You shouldn’t be defending Nazis if you think fundamental liberties are important, because they sure don’t.
Maybe you should ask yourself whose side you’re on if standing up for Nazis is that important to you.
I thought my post was clear to anyone familiar with racist rhetoric, but I’m willing to explain if anyone is confused. I think this is the part that made you reply:
White genocide is a conspiracy theory that whites will be replaced by non-whites through immigration, outbreeding (whites have low birth rates), and erasure through race mixing, since mixed kids don’t count as white. This doesn’t involve the violence normally associated with genocide. In order to mock uptight racists, lefties sometimes sarcastically support such “white genocide” by appealing to the thrill of hedonistic interracial sex.
Swirl or swirling is slang for interracial relationships, especially between white and black people – think of an icecream dispenser that provides a swirl of vanilla and chocolate. Swirled kids are mixed race kids.
I thought it was funny to set up a dichotomy between punching Nazis in the face, which is literal violence, and white genocide, which sounds worse, but isn’t violent, and is probably more fun. YMMV.
If they want, but it would be trendier to make a reference to icepicks or giving me a free helicopter ride.
I doubt the ACLU is pro-Nazi. So perhaps you’ll stop leaping to goofy conclusions.
Alright. Thanks for the explanation.
shrug I do not personally believe that Nazism should be protected speech, any more than shouting fire in a crowded theatre - and for pretty much the same reason. The right to free speech has limits, and I’d be perfectly happy with the US having similar laws as Germany regarding Nazi speech.
Obviously, I disagree with the ACLU, and probably with lots of people on the right and the left. shrug again.
And as I said, I’m disappointed with the ACLU on this front.
Forget we’re in the pit for a minute. Can you articulate why you are disappointed in the ACLU’s philosophical consistency?
They are remarkably consistent and honourable in trying to follow their stated aim, as far as this outsider can tell.
I understand why they did what they did. I just wish they wouldn’t have. Nazis and Confederates don’t deserve the kind of advocacy they provide. They’re not respectable people with a worthwhile contribution to make to the marketplace of ideas - they’re a cancer on our society which should be excised and destroyed, the fact that they were allowed to exist at all in this great country should be viewed as a national shame, and children of future generations should be taught to despise the fact that they ever existed. Their name should be blotted from history and children should make joyous noises to heckle it down like that of Haman in the Purim celebrations.
Great countries don’t try to wipe out opinions and beliefs. Insecure ones do. I recall a time when liberals were nearly united that Communists should not be punished just for being Communists. I’m pretty sure most on the left still feel that way.
Do you consider Germany and Israel to be “insecure countries”?
Because I can guaran-fucking-tee you they’d never have allowed a rally like this to happen.
Absolutely, although they have more reason to be the way they are than we do. They are still wrong, but peoples that have been through trauma make bad choices just like individuals do.
I mean geez, Germany and Israel are exhibits 1A and 1B on the “insecure country” list.
Knowing who your enemies are is not a sign of insecurity.
In a country where people are denied the right to express themselves on the basis of obscenity and/or dangerous speech, protecting the so-called right of these assholes to march in paramilitary gear and weapons so they can champion genocide and slavery seems absolutely absurd to me. How about some freedom from murder and slavery absolutism?
Suppressing them in the absence of violence is.
Here you go.
Nazi speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. It is hate speech, pure and simple, and has no more place in a free society than shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
Killing an enemy before he can kill you is good policy.
hate speech doesn’t incite panic. We don’t punish speech just for being speech, we punish speech only when it causes actual damage. feelings don’t count. Obviously a stampede that hurt people would.
So I take it some of you agree with the House Un-American Activities Committee? Should it be revived?
Nope. HUAC targeted the left in general, for all that they said they were anti-Communist.
Some adaptation of the German anti-Nazi laws, specifically, strikes me as perfectly fine.
You are thinking of McCarthy. The House Un-American Activities committee went after Nazis and Communists alike.
But I get it, don’t touch the lefty haters who cheered on regimes who murdered 100 million people and enslaved 1.5 billion. They shall continue to be free to advocate for more of the same.