How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
How serious are you guys when you talk about punching nazis?
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.)
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
You may want to investigate the original author of the anarchist cookbook William Powell. He later wanted to remove the book from publication.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Powell-American-writer
Also please do not follow any of the recipes, especially the match head bomb as they're all a great way to lose fingers
So in conclusion, considering your original points sound similar to the historical defense of fascists, and that book looks to carry the language of fascists.
How serious is the author of that book about not getting punched?
(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.
I’ve punched plenty of nazis. They try to infiltrate our punk and metal scenes and cause shit, being one of the bigger guys there who also has training, it’s my responsibility to help make sure they don’t fucking stick around.
You can try and go the pacifist route with these people, but I know from experience that it doesn’t do Jack shit, and they’ll keep coming back with their dumb bullshit, and more and more will start showing up unless you shut that shit down hard.
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.
See the thing about the supposed cycle of violence is that it implies equal fault and innocence of both sides. It relies on toleration theory.
Toleration is a treaty, when you break it you are no longer protected by it. It is an entirely justifiable and moral act to instigate violence against fascists, because their very ideology is a violation of the treaty of toleration, and their organization is one which cannot sustain itself in the face of repeated attacks.
You often hear complaints about how enforcing internet rules against the fascists just leads to whackamole bans, but the thing is that every successive ban leaves the fascists less coordinated, less emboldened, and more isolated. There is a critical point of punitive and preventative acts where a fascist org is effectively atomized and anyone worth pulling out has been rock bottomed into a holding space where they can be rehabbed.
Peaceful methods are what can be achieved after you've destroyed them, either through hounding operations making it less and less possible for them to group up and act together, or by normalizing violence and intolerance against them to the extent that they are at least afraid enough to stop trying to not be sniveling cowards such as the fascist naturally is.
The true fascist is only kept quiet in an environment of fear, where they know that trying to stick their heads up will get it lopped off in short order. An environment where even peacible means of antifascism still include complete social ostracism and career destruction, and where persistent fascism is met with swift and appropriate violent rejection.
Don't just punch the Nazis, dox them to their families and employers and communities, encourage others to be armed and ready to attack preemptively in their presence, organize around making that Nazi specifically know their rightful place is silent and afraid until they've cut the shit and stopped being a nazi, before someone ends up killing them in self defense.
The contract of tolerance requires swift shutting down of the intolerant 🤛
I've seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30's was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.
Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn't shy away from it when it's needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.
The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.
Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it'll take you out of the action longer than it will them.
The whole "Punch a Nazi Day!" has two origins:
Captain America #1 - 12/20/1940 - A full YEAR before the US entered the war:
Right Wing Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched during a live interview:
- “Self-defense is not violence!”
- “No tolerance for intolerance!”
- you don’t want your place becoming a Nazi bar
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 surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance. Essentially if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerants will eventually seize 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.
They want my wife and children dead. If they are near my family, they pose an existential threat. I will leave saving the proverbial souls of neo Nazis to others. I am interested in establishing that my family is off limits and dangerous for them to so much as look at.
Would I throw a punch at a confirmed Nazi? Without hesitation.
Some people learn to shed the racism from their heart and become better people. Some will only get so far as keeping quiet because they are afraid. There will always be severely racist people. It is just as important that they feel unequivocally unwelcome as it is to change those who will change.
Nazis get worse if you don't actively oppose them. That can look like punching them, but it can also look like actively ostracizing them by taking away their jobs, denying them participation in community events, or just straight up shaming them in public.
Pacifism only works if the other side isn't willing to kill you. These jackasses fantasize about genociding people as a hobby, so if you think pacifism is going to work for you then go right ahead but I'll be over here working on my defensive skills.
In many situations nazi-punching is not your best tactical decision, especially in the presence of cops. Using your words to hurt the poor Nazi snowflakes feelings works just as well and has the added benefit of potentially provoking them into getting themselves arrested if there are cops watching.
I am serious that they should be punched. I am a non-violent person, so I hope that someone better fit for the job does it. If faced with a nazi that I think I can take or one that I think I can sorta take, I might punch them myself.
I didn't think this way until I read, Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy, by Talia Levin. After, I am firmly in the "punch a nazi" camp.
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.
I’m in my 40’s now, but as a teenager that used to go to a lot of punk shows; I can assure you the sentiment is literal. A group of anti-nazis can give a few nazis a really bad time.
