EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
657 points (70.5% liked)
Memes
45646 readers
1114 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get your point and Im not saying we should simply allow neo-Nazi's to say and do what they want. I'm saying that assaulting them without any other reason but then "being" a neo-Nazi is bad.
First off, people saying "punch a Nazi!" are the same kind of people nthst happily call you a Nazi the second you disagree with them on anything. So with that, their "punch a Nazi" actually means "punch anybody disagreeing with me". People like that are closer to neo-Nazi's than they think, chekc horseshoe theory.
Second: I'd rather talk and reason with someone who is full of hate than pushing then further and deeper into their hatred. These people will still be around tomorrow. They'll still be in our stores, or schools, our bars... I want these people to hate lessz not more the vast majority of them are just followers going with shit they got from Facebook, some personal bad experiences, shit they learned from their parents, etc. It's not easy to talk with them, make them understand that hey have warped view of the world, but if at the end of the conversation they see even a tiny about of light, it was worth it.
Third: I've talked with too many people saying anything like "punch a Nazi" who then went on to claim that I was a Nazi bevaut I disagreed with them. It's kind of point one but it bares repeating: violence is bad.
I agree that attempts at enlightenment should always be the default option. Not least because of the passage I purposely quoted along, that separating first and second degree of intolerance is an intractable problem.
I get your point that being called a Nazi while you are not isn't fun. This rhetorical move is known as a "Totschlagargument" in Germany by the way (literally translated: manslaughter argument, i.e. it kills discussion). Maybe don't throw out the baby with the bathwater though, and keep your only way of effectively resisting against them, abhorrent though it may be.
Case in point...
These sentences are literally applicable to historical Nazis, just replace Facebook with pamphlets and radio. And this is the sense in which I mean that their ideology is far from dead, there are plenty of people that espouse fascism in general or Nazism (as in national socialism) specifically today. They all have their subjective reasons and none of them matter in the end, because their conclusion is fascism, an inherently inhumane ideology.
So what if they don't, if they remain blind in the face of the light that is humanism? If they remain intolerant even after being confronted with the error of their ways? I'd argue, and you would seem to agree, that violence is the only real option left in that case, because the other option is surrendering society to them and their misguided ideology. These people can vote, Hitler was elected by people such as this. Some of them are in positions of power right now.
So to extend your conclusion: Violence is bad, but it is also necessary sometimes. As a last resort, yes, but still.
Veering off to what you said earlier and expanded on in a sibling comment:
Sorry, but this is just wrong. Denazification in Germany stopped pretty much with the upper echelons being brought to justice in the Nuremberg trials. Both German states had a metric shit-ton of actual Nazi war criminals in their administration, because they needed administrators due to the cold war shifting geopolitical priorities, and they had to use the ones available. There was a criminal trial against a former concentration camp secretary happening last year (because there is no statute of limitations on genocide, she was 17 at the time apparently), although given her age and health it might indeed have been the last one of those. But over the decades the career of quite a lot of high-ranking German officials stumbled upon their past as Nazis, on either side of the iron curtain. They weren't magically exterminated on victory day, quite the opposite actually, many found their way into the power structures of the victors, sometimes poisoning them from within.
And there are literal Nazis in the current generations too, here in Germany as well as abroad. People who espouse Mein Kampf and all that kind of shit. Who say Hitler was right. Granted, the general movement mostly mutated into a white supremacy idea rather than the "Arian" (i.e. German) people being the master race, so maybe not all of them are Nazis in the strictest sense of the word, "Nazi Classic" if you will; But the ideology is there, it's fascist, and many of them worship actual fucking Nazis and follow their ideals.
And while all of those people already deserve to be fucking punched just by virtue of being whatever somewhat coherent definition of Nazi you may apply, for many of them it's also the only recourse you have, because words will simply not convince them.
So in conclusion "punch a Nazi" is a valid statement of political discourse in my opinion, as long as it uses an appropriate definition of what a Nazi is (i.e. a fascist, racist, national socialist, etc. pp.). Notwithstanding the fact that you were apparently mislabelled as one in some online discussion.
Okay, thoughtful argument but still...
Who gets to decide when to use violence then? For what reason? When is it okay and when is it not? What is the line? And aren't you sweet talking vigilantism here? Because you are.
We both literally are saying that violence is okay in certain cases. I say it's okay when someone attacks me. I defend myself with violence because there literally is no other option.
You say it's okay when people have opinions that you disagree with. Granted, those options are really very shitty opinions, but they're that: opinions. This person you'll be punching hasn't hit you, hasn't attacked you. He said or displayed things you don't like.
