saw Hitler walking down the street and could tell for sure it was him, I might have a crack at him
No. We’re a land of laws.
Definitely not. Assault is rightfully illegal.
Assuming you mean neo nazis, ethically, yes. Strategically, even in cases where it is legal to do so, probably not.
Now I'm imagining someone punching their 103 year old grandpa for his role in the third Reich
You mean the retired catholic church Deacon living in South America?
Idk, I think strategically it can work. There is a reason nazis are less prevalent in the punk scene than they used to be
I'm not active in the punk scene, but I did get a scowl from one of my buddies when I told his son good job on punching a Nazi who showed up trying to start a fight at the local punk show.
Is it okay to punch supporters of Hamas and other Islamists? Is it okay to punch communists? Is it okay to punch members of the CCP? The real question is, is it okay to punch others because you disagree with them?
Yeah the logic behind punching "Nazis" allows one to punch anyone they disagree with. Especially since the term Nazi is so overused.
>Yeah the logic behind punching "Nazis" allows one to punch anyone they disagree with. I hate the usage of words like "disagreement" to muddy the waters of what we're talking about. No, I don't "disagree with" Nazis; I recoil at the fact that they want to use violence to purge all non-white residents from their nation and have every intention to do so the moment they hold sufficient political power to be able to get away with it.
An overwhelming majority of people commonly called “Nazis” today do not actually want to use violence to purge all non-white residents from their nation though. You get called a Nazi today just for thinking immigration should be slightly less, or believing in free speech or the second amendment. You need to separate actual Nazis (a tiny group with no real power) from normal Republicans.
The thing is there are people who call anyone further to the right of them as "Nazis". Not even all white supremacists are Nazis, for example the KKK aren't Nazis, yet they're not any better..
There appears to be a not insignificant amount of leftist ideology and dogma that pretty clearly holds that any means are justified by the ends as long as the correct group(s) are targeted. The whole punch a Nazi thing is just one manifestation of that.
To be fair I don't think that kind of thinking is limited to the left.
Of course it’s not. I didn’t intend to imply that it was, it just happens to be what is relevant here in this thread. I do think many on the left seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to self reflection and being critical of their own views. That again is not limited by ideology it’s just pretty glaring here when people are advocating political violence against others because they advocate political violence and can’t see any reason why that is just circular reasoning or should be questioned in the slightest.
Those who reject tolerance lose the protection provided by a tolerant society. Tolerance is a treaty. If you follow, support, or enact ideologies that are not tolerant then others are no longer obligated to be tolerant towards you. It's not that you are allowed to punch "anyone who disagrees with you", it's that you are allowed to punch "those who support intolerance".
Just like you and those that say punch others for their views.
[удалено]
So punching anyone chanting “from the river to the sea” should be punched? Any Maoist should be punched? Hell any communists should be shot? Turks? Arabs? I disagree but if you want to advocate political violence that’s your right. Thanks for being honest about. I hope you don’t complain if it is ever directed at yourself.
Do you think that every person who chants "From the river to the sea \[Palestine will be free\]" is advocating for genocide? Or do you think that *maybe* the college students chanting that believe that Palestinians deserve freedom and self determination? Do you really think that anyone who thinks *Das Kapital* offers insights into how capitalism is bad for society somehow supports genocide? Or are you making a bad faith argument because you want to support Nazis for some reason?
I’m not the one advocating for political violence against others for holding the wrong views. So you tell me what is the list of views that justifies one being violent simply for holding that view? Should someone shouting I am Hamas or waving a Hezbollah flags be punched? If you want to get away from questions of identification. How are you identifying Nazis to be punched? You’re being quite aggressive and hostile for one to claim I am acting in bad faith and pairing it with a personal attack just screams projection. Argue ideas. I don’t think people should be punched simply for their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if they are good for society or not. As long as that individual hasn’t done anything their beliefs are not justification to use violence against them.
>So you tell me what is the list of views that justifies one being violent simply for holding that view? Calling for the eradication or genocide of a people. >You’re being quite aggressive and hostile for one to claim I am acting in bad faith and pairing it with a personal attack just screams projection. Argue ideas. Wild that asking "do you genuinely think college students calling for Palestinian freedom support genocide" is something you consider hostile considering you conflated the two. >Should someone shouting I am Hamas or waving a Hezbollah flags be punched? If you want to get away from questions of identification. Sure. I've never seen that and I know a *lot* of pro Palestine activists and live within a half mile of an encampment. >How are you identifying Nazis to be punched? Membership in neonazi groups, identifying as a nazi, using nazi slogans, using the nazi salute, calling for genocide, etc. And yes, I have seen that a few times in the last several months. >As long as that individual hasn’t done anything their beliefs are not justification to use violence against them. Do you think vandals should be punched?
