U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming

[Kalbear]

The most basic way to frame it is that promoting genocide is not blocked on being offensive but instead is blocked because it implies a violent threat based on protected status. 

[drawkcabi]

6 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Damn. I know I'm not a regular poster in this thread, but it saddens me to see all this infighting. At the very least I'd hope that everyone participating in the discussion would agree (no matter their view on how far Freedom of Speech should protect people), that if Nazi's ever again actually started exterminating people, it would be every moral human being's responsibility to do everything within their power to put a stop to it. And yes, this would include going out and fighting/killing aforementioned Nazis who are exterminating people. Because if you didn't, could you really justify to yourself that you did the right thing because "Violence is never the answer"?

 

I'm very saddened by the infighting but even still anyone here I'm disagreeing with needed my help, anything I could do for them, I would do. Whether they believe it or not I'm still on their side.

And there is a big separation between being a 1st amendment supporter and a pacifist.

If I ever saw WS&N hurting anyone I'd come to the aid of whoever is being attacked and I'd throw some punches. Thankfully I've never been in that situation and hope I never will be, but if I was, I truly hope I'd be as brave as I say I will be and I keep my mind set on that is what I must do.

And if things break down so bad that nazis can rise up in this country unopposed and began exterminating people like they did in WWII and no one in power stopped them, then I'm fighting against them. I don't think I could do much good, but I'd be there.

[James Arryn]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The most basic way to frame it is that promoting genocide is not blocked on being offensive but instead is blocked because it implies a violent threat based on protected status. 

Many many many Americans assosciate communism and Islam with implied violence and desired and/or historical mass murder. I mean, the US has a strong record on making association with one of these ideologies a crime. I'm sure you know which one that was.

 

edit: to expand, the kinds of restrictions to civil liberties and idealogical thought/speech crimes being proposed by people on the left just staggers me...these are the favoured historical weapons of the right. This is like Cersei rearming the faith militant to solve a problem right in front of her eyes without understanding the history and/or seeing how that tiger will run once you lose your grip on it's tail. 

[butterbumps!]

The US does classify certain groups as terrorist organizations, which I think curtails their free speech and assembly rights, to the best of my knowledge.   So I think we're already limiting free speech of certain ideologies and groups.    Does anyone know the parameters of that classification, and why the white supremacy ones haven't qualified?    I asked earlier but it might have gotten lost- what are these white supremacists doing to stay in bounds that keeps them from losing these rights the way other terror groups have?

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Many many many Americans assosciate communism and Islam with implied violence and desired and/or historical mass murder. I mean, the US has a strong record on making association with one of these ideologies a crime. I'm sure you know which one that was.

 

edit: to expand, the kinds of restrictions to civil liberties and idealogical thought/speech crimes being proposed by people on the left just staggers me...these are the favoured historical weapons of the right. This is like Cersei rearming the faith militant to solve a problem right in front of her eyes without understanding the history and/or seeing how that tiger will run once you lose your grip on it's tail. 

...I know im entering smartass mode here and I know you meant it as a metaphor, but what sane man would want to hold onto a tiger?

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

...I know im entering smartass mode here and I know you meant it as a metaphor, but what sane man would want to hold onto a tiger?

It's a reasonably well-known idiom for actualizing something powerful and dangerous under the mistaken assumption that you'll be able to control it and therefore aim it's power/danger where you want. 

[Kalbear]

Right- the US already has restrictions on extremist groups and views. We aren't going from 0 to 1; I'm suggesting that putting white supremacists- which are far more likely to cause domestic terrorism in the US - in the same category as other terrorist groups. 

If you're advocating that the US doesn't have any extremist groups on their radar and shouldn't, you should own that. 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

It's a reasonably well-known idiom for actualizing something powerful under the mistaken assumption that you'll be able to control it. 

Yeah I know. It's just that you'd think people would learn by now that powerful entities are always a chaotic factor.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right- the US already has restrictions on extremist groups and views. We aren't going from 0 to 1; I'm suggesting that putting white supremacists- which are far more likely to cause domestic terrorism in the US - in the same category as other terrorist groups. 

If you're advocating that the US doesn't have any extremist groups on their radar and shouldn't, you should own that. 

Are the terrorist groups you're referencing forbidden by law from expressing their views verbally, and proscribed so as to be open to violence from the public for doing same? Or are they just watched and arrested when actually engaging in illegal acts/plans?

[James Arryn]

12 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Yeah I know. It's just that you'd think people would learn by now that powerful entities are always a chaotic factor.

You'd think, and it's frighteningly ironic that we're having this conversation while the sitting President has reintroduced nuclear brinkmanship back into everyday parlance. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Are the terrorist groups you're referencing forbidden by law from expressing their views verbally, and proscribed so as to be open to violence from the public for doing same? Or are they just watched and arrested when actually engaging in illegal acts/plans?

