The problem with injuring Nazis is that they tend to just recover, and then go back to doing Nazi shit.
There was a pretty extensive study done from 1939 to 1945 on how to best deal with Nazis; for best outcomes, I’d refer to the results and testing techniques uncovered then.
If only they’d applied the lesson more thoroughly.
Too many of the wealthy nazis were let go to relocate to other parts of the world and continue their nazi bullshit. Hopefully next time that mistake isn’t repeated.
Too many of the wealthy Nazis lived in the United States and were never even in danger.
At least one of them may have been killed by a distant relative of mine. That or he did a fucken hate crime against some Prussian dude.
Well, TIL: hate crimes are cool sometimes.
I aint saying hate crimes are cool. My family legit doesnt know. If it was a Prussian Nazi then you basically killed the worst type of German that isnt an inbred mountain dweller. If it was just some Prussian exile then that relative just killed some dude for being a Prussian instead of an Alemanni speaker.
Okay, so hate crimes are maybe good sometimes. The nuance is appreciated.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
The 1911 is still the preferred method, be sure to clean and oil it regularly.
See, I’m not sure I agree. I’m an aggressively terrible shot.
Put enough of em in front of you and that doesn’t matter (☞゚ヮ゚)☞
That’s valid, empowering, and demoralizing-all at the same time. Thank you.
The universe has been around for 14 billion years, and I got to share this moment out of all 14 billion of those years with you.
Remember that (☞゚ヮ゚)☞
two world wars boomer ass take. we have better options than your john browning .45 stoppan power target pistol bullshit. the czechoslovakians have provided! get with the times!
Killing creates killing but apparently exit programs do work
But at least in Germany the main reasons for people to join exit programs are:
- relationship with people from a different „race“
- fear of violence from political opponents
- violence between neonazis
One could definitely argue that some sort of light violence towards fascists is self-defense which has a chance to lead towards exit programs. Killing on the other hand causes a lot more issues.
I agree. Killing a nazi only causes more problems. You will be hunted by both the police and his fellow neonazis and they can and will use it for propaganda.
Killing a nazi only causes more problems.
“Kill Nazis” is a keyboard commando response to a more complex problem.
When your police departments and state legislatures and churches and clubs and mega-corps are all riddled with fascist partisans, there’s no magic bullet that makes them all go away. At some level, you need to cultivate relationships in your community. You need to be friends with your neighbors. You need to be able to find allies in these corrupted institutions who are open to reform. You need to be able to reach out to the lumpen proletariat - the unemployed, the homeless, the young and afraid - and bring them into your community to reinforce it.
Only when you’ve got a community that’s strong enough and unified enough to take on the fascist elements can you seriously talk about purging its worst elements. And once you’ve done the yeoman’s work of organizing your neighborhood for people’s mutual benefit, I think you’ll find a lot of that fascist sentiment melts away of its own accord - perhaps even transforms into revolutionary sentiment, as your neighbors stop seeing one another as evil outsiders and start seeing them as comrades.
That sounds like a lot of effort. It’s easier and makes me feel better to just type “kill the nazis!” on my keyboard after I get home from my 9-5 shithole job that has made me hate my fellow human, and then slowly accelerate towards a hellscape of my own making, bitching the whole way down.
So I generally agree with your sentiment, but after a certain point they’re just lost. And at thatbpoknt I genuinely believe the only cure is a bullet (magic not required, but you might need a few)
Sure. But ideally you can marginalize the folks who are batshit
police and fellow neonazis
I feel like that’s redundant.
No. Getting caught by other nazis causes issues, and their murder clearance rates are notoriously bad, so…
How dare you propose a non-violent solution? Don’t you know nazis are the only violent ideologists that are incorrigible and need be killed? We should build camps for them or something…
Kill and killer and the number of killers stays the same. Kill a hundred killers and the number drops by 99. My ancestors had a lot of blood on their hands, I hope to get mine share with a damned good Casus Belli.
“I hope I will have to go to war” is such a 14-year-old take
I dont want war. I want bloodshed that would equal my ancestors. The type where you butcher the slaver side of ones family. Or shoot a lawman for raping a younger cousin. Or killing Mormons for being cattle stealing cultists. I want mine just cause.
You want to kill people first and are looking for a cause second. Cringe edgelord.
I am glad people like you don’t have any real powers in the real world.
You don’t need a state to give you permission for a just cause, idiot.
Did I say fuck all about a state. I listed actions done by my ancestors which had fuck all to do with states.
I’m saying youre looking for cassus belli, that’s a state thing. I’m saying john brown this shit. Except for the last part. Don’t copy the last part.
Well hey, pad your resumè for jsoc with a shit ton of cardio and keeping your local community fasch-free, but quietly.
Definitely. The study wasnt entirely ethical, but the data from Dresden shows pretty clearly.
It still makes me giggle that the far right chose “Antifa” as their boogeyman. You can ask any of them what it stands for, half of which just say radical liberals that are trying to take over America. Then tell them it means anti-fascist, ask them what from with being against fascism, and then watch their heads spin while glowing red. Good times.
I think this is better presented as:
“Oh wait you are FOR fascism?”
“No I’m just against antifa.”
“There is no like, regulating body for this ‘antifa’. It’s just what the fascists labeled anyone who isn’t supporting fascism. If you aren’t a fascist, then you are antifa.”
Lol I have to say that I’ve never actually met anyone that claims to be affiliated with Antifa. Plenty Proud Boys and the like, but I’m convinced Antifa is a borderline myth.
I’m a lieutenant commander in the Western Corps of the Antifa International Brigade, nice to meet you!
There’s the occasional street fight that breaks out between them and the proud boys from time to time.
I’ve met a couple. Cool dudes, a few loose screws. They have a compound where they make their own ammo.
I think anyone attracted to the prospect of violence is a bit of a dick by definition.
deleted by creator
We get a new word for “people I don’t like” every five years. Almost like its some kind of marketing gimmick that a handful of right-wing news outlets cook up in a think tank back room and then roll out as a fashion statement.