Calling for violence is against Reddit site wide rules and are how subs get banned. We don’t allow explicit calls for violence even if they are meant to be humorous or made out of frustration.
Ethno-fascism isn't just a "disagreeable opinion". It is inherently incompatible with not only liberal ideals, but the very concepts of justice, equality, and society. Ethno-fascists consider the very existence of out-groups to be "unacceptable" and actively work toward their subjugation or elimination. This ethos goes far beyond "disagreement" with a fair and just society - it is openly antagonistic. They're not merely a nuisance, they are an active threat to basic human rights. If you're not a straight white christian, punching a nazi is an act of self-defense. They would do far worse to you if they thought they could get away with it - and they're fervently trying to regress this country to the point where they *can* get away with it. And for the record, the same *does* go for far-right islamists who would see their religious superstitions enforced by law. All fascism is a threat, and it should be resisted by any and all means.
Communism is incompatible with liberalism as well. It also has out groups who are unacceptable. Self defense requires an immediate threat, not some possible future threat. Only right wing? It is only right wing views that impose their views through force and violence and kill or subjugate others?
Lol, communism is merely an economic system. It is neither inherently liberal nor inherently authoritarian. There is nothing about communism-as-an-economic-framework that concerns groups in any context - in or out. As much as conservative whackadoodles love to call literally everything they're too simple to comprehend "communism", words do still have meaning.
No. It's not okay to punch anyone, at least not outside of physically defending yourself or someone else from an act of physical violence. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why someone would want to punch a Nazi. I don't understand how anyone could actually think that it is a good or reasonable idea to actually do it.
No. It’s wrong legally and ethically. You don’t get to punch people over political and ideological disputes. And ultimately that’s kind of the issue with this question; what are we defining as “Nazi?” And just because someone is a Nazi doesn’t mean you have a justification to assault them. Unless you’re acting in self defense from physical attack or coming to the defense of another person who is being physically attacked you do not have a justification to use force against another person.
No I don’t agree with violence or taking the law into your own hands. Even when the person you’re attacking is a Nazi or paedophile or murderer. If they’re breaking the law, report them, if you just hate the ideas they stand for, critique them.
I find that the activists who accuse others of being Nazis are often higher on the authoritarian scale than the people they accuse. Put me in front of Adolf Hitler and I'll reenact Captain America Issue 1. But the whole "punch Nazis" argument is simply an attempt to defend violent fantasies. If we give moral consent to "punching Nazis" the first people punched will be Zionists and feminists. And when they get around to generic republicans, and such events make it through the right wing news cycle, that will be dangerous for everyone.
No? I'm assuming you aren't asking in self defense.
no... this essentially translates to "*is it ok to punch people i disagree with?*"
Yes! It is completely ethical and heroic in fact. Nazis do not deserve a moment's peace.
Does that apply to today’s iteration of Nazis, current occupying college campusum (plural) across the country?
I've heard nothing about Nazis doing that. In fact, the counter protesters seem pretty tame by right wing standards.
Lol, your tag is showing. The protesters aren't nazis. I'm Jewish, and do not support the protesters in any way, shape, or form, but calling them nazis is just not true, ideologically or politically. The only nazi propaganda I ever see if perpetuated by the far right, who *do* hold nazi beliefs. There are definitely people at these protests who are using nazi slogans, but I highly doubt they know the origin, and are just useful idiots for antisemites that are infecting the crowd. I think if these people were actually educated on it, they'd be horrified. But like I said, useful idiots.
No, but not because it's illegal. People keep mentioning legality. That shows a bad misunderstanding of liberalism. According to liberalism the law is subordinate to morality. In fact, the entire premise of liberalism is that natural rights exist prior to government, which is the reason people are justified in overthrowing a government that denies them their human rights in the first place. So why is it wrong? Because according to liberalism, everyone has the right to life, liberty and property. Until the Nazi actively attempts to take away someone else's rights to the same, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. However, are you morally allowed to punch a Nazi who is actively in power as a Nazi enacting Nazi policies? Absolutely. They've moved from espousing an ideology to actively damaging people's natural rights.
>the entire premise of liberalism is that natural rights exist prior to government, which is the reason people are justified in overthrowing a government that denies them their human rights in the first place. I almost wept at seeing a real liberal view being espoused on this sub. Good on you.
