I agree with the Paradox of Tolerance being solved by “it doesn’t cover the intolerant.” I’m cool with banning Nazi speech, and kicking Nazis out of shops and bars no questions asked. Maybe I’m just too idealistic, but I also believe everyone has human rights that shouldn’t be violated. Even if you did take away others’ rights in your life—what matters to me is that you have your capacity to hurt others taken away, not that you suffer in kind. (I am fully aware that killing people does stop that individual from being able to hurt others.) I’ve always believed an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And people do change.
This reaction also probably comes from my strong aversion to violence. Can’t see any realistic violence without reacting poorly, and even a few cartoony violent things will freak me out. I’m possibly just knee-jerking “no no omg wtf” to any kind of speech that celebrates any form of real-life violence.
I do understand the argument that their entire worldview is “commit violence against the others” and so perhaps punching Nazis is simply a preemptive strike against people who have actively chosen this belief. I do understand self-defense. If someone punches you and the conditions make it so running away is not an option available to you, by all means I will not fault you for punching back. And if things get to the point where you’ve already tried all the peaceful solutions and someone just keeps being harmful anyways, I can see violence being a last resort to make them stop hurting you or others. I think my problem is that I’m aware that sometimes, punching a schoolyard bully will stop them from hurting you anymore, but I’ve never heard of punching a Nazi stopping them from doing harm to anyone. Which makes the “this is okay because it’s a preemptive strike to stop them from hurting anyone” argument fall flat to me. I’ve heard of bringing a military against them stopping them from doing harm in WWII, but I haven’t heard of the same for punching individual Nazis.
I’m very used to people online being cruel to acceptable targets, for what seems to me like cruelty for the sake of it, and shutting down any “wait, that seems a little mean and unnecessary” with “so you’re DEFENDING them? You’re a bootlicker.” So I’m not sure if what I’m looking at is the minority frustration I’m not supposed to tone police, or if it’s glee in violence against an acceptable target for the sake of violence. And I’ll risk being a tone policer and getting corrected when it comes to people celebrating violence. By all means, I’d love to find out that punching individual Nazis actually a “maybe I’ll stop being horrible to them” effect, that people are advocating violence for the sake of protecting themselves and others and not just violence for the sake of exerting power over a disliked group (and yes, I know Nazis are the oppressors and I am not trying to compare it to violence against oppressed and disliked groups).
I agree with the Paradox of Tolerance being solved by “it doesn’t cover the intolerant.” I’m cool with banning Nazi speech, and kicking Nazis out of shops and bars no questions asked. Maybe I’m just too idealistic, but I also believe everyone has human rights that shouldn’t be violated. Even if you did take away others’ rights in your life—what matters to me is that you have your capacity to hurt others taken away, not that you suffer in kind. (I am fully aware that killing people does stop that individual from being able to hurt others.) I’ve always believed an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And people do change.
This reaction also probably comes from my strong aversion to violence. Can’t see any realistic violence without reacting poorly, and even a few cartoony violent things will freak me out. I’m possibly just knee-jerking “no no omg wtf” to any kind of speech that celebrates any form of real-life violence.
I do understand the argument that their entire worldview is “commit violence against the others” and so perhaps punching Nazis is simply a preemptive strike against people who have actively chosen this belief. I do understand self-defense. If someone punches you and the conditions make it so running away is not an option available to you, by all means I will not fault you for punching back. And if things get to the point where you’ve already tried all the peaceful solutions and someone just keeps being harmful anyways, I can see violence being a last resort to make them stop hurting you or others. I think my problem is that I’m aware that sometimes, punching a schoolyard bully will stop them from hurting you anymore, but I’ve never heard of punching a Nazi stopping them from doing harm to anyone. Which makes the “this is okay because it’s a preemptive strike to stop them from hurting anyone” argument fall flat to me. I’ve heard of bringing a military against them stopping them from doing harm in WWII, but I haven’t heard of the same for punching individual Nazis.
I’m very used to people online being cruel to acceptable targets, for what seems to me like cruelty for the sake of it, and shutting down any “wait, that seems a little mean and unnecessary” with “so you’re DEFENDING them? You’re a bootlicker.” So I’m not sure if what I’m looking at is the minority frustration I’m not supposed to tone police, or if it’s glee in violence against an acceptable target for the sake of violence. And I’ll risk being a tone policer and getting corrected when it comes to people celebrating violence. By all means, I’d love to find out that punching individual Nazis actually a “maybe I’ll stop being horrible to them” effect, that people are advocating violence for the sake of protecting themselves and others and not just violence for the sake of exerting power over a disliked group (and yes, I know Nazis are the oppressors and I am not trying to compare it to violence against oppressed and disliked groups).