nauta historiae

I personally am against hurting people or ridiculing them. Yes, that includes people who do not share my views. I understand if this is not everyone's view. I understand if it's hard to understand.

 

To expose racists, Nazis etc., to point out their mistakes, ideally to make them realize their mistakes and to beat them with their own weapons, slogans, with facts, data and their propaganda - that is my way. But no more. No exaggeration, no harassment, no punches. "If I take this path, I am no better than those I reject" is what I generally say. Or, as a good friend of mine quotes "You can tell a person's mindset by the means they use."

 

Is that justified? A little excursion into philosophy (with thanks to the Guardian).

For thousands of years people have argued about what is "good" and "bad". How do you define it?

 

One way would be to set up rules. Could we set up a rule that we want to apply everywhere and consistently? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? If a rule is worth following, it becomes "good". So I think we agree that "violence is bad" is a moral "good" rule: it can be applied universally.

But what if another "good" rule is "Stopping Nazism is good"? Does the reverse mean: "Violence is bad unless it can stop Nazism"? And where does that lead to? If "stopping Nazism" means extreme violence, then extreme violence is justified according to this rule. And it contradicts our other rule "violence is bad". It is no longer universally applicable.

 

Let's try another philosophical approach: "If an action brings more happiness to the world, then that action is good." If punching a Nazi means preventing Nazism, then punching Nazis is justified. The end justifies the means.

But that justifies any action if it only leads to "more good". If killing one innocent person means saving hundreds, then murder is justified.

So if "good" actions are justified in this context, but also "bad" actions, it makes this moral system useless.

 

In a social climate that generates and tolerates racist beliefs, sooner or later corresponding actions are normalized and, more importantly, performed. I think you can see this almost everywhere in the world today; my best example would be the murder of Walter Lübcke, but there are many more. I don't think anyone wants such a climate. Well, at least I don't.

But: It's not about censoring racists, it's about whether we want them to feel comfortable in our society spreading their opinions.

 

Can we make a rule out of this? "It's good to be polite and kind to people. Except to people who want to exterminate different races."

So far, so good. However, this rule does not justify violence. It states that these people do not deserve the same respect that I would give to others.

But there is a difference between negating an attitude you show towards all others and stating "Don't be nice to Nazis" or calling for an active action: " Punch Nazis".

 

I personally would never want violence to be used, not even in the name of creating a "non-welcome culture". Punches and physical harm will not eradicate racist views. On the contrary. Yes, it may make the expression of such views less pleasant, driving people and their opinions into the background/underground. At what cost?

 

I can understand that there are people who will not follow my argument here.

But: these are my basic personal values on the subject of humanity. And for me, the credo "No violence" is set up higher than other moral rules.