Yes, Even Nazis And "Nazis" Must Remain Unpunched
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has a post up about one of "the most misguided articles" he's seen "in the past year."
He's referencing a piece by a sociology grad student and Feministing columnist, Katherine Cross, entitled, "Why Punching Nazis Is Not Only Ethical, But Imperative."
Cross is talking about the vile white supremacist Richard Spencer, who was punched in the face on inauguration day. White supremacist, yes, but "Nazi"? He apparently denies it -- while, at the same time, being kinda two-thumbs-up for Hitler-think.
Coyne (unlike Cross), favoring logical thought for his arguments, notes that Spencer is "an anti-Semitic white supremacist who seems to knowingly co-opt aspects of Nazi behavior. But he's not a Nazi per se, and we shouldn't call all white supremacists Nazis, which immediately aligns them with the Hitlerian ideology that may not be appropriate."
Sociology student Cross writes:
This fact has caused some consternation and hand-wringing among those who see Nazis as perfect foils for their ideological posturing rather than very real genocidal extremists with a long and bloody track record. For the mainline liberals and conservatives who lament the punching of Richard Spencer, the young white supremacist activist who coined the term "alt-right," Nazism remains a theoretical construct, an "idea" that can be debated and defeated without a shot being fired in anger. For the rest of us -- for many Jews, for ethnic and religious minorities, for queer people -- Nazism is an empirical fact with the solidity of iron roads leading to walled death camps.
I'm an atheist who grew up Jewish and experienced a lot of bullying over my and my family's being Jewish. As somebody who understands, deeply appreciates, and defends our Constitution -- and appreciated it from a young age -- I defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie when I was 13. (There was a discussion about this in one of my classes at Temple.)
Here's Cross's kind of crazy:
The use of force, by contrast, does reveal the shared humanity that Nazis deny. Our vulnerability is one of the things that links us all, seven billion strong, in a humane fragility. These are essential aspects of our humanity that both Nazi mythology and channer troll culture deny. Punching a Nazi, by contrast, reveals it. It reveals they are no masters, but quite eminently capable of fear, of pain, of vulnerability. And that takes the shine off; it eliminates their mystique, and it puts the lie to the idea that their ideology is an armor against the pains of modernity.
Where this leads -- to speech that's not free, to a society that's violent against people whose views we find untenable -- is not safety; it's unfreedom, unsafety, and the chipping away of all of our constitutional and natural rights.
And it's not all that large a step from saying Nazis should be punched to saying we should just gun them the hell down.
Again, I'm sickened by the beliefs of people like Spencer, to put it mildly, but unless they engage in or incite violence -- which are things our justice system is there to take on -- they need to be allowed free speech and, yes, safety to say their odious things.
This is not just in their interest. Far from it. Defending their safety to speak freely protects all of ours.
Coyne's thinking on the free speech end of things:
In fact, people like Cross herself are the ones who endanger democracy. As far as I know, Spencer hasn't called for censoring or physically assaulting anyone. In a country run by Cross, that would not only be legal, but encouraged, and people like Spencer wouldn't be allowed to speak. (Presumably Cross would be The Decider.) Free speech? Only for those with acceptable views! Further, the "credibility" argument doesn't hold for me. While I won't myself debate creationists because that gives them the cachet of having a real scientist think they're worth debating, I wouldn't for a moment try to censor them in public talks simply because they're wrong. (Public schools, of course, are a different matter: teaching creationism is teaching lies to children, and at the same time pushing unconstitutional religious views on them.)
And on the utterly cracked view of Cross's that "The use of force, by contrast, does reveal the shared humanity that Nazis deny," Coyne explains:
It is this kind of stuff that scares me about the Regressive Left. They not only twist language out of its normal meaning to justify violence--something that Orwell warned about repeatedly, but use their new language to justify hurting other human beings. Indeed, it's not just ethical to hurt them, but required. You know what this leads to: people punching Muslims for their "noncompliance" with the tenets of Western society, Jews for being exponents of occupation and promoting an "apartheid" state, and people like Milo (not a Nazi!) being punched for promoting "hate speech."This is not a road that progressives want to travel. I'm far more scared of an authoritarian like Cross than of a white supremacist like Spencer. Spencer will never achieve anything, but Cross, along with Arel and others, is rapidly convincing many progressives that it's okay to hurt the bodies of people who hurt your feelings. And that is fundamentally antidemocratic.
Via Cosh, this is a sweet little essay. And it's about a GREAT little essay from Orwell.
It often seems like Americans can't handle irony, and are flatly confounded by anything which they can't accept at face value. But every time I've been in a room with people smarter than I am, which most every room in the world, it's been essential to humbly consider what's being said with an ear for nuance and variable sincerity... When people are playing ball over your head, you have to reach as far as you can, and not complain about having to make the effort.
(more)
Crid at February 5, 2017 12:28 AM
You'll remember last summer, when some clever person said The press takes Trump literally but not seriously; Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally. It was a good line, and nobody exactly knew who should get credit for it.
