The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[JimC]

Yo momma was probably quite a nice woman to whom you were a dreadful disappointment...

[Forty Two]

Why do communists only drink herbal tea?

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Because proper tea is theft.

[Hermit]

That's a keeper.

[Brian Peacock]

Look what you've done, Brian..

Sorry. My bad.

[DaveDodo007]

Theresa May is a liberal posing as a conservative

You remind me of another forum member. The one who decribed Obama as a crypto-Marxist.

Nah, Obama is a muslim.

[Brian Peacock]

And he invented Al Qaeda eh?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The white nationalist element of Il Douche's legions was out in force in Berkeley, California this past Saturday. They appear to have done all right for themselves.

"The Violent Clashes In Berkeley Weren't 'Pro-Trump' Versus 'Anti-Trump'"

Acccording to reports in mainstream news outlets like CNN, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, Saturday saw pro-Trump demonstrators clash with anti-Trump protesters in Berkeley, California, while more placid "Tax Day" marches took place around the country calling on the president to release his tax returns. The news stories offer largely the same account and framing as that given by the LA Times: "hundreds of pro-Trump demonstrators and counter-protesters clashed Saturday at a 'Patriots Day' rally… Both groups threw rocks and sticks at each other and used a large trash bin as a battering ram… Twenty-one people were arrested… Eleven people were injured."

All of this did happen. But such accounts missed the most crucial aspects of what was at stake in the Berkeley clashes, and thus fail to explain why there were aggressive altercations at all. To frame Saturday's events as a fight between supporters of the president and his denouncers roundly misses the key tensions undergirding the confrontation: that of anti-fascists versus white nationalists.

. . .

Media reports relying on the "pro-Trump versus anti-Trump" framing missed some glaring and more subtle cues about the nature of Saturday's protests. Multiple demonstrators, some of whom donned Make America Great Again hats, performed Nazi salutes in full public view.

. . .

"The far right is holding it down in Berkeley right now," tweeted Mother Jones reporter Shane Bauer, who was at the scene, posting an image of demonstrators swaddled in Trumpist, patriotic and explicitly far right symbolism. "Hail Victory!" tweeted neo-Nazi Richard Spencer in response.

Bauer also noted that a number of Trump supporters expressed discomfort at their co-protesters' racist and anti-semitic views and demonstrations. But it was not for these more moderate Trump supporters that the anti-fascist and anarchist groups came. As was the case in two previous instances in Berkeley since Trump's inauguration, anti-fascists were responding specifically to the presence of white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

. . .

It's Going Down, a relied-upon source for anti-fascists around the country, warned that the event—which was not the first and will not be the last iteration of such tensions—would be a "crucible for a new fascist movement" hidden in the "smokescreen" of a diverse Trump support base. The issue is not whether the rally crowd also drew Trump supporters of color, or many Trump fans who claim to despise white nationalism. A media narrative that overlooks significant white supremacist presence de facto demonizes the counter-protesters who came to confront it.

[Brian Peacock]

[JimC]

To be fair, you could also argue that at various demonstrations over the years (e.g. anti-globalisation), a hard-core, violent group of leftists has used the camouflage of left-liberal protest marches to do stuff like trashing stores etc. The left is not above reproach in this area.
In Oz, when we have neo-Nazi/left clashes, it is abundantly clear that many on both sides are simply there for the buzz of street violence.

[L'Emmerdeur]

To be fair, you could also argue that at various demonstrations over the years (e.g. anti-globalisation), a hard-core, violent group of leftists has used the camouflage of left-liberal protest marches to do stuff like trashing stores etc. The left is not above reproach in this area.
In Oz, when we have neo-Nazi/left clashes, it is abundantly clear that many on both sides are simply there for the buzz of street violence.

Agreed. There is no thread here on "The Ethics of Punching Black Bloc" though.

[Forty Two]

Well, the reason there is no thread here on "The Ethics of Punching Black Bloc" though is because you did not create one, right? Is there an impediment to you creating one?

The reason I created the Ethics of Punching Nazis thread is because there is a movement today that argues in favor of punching people who are thought to be Nazis, even if they deny being same, and punching those who are deemed right wing and thus carrying water for or tacitly supporting Nazis. Nobody, as far as I've heard, has argued that peaceful leftist, black bloc, anarchist, or communist, or whatever, left-wing group, should be punched for their views.

I don't know anybody who would say - "if a black bloc member is talking to a reporter, fuck yeah, it's a moral imperative that he be punched due to the danger such a person poses to society..." I have, however, heard that very argument, many times, from left wingers directed toward those they think are members of the far right.

[pErvinalia]

Black Bloc aren't peaceful.

[Forty Two]

However, being a member of or sympathizer with the Black Bloc doesn't make one punchworthy, and also being generally "not peaceful" does not make one an outlaw, subject to punching by anyone who finds you.

If a Black Bloc member just got done beating up someone, a minute ago, and is now talking to a reporter, that does not give others carte blanche to mete out private justice by punching him. So, it doesn't matter if "Black Bloc" are or aren't peaceful. It matters if at the time of the punch, the punch was justified by self-defense.

A person who leaps toward an alleged white supremacist and punches him out of the blue is also "not peaceful." That does not, however, give license to others to chase the assailant down and beat him up.

The fact that this is a debate in public discourse where people are seriously siding with the "of course it's moral to punch a nazi - it's even a moral imperative" side of the motion is why we have a thread like this, and not one that talks about the ethics of punching Commies or Black Bloc-ies.

[pErvinalia]

I'd explain why it matters that you talked about "peaceful" groups, but it would be pointless. Continue your monologue, sir!

[Forty Two]

I didn't talk about "peaceful" groups. I said it doesn't matter if a group is or is not "peaceful" as a group. It doesn't even matter if the individual punched is or is not generally a peaceful person. He or she could be quite supportive of violence, and it doesn't mean that it's moral to punch that person at a time when there is no self-defense or defense-of-others justification to do so. You don't get to just punch people because you think they're bad or "not peaceful."