[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Saelune]

(Meanwhile inciting violence against Nazis seems to be ok with the rules)

*Shrugs* This is at it's core supposed to be a video game forum, and I've been shooting Nazi in the face in video games for three decades. (1988's Bionic Commando if I had to pick a starting point.) Because history has decided what they stand for makes them ubiquitous as a universal bad guy. The absolute lowest bar to having villains no one can complain about.

I am hoping folk have the awareness to recognize there's a difference between a video game character set in the 1940s during a war and a modern, real-life scenario involving fellow citizens.

An interesting point brought up in Nazi Germany's rise to power was the immediate restriction on free speech of those deemed harmful or dangerous to the new regime. I fear the hypocrisy of encouraging people to "punch Nazis" is synonymous with another lovely 1940s slogan "Slap a Jap".

Yes, their message or political affiliation is in opposition towards most democratic systems of government, but democratic ideals are about allowing those with opposing beliefs the right to express them without direct or indirect suppression. Of course, people will be quick to call this "defending Nazis" or being "pro-fascism" when its only a call to not become that which one hates. Don't fight Nazis by using Nazi policy - that's exactly how the Nazis cemented their power in the first place. I certainly do not trust the current administration to use such precedent in a responsible manner. So don't fashion the noose that may be thrown around your own neck.

Nazis are a political ideology built on ethnic cleansing. Japanese people are Japanese people. You can stop or start being a Nazi just by changing your opinions, being Japanese is more complicated than that.

STOP COMPARING ETHNICITIES TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES!

Its usually people saying hating blacks is the same as hating Republicans, but this is the same faulty logic here now too.

Also stop defending Nazis.

 

[Saelune]

Video Games rarely actually address just how evil Nazis were. If anything, video games humanize Nazis more than not. Im guessing most people would not be able to last 5 minutes playing a game that depicted Nazi's evil accurately.

 

[Abomination]

Out of joke, I'd like first to see you acknowledge the greater amount of Nazi-like policies that the GOP has implemented that are harming people. Then we can talk about how much free speech is a stake.

The solution to autocracy is not more autocratic policy.

Would they have shot people at that parade? Absolutely if given the chance, and they think they could get away with it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/09/detroit-man-arrested-lgbtq-triple-homicide/1401406001/

I'm tired of seeing these kinds of news stories.

The first amendment states the Government can't abridge your freedom of speech, but being an actual Nazi has consequences, and nothing says the citizenry has to give them a soapbox in the middle of the commons. I am not The Government, and I have no problem using the common sense to say," They could have been asked to leave because they present an actual threat to the events preceding and can come back later." If you want a middle ground. But I'd prefer if we never had another "Unite the Right" rally or equivalent as long as I live.

I am 100% behind the government using force to enforce law when a group or an individual present a genuine threat to the safety of others.

The citizenry is under no obligation to give a political group anything, but at the same time they have no right to take anything from them either.

Nazis are a political ideology built on ethnic cleansing. Japanese people are Japanese people. You can stop or start being a Nazi just by changing your opinions, being Japanese is more complicated than that.

STOP COMPARING ETHNICITIES TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES!

Its usually people saying hating blacks is the same as hating Republicans, but this is the same faulty logic here now too.

Also stop defending Nazis.

The Nazis were not built on ethnic cleansing, it was a tactic adopted as a means of enforcing their authority by generating an "other" to hate. A convenient scapegoat that was taken way too far, and the preacher started drinking his own coolaid.

The comparison is on how dangerous it is to make it socially acceptable to inflict violence on a group of people, especially when designating one as a particular group is nebulous.

Again, I am not defending Nazis, I am in opposition to groups being free targets of hate and suppression. That protection extends in all directions.

 

[Saelune]

Out of joke, I'd like first to see you acknowledge the greater amount of Nazi-like policies that the GOP has implemented that are harming people. Then we can talk about how much free speech is a stake.

The solution to autocracy is not more autocratic policy.

Would they have shot people at that parade? Absolutely if given the chance, and they think they could get away with it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/09/detroit-man-arrested-lgbtq-triple-homicide/1401406001/

I'm tired of seeing these kinds of news stories.

The first amendment states the Government can't abridge your freedom of speech, but being an actual Nazi has consequences, and nothing says the citizenry has to give them a soapbox in the middle of the commons. I am not The Government, and I have no problem using the common sense to say," They could have been asked to leave because they present an actual threat to the events preceding and can come back later." If you want a middle ground. But I'd prefer if we never had another "Unite the Right" rally or equivalent as long as I live.

I am 100% behind the government using force to enforce law when a group or an individual present a genuine threat to the safety of others.

The citizenry is under no obligation to give a political group anything, but at the same time they have no right to take anything from them either.

Nazis are a political ideology built on ethnic cleansing. Japanese people are Japanese people. You can stop or start being a Nazi just by changing your opinions, being Japanese is more complicated than that.

STOP COMPARING ETHNICITIES TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES!

Its usually people saying hating blacks is the same as hating Republicans, but this is the same faulty logic here now too.

Also stop defending Nazis.

