Antifa rocks!

[brennan]

Whereas racist rallies and nazi propaganda has a neutral effect on our society.

This is actually correct. The American Nazi Party held events in the 60's and 70's. Did this turn the country nazi? No, permitting public displays of extremist ideologies does more to kill them than banning them does.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

This is actually correct. The American Nazi Party held events in the 60's and 70's. Did this turn the country nazi? No, permitting public displays of extremist ideologies does more to kill them than banning them does.

I'm pretty sure you are forgetting a pretty big example of the exact opposite of this happening.

Just putting that out there.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is actually correct. The American Nazi Party held events in the 60's and 70's. Did this turn the country nazi? No, permitting public displays of extremist ideologies does more to kill them than banning them does.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies went after the extreme right pretty hard back then. Rallies may have happened but let's not act as if they were given a free pass to intimidate and hurt people and they certainly didn't have a president openly championing them and calling for violence at campaign rallies. While Nixon and other presidents did use dog whistles, that's a far cry in most instances from what Trump has done and said. Meanwhile, as I said, the federal law enforcement agencies they led did still go after the KKK and other groups like that hard.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Giving fascists a platform, allowing them oxygen does nothing but given them a base from which to expand. We need only look at Hitler or Mussolini or Bolsonaro or Trump or any other number of similarly inclined people. The media highlighted them and ridiculed them, but now the latter two are presidents, fat load of good that did them eh?

Like would anyone argue this if it was Islamic terrorists instead of fascists?

That somehow allowing them to exist uninfringed will ultimately defeat them in the end and at what cost?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Speech is harmful, there can be no doubt about that, to pretend otherwise requires you ignoring human history.

I did say directly harmful. Speech in and of itself is never harmful. Unless you have a voice loud enough to burst eardrums or something.

Even so what? Of what benefit is there to society to have prejudice and fascism spread unchecked?

The benefit is that people are allowed to talk and express themselves freely and without fear of imprisonment or sanctions. You're free to counter with your own words and reasoning too. And I'm sure you'll think this is a stupid question, but who defines "prejudice" and "fascism"? Who gets to decide what constitutes that, and who gets silenced? What's to stop those definitions creeping or growing with time? Do you not see the inherent dangers allowing the state (or whoever) a monopoly over what is and isn't allowed to be talked about, or who is and isn't allowed to do the talking? Don't you see how a defence of free speech for all is actually a way to guarantee that you will always be free to speak about what you think is right?

Aside from that, I don't think there necessarily needs to be any tangible benefit to something for it to be allowed, nor does demonstrable harm mean it should be disallowed (to refer back to what you asked brennan). Smoking, for example, is pretty much all harm and no good, but I don't support making it entirely illegal. Again it's about freedom, and giving humans freedom is just giving them ways to hurt themselves and each other. But it's still better to have freedom (in my opinion).

I am trying to be genuine here Manfred, if you can answer that question in a way that doesn't put the onus on minorities and victims to tacitly accept their abuse i will accept it, even if i don't agree with it but i honestly don't think you can.

Your right to feel and be completely safe at all times does not trump the rights of everyone else to not be kept in shackles to prevent them from ever harming you. In a free society there is always going to be a risk of harm, but no-one is saying anyone should accept actual abuse.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I did say directly harmful. Speech in and of itself is never harmful. Unless you have a voice loud enough to burst eardrums or something.

I mean come on dude. This isn't true and you know it. The holocaust wasn't whipped up apropos of nothing; there was over a decade of virulent hate speech that led up to the violence. And this is of course overlooking more direct harmful speech like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater or instructing your crowd to 'rough up' protestors and promising to cover legal bills at campaign rallies and other direct incitements to violence.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Your argument hinges on the idea that the state currently does not already hold a monopoly on various aspects of your life, even going as far as to what you can and cannot do physically.

You even accept that with greater freedom comes greater possibility of harm, but i don't think that is a reasonable position to take, if it means others might be harmed for it.

Your right to feel and be completely safe at all times does not trump the rights of everyone else to not be kept in shackles to prevent them from ever harming you. In a free society there is always going to be a risk of harm, but no-one is saying anyone should accept actual abuse.

