What is zero tolerance, though? I don't believe they should be left unchallenged. I don't believe they should be left in any doubt that no right minded person supports them. I draw the line this side of punching them in what appears to have been a premeditated attack rather than a heat of the moment reaction to harassment. I completely understand people on the other side of that line, I just can't condone it myself, and I believe that it is the wrong thing to do, morally and practically. Maybe you believe that punching him was a right thing to do. How about shooting him dead? That's another possibility that meets all the criteria people are raising. It's certainly zero tolerance. It's a sign to other Nazis that they aren't safe. Probably a step too far for a lot of people, though. But I bet you'd find some support for it too.
I don't feel sympathy for the Nazi. But at the same time I don't think this sort of attack is the right thing to do, or that it's a constructive thing to do.
And I'm not sure how I feel about my de-modding either; I can understand why it happened, and it saddens me a bit, but hey. Shit happens. Would quite like a chat about it with EviLore. Not to ask for it back - I'd argue against that if he suggested it - but because he's someone whose opinion I respect enough that I want to make sure he understands where I'm actually coming from on this one, and that it maybe isn't quite what first impressions may suggest.
First, I don't think that the punch itself was pre-mediated. It looked like he got in the wrong person's face and then was responded to.
Second, I think that him getting punched was literally the best option available. His injuries are not life threatening, and as I said, this is likely the first repercussion he's ever had for his behavior. In a more just U.S.A. there would be actual (rather than theoretical) repercussions for the Nazi that did not involve this gentleman having to punch this man. But that is simply not how the U.S. works. Trump was a big wake up call to me. I will always wish for better, but not dealing with the reality in front of us for so long in any meaningful way is what has allowed it to fester. Some kind of meaningful repercussion where there was none before is the answer, imo. Otherwise, what changes will occur? Ignoring them doesn't work. Police forces are by and large turning a blind eye (at best). The president is condoning it. Legislation writers are more concerned with overseas brown "terrorists" from oil-free countries than these actual terrorists.
I also don't think shooting him dead quite lines up. He was allowed to walk away from that punch and continue his way of life (preferably without encroaching on others, I hope). Loss of life or otherwise permanent injury would be something I would not condone *unless* it was self defense, much like I feel this punch was self defense (and deserved), but non-lethal and non crippling. You see the clip of the Nazi with the guns, right? And of course there's Charlottesville, and if these people had their way, additional Charlottlevilles. We can't be too careful with these people unless they decide to literally practice what they are preaching. If anything, I will keep shaking my head at the society that gives that man no other realistic option than to punch. Same with Spencer's puncher. I guess it's up to each individual where they want to draw the line, and death/permanent injury will be mine (since that is literal Nazi territory). I'd love to throw them all in prison where they can't harm anyone, but again, not gonna happen.
If you haven't seen by now, I am all about repercussions for these instigators to violence. Once the law actually provides some repercussions so they don't feel quite so confident in their ability to terrorize the innocent without punishing intervention, then and only then will i join you in decrying this punch. Until then, I'll blame the Nazi for bring a Nazi, every time. Zero tolerance is not giving these people a single inch to spread this filth and threats of violence in public places where innocents who are trying to mind their business and just walk by fear for their lives (again, Charlottesville, WW2, ect), for reacting to their actions and calls. For shutting down their "argument" of genocide and terror. That debate was never going to be civil, so why put on airs? Why entertain them even a little bit? Free speech has never protected people from repercussions, but they haven't been seeing them. Imagine if they were actually scared of law enforcement realistically responding to them unkindly *before* someone died? What a world that would be. As it stands, they are more scared of the public, because they *might* respond. They used to be scared of being outed at all due to social stigma...