They can verbally state things. Any act of organization is illegal, and any kind of collaboration is illegal. Any crimes committed can be upgraded to terrorist acts. Surveillance is broadly allowed. You are not allowed to fly, not allowed to rent a car and not allowed to buy a whole host of things, including guns. 

[Which Tyler]

15 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

...I know im entering smartass mode here and I know you meant it as a metaphor, but what sane man would want to hold onto a tiger?

Are you implying that Cersei is sane?

Why is it important that my bedroom has "enough room to swing a cat"? like I'm ever going to do that?

[Trebla]

Trump hasn't had the time to denounce the Confederates, KKK, and Nazis but he has found the time to denounce a black CEO that resigned from his President's Manufacturing Council:

Great optics here.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@dmc515 I'm located in Germany, although I've lived half my life in Switzerland.

The main commonality I can see between the countries that have weak nationalist parties (btw. I think Poland is the wrong color there) is that those are the countries that used to be fascist some time in the last century. Countries whose national identity is wound up in the idea that they stood up to the fascists are more likely to actually support fascists now - e.g.formerly collaborationist Switzerland that asked Germany to have her Jews marked as such in her passports so they could be turned away at the border and who was the Nazi's main banker, but whose people still think to this day that it was the might of the powerful Swiss military that stopped Hitler from invading them. Or France, which conveniently forgets the existence of the Vichy régime and behaves as if every single French person had been in the Résistance. Or...

 

But let's go through some of these countries with particularly strong and weak nationalist parties:

 

Czech Republic: Weak nationalists, Holocaust denial illegal

Finland: Strong nationalists, Holocaust denial legal

France: Strong nationalists, Holocaust denial used to be legal until 1990

Germany: Weak nationalists, Holocaust denial illegal

Hungary: Strong nationalists, Holocaust denial illegal, but criticism of the Hungarian state also illegal

Netherlands: Strong nationalists, Holocaust denial legal, as long as children can't hear it

Norway: Strong nationalists, Holocaust denial legal

Poland: Weak nationalists (according to that map), promotion of totalitarian ideas illegal

Spain: Weak nationalists, prohibits glorification of the Franco regime

 

You know, I do kind of see a pattern there

AFD is fairly strong in Germany, with 8-9% of the vote, easily enough to enter the Bundestag.  They are represented in about half the Lander.

Law and Justice in Poland is certainly a right wing nationalist party, although it would be unfair to bracket them with Neo Nazis.

Austria has stringent laws against Holocaust denial, but the FPO have about 25% of the vote.

Ireland has Sinn Fein, Sweden the Swedish Democrats, and Italy the Lega Nord, as strong nationalist parties, although I don't know what their laws on holocaust denial are.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

He's mentally unraveling, as many predicted he would.

Also of interest, it appears that Bannon and Miller were the two aides who helped him craft his response. Guess that's why there was no straight condemnation of white nationalist and supremacist groups.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Not at all. If you've spent any time on 4chan, you know that reputation among normies is like their main concern. They don't do stuff to piss the general populace off, they do stuff to get the general populace pissed off at others, be it individuals, organizations or ideologies. This is the MO for pretty much all their hoaxes and political sabotage: Using the normies as a weapon against someone.

 Sure, I suppose it's fair to make that distinction, but in terms of reputation, I don't think they give a hairy rat's ass. 4chan is a well known internet shithole. The only reputation they have is a bad one. 

[Morpheus]

"Racism is bad."

And let the "Presidential" accolades fall

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don’t think so. I think free speech has served liberal causes very well. You know there is a reason why the ACLU defends free speech so vigorously. And that was because there was a time when free speech was important to left wing causes. Everything from protesting the draft in World War I to promoting Civil Rights in the South.

 It goes beyond that, methinks. Freedom of Speech in part defines liberalism.

3.

of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially thefreedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individualrights and liberties.

4.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individualfreedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured bygovernmental protection of civil liberties.

5.

favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect tomatters of personal belief or expression:

a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

 

Of course that definition also includes this.

 

 7.

free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

 

 I guess that's where we begin to run into problems. Tolerating those who have no tolerance for anything other than their own race or culture.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

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

Honestly there's really only one hope left for me on this front, and that's the Dodger's stumbling in the playoffs. I'm saving my ammo for that particular potentiality. 

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 I guess that's where we begin to run into problems. Tolerating those who have no tolerance for anything other than their own race or culture.  

As someone else mentioned, tolerance is a peace treaty. It says that you'll allow the behaviors that you don't like in others provided they allow the behaviors they don't like in you.

Nazism and white supremacy is a direct violation of that peace treaty. There is no reason or value in being tolerant at that point about 'other ideas', because implicit in tolerance is the basic idea that both people respect the other side's continued existence.