They aren't going to do anything. They only reason they are tolerated is because they are just rabble on the internets, if they started to do any kind of organized direct action they would be snuffed out, even with Trump in office and Bannon whispering sweet nothings in his ear.

The question should be why do we even care he got punched.

If they catch the aggressor the guy should be charged, but morally speaking no one should care.


Edit to add: Imagine Batman punched that Nazi, should Gotham Police spend any time catching Batman? Answer is no.

A quick assault and get away may have some individual gratification, but overall is probably not a positive strategy to employ. If you have an army of thugs behind you, well then, some history and long term positives could come into play. Its dicey and the follow up is important. Violence should not be completely disavowed as a negative position or strategy. Given human nature it has some benefits. But making individuals a martyr is also a strategic no-no. It is a tough call. Even Napoleon would have to sleep on it. Amorality has benefits, though many fine this appalling. Reading Machiavelli would help.

Bill my dude if only there was some sort of, I don't know, universally cited example from history about whether good faith engagement with fascists works, we could probably figure out whether appeasing fascists prevents future violence. Oh well, I guess we'll never know now.

The allies attacked Germany because Germany attacked their military allies, invaded their country, or declared war on them. Not because Germany was fascist. Anyway, the rules for countries are different than for individuals in a democracy.

Sometimes.

I don't feel the need to have a strong opinion on a case like this. I think punching Richard Spencer should be a crime. I don't think Richard Spencer getting punched is a bad outcome--except that it may escalate in unpredictable ways or be used as propaganda. That's what I fear here.

Imagine Jerry Sandusky gets punched as he's being led to court. Sure, that is a crime and should be a crime. Do I care that Sandusky got punched? No. Would I enjoy seeing Jerry Sandusky get punched? A little.

So, Richard Spencer getting punched is slightly enjoyable. I wouldn't do it. Is somebody immoral for doing it? I don't know.

I guess my question would be, when exactly would it have been morally okay to punch Hitler in the face?

trump was already encouraging his fans to assault protesters, some of whom did, why isn't that bad?

It is bad and trump encouraging them was a different order of badness

Or more than that has history has shown -

Last-member-briefcase-bomb-plot-kill-Hitler

I don't think a lot of people realize how much street violence was occurring in Germany around the time of Hitler's rise. The Communists and Nazis fought in the streets and this escalated until Nazi Horst Wessel was shot and killed. Goebbels used his death and a song that Wessell had written to help sway public opinion. The Horst Wessel Lied eventually became the co-national anthem of Germany.

A British Member of Parliament was assassinated by a fascist last year.

A lot of people tried to take out Hitler, the British had a plan, but nixed it:

A long way off topic but later plans were shelved in part because of the belief that hitler was, or had become, so incompetent that they would rather not have him replaced. That was November 1944.

Come up to me in the streets and talk that fascist **** to me, and see what happens.


I'll break your face, I promise

No one said it wasn't.

This, and it's the trivially correct and non-controversial answer.

My emotional needle didn't move at all when I saw the neonazi get punched. There wasn't any glee or O-Hellz-Ya sentiment, instead just a subdued, "Well, sure, that's bound to happen every now and again."

That's very true and how I respond as well.

Doesn't speak to whether it's a good or bad thing to do. Also 'now and again' doesn't imply there's no influence over how often.

What level of violence is acceptable? If instead of suckerpunching Spencer the guy had cut his stomach open, is that fine? What level of "wishing violence on others" crosses the line to supporting violence?

Speaking from a practical standpoint, the guy who punched him deserves prison time. We have laws for stuff like this--you can't just be a vigilante judge wherever you go. Even if Spencer had just killed someone and then put his hands up in surrender, anyone who were to run up and punch him should be in prison. If I see someone run a stop sign, I don't get to force them to pull over and take $100 from them. We have laws and police and a court system.

Speaking from a moral standpoint, I don't think it's right to punch someone because they hold hateful or abhorrent views. Life would be a constant boxing match in that case. If someone is instigating violence, then I think it would be justifiable to use some force to stop them, but that force definitely wouldn't be in the form of a punch. It would be prison or deportation or maybe even death, but a punch doesn't effectively punish or prevent. I wonder if the people saying it's OK to punch Nazis would be in favor of punching most Muslims because they hold violent views against gays and apostates. Is it OK for Israel to kill the Palestinians, since after all, the Palestinians are democratically ruled by Hezbollah, who have made it very clear they would destroy Israel and every Jew in it if given the chance. But I feel most people in favor of punching or killing Nazis (if you punch someone enough, certainly they die) don't think it would be OK for Israel to kill all the Palestinians who pray for its eradication.

And the last point I'll make on this: Almost everyone is calling Spencer a Nazi or neo-Nazi. I'd never heard of the guy until the "heil Trump" video came out, and despite the obvious Nazi overtones of that video, I read the Wikipedia article on him and watched some debate he had on a low-budget talk show, and I think it's unfair to equate him with Nazis. I'm very open to being proven wrong if you can show me an interview or article of his where he's advocating violence in any form. Whenever I've seen him asked, he's always very clear that he's against violence. I'd also be curious to know what his ideal policy is regarding effecting the white state he wants--give non-whites a few southern states and kick them out of the north? Deport all non-whites? Or does he just want to end affirmative action? I think knowing his views is prerequisite to deciding whether punching him is morally tenable.

somi,

Spencer has called for "black genocide".

Nazis self-regulate, we know we've done enough when they stop being Nazis, or at least keep their mouths shut about it. Kind of a case by case basis.

But maybe people who can't even muster the energy to disagree with fascists on the internet could work on that before they try to enroll in the more advanced courses at Anti-Fascism University? Crawl before you walk and all that. It's pret-tay easy to deduce what position the crew that wrings their hands about hurting racist's feelings is going to have on hurting their faces.

...

Clearly there is work to be done.

I'm not putting words into th14's mouth, but I wouldn't limit the definition to 'wishing violence on others'. If a core tenet of an ideology/political movement is violence against a group, then violence against that group is a preemptive strike, in theory. If you want to debate the morality of preemptive strikes, then fine, but that's where you're at.