# data[].attributes.body
“Fascists have no time for pluralism or diversity or individual rights. Fascists sent millions to the gas chambers: Jews, people of color, LGBT people, disabled people. So if you can’t stop laughing at the Spencer memes and you don’t understand why, it’s because what you’re seeing is the satisfying thwack of justice.” - Tom Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
“A man who advocates for ethnic cleansing, “peaceful” or otherwise, should not feel like he has the right to walk the streets of a liberal democracy unaccosted.” - Tom Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
“There are times when passive resistance is not enough (and, let’s be honest, it’s not like nonviolence has a great record of defeating fascism.) ... But anti-fascism is not a question of politics; it’s a matter of simple human decency. Repudiating fascism doesn’t mean repudiating the politics of fascists; it means repudiating their very existence, because they pose an existential threat to the rest of us. Richard Spencer is an advocate for genocide. His presence on our televisions, on our internet, in our lives, is an act of violence.” - Tom Hawking

# data[].attributes.body
What is free speech?
What is hate speech?
What is the difference?

# data[].attributes.body
“Nazis believe they have a monopoly on force and power – you hit a Nazi because it’s the only thing you can do to convince them they might be wrong.” - The Empirical Econocrat on Wordpress

# data[].attributes.body
“So, Why Should you Hit a Nazi? Because it is Nazi philosophy to strike first, strike hard, and use state power to eradicate groups he finds unsavory. The only reason Nazi’s stay in the shadows is because they believe they’ll get persecuted for their beliefs. If enough pop up their bald little heads and realize they can start doing some harm, that’s what they’ll do. They’re Nazis. Their belief structure is to do harm to people once there is enough other Nazis. They’re cancer. And you beat back cancer with harsh chemotherapy.” - The Empirical Econocrat on Wordpress

# data[].attributes.body
“Let’s get one thing straight – this guy is somewhat intelligent, somewhat educated. He doesn’t believe what he believes because he’s somehow mistaken in the facts. He believes what he believes because he freely chose to be an agent of evil. This isn’t some poor sod who never got his chance in life due to circumstances beyond his control. This is a sociopath. Remember, he’s literally a Nazi.” - The Empirical Econocrat on Wordpress

# data[].attributes.body
“Maybe the question shouldn’t be, “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?” but, “If you don’t want to be punched in the face, maybe you shouldn’t preach Nazi values to the public?” - Jeremy Binckes

# data[].attributes.body
“You don't get to punch people in the face, even if their ideas are odious.” - Randy Cohen

# data[].attributes.body
“Again, I speak from a position of privilege. I’ve never been threatened with violence in word or deed on the basis of who I am. I don’t presume to tell those who have how they should feel about Nazis like Spencer. But for people like me at least, deciding what to share and endorse, things look bleak enough without cheering on the darkness.” - Patrick Stokes

# data[].attributes.body
“Political violence, according to this understanding, only becomes legitimate in contexts when the liberal democratic sphere, and the protections and freedoms it affords, has broken down - for instance, where tyranny makes certain forms of violent resistence effectively self-defense. That some such point exists seems hard to dispute. The difficulty is knowing when that point has been reached, such that politics legitimates the use of violence against others, and what sort of violence is thereby legitimated. The US is still, at least at the time of writing, a more-or-less functional liberal democracy. That cannot be assumed to hold … But at least on January 20th, punching an unarmed Nazi in the street doesn’t appear to rise to the level of self-defense.” - Patrick Stokes

# data[].attributes.body
“Should Mr. Spencer face violence? Those who answer “yes” do not see a qualitative difference between speech and actions. Speech, they say, is every bit as, if not more, harmful than physical action. It is undoubtedly true that words hurt people, but have we decided that it is generally more acceptable to risk that people might be hurt by words than physical violence?” - Brandon Ambrosino

# data[].attributes.body
“If a guy talks like that jerk [Richard Spencer], you should just ignore him. If he hits you, turn around. Don’t even acknowledge him as a person. That’s the type of violence I would call for. Not physical violence. Because, you know, people say symbolic violence can be even worse, but don’t underestimate physical violence. Something happens when you move to physical violence. I’m not saying we should greet everyone, embrace them. Be brutal at a different level. When you encounter a guy like the one who was punched, act in such a way that even hitting him, even slapping him is too much of a recognition. You should treat him or her or whoever as a nonperson, literally.” - Slavoj Žižek

# data[].attributes.body
“Because people on the left want to promote a vision of a nonviolent society governed by the ideals of democracy, equality, and cultural tolerance. And because non-leftists often see [the left] as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view.” - Michael Kazin

# data[].attributes.body
“The broader traditions of free speech are there to protect the most challenging awful mean terrible hateful racist sexist anti-American garbage people can spew out. The protections are not there to cover the easy stuff most people agree with (though they do). That is the whole point.” - Peter Van Buren