Quick and Belated Word on "Punching Nazis"

From the Richard Spencer incident to the present, there has been nothing but nonsense spewed on this subject from the vast majority of the left. Jesus people are stupid. It's fucking annoying. Leftists keep getting distracted by the same Red Herring (we'll see what this is in a second).
Because people are so stupid, we have to split this up into multiple separate questions (something people have clearly failed to do of their own accord).

Is it morally alright to defend yourself if you personally are being attacked by a person? Yes.

Is it true that far-right extremists won't be defeated by civil discourse and open debate? Yes.

Is it true that Hitler wasn't defeated by civil discourse and open debate? Yes.

[[Another stupid quarrel that comes up in relation...

Is it true that MLK was a proud advocate of nonviolence? Yes.

Is it true that MLK was a far more successful advocate for civil rights than Malcolm X? Yes.

Is it true that MLK spoke of rioting as "the voice of the unheard"? Also yes. ]]

Is it a good strategy for "the left" to deliberately choose to confront piddling far-right demonstrations with the purpose of taking the demonstrators on in violence (thereby supporting the far right narrative, giving extra media attention to the far right, making the far right seem larger and more dangerous than they are, and contributing to the impression that the far left is literally a physical danger)? No, it seems fucking dumb. Chomsky is correct in describing Antifa as a "major gift to the right". And it isn't just prima facie fucking dumb, there's also evidence that such strategies are as ineffective as all rational considerations would lead one to expect
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/how-to-make-fun-of-nazis.html

Is it immoral to bash defenceless people period? Should you always stop using violence when you are yourself out of danger? Yes (I think so, regardless of any opinions that may be held by the person in question.)


What's the big Red Herring? I identified it right from the beginning, and sent my thoughts about it in tweet form to Lee Fang, one of the few people on "the left" saying that the punching of Richard Spencer was probably dumb (in part because Spencer could have fallen and cracked his head open on the concrete, and then he would have become a serious martyr (also because it's not right to punch people randomly and you should try to apply ethical principles consistently)). The Red Herring is this: the fact that you can't defeat "Nazis" in civil debate implies that randomly bashing "Nazis" at protests is the way you do defeat them. Now, obviously, to anyone capable of rational thought, this is a fucking bizarre inference. It makes zero sense. But, as we know, most people are not capable of rational thought. In fact, it appears that a huge section of "the left" thinks that this non-sequitur is actually a sound inference, and it appears that most of this section think that the failure to make this fallacious inference on the part of "liberals" (used to refer to almost everyone who isn't part of the tiny fringe who use this word as a slur) is a superb case study in the poverty of the ideology of "liberalism" - a trump card for the left against the liberals, who, so the story goes, are currently flailing about in philosophical despair, all at sea in this moment of tremendous turbulence and upheaval. If I may state the obvious, a non-sequitur shouldn't be regarded as a trump card.

So how do you defeat the "Nazis"? Don't violently confront them at their tiny demonstrations. Just stand far away and mock them. And campaign for Bernie Sanders or whatever. No life isn't a movie.  Bad luck.