I felt that way, I still believe it in some way, but free speech ENDS when the bastards start brandishing guns and running people down and trying to bring back WW2. So my instinct now is to “kill 'em all”.
No. Read up on the Warsaw Ghetto some time. They fought back as best they could, but were outnumbered and outgunned. I am NOT joking.
Shit, I’m so sorry. Let me try that again:
If you had been in 1930s Germany, and not been born in a Jewish family, there’s no doubt which side you’d be on.
Your ethnicity, not anything related to common decency or humanity, is what would have kept you out of Hitler’s good graces.
Next time, try double-checking that all the legs are the same length before buying the table.
Racism and bigotry is not a political viewpoint.
Whut? You mean where they replaced Nazi symbols with Wolfenstein symbols? It’s because Nazi symbols happen to be illegal over there. Anybody could get the unmodified version if they wanted to, just not within Germany’s borders. How does that endanger free speech? How does it affect your enjoyment of the game? How does it make Germany unlivable?
Right on cue. Board Nut SteveG. Who, btw, is one of the nuts I was originally responding to. Context clues, yo!
Go do it then. What’s stopping you Mr. Wannabe Charles Bronson?
Oh, Snap!
Because so-called hate speech laws expand to prevent legitimate debate over time. Remember, the state is the largest mass murderer of all and it helps to remain vigilant about ceding power to the state unnecessarily.
I was basically agreeing with your general assessment of the situation (free speech clash), but trying to add some nuance to it. While it’s true that there are posters here fighting for free speech rights without endorsing Nazism, it’s also true that there are posters here fighting for free speech rights by throwing out disingenuous bullshit about what the event actually meant, minimizing the actions of the alt-right protesters, and blaming the left. I find that reprehensible.
Who’s minimizing the event? At most people are cautioning against violence. That’s not a bad thing.
So what legitimate debate is being suppressed in Germany because of anti-Nazi laws? When you say “The State,” do you mean every national government? Or just the ones like Syria, North Korea, etc? They had free speech suppression as a consequence of their killings, not because suppression of free speech came first. Dead men tell no tales.
Do you honestly think censoring Nazi symbols in Germany will lead to their government committing mass slaughter? I’m pretty sure they’re trying to prevent that from happening again.
A small piece of advice;
When you see someone defending these assholes on FB, or claiming they are Democrats, or spouting lies;
Click on their name. You’ll see their FB page. I’ve looked at several people and seen a lot of hate and evil on their pages. I also google them based on that information. Then I go back to where they posted their hate on other people’s, or public pages, and I call them out for what is on their own page.
One guy turned out to be a county republican chair, yet he never condemns the violence, he claims it is all democrats doing it.
Another guy turned out to be a vet who went through a long period of homelessness, but his facebook page is full of bible verses, ‘liberals should kill themselves’ and how government handouts are evil. :rolleyes:
Call them out. They’re defending evil, they’re spreading misinformation. If they’re using Facebook, they’re openly telling everyone who they are, and their lives are open. Call them out.
I’m not saying that the intent in Germany is unjustified. I’m saying that it’s not currently a good tactic. And it doesn’t prevent anything.
The best way to defeat radicalism, imho, is to work on fixing the root causes that drive people to seek out an extreme ideology. Treat the source not the symptom.
… followed immediately by
Yes, violence is not speech. But speech is speech. And even evil scum still has the right to demonstrate without being violently attacked. And “kill’em all” is exactly the Nazi (the original, WWII Nazi) sentiment. Congratulations. You, SteveG1, have become one.
Funny, how I don’t see any clause in the first amendment for “racism and bigotry” speech. Can you point it out for me?
Basically all that MPSIMS thread is, at this point, is a bunch of people being disingenuous as fuck about what bearing the Nazi flag at a white supremacist rally actually means, with a healthy dose of leftwing blame game. Bringing a Nazi flag to a white supremacist rally is comparable to a liberal college kid wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt? Come the fuck on. You are one of the handful of people I am crushingly disappointed in today, because while I have vehemently disagreed with you in the past, you always make me think. I’ve never seen you so blatantly disingenuous as in that thread. And your retort is Prince fucking Harry? Seriously? Whatever point you think you’re proving in that thread, you’re not proving it.