The Nazis were not built on ethnic cleansing, it was a tactic adopted as a means of enforcing their authority by generating an "other" to hate. A convenient scapegoat that was taken way too far, and the preacher started drinking his own coolaid.

The comparison is on how dangerous it is to make it socially acceptable to inflict violence on a group of people, especially when designating one as a particular group is nebulous.

Again, I am not defending Nazis, I am in opposition to groups being free targets of hate and suppression. That protection extends in all directions.

Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

 

[Abomination]

Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

The abolition of slavery was the spark that ignited the tinder about State autonomy and Federal influence. Seldom are wars fought over just one point of contention, just like how seldom it is for an organization to be formed in the pursuit of a single goal.

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

The irony there is that by embracing the former you discourage the latter.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

The topic subject has bounced between "Neo-Nazis got rowdy at a pride parade" and exploring ways to prevent Neo-Nazis from being able to get rowdy at any parade. I agree that what happened was unacceptable and that the police should have taken action without fear of a group's influence. I disagree with the solutions suggested to prevent such things happening in future.

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

 

[Trunkage]

Hitler comparisons are a cheap tactic tbh. When people employ that, they're really just trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning.

Far as I can remember, like 80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected. This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits. Congrats i guess. Some people might use this incident to say their doomsaying was right all along. Except these groups have already been around and it's not actually a sign of escalation.

Using this response is more about not wanting to discuss a point, more about trying to silence an opponent, than anything else.

I.e. saying that "using the word Nazi is a cheap tactic" is more about you being Politically Correct than anything else.

Feel like that should be made more clear then. Also, not sure what's going on with that second sentence? This doesn't have much to do with political correctness.

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

 

[Saelune]

Uh huh, and the Civil War wasn't actually about slavery too, right?

The abolition of slavery was the spark that ignited the tinder about State autonomy and Federal influence. Seldom are wars fought over just one point of contention, just like how seldom it is for an organization to be formed in the pursuit of a single goal.

Ya know, personally Id rather we just treat Nazis like terrorists and just not let them say Nazi shit. Id rather we cultivate a society where we actively raise people to stand opposed to Nazi ideals and reject them, so that no one ever be deserving of face punching.

The irony there is that by embracing the former you discourage the latter.

You're defending Nazis, and in a topic where literally Nazis did a bad thing. I shouldn't have to keep stressing that point, LITERAL NAZIS LITERALLY ATTACKED PEOPLE and you're still up our asses about Nazi punching.

The topic subject has bounced between "Neo-Nazis got rowdy at a pride parade" and exploring ways to prevent Neo-Nazis from being able to get rowdy at any parade. I agree that what happened was unacceptable and that the police should have taken action without fear of a group's influence. I disagree with the solutions suggested to prevent such things happening in future.

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

It was a war 100% about slavery. The South didn't like the Federal Government opposing their slavery. They didn't want to lose their economy that was built on slavery. It was 100% about slavery.

Remember when Mormons, Gypsies, Blacn Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Feminists, PETA, Hells Angels etc attempted to ethnically cleans humanity of non-white, non Aryan people who didn't fit their exact mold and thus murdering over 16 million people? Oh wait, none of them did. But Nazis did.

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

 

[Abomination]

Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

Of course it wasn't... how could a war possibly be 100% about slavery? All it would require is there to be another cause for conflict for it not to be...

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

I am afraid you are not allowed to say that. Your statement is to be suppressed in the interest of freedom.

 

[Shadowstar38]

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am 100% behind the government using force to enforce law when a group or an individual present a genuine threat to the safety of others.

Define "genuine threat".

The Nazis were not built on ethnic cleansing, it was a tactic adopted as a means of enforcing their authority by generating an "other" to hate. A convenient scapegoat that was taken way too far, and the preacher started drinking his own coolaid.

Yeah, lots of historians would argue against that.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Theoretical question:

What if it was an isis rally (Or, more realistically I guess, an isis supporter rally)? Like, there were a few hundred goons in orange jumpsuits and face scarves banging machetes over their heads going "Death to vesterners!" over and over? And many of them had visible guns on them, because Second Amendment?

Do you think the cops would protect them? Do you think the cops SHOULD protect them? Do you think that people would be defending these guys and saying "Hey, we should hear them out"?

I would say prooooobably not. The cops would and probably should treat that like a threat of violence and at the very least prevent the march from happening, if not investigating everyone who was planning on going.

See, nazism and isis are both basically death cults. The nazis may have begun as a nationalistic movement that the germans rallied behind in order to re-assert their strength in the world, but by the end it was completely about world domination and the wholesale slaughter of anyone who didn't fit into their narrow-ass definition of humanity. Likewise, isis might be about "restoring sallafi muslim power in the middle east" but it's basically completely about the destruction of anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow-ass definition of humanity (they recently executed one of their own guys for having a smoke FFS).

So yeah, what I'm saying is that isis and nazis are basically the same thing, a cult of thugs who are explicitly and inherently violent, and we should be equally concerned if either one were to hold a march where they walked around armed chanting their violence-fueled slogans. The only real difference is that isis is currently murdering thousands of people, and the nazis murdered millions back in the past.

