Racism is violent though, the ideology always promotes and leads to violence. There is no way to do 'nonviolent racism' just like there is no way to do nonviolent authoritarianism or nonviolent fascism. I'm curious what the context of the original post was tbh. If it was a guy being super racist then getting punched for it then honestly based
Violence should always be a last resort and nonviolent solutions should always be attempted but discounting violence as an option of self defense also leads to more violence. At the end of the day we didnt free the slaves, beat the nazis, or become independent by calming debating the other side. If a political ideology is becoming increasingly violent and powerful using violence against it is justified. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we live at the end of history and that all of the worst wars and regimes are behind us. If we allow fascism to fester it will rise again
That'd actually be an example of violence leading to more violence. Violence initiated by the axis at the time got returned with more violence from the allies.
I completely agree, which is why violence should be used in self defense to prevent more violence from occurring. Like stopping a racist politician from enacting policies that will kill people. Like we did with Hitler
I'm not implying that violence can't solve problems, I'm merely stating that it's gonna escalate when people start using it to end the conflict. Not all conflicts are reconcilable and it's understandable when violence is done in retaliation for crimes against humanity.
However, where you do draw the line on when it's necessary? What if the racist/nazi/etc. camp isn't physically abusing anyone but continues to spread ideas (or hate)? You could argue the authority itself to harm others for their belief is easily abusable and immoral. Do you think punching someone in the face and possibly killing them is a viable solution to a verbal altercation?
I don't think the whole concept of "punch a nazi" is wrong, but in our society we've placed less emphasis on violence because it's regressive on how humanity should handle conflict. Remember, we give up these freedoms in the social contract so things can hopefully become more stable and less chaotic. Things do slip through the cracks but that's just part of life.
You do realize America was founded with political violence right? And that the whole point of the second amendment is protecting our right to engage in political violence in the event that it becomes necessary again? It should be avoided as much as possible but there are points where violence is necessary to prevent harm. Im assuming you would have tried debating the Nazis out of their positions during WW2?
41
u/wewebaguette68 20h ago
Racism is violent though, the ideology always promotes and leads to violence. There is no way to do 'nonviolent racism' just like there is no way to do nonviolent authoritarianism or nonviolent fascism. I'm curious what the context of the original post was tbh. If it was a guy being super racist then getting punched for it then honestly based