On the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Richard Spencer, a polemic thought leader in the racist “alt-right,” was punched in the face by a masked protestor. The moment was caught on video, and the punch quickly wentviral on Twitter(有时会配上布鲁斯·斯普林斯汀的《生于美国》)。

While it may not be accurate to call Spencer a Nazi—though he has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”—many online used the opportunity as thought experiment made-real: is it ever okay topunch a Nazi? What are the ethical arguments in favor and against physically assaulting people with truly repugnant opinions or beliefs?

In anop-ed for The Guardian, Tauriq Moosa, a blogger on common ethics, wrote a long piece framing the situation, explaining that:

“When a rule is worth following, it becomes “good”. This is why many agree “violence is bad” is a moral rule: it can be applied universally. Where rule-based morality runs into problems is when two moral rules conflict.

In this case, a rule we support is: “stopping Nazism is good”. Another is: “violence is bad”. This returns us to a dilemma instead of solving it.”

The inimitable Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek weighed in during aninterview with Quartz．When asked if it’s okay to punch Nazis, he gave a confident answer:

“No! If there is violence needed, I’m more for Gandhian, passive violence,” Žižek answered.