U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

...and away we go.

Yes. No place for Nimbyism when it comes to murderous ideologies. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Nope, it's been pretty quiet. Oh, wait, there where Nazis, and a protester was murdered in public, and....I'm forgetting something...oh, right, we might be on the verge of nuclear holocaust because Trump. Other than that...Judge is striking out a lot.

You forgot about threatening Venezuela. And Giancarlo can mash.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Yes. No place for Nimbyism when it comes to murderous ideologies. 

Anyone remember who the Nazis outlawed first?

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You forgot about threatening Venezuela. And Giancarlo can mash.

Shit, you're right. Also Myshkin called the Dodgers 'C + C Music factory' and Many folded like a cheap tent.

[maarsen]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Anyone remember who the Nazis outlawed first?

Didn't they get rid of their own Brownshirts first? 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Anyone remember who the Nazis outlawed first?

Communists and Social Democrats. The Nazis didn't ban themselves though, at least not as far as I can remember, so I don't think this suggestion would be that similar. 

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Didn't they get rid of their own Brownshirts first? 

Not by law, and not before the Communists. I mean, do you remember what the Brownshirts were for? (Ie, their function)

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Not by law, and not before the Communists. I mean, do you remember what the Brownshirts were for?

 

[James Arryn]

12 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Communists and Social Democrats. The Nazis didn't ban themselves though, at least not as far as I can remember, so I don't think this suggestion would be that similar. 

It's awesome that you and I both both think you're proving our respective points here. We just need like Commodore or Altherion to come in and argue why including Islam isn't really an invalid point and we can all just push back from our desks feeling 'job done'

[LongRider]

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, easy peasy. The NRA and gun lobby will just role over and let us scratch their tummies on that.

Yup. 

[The guy from the Vale]

@James Arryn I'm tongue in cheek. But at the same time, I'm quite serious that that process would be massively beneficial. If only the US could get away from their gun fetish...

@Khaleesi did nothing wrong Are violent communists really a prominent problem anywhere in the world, at this time?

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@James Arryn I'm tongue in cheek. But at the same time, I'm quite serious that that process would be massively beneficial. If only the US could get away from their gun fetish...

@Khaleesi did nothing wrong Are violent communists really a prominent problem anywhere in the world, at this time?

I actually wondered, but I was on a roll, so I went with it. But believe me, you won't find anyone more in agreement on any/all gun bans than me. I literally think it's a national insanity clause.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@James Arryn I'm tongue in cheek. But at the same time, I'm quite serious that that process would be massively beneficial. If only the US could get away from their gun fetish...

@Khaleesi did nothing wrong Are violent communists really a prominent problem anywhere in the world, at this time?

Depends on what you think about Seoul and Guam I guess. 

Either way, I would argue that nazis aren't really that prominent of a problem in the world at the moment either. They could become more so in the future maybe, and the same could be said about commies. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that Nazism is simply banned in your nation’s constitution.

That’s really how I’d rather handle it, I think. Just have any speech that explicitly promotes ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing simply banned in the US constitution.

Then we wouldn’t have to deal with these thorny problems of what constitutes “incitement to violence.”

Ok, so you agree that promoting genocide should be banned.  We're on the same page (except for when we aren't, you can't seem to decide as evidenced by two conflicting lines here, but still same-ish page).  

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Here is a book by, general nut job, Hans Herman Hoppe.

He’s not very kind in his assessment of Democracy. In fact, he seems to promote monarchy as a better alternative.

I think it’s fuckin’ nuts.

But does that mean, I think the book should be censored?

Nope.

One is for the reason that John Stuart Mill gave in his defense of free speech rights: You’re opponent maybe ultimately wrong, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing to be learned during the argument.

And secondly, you know, I do want to have these kind of intellectual fights out in the public. If people do believe in this kind of wing nuttery, there is an advantage to getting it out in the open so it can be thrashed.

Does this mean I’m an apologist for Austrian Economics? Well, I certainly in the hell hope not. It’s not like I haven’t spent anytime ranting against the Hayeks and the Mises.

 

No dear, genocide isn't the same as having a different opinion about democracy or economic policy.  Wanting intellectual discussions with nazis and debating the merits of genocide is outrageous and being an apologist.  These ideas do not belong in the public sphere.    

[The guy from the Vale]

Touche. I don't think banning communism in the West is going to change anything about North Korea, though. It's not an internal problem for the West in the same way as fascists killing people for their opinions or ethnicities. There are no communist McVeigh, no communist NSU, no communist Breivik, no communist Roof, no communist Fields, and there has been nothing like that in the West for a quarter century.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/14/2017 at 9:56 AM, Dr. Pepper said:

Ok, so you agree that promoting genocide should be banned.  We're on the same page (except for when we aren't, you can't seem to decide as evidenced by two conflicting lines here, but still same-ish page).  

Okay but really you shouldn't be calling people Nazi sympathizers because they have free speech concerns and worry about how this stuff gets implemented. I can decide depending how it gets implemented. In fact, I've given a suggestion about how to do it.

