Is Punching Nazis Justified?

Is Punching Nazis Justified?

An op-ed on the reaction to someone punching neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

By now, you’ve probably seen the now-famous video of alt-right (or, more correctly, neo-Nazi) leader Richard Spencer getting decked in the face by an anonymous anti-fascist. If you haven’t, CNN has a video of it here.

Spencer made headlines back in 2016 for concluding a speech with the words “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” - a clear allusion to the infamous Nazi cry. He is a white supremacist and the founder of the so-called “alt-right” movement, which is basically a cover for white nationalism and neo-Nazism. So it’s understandable why people across the internet are celebrating this situation.

What’s also interesting is a certain kind of liberal response that says “violence is never the answer, punching Nazis makes you just as bad as them.”

(Okay, sorry. We literally went to war against Nazis, and now you’re saying that violence against them is unjustified? Cool.)

On a more serious note, there’s literally nothing someone can do, short of advocating literal actual genocide (which the neo-Nazi alt-right people have done) that can make them “just as bad” as a Nazi. The neo-Nazi alt-right movement is one founded on the idea that the white race is superior to all and that ethnic cleansing is the correct route. This is an inherently violent rhetoric.

Here’s the thing. I, personally, do not advocate for punching random people in the face. But the thing is, when you take a situation like this, where someone stands up against a neo-Nazi - even if their methods are less than ideal - and then you make it about how the anti-fascist is in the wrong rather than looking at the actual rhetoric of the so-called alt-right movement and how incredibly horrifying it is - you’re literally playing into the neo-Nazis’ hands.

The scariest part of this situation isn’t that someone got punched, it’s the whole “alt-right” movement. Because it’s this insidious, evil thing that can be so easy to pass off as “normal”. Even the name, once you’ve heard it enough, starts to sound harmless. It’s easy to forget that the values and rhetoric and yes, even their “hail Trump” slogans, are taken right from Nazi Germany. I try to avoid using the term they’ve given themselves because it legitimizes them and their rhetoric in a way that makes me supremely uncomfortable and represents a threat to people of color and especially Jewish people across the country, because if we normalize them and their rhetoric by saying they have the right to say whatever they want, we normalize the idea of violence against other races and religions. (Which is why, in this article, I avoid saying “alt-right” without attaching the clarifying “neo-Nazi” in front of it.)

But back to the punching.

It is a unique privilege to be able to look at actual Nazi rhetoric and say “oh, no, their opinions are valid because free speech” and then move on with your life. If you’re able to do that, I’m willing to bet you aren’t Jewish, or black, or otherwise a group that the Nazis want to eradicate from the face of the earth. There are certain rhetorics that cannot be treated as valid (morally speaking, not legally speaking, I understand how free speech works) and Nazism is one of those. You can’t listen to what a Nazi says passively and then pat yourself on the back for being so tolerant, for respecting their right to spew forth their vile discourse.

There isn’t some binary of “violence is always the answer” and “violence is never the answer” - even legally speaking, violence is allowed in self-defense. Most people would agree that fighting back against someone who is beating you up is justifiable. Many would also agree that fighting back against violent rhetoric that represents a threat of bodily harm to you and people like you is also justified.

This is a morally grey area, so condemning the anti-fascist who did the punching is not so simple. When you are up against an inherently violent rhetoric, then it becomes easy to see why someone might want to react with violence. (Here’s a good explanation of why verbally reasoning with Nazis may be a lost cause, just to show that side of the debate.) I don’t fault the person who punched Spencer, because at the very least it’s a clear message to the neo-Nazis that their rhetoric will not be tolerated passively by people. I don’t know if I would have done the same thing in their place, but the good thing that’s come out of all of this is that whoever punched Spencer in the face has brought more negative attention to the neo-Nazi alt-right movement than anyone has in awhile.

So regardless of your opinion on whether Spencer getting punched was justified or not, one thing is clear: the growing neo-Nazi movement in this country (and across the world) needs to be seen as a threat to all of us. We need to stop normalizing neo-Nazi rhetoric in the media and on the internet. This is not simply another political stance that can be seen as valid, because a platform based on advocating the systematic elimination of entire races/religions cannot be validated. We cannot let that happen.

In other news, the neo-Nazi alt-right movement has now put a literal bounty on the head of the person who punched Spencer, so. Clearly they aren’t above killing someone extrajudicially. Remind me again why we should treat their opinions as a valid political viewpoint?

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter to the Person Who Still Uses the "R Word"

Your negative associations are slowly poisoning the true meaning of an incredibly beautiful, exclusive word.

