[RD] Berkeley Riots

[EgonSpengler]

There are literally no Nazis. The National Socialist Party was in 20th century Germany and is extinct today. Say who you mean.

I think you mean "formally." People who shout "Hail victory" and "Blood and soil" and march with torches are certainly laying a claim to Nazism. Saying there is "no shred" of facism is giving those guys like Richard Spencer credit they don't even want. I don't think they're that dumb, not all of them anyway, I think they know exactly what they're evoking.

 

[aelf]

You're talking to someone who, I recall, believes National Socialism is socialism.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You're talking to someone who, I recall, believes National Socialism is socialism.

Oh. Yeah, I've had that conversation before. I guess, to be fair, there were socialists in the Nazi Party at the beginning, Rohm and the Strasser brothers. They actually called themselves the German Workers' Party for a minute. They were gutted to learn, in June of '34, that the party wouldn't be going in that direction.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think you mean "formally." People who shout "Hail victory" and "Blood and soil" and march with torches are certainly laying a claim to Nazism. Saying there is "no shred" of facism is giving those guys like Richard Spencer credit they don't even want. I don't think they're that dumb, not all of them anyway, I think they know exactly what they're evoking.

Fine. Use your words. If you mean people acting as bullies, say so and quit with the pejorative labels. In any event, specify the people or groups here and now..

You're talking to someone who, I recall, believes National Socialism is socialism.

If you mean that National Socialists promoted socialism as a party policy, that would be correct. If you mean that Nazis were left of center, that would also be correct. If you mean exactly what you stated, you are reductive and trite.

J

 

[BvBPL]

Of course you're defending the person and what they did. You may not agree with what they are about, but you're still defending them. The question is not whether you're defending them... you are. The question is why. Why are you defending them? And one possible answer (of several) is... for example "Because I'm being paid to. Its my job to defend them and keeping my job is important enough to me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another answer is "Upholding my oath as an officer of the Court and maintaining my professional integrity is important enough to me for me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another possible answer is "Because I believe in the Constitutional right to a lawyer and a trial and I think that protecting that right is worth defending people accused of horrible crimes."

So why are you defending Nazis?

Is saying that violence is unacceptable against any parties, inclusive of Nazis, a defense of Nazis?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is saying that violence is unacceptable against any parties, inclusive of Nazis, a defense of Nazis?

The only person who sincerely believes that is Park, and I can't see him going to bat for the Fourth Reich.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I have a queasy feeling I'm walking into something here, but...

Fine. Use your words. If you mean people acting as bullies, say so and quit with the pejorative labels. In any event, specify the people or groups here and now..

I'm not sure it's a pejorative if the person is proudly laying claim to the title. To him, I mean; it's obviously a pejorative to me. While I'm sure many of them know exactly what they're doing when they shout 'blood and soil' and so on, I also totally believe that many of them are just angry tools who have no idea what they're saying or doing. If someone accidentally associates themselves with Nazism, is it unfair of me to call them a Nazi? I dunno. Maybe. There's that model who says she was just following her boyfriend and had no idea what was going on. I mean, *sigh* that's plausible, I guess. I actually do feel bad for the ignoramuses who are led over the proverbial cliff by people they trust (and if that trust was naive in the first place, I guess it's just another bear-trap the ignoramuses are likely to step in).

If you mean that National Socialists promoted socialism as a party policy, that would be correct. If you mean that Nazis were left of center, that would also be correct. If you mean exactly what you stated, you are reductive and trite.

I don't think socialism was an important part of the Nazi platform after The Night of the Long Knives (nobody got my joke about Rohm and Strasser being 'gutted' ). Hitler had already been named Chancellor by that point, so there wasn't really any reason for him to continue the charade. In fact, I think he dissolved the unions before he had Rohm and Strasser murdered, because I remember that the SA rushed the unions on May Day (that's way too big a coincidence to think it wasn't symbolic), and The Night of the Long Knives was in June or July (and Rohm was the head of the SA - yes, after they did Hitler's dirty work on May Day, he had their leaders murdered and dissolved them as a group).

