No.
I’m aware of how it turned out. None of these vague nazi phrases have been a satisfactory cite to support Larry’s claim that people chanted for the murder of Jews and non-whites.
You really don’t think that a crowd of white people carrying torches and chanting Nazi slogans might just possibly want to commit genocide?
My God, you’d look at Kristallnacht and say “Boy, these guys sure hate windows”.
This is so fucking disingenuous. You really can’t understand that a phrase, ripped from an ideology that advocates eugenics and genocide, brings with it those connotations?
Your argument in a nutshell:
Man:thumbing the gun in his holster as he stares at his self-described enemy You feelin’ lucky, punk?
You: He didn’t say he was going to kill him! Show me where he says that!
By the way, why are you so determined to die on this hill? Your only argument is that those words were not actually spoken, right? Are you also arguing that using that phrase, combined with the protestators carrying torches and swastikas, doesn’t bring with it the ideology that those symbols and words stem from?
How about you ask my mom, a Polish Jew who survived the ghetto and the camps (when most of her family didn’t). She saw her mother and sister executed in front of her and knows what the goals and subtext of the Nazi symbols are. She doesn’t have to wonder if their words suggest murder and violence.
She’s 91 but her hearing isn’t too bad. Want to talk to her and ask?
You know no one is denying that Nazism and fascism are abhorrent ideologies. You know no one is advocating fascism in this thread. The perfectly fair question is to what extent do fundamental liberties apply and how to reconcile apparent contradictions?
Why these threads have to devolve into personal attacks and hostility is perplexing.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Gee, maybe it’s because Nazism is responsible for one of the greatest evils perpetrated in the history of mankind, one recent enough to have affected the lives of people living today, and there are certain people out there who want to stand up for supporters of that ideology.
What personal attack? Where do you see a personal attack?
I’m suggesting that just because one didn’t hear explicit calls for violence/ genocide it doesn’t mean that calls for violence/genocide are not infused through the symbols and ideology that being used. I’m suggesting that those people who have seen this all before need no explicit words to know exactly what’s being called for.
That it’s naive to think that absent explicit words of violence, death is not being called for. How about we learn from the past and listen to those who were there before.
Uh, it’s not that perplexing. Come on, surely you can understand how some people might be upset when someone says, “I fully support the right of genocide supporters to advocate genocide.” I mean, even if you are a free speech absolutist, you have to comprehend the reaction you’ll get, right? Only someone incredibly blind and naive would at least not expect some blowback.
Freedom of speech has limits. The classic example is shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema.
Freedom to protest and demonstrate also has limits. Violent, armed Nazis do not, and should not, have the right to gather or protest in any civilized country.
Those who defend them on this board should be ashamed of themselves.
I do and I did. That’s why I dislike concentration of power. The number one lesson in my life is that power corrupts and to be wary of concentrating it into any one institution. I think of the lessons of WWII at least weekly.
This is why I’m wary of the tactics that some suggest to combat vile ideologies. I think they are counterproductive.
Not to the extent that you see here on a board supposedly populated by educated and high IQ types. Think about it. This is not a stupid population. And yet simple concepts are misunderstood. Now imagine the population in general. It does make me worry about the future of American democracy.
Maybe I’m that naive.
Octopus, my initial post was directed at the person I quoted, not you.
I’m not ashamed. Why should people be ashamed of classical liberalism? I’m more disappointed how fragile support for fundamental rights actually is.
Yes, sure. Defending violence and intimidation is ‘classical liberalism’.
That was your grandmother and an aunt. Sometime I forget the person behind the screen has their own history and some of these topics aren’t so abstract. I apologize for any perceived insensitivity.
Assembly and speech. Not violence. Please don’t mischaracterize my statement.
You don’t think there was any violence in Charlottesville?
That wasn’t what you said. You said defending violence is classical liberalism mockingly, with the implication that my support of free speech and assembly as a classic liberal fundamental right is actually a support of violence. I clarified what was obviously not clear and now you are taking that clarification as evidence that I am unaware of the point of this thread. Which is violence in Charlottesville.
How does that question logically follow anything?
I’ll tell you the same thing when my GF was on the fence about the Muslim Ban. I’d oppose the ban even if there was a Muslim terrorist attack every day, and I’ll defend freedom of speech as it exists in this country (as opposed to your interp) even if a nazi runs over a person every day.
We are a nation of laws. It’s not like that murderer is going to walk.
Sadly, he’s probably going to be a goddamn hero in prison once the AB get their hands on him.