Too late?

[Inanna]

I read it differently, C_G. I read it as people who are killing for their own material gain still consider themselves better than Nazis (for whom even the material gain argument would not work). The latter express hatred towards *certain* others for simply *existing*.

[Sunsilver]

Sunny, there have been a number of crossovers. There was one where Captain America met Superman.

Yes, I realized that when I clicked on your other links.

What gets me is the Red Skull saying "What misplaced patriotism!"

It makes me want to vomit that the White Supremacists think THEY are being extremely patriotic. The parallel between real life and the cartoon is sobering but true.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I read it differently, C_G. I read it as people who are killing for their own material gain still consider themselves better than Nazis (for whom even the material gain argument would not work). The latter express hatred towards *certain* others for simply *existing*.

The Joker isn't just a "let's rob a bank" villain. He only does regular crimes to fund his actual plans. He will kill if you get in the way, or if it amuses him. His goal is to drive everyone insane, he values only destruction and chaos. He wants to hurt just about everyone just for existing. So the analogy holds.

[Faramond]

I think the Joker is in big trouble there. It's to be a one-on-one battle with a creature that clearly has some sort of supernatural aspect. But the Joker is just a regular dude who is crazy and clever and was once dropped in acid. ( Being dropped in acid probably isn't what happened in the comics, but that's what happened in the 1989 Batman movie, so I'm going with that. )

Anyway, I don't care how crazy and clever you are, you aren't going to win a fight against a supernatural talking red skull. Joker is toast. ( I assume this was the final issue for the Joker. Comic book fights are always realistic, right? )

What is my point? The comic is a complete non sequitur and while an interesting diversion doesn't *really* have anything to do with the thread.

I think my biggest problem with this whole "punch a Nazi" thing is that it doesn't end there. Nazi inevitably will come to mean "anyone I disagree with" and "punch" will inevitably come to mean any form of violence, including lethal force.

The problem with advocating extralegal violence is that there is no logical limitation to it. By definition.

[Primula Baggins]

Aaand, it can always be turned around to “punch a feminist” or something. What would happen to our measured, rational national discourse if everyone started punching?

There have been times, though, when I’ve seen “punch a Nazi” as shorthand for “resist Nazis.” Don’t ignore their parades; turn out and protest them. Don’t let their letters to the editor go unanswered. Don’t let them normalize as just a part of society, a new color in the political spectrum. Reject them like a pathogen trying to enter a healthy body.

Or would that be rude?

[Impenitent]

Not rude. Works for me.

It is an imperative to resist and protest repellent ideas, but violence never killed an idea.

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Resist them is fine. Protest them. Tell other people all about how wrong they are. Argue with them directly. Defend yourself if they attack first.

That's different from what is discussed in this thread, where the question is asked if acting like a Nazi is a good way to deal with Nazis.

[Sunsilver]

The problem with advocating extralegal violence is that there is no logical limitation to it. By definition.

What Faramond and C.G. said.

But that means the only way of counteracting them is by verbal confrontation. And, something I saw on FB today makes me realize just how futile most FB confrontations are. Not that I didn't know that already. I just didn't realized I might be arguing with a paid troll!

Of course, going to a protest in person means you can be sure you are meeting the 'real deal' and not a troll or bot, but as the protesters in Charlottesville found out, things can get violent.

https://www.facebook.com/actdottv/video ... c5NzQ5OTY/

[Primula Baggins]

Nonviolent protest can be very effective when there are many, many people, as when biker clubs and others would turn out at veterans’ funerals to block the family’s view of the Westboro “Baptist” Church people and their repellent signs.

[Inanna]

Nonviolent protest also works on the premise of some decency from the other side. It worked in India against the British (to some extent, if not always such as in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre). I don’t see how it would have worked in Germany against the Nazis.

[Primula Baggins]

This is true. But we aren't yet at that point, that the government actively defends the Nazis against its own citizens—other than verbally.

We may get there yet, if Trump panics when the walls start closing in.