Antifa, Marxist, Leftist, Wumao, Tree Hugger, F-ggot, N-, the terms echo through history.
ask them what from with being against fascism
Well, everyone knows that Fascism is when you’re a National Socialist. And that means the Real Fascists are Socialists, which is what the Antifa are, which means Antifa means Fascist.
As a True Patriot, I’m standing up against your evil foreign mind virus by speaking the Secret Truth that They Don’t Want You To Know. And that Secret Truth that nobody will let you say is how Middle Aged Wealthy White Men are the natural leaders of society who make everything better. When they’re not in charge, when they’re not in control of ever facet of socio-economic policy, when they’re not in a position of Strength and Pride, the country goes to shit. And that’s when the Antifa Fascists come crawling out of the woodwork to spread the disease of dissent and rebellion against the Natural Order.
You either let good Christian American Men lead this country to its inevitable Utopian Future, or I have every right to murder you in self defense. That’s what it means to be Against Fascism. So are you with us, or are you with the terrorists?
And everyone clapped
THE ENEMY CANNOT SHITPOST IF YOU DISABLE HIS HAND!
Mr. Crabs no!
I hate this moment, in the book a completely different point was made - that it doesn’t make any fscking sense to nuke everything around you, because warfare is a tool in politics, a means of persuasion.
Ironic of you to post a meme with quasi-fasscists in an antifa meme.
is not spotting irony when it’s insanely obvious also irony? the book is arguable, but the movie is absolutely satirical and Paul Verhoeven has been very clear that both it and Robocop were meant to be taken as kindred films satirizing fascism at home and abroad.
I want gas to be cheaper so I can burn them all
Get them hot enough in a no oxygen environment to make biochar and then bury them
Sequester the Nazis
Maybe butane?
I’ll allow the use of butane to burn Nazis. Those bastards aren’t worthy of being burned by the majesty of propane.
I am a fake Nazi on Facebook to befriend other Nazis and report their Nazi shit and get them banned. I will say they die young a LOT. It’s the meth.
Only the bastard gas for Nazis.
I feel like we should avoid using gas in any of our ways of dealing with them.
Maybe napalm?
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster…
YO FUCK THAT NAZI LETS SET HIM ON FIRE
-MLK
YO FUCK THAT MLK GUY LET’S HAVE HIM ASSISSINATED
- The CIA
Saving the planet means wanting cheaper electricity for electrocution.
That’s a big different between the left and the right.
The right want certain people to have certain basic rights.
The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.
That’s why I call myself “so far left I got my guns back”. Even though I have no guns. If wanting everyone to have their needs met is anything other than basic human decency I don’t know what you’d call it.
Conservatives are just mean people with nothing better to do than hurt others. Like people who pull wings off bugs.
You should uhhhhh
Get some guns
Unless that’s illegal in your country… Because that means you’re probably okay in November if things go fashy elsewhere.
I live in Canada and guns aren’t really a thing here. But when we have an election I might get some because I loathe conservatives.
My formerly conservative mother is becoming more and more “apolitical”, because the right often wants to do things solely for the sake of hurting others, and the “reasons” looking more and more like just excuses to her my bullies made up to justify their actions.
This is obviously wrong.
First, equality in rights is not a left\right thing in the modern sense of “left” and “right”. Historically yeah, it was - when “right” meant parties of aristocracy and “left” meant parties of bourgeoisie, with peasantry split between them.
Second, humans in general very rarely actually mean it when they say something like that quote by Voltaire about free speech.
Third - I take it Khmer Rouge, DPRK, Soviet Union, Kuba under Fidel etc were all right dictatorships.
Four - it’s really funny when leftists act as if they’ve successfully managed to unload NSDAP into pockets of the “right”.
Have fun with what Hitler said to Strasser (amongst other things).
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert
https://jacobin.com/2020/10/nazi-socialism-rand-paul-strasser-hitler
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/putting-the-nazis-were-socialist-nonsense-to-rest/
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Also, can you tell me the very first line of the “first they came for the…” poem by Martin Neimöller? Who was it that the Nazis first came for? Go ahead and look it up, I’ll wait.
Not being Marxist doesn’t mean not being socialist.
Go ahead and look it up, I’ll wait.
I remember most banalities without looking up.
Also it’s Niemöller.
Not being Marxist doesn’t mean not being socialist.
Cool. You barely looked at the links.
Now, let’s look at two definitions of socialism.
Which specific means of production were community-owned and/or community-regulated in Nazi Germany?
I remember most banalities without looking up.
Also it’s Niemöller.
So why do you think he said that the Nazis first came for the socialists if that wasn’t true?
The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.
Does the left believe those they hate should have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers?
Sure doesn’t look like it in here, lol.
Tolerance is a social contract upheld by all who are tolerant. If someone violates that social contract, say, a nazi, then they are not governed by the social contract.
One cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Intolerance must be met with expulsion and force to maintain a civil society.
That means you, get off Lemmy.
Intolerance does not require violence. Equivocating a lack of on-sight violence with tolerance/advocacy is absurd.
So, no. You don’t believe that is a right. Rights are things that apply to all people at all times, you know. If you believe certain people do not have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers, then you do not believe in that right, period.
Thanks for pointing out that “The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.” is a lie.
The distinction is that everyone has a right to defense, not to “never get punched no matter what”. If someone is running at you with a spear, then you’re entitled to defend yourself before the spear actually impales you. The same goes for credible threats to genocide your people.
One does not need to be a pacifist in order to respect the rights of others.
Your user history is disgusting. You’re constantly contentious. You pick fights with others, ask them to cite behaviors you have or haven’t exhibited. No one is gonna do homework for a bad faith actor. I would be surprised if you had any friends who would willingly talk to you in real life.
And yeah, if you got hit out there in real life, I would laugh while you would rub your jaw. I celebrate nazis getting hit.
That’s the kind of person you are.