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong, it was 1933 that the Nazis crushed the labor unions, not 1934, and Wikipedia says it was actually May 2nd. Oh well. My point still stands.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have a queasy feeling I'm walking into something here, but.

I'm not sure it's a pejorative if the person is proudly laying claim to the title. To him, I mean; it's obviously a pejorative to me. While I'm sure many of them know exactly what they're doing when they shout 'blood and soil' and so on, I also totally believe that many of them are just angry tools who have no idea what they're saying or doing. If someone accidentally associates themselves with Nazism, is it unfair of me to call them a Nazi? I dunno. Maybe. There's that model who says she was just following her boyfriend and had no idea what was going on. I mean, *sigh* that's plausible, I guess. I actually do feel bad for the ignoramuses who are led over the proverbial cliff by people they trust (and if that trust was naive in the first place, I guess it's just another bear-trap the ignoramuses are likely to step in).

I don't think socialism was an important part of the Nazi platform after The Night of the Long Knives (nobody got my joke about Rohm and Strasser being 'gutted' ). Hitler had already been named Chancellor by that point, so there wasn't really any reason for him to continue the charade. In fact, I think he dissolved the unions before he had Rohm and Strasser murdered, because I remember that the SA rushed the unions on May Day (that's way too big a coincidence to think it wasn't symbolic), and The Night of the Long Knives was in June or July (and Rohm was the head of the SA - yes, after they did Hitler's dirty work on May Day, he had their leaders murdered and dissolved them as a group).

This whole subject is queasy making.

If you mean people claiming to be Nazis or neo-Nazi, say so. If that is the case, then you are not talking about the Berkeley riots. If you can find them at all, they are few and far between.

Making the distinction between before and after the long knives is valid. The Nazis did not govern as they ran. However, if you look at the other fascists, they all were oriented toward the central government providing education, retirement, medical, ie socialism.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

Aren't the Ustase (mix of nazi and fascist) generally regarded as national heroes in (now Eu country ) Croatia?

 

[innonimatu]

Making the distinction between before and after the long knives is valid. The Nazis did not govern as they ran. However, if you look at the other fascists, they all were oriented toward the central government providing education, retirement, medical, ie socialism.

That would make Bismark a socialist , something en emphatically was not.

The biggest capitalists in Germany aligned to finance the nazis before Hitler even became chancellor. They knew the nazis were not socialists. February 20, 1933 Hitler stated to the leading businessman of the country (some from firms still famous: Krupp, IG Farben (later BASF), Siemens, AEG, Deutche Bank, etc) that "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" because democracy would lead to social democracy and then to communism. Then he offered to "crush the left completely", either though constitutional means or outside the law. And left his lackeys Goering and Schacht to ask for 3 million marks to finance the nazi party for the upcoming election. The businessman delivered.

That the nazis made some vague propaganda to deceive voters in fact deceived very few people at the time. The only "low" class Hitler promised things to (and actually delivered later) were the farmers. Who were not few in Germany at the time, granted. But these had been conservative rather than socialist anyway. Nazi economic plans, if they could be called such, were built around big capitalist industry and small farming.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That was wiffle. I made a perfectly cogent comment about how what you said flies in the face of the very concept of freedom of speech (i.e., that it's to defend the expressing of unpopular opinions and that to support free speech is to support exactly this). It was self-contained, clear, and the comprehension of it does not rely on anything else I or you have ever said or done in the past. The fact that you somehow feel the need to clear up all this other stuff that you brought up yourself, before you can even contemplate addressing that point, indicates to me that you have no intention of doing so and that diversion and deflection is your aim. Which I don't really understand as, as I keep saying, there was no requirement or onus on you to respond anyway, so it's completely unnecessary to do so. Anyway, I'll restate the observation that you are apparently against the concept of free speech, and I'll leave it there until such a hypothetical time as you might want to address it.