Why is it shackles to expect the bare minimum of tolerance? What sort of message is that? We cannot get past this if you continue to espouse laissez-faire social beliefs without at least accepting that you are accountable for them and will be judged as such. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences and if those consequences result in the harm of minorities then that is something that must be strongly considered and factored into before going full steam ahead.

I mean come on dude. This isn't true and you know it. The holocaust wasn't whipped apropos of nothing; there was over a decade of virulent hate speech that led up to the violence. And this is of course overlooking more direct harmful speech like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater or instructing your crowd to 'rough up' protestors and promising to cover legal bills at campaign rallies and other direct incitements to violence.

Unfortunately the dogma of free speech can be clouding to some, even going as far as becoming a religion to them.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm kind of at a loss, if humans are predictable then why the need to ignore historical examples? Surely the fact that there are obvious examples of societies failing to address this and then being taken over by fascists should be enough to make one consider at least being pro-active?

That's literally the rationale behind "Never again".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sticks and stones just break bones, words leave scars that last forever.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Words incite action and action can cause material harm if it is malicious.

I mean does anyone seriously disagree with that?

 

[brennan]

Giving fascists a platform, allowing them oxygen does nothing but given them a base from which to expand. We need only look at Hitler or Mussolini

And Moseley. Don't forget Moseley, and how he made the UK the third great force in European fascism in the 1930's. Oh wait this didn't happen anymore than the Communist party being allowed to hold rallies in the United States would turn the US into the next USSR, other socio-political factors are in play.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Going back to Trump's incitement to violence at rallies, if he was anything but a presidential candidate there would have been repercussions. I think the shock factor tampered the reaction as if the culture sort of gasped, 'Can he do that?!' and then he was on to the next crazy thing before consensus could be reached all the while the media either danced around the issue, unsure how to approach it or did what they could to feed outrage for clicks.

Now, it's normalized and it's going to be hard to go back from that. We're being pushed into dangerous territory from multiple angles because as much as I think we need to get to grips with the new social media reality and resurgent hate groups, there is definitely the potential to overreact. I genuinely appreciate the push back from people like Manfried because it keeps everyone else honest. We shouldn't be willy-nilly about stripping rights from sections of the polity.

On the other hand, claiming there is no problem, no threat at all stinks of either dis-ingenuousness or just straight up trolling and it's the reason I haven't really participated much in this thread to begin with.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Fascists prey on a countries weaknesses, that Britain was stable enough to resist Moseley is nothing other than luck. It might have gone differently if he had more support or if the powers that be didn't view him as a threat.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And Moseley. Don't forget Moseley, and how he made the UK the third great force in European fascism in the 1930's. Oh wait this didn't happen anymore than the Communist party being allowed to hold rallies in the United States would turn the US into the next USSR, other socio-political factors are in play.

And in the USA those socio-politcal factors do weigh heavily against communism, but fascism? Not so much. There is a whole lot of USians who are poised for fascism. Eager even.

 

[brennan]

On the other hand, claiming there is no problem, no threat at all stinks of ..

Who has done this?

And in the USA those socio-politcal factors do weigh heavily against communism, but fascism? Not so much. There is a whole lot of USians who are poised for fascism. Eager even.

That's what the Nazis thought about the UK.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yes but i would actually really prefer it if we didn't take that risk Brennan or put ourselves in a similar position, all things considered mate.

I mean... am i unreasonable?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Who has done this?

I called it out right here
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/antifa-rocks.640909/page-78#post-15499123

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think the US can become fascist in any realistic way - at least not without some massive world war to precede such a change.
In Europe, on the other hand, there are many countries which have clear ties to fascism, nazism or both ( Ustase=national heroes ), and most of the eastern euro countries have rather scary governments.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's what the Nazis thought about the UK.

So them being wrong then means there's nothing to worry about now? Is that your conclusion? If so, should we file that conclusion alongside the confirmation from Greece and say "well, their perspective is certainly more likely valid than the perspectives of people actually on the ground in the USA, so no worries"?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

We have armed fascist militias over here brennan.

They've killed before.