[Frelga]

Nonviolent protest also works on the premise of some decency from the other side. It worked in India against the British (to some extent, if not always such as in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre). I don’t see how it would have worked in Germany against the Nazis.

Spoiler alert - it didn't.

[Frelga]

This is true. But we aren't yet at that point, that the government actively defends the Nazis against its own citizens—other than verbally.

We may get there yet, if Trump panics when the walls start closing in.

I guess you missed DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen yesterday.

PS sorry to reply to myself, it's just easier on the phone

[Primula Baggins]

I didn't miss that, alas—defending the Charlottesville racist who drove into the crowd and killed a woman. At least she was still using words, not sending in HS goons to help the racists.

[Túrin Turambar]

The point when you use violence for purposes other than self-defence is the point when you accept civil society has broken down and the rule of law has ceased to be effective. Therefore you're in a state of anarchy and Thomas Hobbes' rules of the war of all against all now apply. From an outside perspective, it seems to me that a lot of Americans seem to think they're constantly on the verge of this state of affairs, from the Second Amendment types who insist they need assault rifles to defend themselves against the government to those who see punching Nazis as the only way to preserve a free society. I suspect this might be because America was founded in a violent revolution against the government, so taking up violence is in the back of the public mind. But I doubt many of the people who hold these views would really like the implications of them. How many Second Amendment conservatives would actually shoot an American soldier? Or, conversely, how many of the Nazi-punchers would really like to be involved in escalating violence with Neo-Nazi militias?

[yovargas]

One of the more important points about this question is that, even putting the ethical or political implications of "punching Nazis", does it actually work? I know Túrin has brought up the points several times. This long but fascinating article from Mother Jones makes the case that, no, violence is not at all an effective way to combat hate groups.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... fter-hate/

A notable quote:

Michael Kimmel notes that many former white supremacists he encountered in his research had “met a member of the despised group, one singular individual whose very existence eroded all their categorical group stereotypes, [and] they began to unlearn the dehumanization the movement had taught them.” Like many [former hate group member], Christian Picciolini recalls that receiving empathy “at a time when I least deserved it, from those I least deserved it from,” was a transformative event that helped pull him out of the hate movement.

[Frelga]

Post deleted, I don't have time for this today.

[yovargas]

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say but that snippet tells me nothing. That Prof may have indeed had more success at stopping some Nazis than punching would have.

That article isn't just anecdotes and hypotheticals. It's based on the research looking at what actually works at stopping the growth of hate groups. I assume that is the goal, and if so, paying attention to the research seems like a good idea.

[Frelga]

Sorry, I thought deleting the post wold delete the attachment as well. Like I said, I don't have the time, at least not to phrase my thoughts in a way that will minimize upsetting people I don't want to upset.

But the headline is from 1934 New York Times

URGES GOOD WILL BY JEWS FOR NAZIS; Prof. Cadbury of Society of Friends Says It Will Gain More Than Will Hate. DECRIES BOYCOTT AS 'WAR' Dr. Goldenson Tells Session of Rabbis a Minority Must Not Use Tactics of Foes.

WERNERSVILLE, Pa., June 14.-- Good will, not hate or reprisals, will end, or offset, the evils of the Hitler government's persecution of Jews, Professor Henry J, Cadbury, Professor of Biblical Literature at Bryn Mawr College, told the Central Conference of American Rabbis as it opened its convention here today.View Full Article in Timesmachine »

Spoiler alert - he was wrong.

But if you want to talk about what works - there have been several articles linked in this thread featuring "reformed" racists, and every single one of them including yours had one thing in common. These people have all have done jail time and it was in prison that their reformation took place.

So based on that evidence, maybe making Nazism illegal is the best tactic after all?

No, seriously, don't have the time for this.

[Túrin Turambar]

The central figure in the article was in prison, but there's been nothing to suggest all (or even the majority) of the former extremists engaged with these groups were in gaol. More importantly, they weren't in gaol for being Nazis; they were in gaol for committing crimes.