Ever since some guy was recorded punching Richard Spencer in the face, there’s been a public conversation about whether it’s appropriate to punch Nazis. From the start, what seemed odd to me about this conversation is how abstract it is. The vast majority of people who are in favor of punching Nazis are not literally going out there and punching Nazis. And now that we’re seeing literal Nazi demonstrations, I believe we will discover that it’s not for lack of opportunity. I’m left wondering what exactly the argument is about.
If I said I advocated punching Nazis, I would feel disingenuous, given that I’m not actually doing it. There is an alt-right rally in Berkeley tomorrow, just a few blocks from here, and I did not have any plans to punch anyone. As for other people, they’re going to punch Nazis or not punch Nazis regardless of what I say about it. They don’t need my permission.
I think the argument is basically about whether we should offer moral support for Nazi punchers. So here are my thoughts on that.
I would keep this conversation grounded in a realistic context. The most likely context is a protest. In that situation, I basically think protestors should follow the guidance of the organizers and the will of other protestors. One thing I don’t like about the local violent protestors is that they have saddled all the other protestors with an image that they don’t necessarily support. For example, about 90% of the protestors against Milo Yiannopolous earlier this year were peaceful, but the 10% has dominated most narratives. I don’t think these narratives have been very positive, and I would prefer if it were mostly about the peaceful protestors.
On the other hand, maybe there are situations where other protestors would be happy to be supported by Nazi punchers. Defensive punching for one. And maybe there are other situations I am unaware of, because I don’t pretend to be an expert on protesting tactics.
Basically, I don’t support literally punching Nazis, but I don’t take a principled stance against it. I think it makes sense for the law to take a stand against punching Nazis. But civil disobedience is a thing. I’m also sufficiently enthusiastic about game theory to realize that threatening violence is an important defensive strategy.
In talking with my robot boyfriend about this, I observed that there appears to be broader support for getting Nazis fired from their jobs, even though getting them fired probably causes them more harm than punching them. I’m not actually sure how to resolve that particular dilemma. Either people should support both, oppose both, or figure out what the relevant difference is.
Another observation I heard, was that during WWII, the appropriate response to Nazis was not to punch them. It was to shoot them. Of course, we’re not in WWII right now.
My concern is not so much the actual punching of nazis (which has been relatively rare) so much as the collateral damage that comes with those attempts. For example, although Berkeley violence fans have tended to lean more towards punching windows than punching actual nazis that can punch back, what came along with that at events like the aftermath of the Milo protests was black block protesters going after anyone nearby with a camera – mostly fellow protestors with smartphones – with threats of violence or in a few cases actual punching. (There’s also the fact that, as rallies grow larger, more intense, and more armed to the teeth, punching a nazi means they might punch back – only it might not be a punch, it might be a gun, and you’re putting not just yourself but any other protesters or passerbys in the vicinity at risk).
I also just…am not confident on the ability of nazi-punching fans in general to actually restrict their actions to nazis? Like, after the incident where a car ran through a crowd in a Berkeley protest, angry protesters ended up catching a car around the corner and pepper spraying and assaulting the driver – only to realize that oops, it’s a completely unrelated car and driver that was just trying to make a delivery run. The people in the “doxx the nazis and make them lose their jobs” camp have the same problem with gleefully dogpiling “nazis” only to realize they have completely the wrong person, but oops too late their info has all been released to the internet mobs and now they’re getting death threats for days.
Plus, considering the performative nature of the nazi punching thing and how much I see of it from people who don’t otherwise seem to care much about non-violent means of working against white nationalism, a lot of that rhetoric seems less like it’s about stopping white nationalism so much as it is people who already liked the idea of smashing things (like the groups that perennially show up to smash windows at every single protest in Berkeley for the last 5 years or so) being happy about finally finding a popular excuse to legitimize it.
So when it comes to both the nazi punching meme and the nazi doxxing meme, my worry is that actually going after nazis is harder than most people want to deal with, so I feel like a lot of that energy will end up being directed at other more questionable targets.
@sennkestra
In game theory that’s what you call a “trembling hand”. Whether that changes the correct strategy depends on details.
I hope they don’t go around smashing windows for this protest. It at least made thematic sense for some of the other protests, but the alt-right protest is mostly people from out of town, so punishing local businesses just deprives that action of any real meaning.
Probably a good way to predict the outcome of the protest is based on the April 15 protest.