I'm just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that's such a common argument for punching nazis and it's really quite wrong on so many levels.
"But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII." That's a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we're not in a military battle with Nazis, we're in an ideological battle.
So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren't punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically "desperate times require desperate measures". So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.
Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.
Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it's the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it's actually counterproductive.
*Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.
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).
Non-violence is a nice ideal, but just that. There's only so much protests can do, if nazi germany had been met with non-violence, imagine what would have happened. Conversely, imagine how many lives would have been saved if Hitler had been stopped before becoming it's leader. It's the same thing with US politics, Trump is basically a neo nazi. This is undeniable if you read project 2025. The US is drifting further and further right, and that means closer and closer to becoming a new nazi germany. And besides all that, if someone is advocating for killing me, then I'm going to want them gone.
Tolerance ends with intolerance. Being nice and civil leads to things like the storming of the US Capital. If US Republicans, for example, felt no resistance then they would organize a crusade into Springfield Ohio.
It is because we live in a world of controversy and civil unrest that racists cannot simply commit massacres and lynchings like in the old days.
We have to show fangs, not bellies, to aggressive animals.
That’s funny because I read a book (The Failure of Nonviolence) that pretty convincingly argues that no movement has truly accomplished its goals without either outright violence or relying on the threat of violence from aligned parties.
Punched a Nazi in the jaw at a party once. He left and everyone was happier once he did. Fuck that Nazi and his sore Nazi jaw.
Depends on the context, and how serious and violent the Nazi. If they're just an isolated idiot who isn't politically active and isn't stupid or thick-headed enough to actually follow through on their claimed beliefs, then violence isn't really justified. They're an idiot, but not a threat. The problem is with anymore more dedicated or crazy than that. Past that point, you immediately get to people who want to murder or enslave hundreds of millions. Thats not hyperbolic, that's literally the goal of Nazi beliefs, and a logical extention of almost every belief that stems out of it or is adjacent to it. In theory, yes, it'd be nice to be able to talk down people like this, or use existing systems of power to force them to places where there isn't a risk of them trying to murder or enslave people, but unfortunately, when you're talking about groups who don't respect human lives, the law, or anyone but their designated, arbitrary in-group, then those aren't always viable means. This is esspecially true if that person is already in a potition of power. Basically, if someone wants to kill you, you can't always wait for them to successfully aquire the means to do so before acting. This isn't hyperbole or metaphor, this is literally what we're talking about here. The problem is in drawing a line of who is an actual threat, and if there are other means to "disarm" them.
The biggest advocates for non-violence are white cis heterosexual men. It is the failure to recognize the multifaceted nature of violence itself. Punching a Nazi can mean that other Nazis stop looking up to them, and they stop being able to effectively organize.
You should be selective and strategic with who you punch. Typically you will want to go for leadership, or the guy who offers a connection between two groups that you consider a risk.
That being said, you should also consider that you probably aren't going to have as much success punching a Nazi on their terms. A lot of them are into their gym and guns so it tends to be to your advantage to catch them alone when you are in a group. Sometimes the opportunity will come after one of their demonstrations when they are walking to their car. Other times, it can be useful to find where they live and work.
Punching Nazis isn't an everyday thing but its unrealistic to claim it isn't sometimes necessary. It works very effectively as part of a bigger picture. Alongside it, you can put stickers on their doors in the middle of the night. If the circumstances arise, you can do silly stuff like convincing one that another fascist is sleeping with his equally shitty wife.
My great grandfather would have shot them. He did shoot them. For King and Country. And I'm proud of this fact 😎🇬🇧
Not a big fan of violence nor do I condone it.
But here is some perspective when has something been won without violence?
Almost every nonviolent movement has been paired with a violent/threatening/defender movement. Then when the people in power attacked the nonviolent movement the public started siding with them and change happened because it was either give some of the nonviolent movements wants or the violent movement was going to make things worse.
One of the main reasons any and everything is hard to get off the ground now. Is media, power, and government people have learned to spin all nonviolent movement to be associated with violence or crush them immediately with force then spin it in the news. Also they have learned how to co opt and blame
George Floyd protests had outside aggravators(cia/fbi/cops) then media associates violence or property damage as a part of the cause, combine that with terrible messaging from coopted power structures then power trapped the chance of the law changing and really nothing major came from it. That along with cops beating the ever living shit out of everyone to scare more and more people
There was a Proud Boys rally in my city just a few years ago. I went with a bunch of other queers specifically to punch some Nazis in protest.
