The UN's Authority Over the US (from Random Rants LXIX)

[innonimatu]

You think people daub themselves with swastikas and chant "the Jews will not replace us" involuntarily?

It seems like somebody would have said something, if that was a thing. Like a Buzzfeed article or something.

Were all the germans voluntary collaborators of the nazi party? Should they all have been hanged after WW2? Even I, who have a particularly bad view of Germany's role in Europe and believe they were let off far too lightly after what they did, would never believe they were all nazis and hopeless lost, enemies to be wiped out.

There people who now play nazi-lites or whatever are deluded, misguided, foolish. Dangerous if a set of conditions comes into being that places their leaders in power, but that is nowhere near or likely. Some of those groups may be manipulated and exploited by by unscrupulous leaders who know very well what they are doing. Some are perhaps true believers on easy narratives of us versus them that are always floating around and free for picking. My point is, most of them are probably not lost for the possibility of changing. While "fighting them", keep in mind that the purpose of fighting nazism or racism is not to destroy enemies as in particular individuals but to destroy those ideas in the minds of people.

I'm not saying you have to excuse them, or allow them to spread their ideas unimpeded. Just don't demonize them either, they are not some "fallen humans", they were ordinary citizens who embraced certain ideas due to some mix of factors. And it seems to that it wasn't just the mere availability of nazi or racist writings or speeches. Focusing on identifying and and eliminating those other factors is imho more productive that forbidding marches or speeches.

 

[Takhisis]

Not by the US standard, it doesn't. As Archon_Wing already stated, in the US you have to be able to show how what someone said about you caused tangible damage to you (tangible usually meaning something you can put a specific dollar amount on). When it comes to libel and slander, emotional distress/damage is usually not considered enough for a court to award damages. So if I say something really racist to someone it doesn't matter how upset they get over it, there isn't a single court in the US that will do anything about it.

Plus, the burden of proof in the US for libel/slander/defamation cases is ridiculously high. So much so, that while I don't have the numbers (and a quick Google search isn't yielding any), I would venture to guess that maybe around 1% of such cases actually see a judgement in favor of the plaintiff. I'm basing that on the fact that every such case I hear about results in it either being dismissed or a judgement in favor of the defendant. That means it's pretty meaningless to sue for libel or slander in the US unless you know for sure you are going to get it.

Well, as I said, in the part of the world which Red Foreman calls ‘notAmerica’ we often have state entities empowered by statute to combat hate speech. And while we don't have the same ridiculous extent of libel/slander/defamation/etc. (I know, in the U.S. it varies between each state, territory and D.C.) we do have more stringent regulations discrimination, whether it be sexual, racial, religious or other.

There people who now play nazi-lites or whatever are deluded, misguided, foolish. Dangerous if a set of conditions comes into being that places their leaders in power, but that is nowhere near or likely.

We do have the word ‘US’ in the thread title, don't we?
*checks*
Yes, we do.

 

[Lexicus]

And that is one of the reasons why racism is actually mostly involuntary as fas as I can see.

You are confusing racism, in the abstract or in general, with specific manifestations of racism that are both voluntary and highly dangerous. Marching about with swastikas shouting about Jews can absolutely be forbidden, cracked down on, but it is a ludicrous strawman to suggest that people who favor this course believe they are eradicating racism by merely banning (or discouraging) one manifestation of it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Were all the germans voluntary collaborators of the nazi party? Should they all have been hanged after WW2? Even I, who have a particularly bad view of Germany's role in Europe and believe they were let off far too lightly after what they did, would never believe they were all nazis and hopeless lost, enemies to be wiped out.

There people who now play nazi-lites or whatever are deluded, misguided, foolish. Dangerous if a set of conditions comes into being that places their leaders in power, but that is nowhere near or likely. Some of those groups may be manipulated and exploited by by unscrupulous leaders who know very well what they are doing. Some are perhaps true believers on easy narratives of us versus them that are always floating around and free for picking. My point is, most of them are probably not lost for the possibility of changing. While "fighting them", keep in mind that the purpose of fighting nazism or racism is not to destroy enemies as in particular individuals but to destroy those ideas in the minds of people.

I'm not saying you have to excuse them, or allow them to spread their ideas unimpeded. Just don't demonize them either, they are not some "fallen humans", they were ordinary citizens who embraced certain ideas due to some mix of factors. And it seems to that it wasn't just the mere availability of nazi or racist writings or speeches. Focusing on identifying and and eliminating those other factors is imho more productive that forbidding marches or speeches.

At this point, the alt-right is still enough of a fringe organisation that the "mix of factors" are mostly individual or subcultural; we're basically talking about a bunch of socially maladjusted weirdos. We can't regulate an individuals' distorted sense of self- I shudder to think of the kind of state that would think it plausible to try- but as Lex points out, it's no great struggle to decline a marching permit to the We Hate Jews Club.

 

[innonimatu]

What I am suggesting is that such bans are at best a distraction, at worst counterproductive. Casting a fringe organization as victims, when you are unwilling or unable to actually victimize them (use force to repress them, and succeed), is counterproductive. And this is not even getting into the morality of applying free speech to everyone, etc. It is a purely practical observation.

 

[Lexicus]

What I am suggesting is that such bans are at best a distraction, at worst counterproductive.

They might be a "distraction", but that depends on qualitative factors that vary case-by-case. Distraction from what? is a question that occurs to me.

 

[Takhisis]

Casting a fringe organization as victims,

Not as victims but as criminals, unless you espouse a fully anarchistic worldview in which any coercion is an ethical and legal wrong by itself, even when practised by the state. Which certainly isn't the (neo-)Nazis' worldview.