Interview with author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook:
@Pierce R Butler,
Thanks, it was a good article. As I suspected, antifa protestors don’t really care what I think as a more conventional liberal, and do not need my permission.
This one’s easy. Punching them (first) is:
(a) illegal (don’t waste my time with arguments about “self-defence”)
(b) over in a couple of seconds
(c) is likely actively counter-productive because it makes them more sure they’re right.
Publishing their photo so their employer knows they were screaming “Blood and soil” under a Nazi flag is
(a) totes legal
(b) never going to go away (Richard Spencer is now “that Nazi that got punched” for life).
(c) given (b) will give them plenty of time to think about the consequences of their actions and just possibly get them to change or at least tone down their views.
You said “even though getting them fired probably causes them more harm” like that’s a bad thing?
The problem with punching Nazis is that a lot of middle-of-the-road conservatives are all too eager to go along with the “both sides” rhetoric that the Cheetoh so clumsily expressed. It doesn’t matter if there would be no clash without the Nazis showing up, it doesn’t matter if 90% of the violence was perpetuated by the fascists, it doesn’t matter if the antifa is armed with clubs and the supremacists are armed with automatic weapons.
I talked with a conservative like that while Charlottesville was still going on. He said “I’d really like to find out which side is the one to throw the first punch there.” I said “These people are actual, literal, card-carrying Nazis and KKK! Do you really need to know who throws the first punch to figure out who the bad guys are?” But he just repeated “I’d want to know who threw the first punch.”
MLK Jr. figured these people were the ones he had to reach in order to achieve his goals. And he also realized that, in our media-driven society, the #1 way to reach those people was through visuals. What won the Civil Rights battle were the pictures of unarmed protesters being attacked by police and dogs and water cannons, because the human impulse of sympathizing with underdogs and victims is stronger even than instinctual racism.
There were two reasons that so many Republicans were willing to condemn the alt-right rally: the fact that someone was killed, and the pictures of actual Nazi flags. If it hadn’t been for those two facts, and the visual images showing them to us, we would have seen far more “both sides” talk, simply because a handful of antifa brought clubs. Heck, if someone hadn’t caught the car on camera, a whole bunch of people would have believed the “car sped up because it was being pelted by rocks” narrative that the fascists tried to put up in the first few hours.
@5, brucegee1962
A few quick thoughts here:
Conveniently, there’s often no hard proof of who threw first punch. I don’t like that guys seeming implication that maybe we can “turn our brains off”, or refrain from any judgement at all, until that one fact is handed to us. (not sure he was saying that though)
Also, one side is not always ok. Even if they didn’t throw first punch, they can still be quite bad. So you can’t boil the whole thing down to that one fact anyways, even if you had it.
I’m also working on my wiki:
http://brianpansky.wikia.com/wiki/Use_of_Force
sonofrojblake @5,
Many arguments against punching Nazis are based on how much harm it causes to them, so it’s worth noting that firing people often causes more harm. But I agree that there are some crucial differences. One difference you hadn’t mentioned is that punching has more of a trembling hand problem, since people need to judge on the spot who they should be punching.
I should clarify my post above: I’m not arguing that the Nazis don’t deserve to be punched. No doubt they do. I just think that, if our goal is to enlist the sympathies of the mass of the public who don’t show up on either side of these marches, we’re more likely to be successful if we take the role of the punchee rather than the puncher.
I also should have mentioned that I’ve heard the alt-right chooses cities like Charlottesville and Berkeley with liberal reps, because they hope there will be enough of a liberal turnout that someone will be violent against them, so they can play the victim card.
The mere presence of a Nazi is an inherent threat, so punching them is justified. Especially if you’re disabled, queer, and/or Jewish.
Of COURSE punching them is JUSTIFIED. I have no doubt that it makes the puncher feel better, too.
Justification isn’t the question. The question is whether a) punching advances our policy ends (mainly, sending a message to society at large that their beliefs are morally repugnant), and b) how does punching make the us look to the vast masses of this country who are racist but don’t realize they’re racist.
Can anyone figure out anything good that might have come out of what happened at Berkeley? And don’t say “now the fascists will be scared” — they know that getting beat up will advance their political agenda. That’s why they went to Berkeley and Charlottesville in the first place, hoping something like this would happen.
Oh yeah if anyone is wondering how the protest went, here is some local news coverage.
brucegee1962
It was a bit more nuanced than that.
This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed.