[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Akka]

Not talking to you. You had the decency to open with "I don't defend Nazis" and went on to say you support justice against them. We have no quarrel here.

Who then actually "defends nazis" ? I saw arguments about defending some aspect of free speech or larger ideals, but I don't remember someone saying that he actually wish to defend specifically nazis.

 

[onejayhawk]

I don't think anyone defends Nazis. What happens is that someone make a ridiculous blanket statement to slap the Nazi label on some one or some group. For example:

Fascism is literally a type of corporatism

Hereby someone can accuse Trump of being a Nazi because he's corporatist, never minding that Nazis and corporatists were political opposites. When someone else objects that the statement is rubbish and the label does not fit, they are accused of defending Nazis. This happens a lot but actual defenses of Nazi almost never.

J

Moderator Action: Please don't troll members. Keep your disagreement about Fascism and corporatism to the thread that discussion is taking place in. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ryika]

Why such value placed on the right of Nazis to do Nazi stuff, while so little is placed on the right of POC to live? Like, be alive?

Well, because the USA has like... what? 200k citizens or so? A few dead ones, nobody will even notice. Even if you kill 1000. Still 199k left. That's less than 5%.

If freedom of speech is gone however, how do we make fun of Trump?

As to the former: Do you then admit to valuing freedom of speech and "diversity of thought" over peoples' lives?

Does that still refer to POC, or to people in general? Not saying that my answer would be different, just that it might be.

As to the latter: A hypothetical. If there was a murderer at a party who locked all the doors and started stabbing the other guests, how would you react? If somebody who tried to use civil dialogue to reason with the murderer was simply stabbed, how would you react? If eleven other guests attempted this same method of preventing knife murder and were equally stabbed, how would you react? If the thirteenth guest then used force to prevent the stabbing from continuing, how would you react? Would you hold this guest's hands behind their back and yell about the right of the knife murderer to civil discourse?

To answer that I do need to know the following:
- What was the color of the skin of the people who were murdered so far?
- Is the murderer a member of the white race?
- Am I at risk of being murdered myself, or is the murderer someone I know won't hurt me?
- And, am I sober enough to even give consent to make an informed decision?

On a more general note:
The very core of this thread is just a huge hyperbole. Defending the free speech of Nazis leads to nothing other than them making themselves look bad.

You know. Liberal values. Marketplace of Ideas and all of that stuff.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'll play too.

US nazis should not be beaten up because that is not how we should treat people
with a severe mental illness.
They do not have a right to free speech. They have a right to receive immediate
and compassionate treatment in a government funded facility that specialises in
the treatment of mental illnesses.
On release, they should regain the full rights afforded to other US citizens.

OTOH, nazis who have taken up arms to fight for a facist state (e.g. the
Azov Brigade) should be captured and treated as POW's if that does not endanger
those fighting against them. Otherwise, they should be shot on sight.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

As to the latter: A hypothetical. If there was a murderer at a party who locked all the doors and started stabbing the other guests, how would you react? If somebody who tried to use civil dialogue to reason with the murderer was simply stabbed, how would you react? If eleven other guests attempted this same method of preventing knife murder and were equally stabbed, how would you react? If the thirteenth guest then used force to prevent the stabbing from continuing, how would you react? Would you hold this guest's hands behind their back and yell about the right of the knife murderer to civil discourse?

I'd buy missile technologies from a stubbed guest who's now allied to the murderer, to fasten my nuclear weapons program, before it is too late. Unfortunately, the way to the bar would be blocked by the murderer, so I'd be thirsty and so nervous, and other guests (which seem to be an impotent crowd of cowards and idiots) would be scared by me too. But that would play to my benefit, because those allied to the murderer would run away and let me to the freezer, so I could at least solve the famine at my dear stomach, caused by the murderer's sanctions.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hey, progress! Those who defend Nazis have actually answered the question.

I'm gauging that the answer seems to be "because of free speech, and because violence is bad."

As to the former: Do you then admit to valuing freedom of speech and "diversity of thought" over peoples' lives? The question here is: which do you guys value more, the abstract concept of free speech or the very real and pressing matter of peoples' rights to live?