Non-violence notoriously does not work against violent aggressors. Like Nazis.
Make the world a better place
Punch a nazi in the face
If they symathise with nazi ideology, I'll punch them for sure.
However most people I've seen that use those symbols are simply misinformed about the nazi ideology. I think that not knowing isn't wrong; not learning is.
I’m not gonna do punch anyone but I’d unrepentantly nullify any nazi punching trial jury i end up on. If the movement develops legs that carry it in the wrong direction, I’ll cease supporting it. For now, I’ll grin at the pain of the deplorables.
I mean… I’ve punched Nazis. I’d prolly do it again.
Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.
But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.
I'm conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.
"Talk softly and carry a big stick."
Maybe there's a good argument for nonviolence but "the means dictate the ends" isn't it imo. It could be that there's more to it in the book but presented as is I'd say it doesn't follow logically, I'm going to want to see proof that it's actually true which is going to be tricky because there are obvious counter examples.
The easiest one is probably Ukraine. I'm sure most Ukrainians want to live in a peaceful and nonviolent society, but if they took your principle to heart there would be no Ukraine right now.
I became a leftist, because I got enough of the liberal "they go low, we go high" mantra. You never turn the other cheeck to a person, who will proceed to punch it again. In fact, if they once failed to do better in such cases, they're just want to abuse your fair game.
I am serious enough that I have punched nazis before and look forward to a time when I can punch nazis again.
Violence is necessary for a functioning society to address those that reject the social contract that are not amenable to rationale.
Some people are more dangerous alive than the disruption their death would have caused.
I appreciate and understand that you are a strict pacifist, and that you feel it is a worthwhile life to follow, and I agree with you.
The problem is, in order for most of the populace to be pacifists, there still needs to be agents of violence to remove the disruptors who wish to co-opt or destroy our society that are not amenable to words.
Your ideology cannot exist in the real word as it will be consumed by other ideologies that do not eschew violence.
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.
This is the way I've come to look at it: non-violence is ideal, but non-violence is one of many "languages." (Obviously here we're just talking about violence, but yknow some is political, some is social, etc.) Some people can speak many of these, some people only speak one or refuse to use others (like how you say you will only use nonviolence.)
The issue is that some people only speak one language, and aren't going to "understand" (be persuaded or moved by) others no matter what. A bigot only understands hate and emotion so they aren't going to be swayed from that position by logic or facts because they don't "speak" that language.
What I'm getting at, is that for people who only speak violence - non-violence doesn't mean anything to them except an easy target. They aren't going to consider your viewpoint because you won't fight back, they won't back down because "clearly you aren't a threat." They're going to violence until they reach their ends. With somebody like that, you have to "speak their language."
Of course on an individual level you (maybe) can get the police to handle it, but on a social level like dealing with nazis you have to keep them scared of return violence. They are violent by nature (the entire ideology is elimination of undesirables) and should be treated as such. Let them know that we punch nazis. Let them know they aren't the only ones with guns and unlike most of them we go to the range. Let them know if they wear iron crosses and shit they're getting kicked the fuck out. Fuck them, and let them know we'd be happy to fuck em up if they want to give us the opportunity.
I'm generally anti-violence myself, but I'm also a large guy so I'm lucky enough to be able to avoid it. I can't bring myself to be a pacifist though. Knocking some kid around is easy come take a swing at me and see how it goes. Shrug
I'm not a naturally violent person and thankfully haven't found myself in a position where I've needed to defend myself or others from neo-nazis. But I'm sure I would if it came to it. Neo-nazis are few and far between in my country, but if I seen one get a kicking I wouldn't be standing in to help them.
Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.
I don't think it's a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.
However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:
-
Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.
-
Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn't gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.
-
Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.
So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.
So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I've become fond of the concept of "armed nonviolent defense." An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.
This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding "correct" usages of violence and non violence doesn't extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.
-
An actual, real, self-confessed, Hitler-loving Nazi? Yes. I’d punch them until my arm fell off and then I’d borrow my friend’s arm to punch them some more…
For all I care nazis could be hunted for sport. The problem is, neither I nor other people should decide who 'deserves' violence and who doesn't. I'm not holding it against anyone to punch nazis, but I'd only do it to defend myself or others.
In a youtube video by Matt Baume, he discussed two types of protestors against offensive gay representation in the media.
