3 ms·
> "Punching Nazis" is a way to signal to them that their ideology is not welcome in the public sphere, to keep them quiet and afraid. Oh, I see. This isn't re
by throw10920 4y ago
> "Punching Nazis" is a way to signal to them that their ideology is not welcome in the public sphere, to keep them quiet and afraid.
Oh, I see.
This isn't really about Nazi's.
This is about coming up with a label for your political opponents in order to justify violently attacking them and subverting due process.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoYou elided the next sentence: "But it doesn't solve anything." which completely inverts the meaning of the sentence you quoted.
- throw10920 4y agoYou elided a sentence right before: "Punching Nazis is a minor control mechanism: it silences the danger without amplifying its speech." ...which legitimizes the use of violence against "Nazi's" for whatever value you assign to that. Your quoted fragment just disclaims the effectiveness, while the article still clearly supports the idea.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoThe article is saying that there are more effective ways of combatting Nazi-ism than violence. That is an argument against violence.
- Ancapistani 4y agoI got the complete opposite from the article. The very next sentence is: > Historically, there has been exactly one solution for Nazis. It did not come cheap. I read that as “punching Nazis isn’t enough on its own, you must kill them until they can no longer act effectively against you, then outlaw their ideology.”
- illuminerdy 4y ago""Nazi" is not a slur, and it should not be used for anyone who does not advocate those ideas. But it should be used for those who do. And for those: no peace, no sympathy, no quarter, and no mercy." Yeah...I don't think we read the same article.
- binbashthefash 4y agoThe article is very much about Nazis.