So where is the line? You can punch him if he displays a swastika? How about me displayjng a swastika, you punch me and oops, it's a religious symbol from India...
Who gets to decide who to punch? WHO?
this is why we have a legal system and this is why we don't live in an anarchy. We live in a civilized society.
You. Do. Not. Punch. People. It doesn't matter if they got shit opinions or not.
Lastly, if you still disagree, then go out and punch a Neo Nazi. Heck, kill one, must feel good!
Then you get arrested and a judge (and depending on the country, jury of your peers) will throw your ass in jail because you are a criminal.
Congrats, you made a neo nazi a victim and yourself a criminal.
Well thanks, however this compliment seems a bit like a poisoned chalice considering the rest of your replies.
We have been through this, the line is that it has to be a last resort. FYI, this concept is literally enshrined in our constitution:
No, I say it's okay when people have opinions that are a clear and present danger to a tolerant society. Again, we have been over this, it's know as the paradox of tolerance. What these people do is attack civil society by abusing its rules, and you seem to propose we let them without keeping violence as a last resort, except for immediate self-defence of your person. Saying for example that all Jews or Muslims should be killed or that refugees deserve no asylum is technically an opinion, but it is also an attack on human rights and civil society. And you should stand up to that, if you deem it necessary with violence.
And yes, answering intolerance with intolerance seems like circular logic, because it is. That's why it's called a paradox. But IMHO you should consider that we are talking about something where our language, also a system of circular logic by the way, breaks down.
Well this one is easy in Germany at least, because it's literally illegal. I'll report them to police and they will get up to three years in prison for it pursuant to § 86a of the criminal code (display of anti-constitutional symbols).
Those are usually turned the other way and not displayed at a 45° angle. Nazi iconography is in most cases clearly distinguishable from Hindu and Shinto iconography, and if it's not you can ask first. I will say however that when you claim to display an Asian religious symbol while being white, having a shaved head, wearing a bomber jacket and jump boots, I'm not inclined to believe you.
Doesn't matter for my locale though, people here usually chose to just not display it outside of temples to avoid this obvious misunderstanding.
The one doing the punching. If it was justified will be decided by the courts, as you said. And yeah, unless you have a very good reason you will probably be convicted of assault, since the state claims a monopoly on violence. However some would argue, including me, that sometimes the only way to defend the existence of civil society lies outside its rules. It's called civil disobedience.
Yeah ok, first off the time frame and circumstances are a little different here. The Roman Empire and the samurai caste have been gone a bit longer than Nazi Germany. Every single member of those organisations is long dead. This is not the case for Nazis, and they had ample opportunity to pass on their ideology to later generations, which they did. There aren't, to my knowledge, any large groups of people self-identifying as Roman legionaries or samurai, except for LARPing purposes. There are however a lot of them seriously self-identifying as Nazis. I don't see what you or I would gain by denying that they are.
Secondly, to classify them as neo-Nazis instead of actual Nazis, and maintaining that there is a relevant difference in that regarding their level of intolerance towards other groups is bonkers. In context, i.e. whether they present a clear and present danger to civil society, it's a distinction without a difference. And if you want to hold on to this ridiculous premise this entire discussion is kind of pointless.
You seem to be of the persuasion that liberal democracies aren't endangered by fascism or other forms of totalitarianism anymore, I fail to see why that would be the case. On the contrary, history teaches us that this is a constant danger. There is a reason the principle of defensive democracy was made into law by a lot of nations after the second world war.
It also leads to Nazis being punched. I don't think we will reach agreement on this, so thanks for the - mostly - respectful discussion. At the risk of being accused of using dumb slogans again, I'll leave you with a quote from a German pastor who was put into the concentration camps for his believes:
Nazi's exist as much as roman legionaries exist. The Roman Empire is gone and so is Nazi Germany. That somebody would love to be one is a different thing. I'd love to be a samurai but those too no longer exists. Slapping a label on it doesn't change that. I can dress up and play one but that's not the same. There are neo-Nazi's out there for sure, wannabees. There are no Nazi's.
Having said that.
I've spend quite some time arguing with people that punching a Nazi is bad for a long list of reasons. I suddenly get the idea that I'd love to see any of you walk up to a group of neo Nazi's and punch one of them. Let's see if you still think it's such a get idea. I feel like a lot of you are armchair heroes, sorry.
But to the point: we live in a civil society. We have a justice system. You punch a Neo Nazi and it's assault and battery and depending on injuries you likely will go to jail. Congrats, you made a neo nazi a victim and yourself a violent criminal. Great work.
Stop with the dumb slogans. Everybody knows that Nazi's were bad and "punch a Nazi" only leads to assholes calling others they don't like Nazi's.