You elided the next sentence: "But it doesn't solve anything." which completely inverts the meaning of the sentence you quoted.

You elided a sentence right before: "Punching Nazis is a minor control mechanism: it silences the danger without amplifying its speech."

...which legitimizes the use of violence against "Nazi's" for whatever value you assign to that. Your quoted fragment just disclaims the effectiveness, while the article still clearly supports the idea.

The article is saying that there are more effective ways of combatting Nazi-ism than violence. That is an argument against violence.

I got the complete opposite from the article. The very next sentence is:

> Historically, there has been exactly one solution for Nazis. It did not come cheap.

I read that as “punching Nazis isn’t enough on its own, you must kill them until they can no longer act effectively against you, then outlaw their ideology.”

""Nazi" is not a slur, and it should not be used for anyone who does not advocate those ideas. But it should be used for those who do.

And for those: no peace, no sympathy, no quarter, and no mercy."

Yeah...I don't think we read the same article.

The article is very much about Nazis.