Jump to content

U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

What boxes are the organizations that make it to our terrorist lists checking that the kkk and other white supremacy groups aren't?   What's the line these white supremacy groups haven't crossed that still affords them rights to assembly and speech?

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now it’s easy to say we should ban Nazi’s and white supremacist and other assorted assholes.

But banning people like that from writing or publishing isn’t as easily said as done, if we’re not going to do violence to speech that we might want to hear.

The point here if you are going to say,”X should be banned from speaking, writing, or publishing” then you need to develop some kind of analytical framework, which indicates how it will be decided who gets to speak and who doesn’t. And what exactly constitutes, in your view, white supremacist speech that should be banned. Because while it’s easy to say “this specific group should be banned from speaking”, laws of general applicability will have to be applied to everyone else. And the fact is you can’t just hand wave this stuff.

The counter example that always comes to mind for me are anti-choicers.  The portion of people out there who genuinely believe that the ~650k or so legal abortions in the country constitute a "genocide" could throw some of this back at us, in terms of speech deemed to "incite violence" ("normalize and encourage infanticide"), and being an example of people who are on the wrong side of what they consider to be an "unjust, immoral" law that can only be countered through violence from their viewpoint.    I know I'm missing something crucial here in terms of hammering out the details as you say, so I'm curious how to make the determinations of what's genuinely Inciteful such that something like pro-choice isn't targeted.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

And coming to a rally armed to your teeth

What you are missing is that open carry of hand guns in the State of Virginia is legal. As such, if a member of the Nazi group was over 18 and carrying a gun, long or short it was legal.   Such are the gun laws in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In this thread: we will equate promotion of other types of state governments with promotion that all Jews should be killed. 

To be fair, the German constitution I keep referring to keeps making the same connection. All the laws that are screaming "Please don't screw up again, please don't screw up again!" are worded in a way that they are there to protect the constitution and the "basic order of freedom and democracy" and the people theselves who are affected by anti-constitutional groups are more a of a hindsight. For Germany protecting your country from Nazi takeover means protecting democracy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 8:12 AM, Toth said:

Well, there is a difference between writing a book that is critical of democracy and founding a party with the intention to destroy the constitution and ethnically cleanse your population, isn't it?

Just to be clear, I am only talking about taking away your right to officially found political groups to further such a goal and give it the air of being a valid political standpoint.

... and of course to show up at a protest rally with a fucking armed militia...

Okay I thought we were talking here about banning certain forms of speech as opposed to banning particular political parties that promote that speech.

So, to be clear, you’re against banning certain forms of speech. But, would only regulate actual partys?

I want to be clear about this before we move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 8:14 AM, butterbumps! said:

The counter example that always comes to mind for me are anti-choicers.  The portion of people out there who genuinely believe that the ~650k or so legal abortions in the country constitute a "genocide" could throw some of this back at us, in terms of speech deemed to "incite violence" ("normalize and encourage infanticide"), and being an example of people who are on the wrong side of what they consider to be an "unjust, immoral" law that can only be countered through violence from their viewpoint.    I know I'm missing something crucial here in terms of hammering out the details as you say, so I'm curious how to make the determinations of what's genuinely Inciteful such that something like pro-choice isn't targeted.   

I think for this reason, is why, I think simply amending the constitution to ban the promotion ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing would be the best solution.

That way we could avoid some of these thornier problems of what is or is not an incitement to violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay I thought we were talking here about banning certain forms of speech as opposed to banning particular political parties that promote that speech.

So, to be clear, you’re against banning certain forms of speech. But, would only regulate actual partys?

I want to be clear about this before we move on.

Parties and organizations, yes. Regulating them is easy because you have to have some kind of written down aims and articles when you found such a thing. If it advocates to go against the constitution and the freedoms granted through it, BAM. Just to take away the illusion of lawfulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think for this reason, is why, I think simply amending the constitution to ban the promotion ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing would be the best solution.

That way we could avoid some of these thornier problems of what is or is not an incitement to violence.

So the line would be anything that advocates a group's extermination on ethnic/ racial grounds specifically (would other protected classes qualify in your view?    If so, I'm not sure this would totally disqualify anti-choicers from trying to ban abortion advocacy, as "genocide of society's weakest and most vulnerable members").  Would the amendment include "garden variety" supremacy, and/ or advocacy of subjugation along ethnic/ race grounds in your view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short hand version:

In America, people have spent a lot more time hating/fearing Communism than fascism. Right now more Americans feel threatened by immigrants and Islam than by fascism. Just think about where this WILL lead if the whole 'violence against people I disagree with should be allowed and people should not be allowed to express ideologies I disagree with' is accepted practice. The notion that we can start the ball rolling and be confident it'll stop where we want it to seems really blinkered to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Was camping all weekend. Did I miss something? 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

What you are missing is that open carry of hand guns in the State of Virginia is legal. As such, if a member of the Nazi group was over 18 and carrying a gun, long or short it was legal.   Such are the gun laws in America.

Carrying guns may be legal, but that doesn't mean holding a protest with guns has to be. Simply stipulate in the rally permit that it is only valid as long as there are no guns at the demonstration. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2017 at 9:04 AM, butterbumps! said:

So the line would be anything that advocates a group's extermination on ethnic/ racial grounds specifically (would other protected classes qualify in your view?    If so, I'm not sure this would totally disqualify anti-choicers from trying to ban abortion advocacy, as "genocide of society's weakest and most vulnerable members").  Would the amendment include "garden variety" supremacy, and/ or advocacy of subjugation along ethnic/ race grounds in your view?

Yes certainly things like sexual orientation, gender identification, and religious identity should be included.

As far as "garden variety" supremacy, depends on what we define as "garden variety supremacy". If the language was written to exclude explicit and overt expressions of one group's superiority over another I'd go for that. I'd want "garden variety supremacy" to be defined narrowly though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Carrying guns may be legal, but that doesn't mean holding a protest with guns has to be. Simply stipulate in the rally permit that it is only valid as long as there are no guns at the demonstration. Problem solved.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes certainly things like sexual orientation, gender identification, and religious identity should be included.

As far as "garden variety" supremacy, depends on what we define as "garden variety supremacy". If the language was written to exclude explicit and overt expressions of one group's superiority over another I'd go for that. I'd want "garden variety supremacy" to be read narrowly though.

With regards to narrowness and how the language will be interpreted, it's maybe worth considering what the Supreme Court is going to be like for the foreseeable future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

It's far from a gun ban, everybody is still allowed to posess whatever they want and bring it everywhere... except that one day a year they attend their tea party. It's really the minimally invasive approach to making demonstrations safer for everybody.

Well, they're very reasonable people, so you're probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Short hand version:

In America, people have spent a lot more time hating/fearing Communism than fascism. Right now more Americans feel threatened by immigrants and Islam than by fascism. Just think about where this WILL lead if the whole 'violence against people I disagree with should be allowed and people should not be allowed to express ideologies I disagree with' is accepted practice. The notion that we can start the ball rolling and be confident it'll stop where we want it to seems really blinkered to me. 

Yeah. Although honestly, outlawing Communism is really completely fair if you are going to do it with Nazism. Might as well get two birds with one stone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...