As to the latter: A hypothetical. If there was a murderer at a party who locked all the doors and started stabbing the other guests, how would you react? If somebody who tried to use civil dialogue to reason with the murderer was simply stabbed, how would you react? If eleven other guests attempted this same method of preventing knife murder and were equally stabbed, how would you react? If the thirteenth guest then used force to prevent the stabbing from continuing, how would you react? Would you hold this guest's hands behind their back and yell about the right of the knife murderer to civil discourse?

Is this the "inthesomeday asks a series of unrelated questions" thread? Can you make the next one about favourite types of yoghurt?

 

[REDY]

If the party was Nazi party and murderer was antifascist, then it would be dilemma "would you try to defend nazis".

I would certainly call police but do not risk my life, which I would probably do if the roles be switched.

 

[warpus]

Why y'all always be making stuff up?

 

[Berzerker]

And besides, if you did that you'd be ostracized by your friends instead of just us.

My friends served in the military and the Nazis torpedoed my father's ship, dont confuse me with them because I believe in free speech and you dont... They dont either.

 

[JollyRoger]

I will defend a Nazi from being punched or stabbed so that he can be properly shot.

 

[innonimatu]

I will defend a Nazi from being punched or stabbed so that he can be properly shot.

Wonder how Europe would look like today if you could have replaced Truman. Some things are easier said than done, and perhaps that is good.

 

[Berzerker]

More importantly, the sentiments would still exist. It's good to have those sentiments in the open so they can be addressed, rather than behind closed doors where they'll only be echoed.

Thats right, ideas cant win battles that are never fought... And turning attempts to speak into brawls helps recruit far better than the message. When 'the left' behaves like 'them' it produces an increased 'moral equivalency' by making the speakers more sympathetic (quite a trick when some are neo-Nazis) and the violent counter protesters more like radicals with an unhealthy level of intolerance for free speech. Oh wait...

I'm gauging that the answer seems to be "because of free speech, and because violence is bad."

As to the former: Do you then admit to valuing freedom of speech and "diversity of thought" over peoples' lives?

Of course... far too many people gave their lives for those freedoms for me to toss them aside, as if I had the moral authority, I dont. Your right to free speech doesn't come from me, it comes from the creator.

The question here is: which do you guys value more, the abstract concept of free speech or the very real and pressing matter of peoples' rights to live?

How many will die without free speech? Did they have free speech in Nazi Germany? Or did thugs show up to attack protesters? Was free speech 'abstract' when the Nazis silenced critics? People ask, how did it happen? It happened because people were not free to speak their minds. Thats how the abstract concept of free speech relates to the very real and pressing matter of people's rights to live. Apparently we have the right to live but not speak?

As to the latter: A hypothetical. If there was a murderer at a party who locked all the doors and started stabbing the other guests, how would you react?

I'd unload my clip into him

 

[inthesomeday]

@Berzerker

I believe your sacred right to unload that clip (to protect the other guests, of course) is more important than any abstracted right any philosopher could claim for you.

 

[Berzerker]

well, gun rights activists do refer to the 2nd Amendment as the teeth of the 1st Amendment... But since I use my free speech every day and have never found myself confronted by a knife wielding murderer, I'd rather be free to speak (if I had to choose between the two)...

Btw, I see the ACLU helped "Unite the Right" get their permit (why do people need their help?) and now wont defend gun owners free speech. Maybe if the guns are unloaded. The ACLU wont defend armed protesters. So, free speech, self defense and gun rights are not 3 civil liberties any more.

 

[caketastydelish]

I will defend a Nazi from being punched or stabbed so that he can be properly shot.

What if he didnazi that coming?

 

[civvver]

Well, because the USA has like... what? 200k citizens or so? A few dead ones, nobody will even notice. Even if you kill 1000. Still 199k left. That's less than 5%.

The US has over 300 million people living in it. I cannot tell if you are being serious or not.

I don't think anyone here has defended nazis except for that other civer guy who hopefully no one confuses me with, who believes in some sort of white race agenda, I really don't get it at all.

People were just defending free speech and right to peaceful protest. The problem was the groups weren't interested in peaceful protest, even before antiffa showed up, things were looking pretty violent.

 

[Ryika]

300 million people? I don't believe that!

 

[El_Machinae]

I think Valessa means that there are about 200k Nazis in the states.

There are about 120 million people that will be adversely affected if the free speech laws tighten inappropriately.