You could change, but we both know you’re not going to.
You’re just gonna keep on playing your slimy little cryptofascist game, and try to trick people who don’t see your shenanigans.
And you will never ever enjoy the comforts of a sincere human relationship.
Your user history is disgusting. You’re constantly contentious.
I disagree with things when I have good reason to, and I back up every position I take. That’s more than I can say for you. And your type is always the first/only to lob personal insults, in response to your position(s) being challenged, making this accusation a particularly amusing bit of projection.
You pick fights with others
Correcting a false statement is not picking a fight. It only seems that way to people so embroiled in identity politics that they’ve lost the ability to distinguish between a challenge to their politics/assumptions, and a personal attack.
No one is gonna do homework for a bad faith actor.
I’ve not asked anyone to ‘do homework’.
I would be surprised if you had any friends who would willingly talk to you in real life.
That must be because your definition of “friend” is ‘someone who agrees with me on everything and never contradicts me’, and you’re projecting that onto me, after I’ve demonstrated the willingness to engage someone in disagreement.
I have plenty of friends. I don’t require my friends to agree with me–I welcome challenges to any positions I hold, that’s how they get corrected/revised/strengthened over time. The only prerequisite is that the challenge must be of substance–if it’s standard ideologue far of emotional arguments, or just repeating talking points you’ve done no original thinking about, you’re not going to get anywhere with someone who actually uses their brain.
I get the distinct impression you’ve never “steelmanned” an argument in your life.
And yeah, if you got hit out there in real life, I would laugh while you would rub your jaw.
This makes you a bad person, objectively.
I celebrate nazis getting hit.
I’d rather strike the ideology than the individual, especially given what I’ve learned in my research about how ‘punching Nazis’ literally helps them in the long term. (see the comment I posted immediately prior to this for details/citations)
That’s the kind of person you are.
It’s truly indicative of your political extremism that you’re labeling me a Nazi, just for contrdicting you.
You could change, but we both know you’re not going to.
I’ve changed my positions many times over the years. Thing is, it requires a challenge of substance to do so. Lobbing personal insults and calling people Nazis for having the temerity to contradict you? Well, that ain’t it, sunshine.
And you will never ever enjoy the comforts of a sincere human relationship.
This really is pathetic, you know? To create this ridiculous fantasy in your mind about how, since I’ve contradicted you, I must be the biggest loser you can conceive of. Extra little bit of irony is that I received one of my SO’s frequent (we’re both on the mushy side, I’ll admit) expressions of love, just as I was reading the above sentence.
Now, just because it’s funny to me, I’m going to show you my political compass and 8values test results, knowing you will have no idea how to integrate the absurd assumptions you’ve made about me, with them. I predict you’ll accuse them of being fabricated; after all, denial is generally the easiest way to hide from inconvenient truth.
https://i.imgur.com/ra1ix0n.png
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=61.5&d=60.6&g=64.5&s=75.2Rich white boy with ADHD detected. Dude was right and your paragraphs are actually proving his point about your post history. What’s it like being a “nuh-uh” parrot?
Rich white boy with ADHD detected.
“I’m racist, classist, and as a bonus, also bigoted against those with mental illness” is not the comeback you think it is.
I’m correct, you know it, and you’re mad about it. That’s why you insult me instead of pointing out a single flaw in anything I said.
write me a better essay next time
Intolerance of the intolerant is the cornerstone of protecting one’s freedoms.
Intolerance does not require violence, so your insinuation that a lack of physical assault constitutes tolerance is not, at all, a counter-argument.
Does a nazi being assaulted bother you? If a nazi doesn’t want to be assault by decent people then they shouldn’t be a nazi. Tolerating a nazi is advocating for genocide.
Arguing that there is no spectrum between full-fledged advocacy and on-sight violence is quite foolish.
Intolerance does not require violence. That is why in any modern society, criminals are imprisoned, not beaten to death by a public mob.
Curious that there is a Nazi problem in almost every modern society then isn’t it…
Of course there’s a spectrum, I never said we had to beat all of them to death. But anyway society is too tolerant of nazis, which is why they are embedded in police and political positions, they aren’t imprisoned enough, so in the mean time they can get punched by decent people if they want to be open nazis.
in the mean time they can get punched by decent people
No. That’s how society ultimately devolves into chaos. Setting a precedent of it being okay to just attack people on the street based on their politics is a very dangerous one. Think about what position you’d be in if your politics were the minority, and this ‘it’s fine to beat up people with politics I don’t like’ idea was actually firmly in place.
Again, you can be extremely intolerant of Nazism and similar disgusting ideologies without physical violence. Do not conflate intolerance with violence, nor a lack of violence with tolerance.
Also, below is detailed a more pragmatic reason for why ‘punching Nazis’ just straight up doesn’t ‘work’ long term, as a strategy for combatting Nazi ideology:
It may feel cathartic and satisfy primal urges for retribution, but in the long run, ‘punching Nazis’ doesn’t hurt the neo-nazi ideology, it helps it. Feeds the persecution complex, turns the guy you beat up who didn’t physically attack you first into their martyr. Gives them more fuel to rally around and further radicalize them into wanting revenge.
Prioritizing a cheap, temporary thrill over real, lasting change for the better is ultimately self-serving, and not in service of your cause; ironically, it completely undermines it.
On a purely pragmatic/practical level, it’s a bad idea, if your goal is to oppose Nazism.
Experts on extremism/terrorism etc. are all saying the exact same thing.
See for yourself: (emphasis added)
In the case of violent counterprotest tactics — e.g., punching Nazis — experts on extremism say it is likely only to aid the white supremacists’ cause.
The most commonly stated argument in favor of physically disrupting white-supremacist rallies is that society can’t give an iota of legitimacy to these groups. To allow them to spread their message of hate is to offer them a platform to recruit and to glorify their cause. What this logic leaves out is that it may well be the case that hate groups are better able to recruit and glorify their cause when they are able to engage in violence, regardless of how that violence starts, according to researchers in the field of countering violent extremism, or CVE.