What do you mean you didn't “mean it like that?" You said it.

People don't say things just for the hell of it. It has one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "To be less advanced in mental, physical or social development than is usual for one's age."

So, when you were “retarded drunk" this past weekend, as you claim, were you diagnosed with a physical or mental disability?

When you called your friend “retarded," did you realize that you were actually falsely labeling them as handicapped?

Don't correct yourself with words like “stupid," “dumb," or “ignorant." when I call you out. Sharpen your vocabulary a little more and broaden your horizons, because I promise you that if people with disabilities could banish that word forever, they would.

Especially when people associate it with drunks, bad decisions, idiotic statements, their enemies and other meaningless issues. Oh trust me, they are way more than that.

I'm not quite sure if you have had your eyes opened as to what a disabled person is capable of, but let me go ahead and lay it out there for you. My best friend has Down Syndrome, and when I tell people that their initial reaction is, “Oh that is so nice of you! You are so selfless to hang out with her."

Well, thanks for the compliment, but she is a person. A living, breathing, normal girl who has feelings, friends, thousands of abilities, knowledge, and compassion out the wazoo.

She listens better than anyone I know, she gets more excited to see me than anyone I know, and she works harder at her hobbies, school, work, and sports than anyone I know. She attends a private school, is a member of the swim team, has won multiple events in the Special Olympics, is in the school choir, and could quite possibly be the most popular girl at her school!

So yes, I would love to take your compliment, but please realize that most people who are labeled as “disabled" are actually more “able" than normal people. I hang out with her because she is one of the people who has so effortlessly taught me simplicity, gratitude, strength, faith, passion, love, genuine happiness and so much more.

Speaking for the people who cannot defend themselves: choose a new word.

The trend has gone out of style, just like smoking cigarettes or not wearing your seat belt. It is poisonous, it is ignorant, and it is low class.

As I explained above, most people with disabilities are actually more capable than a normal human because of their advantageous ways of making peoples' days and unknowingly changing lives. Hang out with a handicapped person, even if it is just for a day. I can one hundred percent guarantee you will bite your tongue next time you go to use the term out of context.

Hopefully you at least think of my friend, who in my book is a hero, a champion and an overcomer. Don't use the “R Word". You are way too good for that. Stand up and correct someone today.

Cover Image Credit: Kaitlin Murray

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Sorry People, But #BelieveWomen Is #UnAmerican

Presumption of innocence is a core American value


There's a saying: "Lack of faith and blind faith - both are equally dangerous". Believing sexual assault accusers who are women just because they are women besides being the very definition of sexist - prejudice based on sex - is setting a harmful precedent on the way justice is served in this country. See, what this movement has done is changed justice from "prove guilt" to "prove innocence", an important and incredibly dangerous difference. Where is the due process that our Founding Fathers envisioned, fought, and died for?

Due process is an integral part of the reason why we have the United States of America. It was so important to our Founding Fathers that they included it in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight (the Bill of Rights), and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It galls me to see how privileged modern day feminists are - so privileged they seemingly forget the freedoms this country affords them, so they may live their life, expect liberty, and be unhindered in their pursuit of happiness.

#BelieveWomen is a vigilante movement - and with vigilante justice the innocent always hang with the guilty, one of the very reasons for due process. I've heard the argument it's better to let innocent men rot in jail than have rapist men walk free, an argument, despite being incredibly moronic and unAmerican, that would not be made if the accused was a man close to the woman's heart. Because with the change to "prove innocence", the assumption will be guilt, and a confirmation bias will be created. Whereas if the assumption is innocence, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. I understand that a high percentage of rape accusations are truthful (I believe the number is in the high 90s), but the small percentage that are not means we cannot, in good conscience, assume guilt. To assume would damn some men to a fate they do not deserve, a fate they would have to endure simply because of their sex. Any real feminist should be appalled at how sexism is implicitly encouraged in this movement.

If you choose to #BelieveWomen in spite of everything I outlined, that is your prerogative, but you must #BelieveAllWomen. If your father, husband, boyfriend, or son gets accused, you must #BelieveWomen and stand with their accuser. Any less and your feminist privilege will show. Vocal #MeToo activist Lena Dunham has already shown her privilege - accusing actress Aurora Perrineau of lying about being assaulted by her friend Murray Miller. When the going gets hard, feminists rarely stick to their principles. And sadly, feminism - and the double standards it always brings - rears its ugly head once again.

Related Content

Facebook Comments