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

[Ryika]

If the idea is getting out of hand? Yeah, that might be worthy of a discussion. Of course you still have the problem of vigilante action, who is to decide what is a bad idea and what is not? Might be easy to judge when it comes to actual Nazis, but first of all it's not just Nazis being attacked, and secondly, how do you make sure it stops there? But in general, sure, I'm not strictly against political violence as a "last resort"-option, but in this case, the idea is not a popular idea to begin with, and by opposing it with violence, people are just creating a bigger problem, not only by pushing more people on the right into the far right, but also by making people on the left and the center sympathize with them.

 

[innonimatu]

No, it's still just opinions. Opinions that are very away from yours, opinions that are not compatible with the set of values that western countries are built upon, but still just opinions.

I daresay that the set of values western countries are built upon very much rests on a logic of might makes right. And when that causes some moral unease among the plebs, just feeds them enough scary propaganda. That comes down from the government level, btw. The neo-nazis are losers on kindergarten-level even since WW2 in both methods and impact in the world. In the rare occasions they are let out of their leases (Gladio, Africa in the 60s and later, Ukraine, etc), it's for serving the purposes of other factions. Factions that have waged war with impunity and killed millions altogether from Africa to the Balkans to the Middle East, that even have had the hypocrisy sometimes of sentencing their targets as "criminals against mankind" in their "courts of justice" that never touch actual instigators of war like Blair, Bush, or Sarkozy. The set of values of western countries deserves little praise but that it provides for some power checks that prevent the worst abuses against their own citizens. Which is better than nothing, I guess.

But, relevant to this thread, continuing to keep those power checks absolutely requires freedom of expression and a pluralist approach to national politics. Once the way is open, the precedent set, to disenfranchise politically some fraction of the national population, even the nazis, power will get more concentrated in the hands of a political "elite" that sets what is and is not permissible. And then that impunity, now practiced upon the helpless people of foreign nations, will apply also domestically. @inthesomeday, if you know what is good for you, you really do not want to allow that to happen. Is is already bad enough that they get away with destroying other countries.

 

[Lexicus]

Once the way is open, the precedent set, to disenfranchise politically some fraction of the national population

It's interesting, because while I frequently disagree with what you say I always find your takes worldly- this one, by contrast, seems naive in the context of the US. The "precedent" has already been set here for systemic disenfranchisement of sections of the population. I'm not sure how it is over there in Europe, but here we are quite familiar with that. And it's actually somewhat ironic that the very free speech laws being attacked by some activists these days were originally created in the civil rights era to protect leftist organizations from "the establishment".

 

[caketastydelish]

A den of Neo Nazis? Oh Christ.
I'm afraid to see what dark corners of the internet you consider nazi-free.

Indeed. I can think of only one poster in off-topic (in recent times) that meets "neo nazi" criteria, and that user has been banned. I can't name names, but I bet you know who I'm referring to.

"neo nazi" has a stricter definition than "anyone not to the far left". It's even possible to be racist without being a neo nazi, though I haven't seen much racism either bar a few people. The closest to "neo nazi" I can think of is some people here concerned with the black lives matter movement. It does have some legitimate issues, and anytime you put yourself out there like that you're going to have to accept criticism. Personally, I'm a supporter of BLM but some of them are too self-righteous about it, such as presuming anyone who criticizes it is a neo-nazi. Just criticizing some left wing movement is not the same as worshiping Hitler. Worshiping Hitler is mandatory for being a neo-nazi.

The best argument you could make is we have closet Nazis who keep their Nazi opinions to themselves. But if that's the best we have to go off of, I'm not impressed.

 

[miaasma]

I think you're understating the impact of restricting the ability of people to state their opinion even if it's one that we don't agree with, and overstating the harm done by racist speech online.

oh my god lol

Moderator Action: Please don't make spam replies on CFC. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

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. <-----> 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?).

You mean these comments? "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."

Did you just insult everyone killed by the Nazis? Why is it insulting the Nazi's victims to say free speech didn't exist? Yes, people with repugnant ideologies will use their free speech to spread them. There are even people who will exercise their free speech to demand a ban on free speech.

If anything, absolute free speech is more likely to cause the rise of such groups than the slightly limited version does.

Oh, its not a ban, its the slightly limited version. Usually economic conditions give rise to such groups, people under stress lash out at others based on a hierarchy of gripes as stress builds.

 

[luiz]

CFC has a full rainbow of ideologies and non-ideologies and if you're the type to be offended by something, then the ones that give offense will seem dominant, even if they are in the minority.

I think someone who considers CFC to be "basically a den of neo-Nazis" is spending too much time in echo-chambers where everyone shares his (probably far left) views. That's the only explanation I can think of for someone considering a diverse, but mostly left-wing place like CFC to be a "den of neo-Nazis".

 

[Akka]

In a situation, then, where any idea, however destructive, is allowed to propagate, so too must be the counter-destructive response to that idea.

As usual, while I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the concept itself, I'd like to point that the person using this argument should really think about how quickly this can turn on them (on top of trying to understand why so many people are very uneasy about it).

I mean, this thread alone is giving all the answers you need even without having people explaining it themselves :
You have some clown claiming that one of the most left-oriented forum I've ever seen (which has been verging on the extreme left since a couple of year, in fact) is a "den of neo-nazis", and you wonder why others would feel wary giving the get-go to "punch/kill nazis" ?
You are yourself part of a group that can be basically defined by hate speech and is so full of nutjobs it's factually impossible to caricature, and you support counter-destructive response. Guess where it can easily lead ?

