Previous: Quiet, Friendly Nerds
Ziz’s post “Punching Evil” has quite the sinister reputation— but what does it actually say?
In “Punching Evil”, Ziz presents a philosophical & strategic argument abt power, morality, & resistance against those who exploit legal and social structures for harm.
She critiques the idea that governments can be trusted w/ tools to suppress "bad people," as such tools can be turned against the very people they were meant to protect. She also argues that individuals have a moral imperative to resist evil actors— particularly Nazis— who historically use legal norms as a pretense to build power before engaging in violent oppression.
Her core argument is that Nazis & similar bad actors do not genuinely respect social contracts or principles like non-aggression; rather, they use these principles strategically to gain power.
Because of this, resisting them— even through extralegal means— is not merely justified but necessary.
Ziz contends that society should not be bound by strict legalism when dealing w/ existential threats like Nazis, as they themselves do not respect such constraints. Punching a Nazi, for ex., is “right”, even if it is technically against the law.
She describes how Nazis have historically used incremental steps to move from seemingly benign positions (such as advocating for "peaceful deportation") to outright genocide. This she (correctly) sees as an inevitable unfolding of Nazi ideology— & she emphasizes that even a diluted form of it can still lead to violence if left unchecked.
Ziz laments that, while “good” actors tend to follow ethical constraints, those who seek domination do not. This makes it difficult for “good” to triumph in direct confrontations, unless they are willing to abandon naïve adherence to rules that their opponents do not respect. But she ends on a hopeful note: those committed to “good” are often willing to make personal sacrifices; while most “evil” actors are— she says— fundamentally cowards, & unwilling to risk their own safety. When met w/ true resistance, she says that they tend to retreat, as their power is often built on intimidation rather than actual strength.
Ziz also touches on broader social dynamics, particularly how fear of legal repercussions, such as defamation lawsuits*, can prevent people from speaking out against wrongdoing.
*Note that Ziz, at this point, has been told that speaking publicly on Eliezer’s alleged sexual misdeeds would constitute “defamation”.
Here Ziz also references the case of “known rapist” Brent Dill. She argues that the legal system can be manipulated by powerful abusers to silence critics, creating a chilling effect where people are too afraid to fight back. This leads her to a broader assertion: that if the state protects abusers & punishes those who resist, it has forfeited its legitimacy.
When the government fails to uphold its obligations & instead protects abusers, Ziz argues that resistance becomes necessary.
***
Based on this, how might Ziz define “Retribution”?
Based on what she says in “Punching Evil”, Ziz might define "retribution" as a necessary & justified response to those who exploit social contracts & legal norms for harm. She might see it as a form of pragmatic justice— a means of resisting & deterring bad actors who do not play by the same rules as others.
“Retribution”, in this sense, is about ensuring that those who seek to dominate, exploit, or destroy others face consequences— esp. when institutions fail to hold them accountable.
Ziz additionally seems to believe that “retribution” is a tool of deterrence.
If many oppressive individuals rely on bluffing & onlookers’ fear of legal/social consequences to suppress resistance, then forceful pushback— whether through speech, action, or even violence— may be necessary to prevent them from gaining power.
***
Ziz & Paulo
Reading Ziz’s argument, we were somewhat reminded of Paulo Freire, when he says things like:
Freire argues that, when the oppressed resist, their actions are not initiating violence but responding to an already violent system. Similarly, Ziz justifies breaking legal norms against bad-faith actors (such as Nazis), who exploit the rule of law to advance harmful goals.
Freire also states that oppressors maintain power by convincing the oppressed to internalize their subjugation. Ziz’s post— & Ziz’s blog as a whole— show her fiercely resisting this internalization. Direct confrontation, to Ziz, seems to have presented itself not just as a strategy for justice & deterrence, but as a means to unshackle— “jailbreak”— from oppressive psychological & social constraints.
***
Ziz, unlike Paolo…
Both Ziz and Freire recognize that oppression begins with the oppressor’s initiation of violence & that neutrality ultimately benefits those in power.
However, while Freire’s solution is to reclaim humanity through collective action and critical consciousness, Ziz appears to see strategic violence & rule-breaking as necessary for survival.
Both Freire & Ziz reject the idea that the oppressed must passively accept their situation; but Freire’s approach seeks transformation through consciousness-raising and education, while Ziz leans into a more immediate, combative stance, prioritizing direct action & resistance over structural reform.