The first group was loud and disruptive. One guy broke into the news room and yelled over the anchor about the injustice. Another guy handcuffed himself to a camera. It was a problem that could shut down production entirely.
The second group was calm and willing to negotiate. However, the only reason they were listened to by the networks was because of the first group. They even had whistles to ruin the filming if they weren't listened to. But they were, and filming went without a hitch after that.
It's not the peaceful path, but some people don't want the peaceful path. They want violence. Give them more violence than they can handle (or at least the threat of it) until they beg for peace, THEN take the peaceful path.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Personally I believe violence should only be used in defense of self or innocent people around you from imminent threats, never otherwise. Use words to fight words, use ideas to fight ideas, use fists to fight fists, guns to fight guns or knives. Straight pacifism to the degree of foregoing defense seems naive to me, but so does using violence for anything but defense from violence.
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
This line of reasoning kind of falls apart when you deal with someone that doesn't act on good faith. For example you can pioneer democracy and the will of the people and then let 10% of radical people use propaganda to brainwash 41% of normal people to take over the government and then basically breakapart the foundations of democracy and people's rights. The end result is a democratic path to the end of democracy and a worse situation for everyone involved. There's a reason people say you can't be tolerant of anti-tolerance.
don't use violence, if you value your life. violence is for idiots.
there's the tolerance paradox: you should use the least amount of violence that keeps society (and your own life) stable.
Depends on how much of a threat they are. Some random loser on /pol/ who will never leave their basement in order to harm anyone is probably not worth punching. But someone like Richard Spencer, who has a lot of reach and influence as a big name, I'll gleefully watch that one clip over and over with popcorn at the ready.
I suppose the more difficult question to ask is where to draw the line in between.
Hey, you guys are going Nazi punching? Can I join?
Fyi, from what I've read anarchists reject the cookbook and interpret it as being pro-government while also having inaccurate and dangerous recipes. There are better resources for the latter (including official military handbooks), while the former encourages people to roll over and take whatever abuse they're handed.
When it comes to punching Nazis, would I actually do it IRL? I'm not sure. It'd probably depend on whether I'm in a "fuck it, we ball" kinda mood or not. If I am, then I'm absolutely going to try and wreck the Nazi to the best of my ability. They might not get back up. If not, then I'd probably just roll my eyes, lose a little more faith in humanity, and keep going.
What you need to realize is that the Nazi would absolutely do the same to you, possibly worse, if given the chance; and people are too busy to research every single person they come across and are too desensitized to respond to "he's literally a Nazi" (America's right wing did a great job of painting "Nazi" as being meaningless in a modern context). That makes it very easy for them to lie to the general population about their goals.
Look at how far Trump and Vance have gotten. They literally support Nazis and Klansmen (Ku Klux Klan), yet people seemed to actually believe that Biden was as bad as Trump. It wasn't until Trump started talking about Hatians eating pets at a national debate that people stopped and were like, "damn, what the fuck?"
What if he hadn't though? What if he'd managed to keep his cool and pretend to be normal? The thing that scares me is that I think he might still have a chance, simply because I think the recent debate may have inspired false confidence in Democrats.
Nazis, Klansmen, bigoted institutions in general, will take a mile if you give them an inch, and proceed to wrap it around your neck and hang you from a tree with it; and they're very good at getting what they want because they'll literally eat shit if they believe it'll help them win. They believe utopia is achieved through oppression and mass murder; wouldn't you do anything you can to achieve utopia if you think it's in arms reach, especially when the path is obvious thanks to the efforts of prior fascists?
That's why you punch Nazis. That's why people say that the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. A Nazi's idea of utopia is forged with blood and torment; and they're willing to do anything to make it a reality.
Not very many I bet since everyone is an internet tough guy, I never actually fought in my life.
Anarchism isn't non-violent. To assume anti-oppression and pacifism are one and the same is to make the same mistake Engels makes in On Authority.
Authority is violent, but violence is not authority.
Edit: on this topic I'd recommend Anark's video on Power, where he explains that anarchism seeks to create a horizontal power structure. It is not the absence of power structures, it displaces oppressive power structures with egalitarian ones.
The most serious. I will go to court over it.
Download for the version OP mentioned, from Internet Archive. Had to shorten it:
Be safe out in them streets ☮️
The one thing fascists can't stand is to be laughed at. Don't take them seriously - laugh at them and it hits harder than a gut punch.
