Thread by @thepiclord

The justifications given for punching Nazis (they promote genocide, etc.) SHOULD justify outright killing them. Yet somehow that's too far.

Why is it that the Nazis are *just* dangerous enough that punching them is 'self-defense' yet they're not so dangerous as to slaughter them?

It comes across as a convenient outlet for progressives' violent urges that allows them to (in their head) maintain some moral high ground.

This is my question to anyone who supports Nazi-punching: "Why not just kill them?" You claim they're an imminent threat, WHY HOLD BACK?"

What if punching them isn't actually making them go away? What if they continue to gain popularity? At what point do you cross that line?

Or are you content to draw your arbitrary line at punching because it gives you the warm & fuzzies while avoiding the icky implications.

Also, you don't have admit openly that they pose no threat whatsoever and in fact are irrelevant, because then you lose your boogeyman.

I'm sure some people would be okay with stabbing or clubbing Nazis too, but THAT hasn't become acceptable to say aloud. Yet.

If their ideas are unacceptably dangerous & intolerable when there's less than 10k of them, why wait until 100k+ of them exist to go lethal?

And don't give me that 'paradox of tolerance' crap. We can draw a hard line between speech and violence, & punish Nazis who cross it. EASY.

THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS. Nazis are allowed to spew bullshit, you are allowed to refute it, but we condemn the first person to throw a punch.

Don't claim 'incitement' if you have the opportunity to just walk away and ignore them. Your lack of self-control is no excuse.

If you can't beat them without resorting to violence, I think that speaks more to YOUR failings. Especially as a 'professional' mediator.