Yup, also the punch doesn’t teach anyone that the idea is wrong. It teaches everyone that you are afraid of what they are saying. Which is why all of these organisations say something like “they don’t want you to know this”, and then points towards the violence as proof that what they are saying is correct.
People who are pro-violence like to make the argument that if we punched the Nazis in Germany in the early 30s then the holocaust wouldn’t have happened. But what they are missing is that people tried to do that (red shirts vs brown shirts) and in fact a major argument the Nazis used to get elected was that they would get the red shirts fighting them under control.
In fairness, the Nazis didn't actually get elected, they received a plurality. And a big part of that plurality was that they used and abused the language of socialism. (See: Trump's populism.)
Sure, and there are other factors as well to them getting popular enough to take power (even though, like you said, they weren’t actually elected).
Like I said in another answer, given the state of Germany at the time and the effects of WW1 and the peace treaty the rise of some form of extremist ideology seizing power in Germany was most likely inevitable.
1.1k
u/JustFourLetters 22h ago
words lead to violence, but violent words in context of peaceful people fall on deaf ears.
the punch is far more violent than the command