Punch Drunk
A discussion of using brains over brawn when confronting so-called Nazis
In yet another week of “wtf is going on?!” we’ve found ourselves arguing the merits of Nazi punching. As I mentioned in a recent article, the conversation, while quite lively, has failed to distinguish between espousing Nazi ideals and being an historically accurate, bona fide Nazi.
While some would view this as a distinction without a difference, and though the dictionary definition of “Nazi” does admittedly have gradations, there still must be a recognition of etymological origin here.
To the point: extreme racism existed long before Nazism proper. High-fiving other racist psychos and orgasming at the thought of ethnic purity isn’t what distinguished Nazis from other abnormally race-focused degenerates.
No. Seizing power and beginning to walk towards making their twisted fantasies a reality is what made Nazis something more than your typical asshole.
The astute reader will make sure to distinguish between the seizing of power and a democratic process that grants power to someone. Further, they’ll be able to delineate between being the aforementioned typical asshole (President Trump) and being someone further down the line who has zero qualms with Nazism (Richard Spencer). The two are not the same, all those retweets to the contrary notwithstanding.
Back to point: there is in fact a difference between using the label “Nazi” accurately and loosely.
And in the space that exists between the precise, denotative sense and the derogatory, connotative sense is more than enough to wedge one’s political opportunism into.
Once we decide to do so—loosening the belt on our labeling of one thing in order to accommodate our present need—we suddenly find it far easier to mislabel yet more things erroneously.
Except it isn’t fully in error at that point. It is no longer erroneous because it has now become expedient.
Slopes are for dopes
Without getting into the issues of transgenderism, Islam, or any other hot topic issue that curiously now has a related -phobia, we can quickly see (if we’ll be honest enough for a moment) the linguistic slippery slope that Conservatives had warned against.
They need not be right about an entire subject matter — transgender rights, for example — to have a sense of some of what’s going on.
From marriage equality to bathroom usage to Nazis, Leftists have learned that one way to get their way is to change the rules. Specifically the rules of language. (I dealt with the Right doing this in my last article—I’m an equal opportunist.)
The point here isn’t to get hung up on those particular moments or their merit. The point is that we should recognize how this lesson wasn’t lost on one Donald J. Trump.
He is where he is — reminder: the fucking Oval Office what the hell you guys?!— because of having zero regard (here, here, here, and lots more) for the veracity of words and phrases.
He realized he could fight fire with fire — and, given his temperament (or lack thereof), knew that he had the best fire; the absolutely tremendous fire; he’s heard people — many people — saying he has the biglyest fire.
Is it any wonder our culture is aflame?
Sticks and Stones
Words have hurt us greatly. Their damage is not only being felt at present, but are actively producing disaster. The cascade is something that may be impossible to reign in at this point.
Remember, fire with fire. “Fake news” was coined to describe the influence of voters towards Trump by way of false stories and narratives—a phrase that is now Trump’s go-to response for any news he doesn’t like.
Other leaders are following his lead, too. Just this morning it was reported that Bashar Assad is dismissing reports of torture under his regime as being part of the ‘fake news’ problem.
Given the swirl of words and the lack of weight they carry anymore, it is easy to see how taking matters into our own hands—literally—seems reasonable. And at first pass it is reasonable. Yet it’s not something that reason can sustain after more reflection.
We’ve realized that words can no longer be counted on rising to the occasion. As such, decisions have been made that the schoolyard “sticks and stones” approach will work just fine thank you very much.
After all, words only mean whatever meaning we assign or grant them. And we all know that in our present context we’re not allowed to grant the opposition anything whatsoever, even if our intellectual honesty or integrity are at stake in refusing to do so. Thus the linguistic rift continues to grow as we refuse to agree on the meaning of anything.
But we can still all agree on what a fist to the face looks and feels like.
Sock it to me
Burning buildings doesn’t defeat the more cancerous ideas of a Milo. Punching Spencer doesn’t lay a finger on his conception of reality.
The Alt-Right and the Regressive Left are both jeering the rest of us who are attempting to maintain an air of sanity saying, “sticks and stones—and arson and violence—may break our bones, but your weak-ass words will never hurt us.”
And they won’t. Primarily because so many have given up on actually talking. They’d rather jeer, smear, name-call, and punch. The hard work of thinking is a challenge we don’t seem to have the patience to pursue. Why deal with the layers and complexities when we can quote a pithy quip found in a tweet or status?
What we need are more people in the trenches like the countless lawyers who worked pro bono on the weekend to give aid to foreigners caught in the web of our fear-driven, political shit storm.
What we need are more people with a spine like Sally Yates. People who refuse to bow to the evil whims of our autocratic oligarchy.
We need marches, not riots.
We need thinkers, not infantry.
We need speakers, not fighters.
We need stronger ideas and arguments, not stronger sucker punches.
Rising tides
Otherwise all we do is raise the ante, something we’ll feel in force when we are served a similarly violent portion in return. Must we sow that which we would rather not reap?
This is not pacifism speaking. This is reason requesting a seat at the table. And it’s past time that request becomes a demand.
There well could come a day in which violence is the only immediate answer. But even then it will only be an immediate solution, not a lasting one. So long as we cannot differentiate between that day and our present one we will only work towards bringing it here sooner.
Instead of raising our hands in violence we must raise the level of discourse in the public square. Instead of raising our voices to match the disgust and hatred seen on the other side we must raise the quality of the content in our speech.
Sacrificing free speech and the pursuit of ideas—both good and bad ones—for the sake of temporarily winning a battle will be what kills our democracy, not some asshole with a swastika tattoo on their neck.
About the author
Hi there, my name is John. I love having conversations. My posts are an attempt to start some. Please join in the conversation via commenting or sharing.
Also, I’ve begun committing to donating a dollar to the Against Malaria Foundation for every recommend my posts receive within its first month. This isn’t a gimmick. It’s a quantifiable method for encouraging and reminding me to give to things I care about.
Thanks for reading and sharing.