 

[inthesomeday]

Progress and dialectical action, hopefully. I am ready willing and able to defend my beliefs however I may have to, and most of those with real conviction are.

And heck I'd rather I suffer the wrath of the right than the victims who have suffered so long. As much flak as I can deflect from, say, civilian children abroad, or from immigrant workers here, is very worth it to me.

And anyways the far left has never ever ever been in a position of safety in the United States when it tries to act. So don't try and threaten me with the prospect of retaliation. Fred Hampton got shot in the face while he was asleep. We know the risks.

 

[Akka]

Less posturing and more reasoning, please. We aren't in a Hollywood movie and it just sounds cheesy.

 

[Senethro]

You are yourself part of a group that can be basically defined by hate speech and is so full of nutjobs it's factually impossible to caricature, and you support counter-destructive response. Guess where it can easily lead ?

Yeah, more reasoning please.

 

[luiz]

It's interesting, because while I frequently disagree with what you say I always find your takes worldly- this one, by contrast, seems naive in the context of the US. The "precedent" has already been set here for systemic disenfranchisement of sections of the population. I'm not sure how it is over there in Europe, but here we are quite familiar with that. And it's actually somewhat ironic that the very free speech laws being attacked by some activists these days were originally created in the civil rights era to protect leftist organizations from "the establishment".

There's a reason why leftist activists wanted to protect free speech in the past. If you restrict free speech, that can and will be used against them too.

I mean, if you make "incitement to racial discrimination" speech a crime, it won't only be white supremacists who will get prosecuted. Many of the more inflamed American SJWs make statements that would lead to legal trouble in several European countries where there are more restrictions on speech. Don't think for a second the same won't happen in the US if the far left manages to restrict or get rid of the first ammendment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I disagree. Two of those statements are verifiable fact and one is a verifiable falsehood.

I love the irony of how you're stating your opinion as fact here. It's exquisite.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So everyone keeps saying "well what about morality that hates gay people" and that was pretty much my point with my comment. The general morality I follow is one that believes people are equal, and it is in the context of that morality that gay marriage is a factual right. The only scenario in which this would not be a fact is if there was a fundamental difference of moral values, which I really wouldn't call an opinion either. Such a vastly different concept of humanity and how it should operate is much, much larger than an opinion, and should not be afforded the same tolerance opinions are.

To clarify, my idea of an opinion is "my favorite musical artist is the Coup." This is different not only in scale but also in claim to substance/importance as such a statement like "some humans are better than others."

So you can only tolerate people expressing different opinions when those opinions are about something utterly vacuous and unimportant? As soon as anyone tries to express a non-conformist opinion about anything of any importance then it needs to be shut down? Well that sounds like a wonderful world to live in...

 

[Camikaze]

To clarify, my idea of an opinion is "my favorite musical artist is the Coup."

It's probably worth drilling down on the distinction you're drawing between fact and opinion, because the phrase 'my favourite musical artist is the Coup' is quite clearly a statement of fact. It is not your opinion that your favourite musical artist is the Coup, it is a fact that your favourite musical artist is the Coup. I cannot say, 'no, your favourite musical artist is actually Coldplay'. That would (presumably) be an incorrect statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. The content of that factual statement is determined by matters of opinion, but once you've settled on the subjective value you are placing on competing musical artists, the statement that follows is simply expressing a factual state of affairs.

You're not necessarily expressing an incoherent moral perspective, but your application of the words 'opinion' and 'fact' doesn't seem to be helping you accurately convey it.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't think for a second the same won't happen in the US if the far left manages to restrict or get rid of the first ammendment.

I do think that's precisely what will happen. But fortunately I don't see the 1st amendment getting changed any time soon.

 

[inthesomeday]

The first amendment has never really protected leftist action the same way it's protected the far right. The Black Panthers were framed and murdered while the KKK was left to its own devices. Today, aside from Charlottesville, Nazis get police around them facing outwards; BLM has the police facing inward.

I'm sure there will be a colorful assortment of "arguments" on this point.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obviously, today's Nazis and their sympathizers are delicate snowflakes that are incapable of defending themselves against a pack of Daisies, much less Brownies. I know they like tax payer funds going towards union thugs to protect them.

 

[metatron]

Progress and dialectical action, hopefully. I am ready willing and able to defend my beliefs however I may have to, and most of those with real conviction are.

And heck I'd rather I suffer the wrath of the right than the victims who have suffered so long. As much flak as I can deflect from, say, civilian children abroad, or from immigrant workers here, is very worth it to me.

Yeah, the thing is: I'm a selfish bastard.
So i don't really care.
I'd rather you tell me whether Shiva Ayyadurai and Blaire White and Theryn Meyer and Gad Saad and Karen Straughan are a danger to my personal safety.
Are they going to lurk in some corner armed with baseball bats to ambush me?
Are they going to send me to camp?
As a socialist i'd like to know. Cause Nazis are bound to do that to me.

I shall also notice your Imperialist American Appropriationy usage of the term Flak, but that's neither here nor there...

 

[Berzerker]

The first amendment has never really protected leftist action the same way it's protected the far right. The Black Panthers were framed and murdered while the KKK was left to its own devices. Today, aside from Charlottesville, Nazis get police around them facing outwards; BLM has the police facing inward.

I'm sure there will be a colorful assortment of "arguments" on this point.

If the Nazis are getting attacked, its logical for cops to face the attackers. If the KKK showed up to attack BLM I imagine cops would do the same thing. Failure to protect speech doesn't justify future failure.