Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

That has to be a right. Unless you want to deprive certain people of the right to expression because what they want to express is their desire for others to lose rights, in which case we're back to it not being okay to take away rights. Understandably, you want to make an exception for actual Nazis, but that's missing the point of fundamental rights (that is, their fundamental nature).

I mean... I know it's sticky... but if a people want to proclaim that their ways are fundamentally rooted in the promotion of basic human rights, then that should mean by extension that the act of proclaiming an opposition to basic human rights would be met with strong discouragement.  If this is not the case, because people's ability to say what they want is one of those rights, then the conclusion is that our culture sees that specific right as more important than any other example of what we call a human right.  Which... ok... but that doesn't sit well with me.

It's the whole tolerance of intolerance dilemma.  Where I've long ago accepted that if tolerance is my goal, then there is no contradiction in actively opposing forces that work against tolerance.  If I didn't, then my pursuit of a tolerant world would be in a token abstract sense, not a pragmatic one.

Which is the problem that the Germans had in confronting the nazism issue. Most of their anti-intolerance (well, not-tolerance of intolerance) wouldn't fly here because of our First Amendment and you have to walk a pretty fine line.

Pure universal free speech doesn't really work because intolerance wants to shut down free speech by others, so, it's a bit of a paradox.

[RedKing]

It's the whole tolerance of intolerance dilemma.  Where I've long ago accepted that if tolerance is my goal, then there is no contradiction in actively opposing forces that work against tolerance.  If I didn't, then my pursuit of a tolerant world would be in a token abstract sense, not a pragmatic one.  A meaningless label to apply to my self-image, with no substance.

^^^^
This. While y'all are busy engaging in solipsism and contemplating if it's okay to hate the hater, I'll be out here punching the Nazis, so that we can have the time and opportunity to contemplate the irony of it someday.


And now that you mention it, I'd like to see this statement where he supposedly infringed upon white supremacists freedom to be assholes. I can't find any mention of it online.



EDIT:

Here you go. Kinda shitty tbh, just a statement half a day later saying "we mean nazis too,"

So Trump himself didn't actually say anything, and it was mostly advisers saying "Yeah, sure, he probably meant Nazis too. We think. At least, *I* do, I can't speak for the President."

So oppression. Much thought police. Wow.

[misko27]

As for your claim about evidence, that's fucking ridiculous. I live in the East Bay, and I'm used to people being physically assaulted for being right of Marx, including myself.

I hate to say it, but that's what we call "anecdotal." I've seen my own mother beaten to within an inch of her life, but if I can't provide statistics, my opinion about domestic violence still doesn't mean jack. And it shouldn't, either. That's not how arguing is supposed to work.

EDIT: Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
I am sure this is a sign that this discussion is being handled with grace and tact.

[TheBiggerFish]

Yes free speech means Nazis can speak too, but the best answer to speech is more speech.  Violence only hurts the cause of anti-Nazi-ing by giving them ammunition.

Not actual ammunition.  They buy that for themselves.

[Frumple]

Kinda shitty tbh, just a statement half a day later saying "we mean nazis too,"

Ah, only took the press crew a couple tries, then. It's almost somethin'.

Does look like trump himself is still refusing to the say the words like they're pazuzu, but hey, I guess the people he regularly contradicts had the reproductive fortitude.

[RedKing]

Yes free speech means Nazis can speak too, but the best answer to speech is more speech.  Violence only hurts the cause of anti-Nazi-ing by giving them ammunition.

Not actual ammunition.  They buy that for themselves.

Remember how we won WWII with harsh words? Yeah, good times.
Sorry, I stopped buying the passive resistance argument some years ago.

[SalmonGod]

Which is why massive public shaming is the best possible approach.  It's nothing but another use of free speech.  There's no contradiction there, and any anthropologist will tell you that ostracization is the most powerful consequence human beings are able to impose on each other.

[smjjames]

Yes free speech means Nazis can speak too, but the best answer to speech is more speech.  Violence only hurts the cause of anti-Nazi-ing by giving them ammunition.

Not actual ammunition.  They buy that for themselves.

Remember how we won WWII with harsh words? Yeah, good times.
Sorry, I stopped buying the passive resistance argument some years ago.

The point is more that violence only emboldens them.

[Playergamer]

As for your claim about evidence, that's fucking ridiculous. I live in the East Bay, and I'm used to people being physically assaulted for being right of Marx, including myself.

I hate to say it, but that's what we call "anecdotal." I've seen my own mother beaten to within an inch of her life, but if I can't provide statistics, my opinion about domestic violence still doesn't mean jack. And it shouldn't, either. That's not how arguing is supposed to work.

EDIT: Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
I am sure this is a sign that this discussion is being handled with grace and tact.

Yes, much grace. My point with that anecdote is that if I was a Nazi showing up to rally in a liberal town, I'd probably want to be armed too, in case of a fight with antifa.

I'm probably gonna step back from this conversation, since people including myself are getting kind of heated. I'm not actually a nazi, I just think unrestricted free speech is the single most important thing in the history of ever, and the city/state government didn't handle it well.

