I have been seeing plenty of guillhotine and mollotov jokes here, and as the title says, punching nazis.

I’ve been reading a book about nonviolence and anarchism, and he basically shows how we shouldn’t use violence, even in extreme cases (like neo nazis).

The main argument is that the means dictates the ends, so if we want a non violent (and non opressing) society, punching people won’t help.

And if it is just a joke, you should probably know that some people have been jailed for decades because of jokes like these (see: avoiding the fbi, second chapter of the book above).

Obviously im up for debate, or else I wouldn’t make this post. And yes, I do stand for nonviolence.

(english is not my first language, im sorry if I made errors, or wansn’t clear.)

(if this is not pertinent, I can remake this post in c/politics or something)

(the book is The Anarchist Cookbook by Keith McHenry, if you are downloading from the internet, make sure you download it from the correct author, there is another book with the same name.)

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.

        Sources often don’t convince the opposing party in an argument, especially in a political one. You’re not my audience, I already know you’re anchored in your convictions. You may as well be an LLM or a useful idiot manipulated by misinformation. I don’t care.

        You’re not my audience. I don’t care what you think. I’m providing a counterpoint for folk that haven’t researched or haven’t made up their mind.

        https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008389118

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re not my audience,

          That’s a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.

          I already know you’re anchored in your convictions

          To the extent you know anything about me, I also “know” that your own convictions are just as unmovable.

          Looked at another way, it’s a good thing to have convictions.

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Neither of the links seems to mention immigrants from intolerant countries, so I’m not sure how they’re relevant to the comment you’re replying to.

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Correct! I am not using a strawman argument like @JubilantJaguar is.

        Immigrants from intolerant countries are not inherently intolerant. In fact they’re likely to be tolerant of the practices of the country they’re immigrating to, because people tend to want to move to places with policies they agree with.

        However, Nazis are inherently intolerant. That’s integral to ideology of a Nazi.

        Thus the links I shared and the disparity they highlight.