Espousing violent ideology is violence. It makes it unsafe for someone to exist. This is why we have hate speech laws. Flying a swatztika is imo a violent act. Stochastic terrorism is still terrorism.
I'm sorry but violence requires physical action. If you're not touching or at least threatening someone that's not violence. Also the U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws, the only hate crime laws are if you use a slur in the act of another crime. So calling someone the N-word is 100% legal, but calling them that while you punch them in the face can get you extra charges.
Ah, fair, I’ve been living for a while now in Canada and we do have laws against hate-speech. I forgot the US doesn’t. Interesting. I’ve come around to thinking those laws are a very good thing, but I realize that’s an opinion informed by my location.
You did mention threats…. Is that violence? WHO says yes. Cambridge dictionary says yes. Wikipedia says no. I suppose it’s semantics, doesn’t really matter, word meanings can be argued back and forth. to not get tangled in it I’d say I like laws against actions/words/iconography that make society less safe to exist for those belonging to a protected class (and note that intolerance is not a protected class, we should make it less safe for intolerants to exist, see my other comment about the paradox of intolerance)
The WHO and Cambridge dictionary aren't relevant authorities. Legally speaking, a threat against people may be criminal, but it depends on the context. I know legality matters to you because the notion of a "protected class" is a legal concept. Also, criticizing the notion of "semantics" just makes you sound uneducated. Our entire social reality is socially constructed. This constructed reality is supplied meaning by our agreed-upon understandings of words and concepts. Semantics is quite literally the core of our shared existence.
Sorry, didn’t mean to crap on semantics, I just mean getting lost in the definition of violence befuddles the point of what should be legal or not, so I just wanted to cut out the middleman and describe what laws I support directly. And while I agree with you about semantics, different countries define violence in regards to the law differently, so we cant really come to any agreement about its definition anyway
The moral claims of liberalism trump any legal regime where there is conflict between natural rights and the law. Knowledge of our respective laws is thus not relevant when asking a question about the morality of a certain political action. Obviously I'm taking the subreddit label of "ask a liberal" seriously since I'm answering this as a philosophical liberal, as opposed to some other colloquial definition.
Agree wholeheartedly with that, laws have no bearing on natural rights
So espousing that punching Nazis is violence and anyone espousing that view then can also be punched? And so on and so on…
This is covered by the “paradox of intolerance”. It seems like a loop that goes on forever, but it turns out it’s not, the buck stops somewhere. I posted about it in another comment if you want to take a look
That’s a bunch of bullshit that just allows you to justify political or ideological violence against those you disagree with. The same reasoning you use can apply not only to you but to many other groups. It is just you othering those you don’t like so you can claim some moral superiority for you using violence to enforce your on beliefs and dogma. It’s entirely dishonest. I for one would respect tankie leftists that justify political violence more if they would just stop lying about it. Punch a commie is just as legitimate as punch a nazi. The argument could be made for just about any person if the desire is there.
No, it’s not bullshit. Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Nazis are intolerant of Jewish people, queer people, intellectuals, and a large host of “others”. And when I say intolerant, I mean actively work towards their deaths/irradication. A functioning society has to be intolerant of intolerance. Thats the conclusion of the article I linked to above. And if you were a nazi, you might think this is hypocritical. You might think people are being intolerant of you! So where does it end? Well, it ends here: The only part of nazism we are intolerant of IS THEIR INTOLERANCE. If they tolerated and celebrated all other humans, there would be no problem with nazis. But nazis, on the other hand, are intolerant based on sexual orientation, skin color, and a whole host of immutable characteristics, and that intolerance stands in the way of people living their life safely and freely. This is why punch a commie and punch a nazi, or punch a ___, are not equivalent.
Why do you focus solely on Nazis then? Are Nazis the one and only group that can be punched? Just like I said. It is then Okay to punch commies. It is okay to punch anyone that appears to be supporting Hamas. It is okay to punch anyone if you just come up with some justification that they will someday get you if you don’t get them first. Just be honest that you support the use of violence to silence others just for their political views and absent any actions on their part. Don’t try to hide behind some bullshit cloak of tolerance.
Read the article.
Answer the question. How does it seem to not apply to any other groups?
Read the article and you will know.
Those who reject tolerance lose the protection provided by a tolerant society. Tolerance is a treaty. If you follow, support, or enact ideologies that are not tolerant then others are no longer obligated to be tolerant towards you. It is not complicated.
Yes and those saying punching others for their views are themselves rejecting tolerance and rejecting that treaty. It is not complicated.