Which is why massive public shaming is the best possible approach.  It's nothing but another use of free speech.  There's no contradiction there, and any anthropologist will tell you that ostracization is the most powerful consequence human beings are able to impose on each other.

Yes that plz. These guys literally marched with tiki torches.

[Arx]

Red, I'd like to point out that that was after the Nazis had risen to power and ruled Germany. A group of rallyers itching for a fight is not even close to comparable to the Wehrmacht.

I'm with Salmon on this.

[Folly]

I mean... I know it's sticky... but if a people want to proclaim that their ways are fundamentally rooted in the promotion of basic human rights, then that should mean by extension that the act of proclaiming an opposition to basic human rights would be met with strong discouragement.  If this is not the case, because people's ability to say what they want is one of those rights, then the conclusion is that our culture sees that specific right as more important than any other example of what we call a human right.  Which... ok... but that doesn't sit well with me.

In life there are not always good solutions. In politics, even more rarely so. Sometimes all you can do is side with the lesser evil.

In this case, you want to deny other people their right to believe what they choose to believe and say what they choose to say, just because you don't like it. But you need to understand that establishing such a policy means that it may be used against you one day, and then you would be forced to change your beliefs and manner of speech to accommodate someone else's world view. If you value your own freedoms, you must be willing to extend those same freedoms to others. And if you don't...well, I guess you're free to talk about it all you want.

[Frumple]

... not "just" because someone doesn't like it. Because the folks in question are literally proponents of murder, ethnic cleansing, etc. Dislike isn't exactly the right term when the condemnation is for the components of goddamn genocide.

Policy ain't to say they can't think, good action is to shout the filth down and good policy is to make incitement a crime and hate an aggravating factor. Which is on the books, at least, for all it's hell to actually stick the former to people.

[SalmonGod]

Don't misunderstand me.  The thing is, if we can't muster that massive public shaming (and so far we aren't), then other courses of action become not unreasonable.

Because violence IS what's explicitly at stake.  And if the situation progresses as it is without ever turning back, the only question left for each of us in the end will be which side we choose to be violent for.

I stand by my past statements that white nationalism and similar ideologies cannot be allowed to feel comfortable proclaiming their beliefs in public.  The counter-protests should be 4x as large and the boos from random observants should be deafening.  But the problem is our country's cultural make-up is such that we don't have that going on.  The United States could fall back into its history very quickly (the last public lynchings still being in living memory) if we don't get this under control.  We just need to allow people to feel like it's culturally acceptable to be openly bigoted in public again.

And if we can't prevent this with deafening shame, then I stand by my support for nazi punching.  Don't let them fucking feel safe spreading their message in public space.  Get away with it if you can.  If not, it still must be done.  The whole true victim narrative is a smokescreen to distract from the agenda to make their message publicly acceptable again.

In life there are not always good solutions. In politics, even more rarely so. Sometimes all you can do is side with the lesser evil.

In this case, you want to deny other people their right to believe what they choose to believe and say what they choose to say, just because you don't like it. But you need to understand that establishing such a policy means that it may be used against you one day, and then you would be forced to change your beliefs and manner of speech to accommodate someone else's world view. If you value your own freedoms, you must be willing to extend those same freedoms to others. And if you don't...well, I guess you're free to talk about it all you want.

At some point, issues like this pare down to the fact that ideas can be so fundamentally at odds with each other that conflict is simply the root nature of the situation.  It's just a fact of life.  Some things are win or lose.  If I value freedoms, then I act in opposition to those who proclaim their intent to undermine them.  It's more important than philosophical tidiness.  You said it yourself.  There aren't always good solutions.

[Folly]

... not "just" because someone doesn't like it. Because the folks in question are literally proponents of murder, ethnic cleansing, etc. Dislike isn't exactly the right term when the condemnation is for the components of goddamn genocide.

Policy ain't to say they can't think, good action is to shout the filth down and good policy is to make incitement a crime and hate an aggravating factor. Which is on the books, at least, for all it's hell to actually stick the former to people.

Well, when they start murdering and cleansing, then by all means, it's time for the government to step in and take action to restore the peace. Not action to dissuade their beliefs, just to end the violence.

If people outside the government want to lead a non-violent movement against proponents of racial-inequality, by all means, that sounds to me like a morally justifiable course of action. But it has to be done outside of the government.

[smjjames]

... not "just" because someone doesn't like it. Because the folks in question are literally proponents of murder, ethnic cleansing, etc. Dislike isn't exactly the right term when the condemnation is for the components of goddamn genocide.

Policy ain't to say they can't think, good action is to shout the filth down and good policy is to make incitement a crime and hate an aggravating factor. Which is on the books, at least, for all it's hell to actually stick the former to people.

Well, when they start murdering and cleansing, then by all means, it's time for the government to step in and take action to restore the peace. Not action to dissuade their beliefs, just to end the violence.

If people outside the government want to lead a non-violent movement against proponents of racial-inequality, by all means, that sounds to me like a morally justifiable course of action. But it has to be done outside of the government.

Hm, I've got a question for you. Since you don't want the government to dissuade the beliefs of neonazis, does that mean that you don't want the government to dissuade people from being radicalized with radical islamic extremism? I'm just following the path that your logic leads to. Though it's more on the community to do that, not the government.