But after the immigration debacle began last weekend, Radley Balko offered a poignant tweet.
See also this, via Kaus a few minutes ago.
The typical lefty (or conservative, for that matter) is someone who seems to understand that life is supposed to include some struggle, but can't understand how it works on a visceral level. So "fighting Nazis" is expressed in pointless fistfights. Language has often betrayed them, which is perhaps one reason that they don't have the nearly religious adoration of free speech that so many on this blog have.
I think we should all say what's on our mind, whether or not it's sarcastic and whether or not it flatters someone, especially ourselves, to say it.
But we need to stick to what we know. Massey made a really good point:. I had no actual knowledge of the difference between a jackboot and a regular boot, and thus had no business using the metaphor.
Crid at February 5, 2017 12:30 AM
I've been reading a ton of Sapolsky lately.
It's interesting to see just how much like Chimps we are. Chimps will regularly gang up on someone that's pissed them off politically. Maybe he doesn't groom others enough, maybe he's too rude or pushy. Whatever it is, he isn't following the proper mode of behavior...
Eventually they'll coordinate a beat down. They will gang up on him and beat the ever living shit out of him. Usually there is one on looker that wants to intervene but knows he can't against the mob. When given the opportunity he tries to talk them down, sometimes succeeds, usually doesn't. He tries to reason with them as best as chimps can, but....it doesn't work.
This is why I never ever go into places with mobs. Do I think it is ok to beat a Nazi? Hello no. But I don't think of myself as safe in politically charged climates either. Doesn't matter what the politics is, right or left.....we are chimps you will get a beatdown saying the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong setting and people will defend the beatdown because it is their side giving it to you.
Ppne at February 5, 2017 1:36 AM
It was the actual Nazis whose political rise was accomplished by punching people with whom they disagreed, rather than debating them. Violence and suppression of dissenting views characterized the Nazis from the party's earliest days.
So, punching people whose views bother you and excusing it by calling them names and labeling them as dangerous to society is actually quite Nazi-like.
Conan the Grammarian at February 5, 2017 5:03 AM
State laws regarding self-defense vary, but generally, you only have the right to hit someone when they pose an immediate and credible threat of inflicting serious bodily injury on you or someone in your immediate vicinity.
It could be that they're approaching you with a raised fist, or perhaps they've already hit you and are about to do so again.
Generally, it falls under the subjective "reasonable man" test. Would a reasonable man construe this person's actions as an intent to cause serious physical harm?
Now, it seems, the belligerent left is construing this to mean that if a person's ideas, if effected, could pose a threat to your life or safety, you have a right to punch them.
No, you don't. Immediate threat means just that.
Patrick at February 5, 2017 8:48 AM
Sorry. I didn't know what an odious character Richard Spencer is when I linked to the piece about Muslims drinking camel urine. While true, he borrowed the story from the Daily Mail, UK. I apologise for giving him any press.
Back to the point; the violent reactionary left is not new in history. Nor are their losses. Talk about a failed ideology. They're nothing to be intimidated by.
Canvasback at February 5, 2017 10:04 AM
Coyne (unlike Cross), favoring logical thought for his arguments, notes that Spencer is "an anti-Semitic white supremacist who seems to knowingly co-opt aspects of Nazi behavior. But he's not a Nazi per se, and we shouldn't call all white supremacists Nazis, which immediately aligns them with the Hitlerian ideology that may not be appropriate."
Meh. Potato, pohtahtoh. Nazi's good enough for me in this case.
Kevin at February 5, 2017 12:06 PM
Why punch those you think are Nazis? Why would you want others to give them any sympathy?
Rather, let those folks open their mouths so everyone can see what idiots they are.
charles at February 5, 2017 2:52 PM
Why punch those you think are Nazis?
When you lack the intellectual chops to refute someone's argument, screeching 'nazi' and punching them is better than admitting defeat.
dee nile at February 5, 2017 3:13 PM
Because it's not about punishing those who are wrong, or even about punching Nazis. It's about signaling that the puncher is virtuous; or the wannabe puncher, since no actual Nazis will be punched in this fantasy tantrum. After all, punching an actual Nazi would expose the virtue signaler to a return punch and possible injury.
Conan the Grammarian at February 5, 2017 3:50 PM
If we ever have a truly murderous regime in power, committing mass murders and genocide, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that it will be run by leftoids. Count on it.
mpetrie98 at February 5, 2017 4:40 PM
If we ever have a truly murderous regime in power, committing mass murders and genocide, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that it will be run by leftoids. Count on it
Most authoritarian regimes throughout history have been helmed by leftist ideologues
lujlp at February 5, 2017 6:13 PM
If I am on the jury, I'm voting to convict the puncher. If the assaulted party fights back, they are walking.
No sale for your moral imperative here.
MarkD at February 6, 2017 2:34 PM
Real genocidal Nazis or Illinois nazis?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 6, 2017 4:00 PM
Leave a comment