“On the one hand, I don’t think these expressions should go unanswered,” David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, said of the recent white-supremacist gatherings. “But you’re essentially giving them exactly what they want when you try to confront them directly.” That’s because these groups’ efforts to recruit and mobilize supporters rely on a very specific strategy that benefits greatly from violent conflict.
In the U.S., explicitly white-supremacist groups know they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by everyone who hates them — their paltry numbers being an easy thing to forget in the age of social media and especially so this week, in the wake of a real-life white-supremacist murder. So their only hope for relevance is to maximize every potential bit of media coverage. And the best way to do this is to create media moments: scary, evocative images like the torch photos from last weekend, but also as many violently photogenic confrontations with counterprotesters as possible. Producing violence is an underlying, often unstated, goal of many white-supremacist protests and gatherings.
When violence does break out, videos of it race through the internet’s white-supremacist underbelly, serving as incredibly valuable PR material. It doesn’t matter who gets the better of a given confrontation: When the Nazis get punched, it’s “proof” that anti-fascists or liberals or [insert minority group] or whoever else did the punching have it in for “innocent white Americans just trying to protest peacefully.” When the Nazis punch back, it’s proof that their enemies are, to borrow a word from alt-right parlance, “cucks” who are easily bested in the streets. Even when white supremacists lose street fights, they win the long game.
This sort of tactic, said Jeffrey Kaplan, an academic researcher and the author of a number of books on terrorist movements, “is a constant in terrorism or any form of asymmetric warfare,” whether the group in question is jihadist or white supremacist or whatever else. Kaplan, who is an incoming professor at King Fahd Security College in Riyadh, summed up the extremists’ logic like this: “Our numbers are paltry, we are despised by our countrymen and we couldn’t get a date for the life of us, but any action that has enough impact to strike at the heart of the enemy by getting media coverage is a major triumph.” Violent confrontations allow extremists to make a tantalizing offer to the angry, disillusioned young men — they are almost entirely men — whom they hope to groom to become tomorrow’s haters and killers: We are part of a movement to change the world, as you can see from this latest video that movement is working, and you can be a part of it.
Schanzer laid out a fairly straightforward alternative: Counterdemonstrators should respond assertively, vociferously, and in far superior numbers — but at a distance from the extremists themselves. This tactic both prevents the sort of violent conflict American hate groups want, and has the added benefit of drawing at least some media and social-media attention away from the smaller hateful gathering and toward the much larger counterprotest.
“Violence directed at white nationalists only fuels their narrative of victimhood — of a hounded, soon-to-be-minority who can’t exercise their rights to free speech without getting pummeled.” “I would want to punch a Nazi in the nose, too,” Maria Stephan, a program director at the United States Institute of Peace, told him. “But there’s a difference between a therapeutic and strategic response.”
…when mouthpieces for white supremacist ideology are physically assaulted on camera, it becomes a powerful validation of their victimhood complex: in their minds, plain evidence that white people are indeed under attack, and motivation to spread a call to violent response with renewed zeal. This “punch felt round the world” was a great boost to the “alt-right” cause. If you aid and comfort neo-Nazis, which is exactly what punching them in the face does, you are no better than they are. Real life isn’t a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie.
When I was a neo-Nazi skinhead over 2 decades ago, I got beat up as often as I beat anyone else up. It never made me any less violent. In fact, we used to pile into vans and drive from Milwaukee to Chicago for the thrill of brawling fellow devotees of romantic violence like the guy throwing the punch in this video. We lived for violent opposition. We thrived on it. Violence of any sort, no matter how it may be rationalized, is the bread of hatred. We put mustard on that shit and gleefully gobbled it up and clamored for more.
Back in the 1930s, there were gangs of communists who routinely brawled the Nazi brownshirts in the streets of Germany. Their contemporaries would have us believe that if there were more communists who brawled harder than they did back then, that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. As a former neo-Nazi, I can attest to how important it is to have violent opposition in order to maintain the hatred necessary to hurt people. The communist gangs helped Hitler’s National Socialist party come to power not only by galvanizing their own members, but more importantly by serving as a crucial ingredient in the overall atmosphere of fear and loathing that led the German general public to look to the Nazi party for order.
I understand your view and there is merit to it. But it misses the point. It’s not ‘politics I don’t like’ in general, it’s naziism, the belief that some races are more deserving of life than others, aka dehumanization, and the belief that genocidal policies should be enacted to protect the ethnostate.
Society doesn’t tolerate a person threatening someone’s life with intent to carry out the threat, Naziism is an explicit threat to people’s lives and should be seen as such. I agree simply punching them isn’t the answer, but their beliefs should not be allowed to be espoused and must be resisted at every stage.
I literally disagree with none of this, except for the part where you say my view ‘misses the point’, since the point you’re providing in contrast literally is my point, lol.
Nazism and extremism of all types SHOULD be challenged and resisted, emphatically, at every opportunity. But it is not the place of random citizens to manifest that challenge in the form of violence. Nor does the evidence show that doing that is effective in reducing/eradicating the incidence of said extremist ideology in the population. In fact, the evidence clearly shows it does exactly the opposite.
We have to have the resolve to do what actually works, even if it doesn’t give the same instant gratification as it does to slug someone in the face who is says and believes shitty things.
Do you believe someone who wants en masse ethnic cleansing shouldn’t be physically assaulted by strangers?
If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers, then you, objectively, do not believe “everyone [should] have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.”, since being legally protected against such assault is one such “basic right”, in all modern societies.
So, if you’re on the left, as I presume you are, you are answering my question with a clear “no”, and proving that assertion to be a lie.
Rights are not conditional.
Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we’re past that, pal.
You shouldn’t be mistreated because of something you are. You shouldn’t be hated because of something intrinsic to you, like being a woman, loving your own gender, being a minority, or feeling like you don’t belong in your own body. You shouldn’t be singled out for choices you make that don’t harm others, such as what you believe or don’t believe in, as long as you don’t get it in your stupid head to force others to believe as you do. In short, you shouldn’t be punished for who you are.
