You may have heard that
someone punched "far-right" activist Spencer on the Inauguration Day.
Quote:
For the record, Richard Spencer says he is not a Nazi. In an interview on Saturday, he said he was a member of the alt-right, which he calls “identity politics for white Americans and for Europeans around the world.”
How is that different from Nazism? Nazism is “a historical term” that “is not going to resonate today,” he said.
I have quite a bit to say on the subject of punching Nazis, most of it positive, but this blog has already covered the most vital points.
On The Propriety Of Punching Nazis, An FAQQuote:
Aren’t the Left supposed to be the tolerant ones?
Supposed to be the smart ones, too, but they keep falling for that “I thought you were supposed to be the tolerant ones” horseshit.
What about dialogue?
Dialogue is for reasonable people acting in good faith. Dialogue is between two acceptable positions. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “taxes need to be lowered” is grounds for dialogue. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “Jews should be thrown in ovens” is grounds for a beating.
...
But doesn’t this just give the other side ammunition?
The other side in this argument are lying [redacted] who can twist any piece of information into a swastika-shaped balloon animal if you engage them in good faith; lacking a piece of information, they’ll just make [redacted] up. Might as well punch a Nazi.
What about peace, love, and understanding?
Great goals, and once we get rid of the Nazis we can get to work on them. All three are completely impossible when Nazis are about.
So. Should you? Would you?
_________________

“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
- Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman,
Good Omens