Look, I have a high bar for blocking speech. I don't want to start the ball rolling down a slippery slope. But threats of violence are not covered by most definitions of freedom of speech (because that just makes sense). And like isis, nazis are an inherent walking threat of violence. If either of them thought they could get away with it, they'd happily kill people.

 

[Trunkage]

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

 

[Saelune]

Wow, like, I was being snarky, but you're actually going to try to make the claim that it wasn't 100% about slavery, wow.

Of course it wasn't... how could a war possibly be 100% about slavery? All it would require is there to be another cause for conflict for it not to be...

This isnt just any group of people, this is literally the most evil organization in modern history who literally tried to take over and ethnically cleans the world, and got WAY TOO FAR!

Nazis lost their seat at the table of discussion after their first Jewish Train-ride.

I am afraid you are not allowed to say that. Your statement is to be suppressed in the interest of freedom.

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people. What other conflict was there? The 'economic' conflict was slavery. The 'Federal vs State government' conflict was slavery. It was slavery all the way down.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that your problem is you just cant comprehend that people can really be that evil, but they can be. This was a place where the dehumanization of people was their way of life. You don't get this shit in a 'good' society. It sucks to realize people can be that horrible, but they can, and if people are unable to realize that, then we wont be able to fix it. Its like when someone refuses to realize their abusers are well, their abusers.

That last line is because you don't have a rebuttal to my point.

 

[Abomination]

The group could be Mormons, Gypsies, Black Panther, Occupy Wall Street, a Feminist Rally, PETA, Hells Angels, Humans for the Legality of Marrying Ducks, for all I care. The protection and restrictions should be the same and enforced equally.

Theoretical question:

What if it was an isis rally (Or, more realistically I guess, an isis supporter rally)? Like, there were a few hundred goons in orange jumpsuits and face scarves banging machetes over their heads going "Death to vesterners!" over and over? And many of them had visible guns on them, because Second Amendment?

Do you think the cops would protect them? Do you think the cops SHOULD protect them? Do you think that people would be defending these guys and saying "Hey, we should hear them out"?

I would say prooooobably not. The cops would and probably should treat that like a threat of violence and at the very least prevent the march from happening, if not investigating everyone who was planning on going.

That is a call to action, namely a violent action. Should any group behave in such a manner then yes, the law should stomp on them immediately for said actions.

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means - while I would not agree with their ideology, I would defend their right to public assembly and rallies.

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

 

[Abomination]

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

 

[CaitSeith]

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means -

They have.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...book_in_ISIS_Recruitment-An_Exploratory_Study

Their terrorist acts aren't for spreading their ideology; it's putting their ideology into practice.

 

[Shadowstar38]

What your definition of Politcally Correct?

Going to overzealous and comical lengths to avoid the possibility of offending people.

So you certainly fall under "avoid possibility of offending people." The words Hitler, concentration camps and bigot being example of offense to certain people.

So the only possible contention is whether you were overzealous and comical.
Here some evidence:

"trying to use the genocide and concentration camps as an easy way to trigger moral outrage" I would agree, some fall into this category. But you started the sentence "when people", implying that this is the main reason people talk about gencide and concentration camp. Continuing on from that sentence...
"trigger moral outrage without actually having to give solid justifications for their reasoning." This is 8 pages long thread, but somehow, all these people you disagree with HAVE NOT JUSTIFICATION. Perhaps, might I suggest, that you just disagree with their reasoning. And it doesnt magically disappear because you disagree with it.
"80% of the country has been accused of being bigots and white supremacists since trump got elected" Well, I've got to say, at least you did say 90%. That would have been an unrealistic and made up number.
"This is one of the few threads in 3 years where the label actually fits". So, by your logic, only people who actually wear swastikas are Nazis? Anyone with the same views are definitely not white supremist or Nazis. That would be ridiculous.

Yeah, so I'd say check for overzealous and check for comical. Well done. Politically Correct Achievement Unlocked. Have a cookie

Meh. I would disagree completely. My point had less to do with offense. People are free to make terrible comparisons, it's just that being alarmist doesn't help whatever their point actually is.

 

[Saelune]

Because the South's entire (evil) way of life was built on the oppression and dehumanization of black people.

No it wasn't.

Citation needed.

 

[Kwak]

That said, if ISIS wished to spread their ideology through legal and democratic means - while I would not agree with their ideology, I would defend their right to public assembly and rallies.

Promote whatever ideology you wish, just do it within the legal framework provided by the nation you are in.

And so when they win 50.1 percent of the vote, you can die happy that democracy has achieved its purpose and things are as they should be. Then they will outlaw democratic expression. But at least they did it democratically.

 

[CaitSeith]

Out of joke, I'd like first to see you acknowledge the greater amount of Nazi-like policies that the GOP has implemented that are harming people. Then we can talk about how much free speech is a stake.

The solution to autocracy is not more autocratic policy.

Don't jump the gun yet. I want to hear your thoughts first on why the GOP is an autocracy.