But that doesn’t extend to those who choose to hate on others because they are cruel bastards who take pleasure in the pain of others. Fascists in general and Nazis in particular are the poster children for forcing others to believe as they do, and love punishing other people for who they are. Thus they are exempt from the rule ‘don’t punish people unless they are attacking others’…because they explicitly ARE attacking others. Since you don’t get this, you’re getting downvoted hard, as well you should.
Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we’re past that, pal.
Wrong. You can be intolerant without being violent. This ridiculous suggestion that if you aren’t physically beating people up, then you’re automatically tolerating, even advocating, their ideology, does not make any sense no matter how often you attempt this conflation.
I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.
If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers
You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea. If you and your friends plan to blow up a school, you may likely be assaulted by strangers (the police or other agents of the state, probably) if people find out.
Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.
It would be irrational, ahistorical, and generally a foolish idea to be like “we have to wait until he actually tries to murder someone before stopping his plans”.
Rights are not conditional.
This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.
Legal rights have a ton of conditions.
Other rights are poorly defined and are aspirational at best.
I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.
No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.
You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea.
Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.
Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.
Despite your violent fantasies, even if I conceded that, the response to such is arrest and imprisonment, not vigilante mob violence by random schmucks on the street.
Do you truly not understand the path you’re setting out on, once you start advocating for vigilantism?
The grand irony is that you’ve basically announced here that you’re willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!
This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.
Non sequitur? Following “the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate” with “the left do not believe some people deserve to have the basic right not to be assaulted” makes pointing out that rights are not conditional, VERY relevant.
It’d be more respectable if you simply admitted the hypocrisy, and that “the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate” is a straight-up lie.
Since you don’t seem to understand what “rights” are: if it doesn’t apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it’s not a “right”. Anything called a “right” that has conditions is not actually a right.
I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.
No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.
You seem awfully eager to defend nazis. If you were a nazi or closely allied, it would make sense for you to act as such. Thinking! Also you keep talking about “the left” as if you’re not a member, which sure makes you sound like a right-winger.
Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.
Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes. Perhaps in a perfect world, we could delegate to the state’s monopoly on force. But some of those who burn crosses, etc. Additionally, passive acceptance of nazis emboldens them and endangers everyone. So, no. Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to “yo i want to kill a whole lot of people” declarations.
The grand irony is that you’ve basically announced here that you’re willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!
It’s not unprovoked.
Since you don’t seem to understand what “rights” are: if it doesn’t apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it’s not a “right”. Anything called a “right” that has conditions is not actually a right.
That’s not how rights work. You have freedom of assembly, but you can’t parade into your neighbor’s bedroom at 3am. Rights intersect.
Also you’re being thoroughly savaged in the rest of these comments, and I have happier things to spend my time on.
You seem awfully eager to defend nazis.
I’m not defending Nazis, I’m attacking hypocrisy, and a particular type of which that is known to HELP Nazis (and any other extremists of the same type) in the long term. Experts on extremist movements agree on this, and even former members of such groups say it’s true. I’ve detailed all of this in a previous comment of mine, look under the break/line.
Also you keep talking about “the left” as if you’re not a member
I’m not. Most of my positions are left-wing, but I have no interest in considering myself a “member” of any political collective, and it’s precisely because of bullshit like this. I can espouse the values I believe in without having to be on a ‘team’. And doing so insulates me from being associated with the stupid shit my would-be ‘team’ does. It becomes an especially prudent tactic as collectives grow more radicalized, while I don’t.
I also hate stereotyping and generalizing, so collectivism in general puts me off.
Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes.
The proper response is still arrest, not vigilante violence from randoms.
Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to “yo i want to kill a whole lot of people” declarations.
Hard disagree. The evidence is clear–doing this is equivalent to prioritizing the dopamine rush that comes with feeling like you’re the hero beating up the villain, over the actual reduction of harmful ideologies. You feeling good is not more valuable than eliminating Nazism, sorry.
It’s not unprovoked.
Then neither is it when someone beats you up for advocating beating others up. You provoked them by saying you’re willing to attack them.
Look at the comment I linked. Read the account of the former white supremacist, especially. You are playing right into their hands. Stop being so gullible.
thoroughly savaged
Sticking fingers in ears and deciding I must be a Nazi, because you don’t like the facts, is only “savaged” in a deeply deluded mind.
So if someone threatens to burn down an orphanage while outside the orphanage screaming with cans of gasoline, should they be charged? Should they be put into jail? Because that’s the same free speech and free thought your advocating for and claiming the left is wrong for going in and beating the shit out of the dude. You’re delusional and possibly simply afraid of violence.
Sometimes, the appropriate response to a threat is to REMOVE the threat with copious violence. As in Enders Game, “I didn’t want to just win this fight, I wanted to win all the future fights too.” Paraphrasing a bit there but you want to tolerate hatred and evil, to let it fester. The only thing fascists understand is direct force, so we will show it to them.
Does the left believe those they hate should have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers?
You mean like this?
Or maybe like this?
Or maybe you mean like this?
What kind of idiotic response is this? This is basically what’s happened here:
Me: Do you/your ‘party’ believe X is wrong?
You: Look at these examples of people with different politics doing X!Who asked about those guys? I’m talking to you guys.
Fact 1: In all modern societies/civilizations, it is considered a basic right to not be physically assaulted by strangers.
Fact 2: Rights, by definition, are not conditional.
Fact 3: The assertion was made that “The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.”
So, I asked if the left adheres to the assertion in Fact 3 with respect to the right in Fact 1.
It’s a simple question. Can you answer it honestly?
I did answer it honestly. The honest answer is that it’s the right that have been regularly physically assaulting people… and approving of it.