 

[Wastl]

Thats right, ideas cant win battles that are never fought... And turning attempts to speak into brawls helps recruit far better than the message. When 'the left' behaves like 'them' it produces an increased 'moral equivalency' by making the speakers more sympathetic (quite a trick when some are neo-Nazis) and the violent counter protesters more like radicals with an unhealthy level of intolerance for free speech. Oh wait...

Of course... far too many people gave their lives for those freedoms for me to toss them aside, as if I had the moral authority, I dont. Your right to free speech doesn't come from me, it comes from the creator.

How many will die without free speech? Did they have free speech in Nazi Germany? Or did thugs show up to attack protesters? Was free speech 'abstract' when the Nazis silenced critics? People ask, how did it happen? It happened because people were not free to speak their minds. Thats how the abstract concept of free speech relates to the very real and pressing matter of people's rights to live. Apparently we have the right to live but not speak?

Those comments are an insult to all those who were killed by the Nazis. The whole idea that "absolute" free speech was prevented and that led to the rise of the Nazis stands for complete ignorance of history. They didn't just pop up and were in charge, they were around for years, misusing democratic rights to undermine democracy itself. The very concepts that you are praising actually helped them advance their cause, not the other way round. People did oppose the Nazis way before they were in charge, and the Nazis used violence and intimidation to silence those critics (does the SA ring a bell?). The Nazis - apart from a very short period after an attempted coup - were protected by people who saw them as sort of allies in the battle against communism or even against the Republic itself, and they could hide behind free speech and the legitimacy of participating in the democratic process. They had shown utter contempt for democracy itself, yet there was absolutely nothing that could be done about that.

If anything, absolute free speech is more likely to cause the rise of such groups than the slightly limited version does. People actually learned from the past, hence the German constitution putting an end to anti-democratic and supremacist parties hiding behind free speech while in truth trying to undermine and destroy the society. There is a reason why article 1 isn't about freedom of speech but about human dignity. Any ideology that is based on violence, hatred or the removal of certain ethnic groups from the society is not one that needs to be protected by free speech. These ideas only exist to rile up people, spread hatred and attack the dignity of other people. Absolute free speech has no means to deal with any elements that try to disrupt society, even openly asking for mass-murder or genocide is fine. The only thing standing in the way is people voicing their displeasure with such opinions, which does work to some extend but can never truly deal with a large movement. All it takes are a bunch of well-funded people who support these ideas and off you go. All you are left with is the hope that society with react every single time, and this usually isn't the case. That doesn't even include the fact that the approach doesn't protect the dignity of humans in any way. The approach that puts dignity first, on the other hand, makes sure that these ideas are kept to the utmost fringes of society. It protects the dignity of humans and keeps public funding away from these kind of people, thus making sure that those who try to destroy democracy and the society aren't propped up or even helped by the ideals they despise. On top of that, you still have the public reactions to those ideas, only improved by the fact that there is actually some bite behind it. Thus making sure that people don't attack other people's dignity, then hide behind free speech and openly mock the institutions because they can't do anything about them.

People are still free to think whatever they want, but they aren't allowed to impede other people's rights or whitewash history in an attempt to attack the dignity of others. The idea that a "market of ideas" somehow helps protect against hatred and bigotry is absurd to say the least. It does no such thing. What it does is to allow people to treat other people like garbage. People won't constantly rally to fight against evil ideas, no one can be bothered to get up in arms over all the small deeds of evil that happen. Not to mention that standing up against these things is entirely reactionary and does not help prevent it.

 

[Ryika]

If anything, absolute free speech is more likely to cause the rise of such groups than the slightly limited version does. People actually learned from the past, hence the German constitution putting an end to anti-democratic and supremacist parties hiding behind free speech while in truth trying to undermine and destroy the society

The important question is, how do you keep the censorship in check?

A look at Germany very much shows you exactly that problem, particularly things like Maas's proposed Anti-Hate-Speech law, which is really just an attempt at trying to pressure social media sites into removing anything that could broadly be seen as anti-immigration or anti-Islam by setting up immense financial penalties to anything that they consider "hate speech", without properly defining that term.

So within the framework of German law we already have a potential path into a heavily censored Internet if which you can't talk about problems with Immigration or a protected Ideology like Islam anymore, all that is required is for politicians to just agree that little bit more with people like Maas and Free Speech is practically gone from our part of the Internet.