But you seem to think that the reason people are arguing over whether or not a Nazi flag means ‘‘murder’’ or ‘‘deportation’’ is because they see a legal distinction and the former would justify banning the speech. Is that why people seem to have lost their everloving minds over what a Nazi flag means? I don’t see that as the reason for the argument at all. You recall it started when HD said that shouting for the murder of Jews would be ‘‘egregious’’ behavior at this white supremacist rally, and we countered with how the fuck is a Nazi flag not saying the same thing as ''Murder all Jews?" So at least when I instigated my part of that discussion, it was out of ethical equivalence, not anything to do with my views on free speech. You’re the one who wants to keep ripping it out of the context of the rally, and I don’t get it. Let me make it crystal clear what I’m arguing: Within the context of the Unite the Right rally that occurred yesterday in Charlottesville, there is no ethical distinction between waving a Nazi flag and shouting ‘‘Murder all Jews!’’ Both are advocating for genocide. Both are forms of protected speech, and should remain so.
I don’t see any part of that argument as anything to do with how the Nazi flag should be legally classified, but based on your comment in that thread, that is what you seem to see. Most of us are arguing purely on ethical, not legal grounds. The legal consensus is that a Nazi flag doesn’t count as incitement to violence, and me not being a lawyer, I’m not about to argue otherwise. I did check out the legal precedent on the swastika as protected speech, but the ruling didn’t make a lot of sense to me because I know next to nothing about constitutional law. In the very least, it’s been an educational day in that regard.
My point is, if someone thinks vile speech and symbols advocating genocide should be constitutionally protected, they should just say it, and argue it on its own merits, rather than minimizing, shifting blame and otherwise being an intellectual weasel.
Since I have faith in your ability to parse my argument and respond considerately, I’m curious what your response is to my thoughts about separating a political ideology from the actions taken to implement it. And FWIW, I consider white supremacy a political ideology, in that these people’s ideas drive their views toward policy.
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
… followed immediately by
[/QUOTE]
The word I used is most. Most people on this board are not advocating violence against white supremacists. Bitch out the ones who are doing it and leave the rest of us out of it.
Although honestly, I don’t think it’s accurate to assume that people’s sentiments on this day, so close to this event, accurately reflect their long-term beliefs or what they might actually do or support. I recently commented that a woman who left her 10 year old disabled child in the woods to die should be set on fire, but I am in fact opposed to the death penalty and vigilante justice for any reason. There is a world of difference between something said in the heat of the moment and long-term adherence to a violent ideology.
Well, you did say you didn’t want to live there. Sounds like you considered their actions pretty unjustified to begin with.
Governments all over the world have been trying to deal with extremism, and all they can do is make the consequences of extremism illegal: censorship of Nazi symbolism, classification of hate crimes, etc. If they resort to “treating the source,” it will be seen as thought control and propaganda. That’s pretty constrictive of Freedom of Speech, wouldn’t you say?
The NKors consider America the enemy, so they treat the “source” of American favoritism by teaching their children to attack cardboard cutouts of cartoon American soldiers. Is that what you had in mind?
Yeah, it’s right here under my zipper… carefully now, slowly.
I appreciate your efforts to communicate fairly. I don’t see the value in the rhetoric that’s been directed at various groups lately. I think that it does more harm than good to justifiably make people feel persecuted. I think it leads to stronger radicalization.
I get terribly frustrated with those people who have a serious problem with thinking about these basic concepts and engage in knowingly dishonest ad hominem attacks. It makes me worry about the state of education in this nation as a whole. This isn’t directed at you but it should help describe why I write I do.
We see in campuses nowadays that advocating free speech is hate speech. That is precisely the problem I have. People take a flawed concept, hate speech, and use it as a bludgeon. All this does is create divisions and undermine the danger of really hateful stuff. Even the term Nazi has lost much of its meaning because of how liberally its applied. It’s become a joke.
With regards to your question. I don’t know why others are advancing that argument. I know I have in the past advanced similar arguments with regards to the Confederate Flag. My rationale is that just like words like bitch, cunt, etc… symbols and words have multiple meanings. Context matters. I don’t think those words are intrinsically misogynistic. Just like I don’t think Confederate gear is intrinsically pro-slavery or pro-racist.
So, I don’t look at a flag and make any assumptions other than whoever is carrying that flag is obviously comfortable with a good chunk of the common meanings of that flag, whatever they may be, or just ignorant of history. In the context of that protest I would consider flying a Nazi flag to be pretty offensive and a symbol of racial/ethnic hatred.
Now typically, I prefer the abstract and general over the specific. I think those sort of debates and questions are more fascinating. I am disappointed at the maturity level of many who choose to respond though. Simple fundamental concepts are not understood. Social media and media splintering is leading to hostile philosophical echo chambers. If it weren’t for the fact we have the number one economy and luxury goods are common I think we’d be heading for civil war 2.
Uh… you seriously think that the only Germans opposed to the Nazis where those with Jewish ancestry?
Please do educate yourself Granted the in-Germany resistance was small, fragmented, and disorganized but the notion that anyone not Jewish in Germany automatically supported the Nazis is bullshit.