Your question is what is dishonest because you must know that’s true.
deleted by creator
No, it doesn’t cancel out. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
deleted by creator
So, I was just on Reddit (I know) and it was pissing me off again because its a goddamn misogynist hellhole over there and I was like, “why the fuck am I here? I hate this place. Lemmy is always better.” Opened Lemmy up and this was on the top of my feed, which made me laugh and instantly feel better. Thank you!
You’re welcome! Also remember Reddit is full of Nazis and Lemmy is not.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted because you’re not wrong.
I occasionally go back and browse r/all – the amount of cryptofascist bullshit on the front page is staggering compared to a couple years ago.
Oh probably some Nazi followed me here from Reddit, that was a regular occurrence when I was there.
Fewer
My bad.
Eh. The distinction is not settled grammar. Its up for debate, and has been for a long time.
Bullshit. A Nazi whose arm gets broken outside the context of someone defending themselves against them only creates an angstier angrier and more radicalized Nazi. It’s more counter productive than people like to think.
he book how minds change talks about how people change their mind. I haven’t finished it yet, but it talks about some fringe groups like flat earthers and such.
It does mention that one of the ways people change their mind is horrible trauma
Like, usually facts and figures don’t do anything. Belief is social. Your beliefs will hinge a lot on your social groups. But if your whole life is shaken to the foundations, that can also loosen you up enough to reevaluate.
So, beating the shit out of a Nazi does have a chance of making them change their mind about being one.
Sounds like an excuse to be violent. No better than a Nazi in my view. They also come up with excuses for using violence for “the good of the nation”.
Then your view is stupid. Like, “the aggressor is just as guilty as the victim” tier stupid.
When you go around breaking people’s arms at random intervals where you are your own judge and jury over a system you made up with no scientific basis, just with flimsy reasons sewn together, by intentionally giving people severe trauma (pretending that any psychistrist would not be totally horrified at thid BS)… you BECOME an aggressor. You are no better than the police. No more effective. Not s day closer to your goal.
Also trauma can often cause the exact opposite. Who allows you to take this risk for all of us in society? To go give a radicalized person more reason and fuel to be radicalized? So for every Nazi you “beat into becoming decent” (an impossible and demanding righteous power-trip fantasy), the next might be the next masshooter thanks to your arm breaking trauma. And you’ll have your Pikachu mouth all open when they go around shooting everyone with a single arm.
You system is inconsistent, unscientific, and really wish washy.
Not much better than the average corrupt police.
First off, it’s impossible for me to be on the same level as the corrupt police because I don’t have the institutional support that they do. That you don’t understand that is pretty damning.
Second, it’s not at random intervals. It’s predicated on Nazis. Literal “let’s do genocide” Nazis. It’s not wishy washy. It’s “we should beat up Nazis before they organize and do nazi stuff”
Your "oh they might respond by doing worse " fear is silly. Butterfly flaps it’s wings tier better not do anything because it could set something bad in motion. Tell you what, if you don’t do anything about the Nazis eventually there will definitely be death.
So you think thay my “fear” is silly even though we have a good picture of how trauma affects individuals, and somehow it is akin to doing nothing according to your analysis (has it occured to you there are non violent ways to counter neoNazis?)…
but you also think your random knee cap busting is fine, mature, and heroic?
We have to agree to disagree then.
Not necessarily. There are a lot of neonazis, that stopped their political activity after an attack and even if they continue to do nazi shit they will become more paranoid. What most militant antifascists are trying to do is to scare nazis out of politics. Its mostly psychological warfare
“not necessarily” is a very low bar to excuse violence which we know radicalizes people. If it’s mostly psychological then I don’t see the need for arm breaking.
And before people give me shit about this: I hate Nazis, neoNazis have bothered me and my family on a personal level in the 90’s. They made us feel unsafe, and continue to make me feel unsafe where I live now whenever I randomly encounter them.
But fucking hell if I saw someone attacking a white power skinhead and breaking their arm unprovoked, I will be on their side and I will defend them.
But to apply psychological pressure you need to set examples. Why would they stop if they don‘t have to deal with any consequences?
I am not arguing in favor of beating every neonazi you meet on the street. One violent attack every few months, that is published widely by the media is enough to remember them, that violence creates counter-violence and that they should think twice, if its worth getting their arm broken just to harass someone they don‘t like.
Still sounds counter productive and like some kind of mob justice to me. Do you have any science or analysis to support this?
No, I don‘t have scientific studies to back up my thesis. There most research towards right-wing or left-wing extremism focuses on the reasons or „reasons“ people have for radicalizing and how to prevent it from happening. Also extremists tend to be skeptical towards any person, that tries to understand their networks.
Thats why most knowledge we have about extremist structures and mentalities comes from people, that aren‘t extremists anymore. In Germany we have around 33 people per year, that call the exit program for left wing extremism, 8 of whom people that actually want help. There aren‘t statistics for people, that aren‘t far-right extremists anymore, but the private Organization Exit counted alone in the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen 145 cases of people, that want to leave the far-right in 2015. Therefore we have a very limited pool of people, that want to give scientists information about internal structures and the interrelationship of violence.
Its just what I have experienced so far. Obviously there are some neonazis, that continue their „activism“, but most of them stop at some point or at least become less active, because they know that their car could go up in flames, if they attack a refugee.
There however are some people, that left the far right, that say that they were scared of attacks from political opponents and that this fear influenced their behavior and made them paranoid, because they didn‘t know, if there were people observing them, who those people were and how many antifascists potentially observed them.
If you are a far right extremist and hear stories about a group called „Antifa“, that sets shit on fire and attacks far right extremists its going to scare you. And if someone then publishes the job, the address and name of you or one of your fellow local neonazis and puts an Antifa-Symbol on the flyer, you are going to afraid. They can act as tough, as they want: The thought, that 20 masked people you know nothing about could hunt you down and beat you up in an dark alley, when you come back from home is fucking terrifying. It doesn‘t matter, if this danger is real. It only matters, weather they thinks its real.