On 8/14/2017 at 9:56 AM, Dr. Pepper said:

No dear, genocide isn't the same as having a different opinion about democracy or economic policy.  Wanting intellectual discussions with nazis and debating the merits of genocide is outrageous and being an apologist.  These ideas do not belong in the public sphere.    

Yes genocide is worse you're right about that. But let's not act like a return to monarchy is bed of roses. I'd imagine a monarchy run by white people with mostly a white aristorcracy wouldn't do a lot of non-white people any favors. 

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay but really you shouldn't be calling people Nazi sympathizers because they have free speech concerns and worry about how this stuff gets implemented. I can decide depending how it gets implemented. In fact, I've given a suggestion about how to do it.

Yes genocide is worse you're right about that. But let's not act like a return to monarchy is bed of roses. I'd imagine a monarchy run by white people with mostly a white aristorcracy wouldn't do a lot of non-white people any favors. 

Unless these calls for a return to monarchy call for genocide, it's not the same.  No one's suggesting to ban things that don't do certain people favors. I'm not saying ban religions or ban red meat or nude color leggings.  We're talking genocide.  Stop equating genocide with things that aren't genocide.  

I'm not calling someone a sympathizer for having free speech concerns.  I'm calling someone a sympathizer because they actively want to have intellectual discussions with nazis as though it's an ideology that deserves space alongside all others.  

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

15 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Touche. I don't think banning communism in the West is going to change anything about North Korea, though. It's not an internal problem for the West in the same way as fascists killing people for their opinions or ethnicities. There are no communist McVeigh, no communist NSU, no communist Breivik, no communist Roof, no communist Fields, and there has been nothing like that in the West for a quarter century.

No, I guess not. I do think it could make a comeback in coming years though, at least if the automation fears turn out to be true and we get a huge increase in unemployment and income inequality. Anyway, I still think that if you are going to start banning ideologies that openly advocate violence and murder of other segments in society, it makes little sense to exclude Communism from such a ban. Why would you do that? 

 

[James Arryn]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Unless these calls for a return to monarchy call for genocide, it's not the same.  No one's suggesting to ban things that don't do certain people favors. I'm not saying ban religions or ban red meat or nude color leggings.  We're talking genocide.  Stop equating genocide with things that aren't genocide.  

Quote

I'm not calling someone a sympathizer for having free speech concerns.  I'm calling someone a sympathizer because they actively want to have intellectual discussions with nazis as though it's an ideology that deserves space alongside all others.  

Yeah, that's not what anyone was saying, though. He didn't say it should be allowed because of it's validity,  but rather that it's invalidity is so self-evident that discussions would readily expose same, and all this without the cost of civil liberties across the board.

But I'll make a prediction: if laws are proposed saying that ideologies with historical connections to genocide* are to be verboten and that people ought to be allowed to violently self-police ideologies they disagree with, I'm betting the right wing grabs that deal with both hands. It costs them the fringe nutters that really just serve to embarrass most right-wingers who don't even self-identify as bigots, but it gives them sooooo much more. Muslims and communists just for starters, and there are a lot more of those around than overt nazis. Really, this would be music to their ears. 

 

* and, repeating my point about the Supreme Court outlook moving forward, I can easily see this being broadened to includes other ways which makes people feel endangered by assosciation, which opens up all kinds of tasty options for right wing authoritarianism. 

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Unless these calls for a return to monarchy call for genocide, it's not the same.  No one's suggesting to ban things that don't do certain people favors. I'm not saying ban religions or ban red meat or nude color leggings.  We're talking genocide.  Stop equating genocide with things that aren't genocide.  

I'm not calling someone a sympathizer for having free speech concerns.  I'm calling someone a sympathizer because they actively want to have intellectual discussions with nazis as though it's an ideology that deserves space alongside all others.  

You know, I want to retain the right to offend people. I want to be able to tell southerners that believe the Civil War was about “state’s rights” or “preserving the southern way of life” or whatever, that no the reality of the situation was that it was about preserving slavery and the privileges of the planting class and that white southerners were largely suckered into fighting and dying for that. I imagine somebody’s feelings are going to get hurt over that.

So here is what I worry about: If through a court ruling any speech, in the general public discourse, promoting genocide is banned (by the court upholding a regulation on that speech), then the court, it seems to me, has strayed from the usual doctrine that the offensiveness of speech isn’t sufficient to prohibit that speech and I want to know what  limiting principle applies. I mean what is the standard? Does this allow for other parts of speech to be banned because it’s too offensive? 

I guess there could be a workable solution here. I just can’t really think of one, at the moment. Though as indicated, I think the best solution would be to simply ban that kind of speech explicitly by constitutional amendment and keep the general rule about the content of the speech.

And yes advocating for monarchy may not be as bad as advocating for genocide. But, I think, a genocide is more likely to happen when people possess absolute power.