I still don't get what a "whiffle" is , sorry... but I will infer that it is your way of saying that I said something that you don't consider worthy of a response... which in context, seems to be anything that refutes weak arguments that you have made. Especially since I pointed out that you wrongly defined my post as a character attack and you refused to acknowledge the error. Apparently "whiffle" is just a word you made up to describe arguments that contradict yours, which you can't refute... So here's another "wiffle" for you ... Your argument is completely cogent, completely consistent and completely wrong. Specifically your argument vastly exaggerates the risk posed to free speech.

More importantly... Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak... I have a right not to defend Nazi scum. You can't credibly point to my refusal to speak in defense of Nazis as somehow undermining free speech. I have no obligation to defend scummers and I have the freedom of speech to not be forced to speak out in defense of scum and their scummy causes which I don't believe in.

So I've "addressed your point"... your point is wrong, clearly and obviously. If you feel its "unnecessary to respond" then don't.

Swing and miss. There are literally no Nazis. The National Socialist Party was in 20th century Germany and is defunct today. A tiny fragment of the KKK remains but it is not worth consideration. Calling them straw men overstates the case. These are fictions. Say who you actually mean.

Once again, you are painfully wrong. Obviously so... Is this really a position based on the technical definition of Nazi rather than the colloquial one? Are you serious?? Why waste everyone's time with that kind of thing? Why are you trying to defend Nazis and/or the Artists formerly known as Nazis?? What is your point? To say "Sommers they are not technically part of the party that was defeated in WWII... Reallly??? Are you freaking kidding me? That is your argument?? That argument is on the level of arguing which shade of red Elmo is.... I award you no points... and may god have mercy on your soul.:

Is saying that violence is unacceptable against any parties, inclusive of Nazis, a defense of Nazis?

Yes. Yes it is. If I am in a debate involving ongoing criticism of Colin Kaepernick and his anthemkneelapalooza... and say, in said debate "Criticism is unacceptable against any NFL quarterbacks, inclusive of Colin Kaepernick" I am obviously defending Colin Keapernick. The whole abstract defense of Nazis is not some clever threading of the needle... It is a blatant defense of Nazis. Own it or abandon it.

 

[Berzerker]

You can't coerce or constrain others with libel or fraud, but those things are illegal, and this is generally accepted by even the most ardent civil libertarians.

Fraud is theft, thats a constraint on a victim's property and the time and effort they sacrificed to obtain it. Libel laws are based on the notion of injurious speech, lies resulting in a victim's monetary loss.

Your whole framing of "free speech" assumes a prior distinction between "speech" and other, non-"speech" forms of expression, which cannot tenably be presented as pre-social when all those other form of expression are distinguished from "speech" precisely by their social consequences. What is your actual framework, here?

You'll have to rephrase that, there is a difference between speech and free speech. The word free has a definition and that places limits on the definition of speech.

I show you an armed paramilitary and you see a friendly nieghbourhood grandpa. I think we just inhabit different and contradictory perceptual universes.

I saw a few gun rights activists defending themselves in the midst of a riot, you saw violent Nazis.

If your conception of "natural rights" is "touch my stuff and I'll waste you", then you are using that vocabulary in a very different way than the rest of us.

Was this in response to something I said? I see the quote you chose but I dont see the connection.

 

[Berzerker]

Now you got it . As for the other issue, you're asking about... ie attacking protesters... I need more context. What does "attacking" mean? What are the protesters doing? Why are they being attacked? Who are the attackers? Who are the protesters? What are they protesting?

Protesters were confronted by counter protesters and a brawl ensued... I blame the counter protesters. The why and who aint relevant, attacking protesters because of their message is.

For example. If the protesters are firebombing a laboratory with scientists inside, because they disagree with what is being researched, I would probably support the police donning the riot gear and "attacking" them. Probably... I think so... but that's a little... I dunno, strawman-ish isn't it? Nazi speech hasn't been banned in the US. Again, I fully understand the slippery slope argument you are making, but I just don't buy it.

You can already see the slope, 'right wing' groups are canceling (or being canceled) rallies for security concerns.

If you are defending Nazis rights, you are defending Nazis. A question that lawyers get asked all the time, is "What if you had to defend someone accused of some horrible crime?" Now when you get asked this question... if you respond with "Oh well you see, I'm not defending the person or what they did, I'm defending our Constitutional right to a lawyer"... you would rightfully get eye-rolled or dubious faced

Of course you're defending the person and what they did. You may not agree with what they are about, but you're still defending them.