Everything that happened is: there was one violent attack on a neonazi, there is a lot of news coverage, some guy collects informations about his local neonazis and prints some flyers. Thats enough to intimidate them for months and prevents attacks. You attack one far right extremist to prevent hundreds of attacks against innocent people.
They won‘t feel safe at their home, when their address is doxxed by some mysterious group they know nothing about and will probably have to move. They are going to have neither the money, nor he time to do more nazi shit after an „outing“ (thats what german antifascists call the doxxing of a neonazi).
They will probably lose their job after an outing. Their neighbors will mostly distance themself from them. They will have to move, if they want to feel safe. They will be kicked out of any association, party or organization (that isn‘t a neonazi group, obviously). Friends will distance themself from them. An outing is an incredible powerful and potentially destructive tool. This way we isolate neonazis from the rest of society and force them into their own echo chambers. This way we ensure, that actions hit neonazis instead of democratic right wingers, that by coincidence in the same association as the neonazis.
Then we apply pressure on individuals of said group until they can‘t stand it any longer and either move to a different town or lay down their political activities. This way we can regularly force their leaders and important figures of neonazi-subculture into an „apolitical“ life and therefore destabilize the far right.
Obviously its also important, that neonazis get an opportunity to reintegrate into society, if they lay down their ideology, but thats not my job. My job is to make them hate their life so much, that they develop the will to take the helping hand exit programs offer them.
It definitely is a kind of mob justice, but mob justice is the only thing you can do, if the state isn‘t doing its job of protecting people.
Tldr: neonazis are just going to stop harassing people, if there are consequences. If the state doesn‘t enforce these consequences citizens are either going to enforce consequences or get terrorized by the neonazis. Attacks are a great way of intimidating neonazis into leaving people life their lifes. If they are busy fighting you they don’t have time to attack more vulnerable groups.
Edit: shortest left leaning comment
So in conclusion, no science, just your interpretation and gut feeling about some available literature that is not really saying what you want to say?
radicalized Nazi.
There is no such thing as a “radicalized” Nazi - all right-wing ideology is anti-radical. It’s kind of the whole point of right-wing ideology, see?
MORE RADICALIZED, GEEZ PLEASE READ.
And also right wing ideology is anti-radical?? What??? Is this semantics?
No need to scream like an idiot.
Again… there is no such thing as a “radicalized” Nazi. If you do not understand what is meant by the term radicalized, I will be happy to explain it to you.
Sure, go ahead, explain it.
The term “radical” has a distinct meaning when it comes to the political - the term literally means “that which pertains to the root.” Ie, radical politics are politics which looks for the root causes of society’s ills. That is why radical politics is almost universally associated with left-wing politics. *Reactionary politics," on the other hand, is almost universally associated with right-wing politics - ie, ideologies that wants to prevent politics that attempts to cure the root causes of society’s ills. Right-wing ideology is always anti-radical - that is the entire point of right-wing ideology, has always been and always will be.
In other words… the only one way for a nazi to be a “radical nazi” - and that’s by becoming an ex-nazi.
Yeah but you knew full well that that is not what radicalized meant in sentence. /:
Givng off a lot of pedantic vibes here
When someone tries to convince me that the moon is made out of cheese I do not forget what cheese is just to spare the convincer’s feelings.
Your misuse of important political meanings doesn’t make it less misinformational just because it’s misuse is something you’ve heard done on mainstream media.
Damn straight
Nazis shouldn’t have anything: they have no rights imo
Then it becomes a question of definition, who is a Nazi? I don’t know any government body I trust enough to not misuse that term to strip uncomfortable people of their rights.
A person self identifying as a Nazi should be treated as a pariah and a threat to society.
A person who has been but are no longer should be welcomed back into society.
A person someone at a desk somewhere classified as a Nazi to strip of rights and humanity should not be persecuted with bo other proof, instead it should be the actions of the individual that should be the basis of judgement.
Just compare to the amount of LGBT people who got branded “communists or communist-associayed” just to prohibit them from being full members of society in America during the red scare, also known as the Lavender Scare
So if I’m mathing correctly, logic dictates that we break them both
Don’t
why
because then you might get caught
Am I the only one going… There… When I read a comment about both arms being broken?
thanks I had forgorten
You’re welcome/I’m sorry. I cannot forget no matter how hard I try… 🫣
Can someone explain who the nazis are? I know what they are but I don’t live in Europe or NA and I don’t understand if it’s just referring to right wing fascists or just nazis.
My intention is not to deny anything or defend anyone. It’s simply a question. I also see some comments calling for violence in a very direct way, doesn’t it violate rules?
I am a layman so go easy on me.
Nazis are a subcategory of fascists. Not everyone knows what it means to be a fascist, but most people know what it means to be a Nazi. Often times people will use Nazi when they mean fascists in general. It can be hard to tell when this is happening though.
There are Neo-Nazi groups in the US. They can go all out with the look and vibes too. There isn’t much difference politically between Neo-Nazis and Nazis. There are way less Neo-Nazis then fascists in the US.
Disregarding people who use Nazi as just a slur for people they don’t like, Nazi are people who support Nazism, also known as National Socialism (it has nothing to do with Socialism, BTW), which is deeply associated with Adolf Hitler. It’s a form of fascism with a sprinkle of anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship on top. Think antisemitism + racism + white supremacy + anti-communism + social Darwinism. It’s attributed to far-right, but using a more modern political compass far-up would be more appropriate since it’s more about control than economics.
For full background on why it’s so universally hated (if the aforementioned wasn’t enough), Hitler was a dictator who ruled over Nazi Germany back in the first middle of 20th century. Under his rule, millions were inhumanely slaughtered for not fitting Nazi’s standard of a human being. Then, under Hitler, they went on to create a war that involved nearly all of the continents (from the top of my head, at least Europe, Asia, North America, and Africa), hence the name World War 2 (the first one was in 1914-1918, this one went on from 1939 to 1945). They killed combatants, they killed civilians, they killed children, they worked people to their deaths, they humiliated them, and they tortured them.