Very
I can only imagine punching as a preventive/retaliatory act. Of note, I have met many people who went down an alarming path who would nevertheless not themselves wish a fly grief. However, I should note that in Nazi Germany, violence and even murder was "legal" as long as the violent person didn't beat around the bush in doing the act.
Nonviolence is a lofty, and unattainable ideal. Unless you can create something that prevents violence in an absolute, physical sense or can successfully breed out the sadistic elements of humanity it will forever be subject to the whims of charismatic violent people. World history, at least from the perspective of governing authority, is nothing but physical and psychological violence.
The Buddhists would tell you that life is duhkah (suffering). Trying to force any order onto only increases suffering. The french existentialists would tell them that the only thing you can do about it is to laugh in the face of the absurdity of existence. Then they'd go to a bar and the buddhists would watch the existentialists drink themselves to oblivion respectfully and with a detached interest.
Anarchism, nonviolence, and philosophy in general, rarely align with your subjective lived experience. The best way to deal with Nazis is not to punch them, but to live your life the best you can and try to have as much fun with other humans as is possible. If you engage with them on their terms, those of violence and hate, they've already won. Hug a nazi, especially if you're part of a demographic they hate. Treat them like you would a slow child. Education, empathy, and kindness beat the nazi next door. Unfortunately though once they establish their fourth Reich like it seems they are close to, you have to wield collective hard power (tanks, predator drones, and boots on the ground).
You, the human reading this, will accomplish nothing by punching a nazi, hug them or ignore them until it's time to fight them collectively.
I've never seen one but I tell you what, if I see one, I will beat the living fuck outa em
2020 was a glorious year for punching fascists.
Ill put it like this, im serious enough about it that this is as much of it I'd ever say on the internet.
You could try laughing at them instead, but maybe then they start the punching.
I think it varies a lot by the user. I think (hope) most people are just joking, but I'm sure we have a number of people who aren't joking.
But also keep in mind we absolutely have propaganda bots and trolls here. They're quite good at directing the hivemind, even without the assistance of complete loons.
Well I signed a contract with Uncle Sam to do so just like dad and grandpa, so about as serious as Steve Rogers. Unfortunately it seems like the threat is coming from inside the country now so it’s a little more murky but if you’re wearing a swastika I will absolutely give you free dental work. Fuck Nazis
A general Fruit punch is usually the safest bet, as it is a universal tasty refreshing treat, but the flavor can be altered for the fascists in any given area. Try finding the most popular local fruits for your region and emphasize those. The next big consideration is should it be alcoholic or nonalcoholic, and this again varies enormously but I would urge you to go the nonalcoholic route, as some fascists may be sensitive to social pressures to imbibe when they don't yet feel perfectly comfortable.
I took a class on nonviolent protest in college. Covered the lives and work of ghandi, MLKJ, thoreau. Very enlightening.
Im much rather punch/kick pedos and rapists but yea sure I'll punch a nazi ig(?)
I am a pacifist. I would not punch anybody unprovoked. Provocation would mean a situation in which I have to physically protect myself or someone else.
If you're punching with you fist, you are probably punching wrong.
I see some of that rhetoric and I think it's mostly the younger folks. The virility of youth combined with the challenges they are faced with leave everyone more on edge. There are other factors of course, lack of wisdom, Internet anonymity, etc
I don't think violence is a useful tool when fighting against hate groups. It's what they want. Then they have a claim that they are oppressed. You let them make the first move.
That being said, I'm ready to fight back against them at a moment's notice and will use all means. I see the luxuries most of us enjoy (food, electricity, clean water) and hope it never comes to that for all our sake. Our just-in-time economy depends on stability and COVID showed us how easily it can all get fucked up. Out of control violence is one of those ways.
I'm convinced a lot of those "punch a Nazi" people just wanted an excuse to be violent, and just joined the movement because it gave them an excuse to be violent. In another universe they are joining those three percenter militias.
I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can't imagine how it wouldn't make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there's clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn't get him to shut up. Maybe there's situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it's some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.
They are not jokes. People here really don't see a problem with violence, unless it against "the bad guys". It's sickening.
Its something people say to feel powerful and punk. Most of the people saying it couldn't snap a twig let alone throw a punch.
Its similar to the fat boomers on the right who say they are ready to go to war.
If they were serious about it I do think it would hurt their cause given how easy it is these days to take an event and spin a narrative out of it.