Nazis need to be convinced they’re wrong. I understand they represent the worst of the worst of humankind because they they think everyone not nazi must be killed, but if you start to think every nazi must be killed, there is that mirror symmetry effect that nazifies your mind.
It is too simple to say kill nazis, though it is widely accepted, it cannot be a response. Teaching and explaining, and yes, sometimes re-education must replace killings.
Gegen nazis though, but better is to prove them wrong.
This exactly. Nazis will always exist, and there needs to be a sustainable and ethical solution to combatting that. Rehabilitation is that answer when they do not pose a serious threat. Violence is that answer when they do pose a serious threat. The dilemma is also on an individual basis.
I used to work at a houseless shelter. When I worked there, there was a neo-nazi who was accepted into our services. Whether I liked it or not, I was in a position where I needed to help this person. He was not an immediate threat, although he occasionally tested that boundary. He was an example of a neo-nazi who needed rehabilitation.
Meanwhile I was once at a Palestine protest where a neo nazi tried to join us. We told him to fuck off and he refused to leave. So he got punched in the face.
The answer to the nazi question is relative to the time, place, and other context. In a society like ours where neo-nazis hold power, violence is necessary against those that uphold it. In an anarchist society with a handful of neo-nazis who arent actively physically harming people need to be dealt with through rehab.
But also slogans, mottos, memes, and such dont really have room for nuance so… its okay to punch nazis!
Ok but this varies heavily on case by case basis. Some 20 year old disillusioned kid whos a nazi needs to have his mind changed. Some 50 year old US senator that is also a nazi needs to be shot.
Debate has never been an effective method of challenging Nazi ideology but in some cases (undeserved) compassion can be effective in moving people towards deradicalization
That being said, your first and foremost responsibility is to protecting the vulnerable. If you are in a position to help someone deradicalize in their personal life that is good, but it is morally wrong to allow people to be subjected to their ideology (both its violence and rhetoric) and inadequately protect those people, or simply challenge their ideas verbally dragging vulnerable folks through exposure to hate and dehumanization
I think its also important to remember that while deradicalization is a good thing, it is unbelievably emotionally laborious and never a guarantee, and can only ever work at an individual scale. I don’t think you could just “hugs and kindness” your way out of the Nazi regime. It is not a meaningful way to solve the larger problem
Nazis need to be convinced they’re wrong. I understand they represent the worst of the worst of humankind because they they think everyone not nazi must be killed, but if you start to think every nazi must be killed, there is that mirror symmetry effect that nazifies your mind. It is too simple to say kill nazis, though it is widely accepted, it cannot be a response. Teaching and explaining, and yes, sometimes re-education must replace killings. Gegen nazis though, but better is to prove them wrong.
there’s a time and a place for rehabilitation, and that time and place is not when they are in power
This exactly. Nazis will always exist, and there needs to be a sustainable and ethical solution to combatting that. Rehabilitation is that answer when they do not pose a serious threat. Violence is that answer when they do pose a serious threat. The dilemma is also on an individual basis.
I used to work at a houseless shelter. When I worked there, there was a neo-nazi who was accepted into our services. Whether I liked it or not, I was in a position where I needed to help this person. He was not an immediate threat, although he occasionally tested that boundary. He was an example of a neo-nazi who needed rehabilitation.
Meanwhile I was once at a Palestine protest where a neo nazi tried to join us. We told him to fuck off and he refused to leave. So he got punched in the face.
The answer to the nazi question is relative to the time, place, and other context. In a society like ours where neo-nazis hold power, violence is necessary against those that uphold it. In an anarchist society with a handful of neo-nazis who arent actively physically harming people need to be dealt with through rehab.
But also slogans, mottos, memes, and such dont really have room for nuance so… its okay to punch nazis!
“If you don’t tolerate the intolerant you’re the same as them”.
That’s not it chief.
Ok but this varies heavily on case by case basis. Some 20 year old disillusioned kid whos a nazi needs to have his mind changed. Some 50 year old US senator that is also a nazi needs to be shot.
Debate has never been an effective method of challenging Nazi ideology but in some cases (undeserved) compassion can be effective in moving people towards deradicalization
That being said, your first and foremost responsibility is to protecting the vulnerable. If you are in a position to help someone deradicalize in their personal life that is good, but it is morally wrong to allow people to be subjected to their ideology (both its violence and rhetoric) and inadequately protect those people, or simply challenge their ideas verbally dragging vulnerable folks through exposure to hate and dehumanization
I think its also important to remember that while deradicalization is a good thing, it is unbelievably emotionally laborious and never a guarantee, and can only ever work at an individual scale. I don’t think you could just “hugs and kindness” your way out of the Nazi regime. It is not a meaningful way to solve the larger problem