When a lawyer defends a murderer, he isn't defending murder. Defending the free speech rights of people doesn't mean you agree with what they say. Apparently you think it does, so do you ever defend free speech? If you do, you're agreeing with the message, right? Yes, I believe in your free speech when you say what I want.

The question is not whether you're defending them... you are. The question is why. Why are you defending them? And one possible answer (of several) is... for example "Because I'm being paid to. Its my job to defend them and keeping my job is important enough to me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another answer is "Upholding my oath as an officer of the Court and maintaining my professional integrity is important enough to me for me to defend people accused of horrible crimes." Another possible answer is "Because I believe in the Constitutional right to a lawyer and a trial and I think that protecting that right is worth defending people accused of horrible crimes."

So why are you defending Nazis?

The 'Nazis' are irrelevant, you could replace them with any group I dislike (including the Democrats) and my response would be the same - free speech is under attack and the alternative is living with the knowledge I did nothing to defend it. You're not concerned with any slippery slope, yet you continually refer to the protesters as Nazis. You're already spreading the guilt by association, thats how the slope becomes slippery...

 

[onejayhawk]

That would make Bismark a socialist, something en emphatically was not.

Or not.

Once again, you are painfully wrong. Obviously so... Is this really a position based on the technical definition of Nazi rather than the colloquial one? Are you serious?? Why waste everyone's time with that kind of thing? Why are you trying to defend Nazis and/or the Artists formerly known as Nazis?? What is your point? To say "Sommers they are not technically part of the party that was defeated in WWII... Reallly??? Are you freaking kidding me? That is your argument?? That argument is on the level of arguing which shade of red Elmo is.... I award you no points... and may god have mercy on your soul.

To use your words, own it or abandon it.

You throw out labels like KKK and Nazi where only Antifa is like either. That does not help you case. If you want to throw around criticisms, make it clear exactly who you are criticizing. Frankly, I think you believe the big lie, "It's those white supremacist's fault. They're the reason everything is going to hell." If there are no white supremacists, you can manufacture a few. There has been plenty of practice lately.

J

Moderator Action: Dishonest and disruptive distractions have no place in a RD discussion. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aelf]

That would make Bismark a socialist , something en emphatically was not.

Why bother? This guy lives in a McCarthyist alternate reality, a relic that now finds resonance in Trumpism.

Ah yes, interesting strategy. Let's be very, very critical with every word in that post so we can ignore the argument that was being made.

So you were talking about the media except the biggest channel and the smaller right-leaning ones? Got it.

Not a very convincing tale, I must say.

 

[Ryika]

So you were talking about the media except the biggest channel and the smaller right-leaning ones? Got it. Not a very convincing tale, I must say.

No, I think it is obvious to any honest reader who is not just looking to go into semantics, that I was talking about a specific part of the media that has been denying what Antifa did for a long time. That other parts of the media - not only Fox News, but also many of the alternative media of the Internet - have called them out in the past, does not change that.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This RD thread was moderated three times on the last page alone and as such is very close to never seeing the light of day again, along with the concomitant brownie points to go around.

This is your collective last chance to keep this thread open.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aelf]

No, I think it is obvious to any honest reader who is not just looking to go into semantics, that I was talking about a specific part of the media that has been denying what Antifa did for a long time. That other parts of the media - not only Fox News, but also many of the alternative media of the Internet - have called them out in the past, does not change that.

Alright. So you were talking about the media you don't like.

 

[Ryika]

Alright. So you were talking about the media you don't like.

What do you even hope to achieve with this nonsense?

I was very clear that I am talking about a part of the media that in my opinion did not treat Antifa with the honesty that they should have treated them with. Whether I "like" these media outlets or not is entirely meaningless, did they do it, or did they not?

 

[aelf]

What do you even hope to achieve with this nonsense?

What do you hope to achieve with your nonsense? I thought you'd quit this forum, and not for the first time.