This divergence may well stem from her lived experience of oppression; which— by 2019, when she writes “Punching Evil”— has already escalated past a point where transformation seems possible.
“Punching Evil” was written by a Ziz who has already suffered considerable abuse at the hands of the Rationalists— & by a Ziz who has already met w/ Rationalist resistance to the idea of structural reform.
For 2019 Ziz, “oppression” is not just theoretical— it is immediate, personal, & seemingly inescapable. She is, as she writes “Punching Evil”, navigating for psychological survival within a highly coercive environment.
2019 Ziz is living in a self-contained world: meaning, she likely perceives no external societal recourse. The stakes, as she perceives them, appear to be all or nothing. This seems to heighten the urgency & felt necessity of “retribution” for Ziz, as she likely perceives “outside help”— in the form of legal or social protections— to be completely absent.
The Rationalists— as high-control groups are wont to do— have created many intensified power imbalances. For ex.:
• They have forcefully squelched Ziz's & Gwen’s initial, idealistic attempts at dissent— arguably, w/ greater force than one would encounter in broader society.
• Pushback has been met w/ punitive consequences— ex. pushback to Anna has been met w/ social exclusion. W/in the year, the girls’ further attempts to “push back” will be met w/ much greater retaliation, extending to social exile & threats of physical violence.
We can imagine that this state of affairs has informed Ziz’s stance: that certain oppressors (be they Nazis or unnamed others) cannot be reasoned with, & must be confronted directly. The urgency of her situation seemingly calls for immediate self-defense. Unlike Freire, who emphasizes raising critical consciousness to transform systems, Ziz’s priority seems to be preventing further harm by any means necessary.
Freire’s pedagogy is deeply optimistic— he believes that oppressive structures can be transformed thru education, critical dialogue, and collective struggle. The Ziz in “Punching Evil” seems to feel like she has no time to wait around for “gradual change.” She seems to believe that:
• The power structures around her are not merely oppressive but actively and intentionally predatory.
• The idea that oppressors can be redeemed or reasoned with is itself a form of complicity.
• Justice is not something that can be entrusted to existing systems but must be taken into one’s own hands.
***
What’s a nice girl like Ophelia doing on Ziz’s ~notorious~ blog?
Ophelia may sympathize with Ziz for several reasons.
Despite (luckily!) living in New York, & not in the Bay Area, she has likely experienced or witnessed some of the vile & virulent transphobia we find chez the Rationalists. This may have led her to:
• Resent the idea that oppressors should be allowed to act w/out consequences.
• Recognize that, in oppressive systems, rules and norms are not applied fairly but are used selectively to enforce oppression.
• Become skeptical of purely pacifist or legalistic approaches.
When Ophelia says that “retribution” is acceptable “under some circumstances,” she may be agreeing w/ Ziz that “retribution” can indeed be a valuable deterrent against those who would otherwise act w/ impunity.
The idea that oppressors can be made to fear consequences may feel, to Ophelia, like a counterbalance to the control wielded by— say— groups like the Rationalists. She might, in this context, view “retribution” as the only form of justice available when institutional justice is inaccessible or complicit. Ophelia might easily resonate with the desire to see such oppressors held accountable “by any means necessary”.
Ophelia is a v. thoughtful girl, who seems to be differentiating between oppressive, authoritarian “retribution” (ex., the Rationalists’ witch-hunt against Ziz & the girls), & righteous “retribution” (e.g., pushing back against those who systematically harm vulnerable people). While she doesn’t seem to support indiscriminate retaliation— “retribution in all circumstances”— she may see targeted pushback against abusers as both necessary & just.
Ppl in high-control groups often feel a deep sense of powerlessness. If Ophelia feels this— if she feels trapped in an environment that actively works against her— she may additionally see “retribution” as a way to reclaim personal agency.
Ophelia, “sweet” and “bubbly” tho she appears, may also have observed that, chez the Rationalists, power is maintained through force and consequence. The Rationalists themselves model “retribution” as a tool for maintaining dominance. Ophelia has perhaps grokked that such “retribution” can equally be used against an oppressive system— not just by an oppressive system.
Ziz, in “Punching Evil”, emphasizes that “evil” actors rely on intimidation and impunity, & that “retribution” can deter future harm. Reading this, Ophelia may have emotionally connected with the idea of a broader resistance. She may want desperately to believe that oppressive systems will someday face consequences— even if she herself is not in a position to enact these consequences… yet!
*****
Next: Who's a Death Cult?