Ask Lemmy

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."

I've never punched anyone and I don't plan to start.

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.

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'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.

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.

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…

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

The anarchists cookbook is 99% misinformation, and outdated on top.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They are not jokes. People here really don't see a problem with violence, unless it against "the bad guys". It's sickening.