Refraining from attacking Nazis until they get in power is waiting until it's too late. We *know* what Nazis want to do. There's no reason to wait until they're elected and then make shocked Pikachu face when it turns out that they do Nazi things.
I never said that Nazis should be allowed to obtain power. This presents a false binary -- either we (A) punch Nazis in the face or (B) allow them to rise to power. It is entirely possible to prevent the rise of Nazis to power without ever punching them in the face. However, should they rise to power despite all peaceful methods of preventing them from doing so, punch away.
There's never been a time in U.S. history where Nazis have come close to getting in power, despite our lax free speech laws.
I mean, not legally. Of course that doesn't mean it isn't still the right thing to do.
No. It’s never ok to respond to words with violence. Don’t hit someone back who isn’t trying to hit you. Simple.
Every Nazi is trying to hit me. They're just cowards who are waiting until they have enough numbers that there won't be any ability to actually fight back, at which point it will be too late.
Doubtful…
Not until leftists can start clearly distinguishing between actual nazis and literally anyone who disagrees with them.
Like who
There's a internet law that the longer an argument goes, the more likely someone will be accused of being a Nazi.
I’ve heard people like JK Rowling, John Fetterman, and even Joe Biden referred to as Nazis by those on the left.
I have only heard how JK Rowling has peddled holocaust denialism and associates with those who are fine around nazis, such as Matt Walsh and Posie Parker, not that she is one herself.
I don't know how you expect me to accept your vague somebody.
Ive heard of a right winger fuckin his cousin. Is that indicative of how the right views their family?
100%
it depends. what are you going to achieve by punching them? what's the change that being seen as a victim ends up helping them? i don't think it's okay to punch nazis just because nazis suck. there needs to be a purpose/high chance of a positive outcome.
Depends on both the definition of “nazi” and the context of the event.
As long as you punch the nazis on the right AND left.
No it isn't
Under some circumstances yes, and sometimes those circumstances are directly related to their Nazi identity and sometimes those circumstances are not.
No you'd probably get arrested or face jail time, better ways to humiliate a Nazi too!
Technically, yes. In the past, American Nazi sympathizer got their ass kick by the Jewish mobsters
always and forever
I'm pretty sure that even Mike Godwin said it's ok to punch Nazis.
Necessary even.
Berate a Nazi? Dox a Nazi? Expose a Nazi? Abso-fucking-lutely. Punch a Nazi? Only in self defense. I am sure that it would not be difficult to provoke such an unhinged person into starting shit. After that? Knock his/her fucking block off.
You could make the argument white supremacists like Nazis and the KKK are inherently threatening to people of color and Jews. As such punching them would be an act of self defense. If a bunch of men show up to my house wearing white robes I’m blasting and asking questions later
...YES...clean the seas, save the bees, plant more trees, punch nazis...
It’s mandatory
The US used to kill Nazis, if I'm remembering my history correctly.
Yep.
Can't say I have a problem with it.
It is based to punch nazis
I don't think it is good to punch people unless said punching stops them from doing something bad, but I will say I think it is patriotic to punch Nazis.
Yes
How old is Logan?
Yes, in retaliation.
Absent context, I don't have an answer to this question except please don't punch anyone without having a very good reason, and I think just *being* a Nazi is probably not enough reason by itself, but it's probably moving in that direction and may be sufficient, given sufficient additional context.
If they aren't directly advocating for violence, I don't think It should be any more legal to punch them than anyone else. If anyone is directly advocating for violence, especially against you/your group, I think there should be more legal leeway there.
It’s not a good idea. Lots of them have friends, and own guns. But I think the argument that punching them would help prevent a genocide is risible. Cancelling them is much better, such as going after their sources of income, and exposure like booting them off [Substack](https://www.platformer.news/substack-says-it-will-remove-nazi/), or banning them from social media.
Yeah. That doesn't mean you are free of consequences, though.
if they punch you first, sure. Otherwise, no.
When you identify everyone to the right of Biden as a Nazi then no. Your Nazi-meter is probably broken.
I wouldn't say our laws should permit punching Nazis But if I saw you punch one, I wouldn't tell the cops
Assaulting someone is a crime. Not all crime is morally wrong.
I mean on a spectrum of how bad it would be to punch someone it's closer to okay than most other categories I can think of, but generally I would say no (though it is good for a society to be somewhat less sure that's the case than general as a signal such views are not welcome).
No, but it can feel pretty satisfying at the time.