All in all, the Second World War took away around 80 million people. The vast majority were people from the Soviet Union (~23-24%) and China (~19-20%). The third place took Germany with less than 8%. About 62% of all deaths were civilians.
That’s what they did. They practically wiped out one huge country because they didn’t see them as humans.
Every 5th-6th person was dead in Poland. Every 7th-8th in Soviet Union, every 9th in Germany.
That’s why they’re not just hated, but despised with burning passion.
On a side-note, what’s insane to me is how little attention is given to the atrocities Japan caused in China. Soviet Union is at least getting talked about, but Japanese people have no idea their ancestors did this. As a Russian, I knew that China had it rough, to say the least. But I didn’t know it was to that extent! And 80% of those were civilians.
Edit: Re-reading the question, I may have taken it too literally, thinking “what’s a Nazi?” instead of “what exactly do they mean by “Nazi”?”. Whoops, but I guess it doesn’t hurt anyway.
Depends on who you ask. It varies anywhere from literal Swatztika toters to “anybody I don’t agree with.”
This what liberals say because they can’t define fascism themselves, sure.
And it is a fairly broad accusation, by literal design. Mussolini himself said fascism can be anything convenient for the state in the moment, that’s why when it comes down to a hard definition they’re either descriptions of the actions of fascist states, vague listings of terms like xenophobia and authoritarianism, or pointing to things like Umberto Eco’s description.
Mussolini himself said fascism can be anything convenient for the state in the moment, that’s why when it comes down to a hard definition they’re either descriptions of the actions of fascist states, vague listings of terms like xenophobia and authoritarianism, or pointing to things like Umberto Eco’s description.
That is a good enough description paradoxically. It’s what’s convenient for the center of violent power, ideologically untied from any moral principle and consistency, and connected to strength and self-sacrifice and, of course, interests of that center.
To be honest, I’m sometimes thinking that for a political ideology he had a point, and mixing in morality there is just misguided. Like mixing in LGBTQ rights into military strategy as a criterion of its own (and not to have more manpower).
What if you break his heart? 💔
They don’t have any. Christly bloody awful excuses for humans.
They’re often so hateful, you start to wonder if they even capable of love. In their ideology, harm to those that are allowed to be harmed are more important than doing good. It’s also ultimately a quite self-destructive ideology.
Those who actually care about good things will ultimately be so disillusioned with the movement that they can either be convinced to leave (might be a long process with some potential fallbacks), or leave by themselves like me. I thought I was helping people by pushing for right-wing programs, but the more I learned about them the more I was disgusted by it. Wasn’t an easy job, since I was fed with a bunch of lies, especially on how “leftists” (anyone left of Benito Mussolini) should avoid “political correctness” and “communism”, so early on I was an edgier liberal (after being disillusioned by libertarians like a week in), then a boring liberal, then I found a YouTube channel named “Libertarian Socialist Rants”.
That’s metal as heck, I’m using it
Idk if it’s some reference to real life events lately but I generally hate violence as anything other than self defense. Violence is a tool and not some kind of point in itself to pleasure yourself with. There are way too many bloodthirsty people all over the earth tankies and nazis alike that yearn for a bloodbath
It is not “tankie” to defend yourself from Nazis, and protect others from Nazis.
Can you read? I said self defense
Yes, but that gets into an agreement of terms. Define self-defense. Both of you may have different opinions on what that is, and what you call violence another may consider legitimate self defense.
To give an example, one of Alex Jones rhetorical tricks is to say they only need to be defensive, not attacking first. Then a min or two later he’ll say the dems are already attacking you and your children, and that you’re already in a war.
He doesn’t want to use the words directly to incide violence because he could be criminally charged, but he still wants to incite it. He’s also told people who asked him when it time to get the guns that God will tell them. He’s also stated he considers the voice in his head messages from God.
That’s someone using it disingenuously of course, but for some people just preventing or pushing back on clear intentions and threats is enough. The crowds at say Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” and attended by people recorded in private screaming
“Little fucking kikes. They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octaroons. My ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit.”
Later, he continued, “Those pieces of shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them.”
To many, this shows clear intent and will to kill and enslave people like me, so how far do I have to let them get on with their plans before I can defend myself?
Well usually laws say that the defense must be proportional to an attack. If someone threatens you with words you probably shouldn’t decapitate them.
Keep your cool and provoke them and watch their suffering if that’s enjoyable for you. I know for me it is.
Today some priest crossed himself when he saw me. It was fucking hilarious and honestly semi arousing. Like imagine an adult man being so fucked up, suddenly your problems seem small.
I don’t disagree with your points about words, especially in one on one conversations, or rather small groups. In stuff like organized events, protests at places like women’s clinics etc, it gets a bit murky. Because the offense there isn’t just words, they are concerted efforts to intimidate people. Anti abortion activists will shout, heckle, and condemn women going into such clinics, even if they’re not there for abortion (most of these places, including Planned Parenthood, often a target) also provide just general health for women. Contraceptives, pregnancy testing and planning, STD education, treatment, testing, mental health concerns, wellness and preventative care.
By hindering access and intimidating people away, they are causing more harm than simply words, and so I think it’s right for people to counter protest. Not to punch them first or anything, but to show up in contrast of the bigots and in support of those who need the help. Not necessarily self defense, but still correct imo.
Finally, relying of law of the land is an easy barometer to use, but it only works if those laws are actually fair. In apartheid states like South Africa used to be, or the USA used to be, would you agree with the laws of self defense there? Where for instant someone of my skin color could never defend myself against a slave owner?
Many of the people you may be arguing with may not agree that the law adequately protects them. Some I may agree with, and some I may think is crazy. Many situations are nuanced and can’t be defined sown to a slogan or term. Lots of people who say “punch a nazi” don’t mean going down th> e street, finding and assaulting a nazi for no reason. They mostly mean be prepared to fight back, and don’t fall victim to the paradox of tolerance.