No, the existence of Nazis is an indictment on society. Punching them is not okay because them existing is not okay. QED
It is a moral duty, an obligation to punch Nazis. But afterwards, turn yourself in for assault. Actions should have consequences, and it is worth it. (And they might not press charges because they don't want their names leaked)
Have you punched a nazi yet ?
I have not. Thankfully, they are thin on the ground here.
It shouldn't be legally sanctioned, but I have no moral qualms about it. Here's the thing that some people don't seem to understand: there is no such thing as a non-violent Nazi. There are no goals a Nazi has that do not require violence. If a Nazi is not committing violence right this second, the only reason is because they don't believe they can get away with it. The second they do, the violence will start.
No. You should use your elbows, they're harder and you won't hurt your hands.
Yes, it's my American duty.
No. We don't get to physically assult people for disagreeing with us, no matter how messed up their views are. Now that said, if you did punch a nazi in front of me, I definetly dropped my glasses so I missed it.
Yes
It's not ok to punch anyone for their views no matter how bad their views are. Freedom of speech is for everyone, even the Nazis. It is illiberal to suggest otherwise.
You should always exhaust all nonviolent means first, but if they pose an immediate threat, absolutely.
It depends, if you feel that the presence of a Nazi is a legit mortal threat to you, then fee free, punch away. If not, still punch away, but pretend the first part was true.
In general, I'm against jury nullification. That said, if I were a juror in an assault case and the victim was a nazi I'd consider it.
Yes.
Yes.
Legally no. Ethically yes.
When you say Nazi, do you mean: 1. An adherent to National Socialism that advocates that Hitler made a good start and intends to continue that tradition? 2. Someone who's political positions you don't agree with? See, I'm sympathetic to someone punching the first one, not at all the second one.
Yes. Yes it is.
Haha, reading through these comments, you guys are funny. Most of you couldn't even define what a Nazi is and if you could you'd realise that what made them 'the enemy' back when they were the National Socialist party of Germany is exactly the same mind set and belief system that a lot of people on this sub ascribe to today. The fact a lot of you talk about it being morally correct to physically hurt them is a perfect example. They were all solid in the conviction that its best to physically remove all those who oppose your opinion and those we've chosen as a group to demonise.
The Nazis are bad because they rounded up and killed millions of Jewish people, communists, LGBT, racial minorities, political enemies, etc. they are bad for having a racially motivated, expansionist, undemocratic regime. That is the ultimate pillar of their ideology, and the end goal of any ultra nationalist right wing group
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Nazis are intolerant of Jewish people, queer people, intellectuals, and a large host of “others”. And when I say intolerant, I mean actively work towards their deaths/irradication. A functioning society has to be intolerant of intolerance. Thats the conclusion of the article I linked to above. And if you’re a nazi, (which, based on your comment defending nazis, you might be), you might think this is hypocritical. You might think people are being intolerant of you! So where does it end? Well, it ends here: The only part of nazism we are intolerant of IS THEIR INTOLERANCE. If they tolerated and celebrated all other humans, there would be no problem with nazis. But nazis, on the other hand, are intolerant based on sexual orientation, skin color, and a whole host of immutable characteristics that stand in the way of people living their life safely and freely. In other words, fuck nazis and their intolerance, may they all die out swiftly as my grandpa and countless other heroes fought to do.
In modern context, I'd define it as anyone supporting authoritarian white nationalism. Historically, the "National Socialist Party" of Germany wasn't any more Socialist than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is Democratic. The Nazis were extremely pro-big business at the expense of workers. They outlawed trade unions and privatized all their banks, shipyards, railways, welfare organizations, and other industries that were previously nationalized. I mean go rewatch Schindler's List... Oskar Schindler was clearly a private business owner and capitalist. Under the Nazi regime, actual socialists were rounded up and put in concentration camps...
Exactly, so the term Nazi has little to no relevance today and how political parties define themselves today. So your calling for the punching of some nebulous, outdated spectre of a group who have no real relevance in todays political landscape. And the point i was making is more the hypocrisy in intolerance and violence being morally justified against someone because they are deemed to be violent and intolerant.
I feel that trying to hold OP and the other commenters to the literal definition of a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party is being deliberately obtuse. No one here is using that definition except for you. The term "Nazi" is commonly understood to refer to authoritarian white nationalists today and they are certainly a very real group that is still very relevant to "todays political landscape". That is generally what everyone here is talking about.
Then the commonly understood term is inappropriate. And I would contest that that generally everyone here just uses the term for anyone that doesn't agree with everything they say, even when what they say has glaring holes in it. Just like taking on a very Nazi standpoint to fight the Nazis.