[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Saelune]

Nazis caused the Holocaust. Any groups that causes a Holocaust deserve no rights.

And the whole of this argument comes down to, no matter how much I agree, this is a subjective viewpoint and laws should ideally be objective.

Nazis objectively caused a Holocaust.

Laws should be moral. An immoral law is a bad one. Laws should exist to support and promote justice and fairness.

Humans are not objective beings. Laws are created by and for humans, and so we can never have truly 'objective' law, and even then, objective is robotic, and a robotic view of law leads to a lack of moral decency.

Nazis aren't born. You become one, and can just as easily unbecome one. I do not believe people cannot reform from being a Nazi, but that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice people who were decent enough to never be a Nazi for the off-chance some of those Nazis who chose their evil might turn to good.

This had...nothing to do with what I said. So besides the fact that the people that caused the holocaust are mostly if not all dead.

Declaring who should and should not have rights is subjective. Everyone has equal rights to express their views under the law, and people decide on their own if they're valid or not. How much we're personally disgusted by those views doesn't come into play. This principle is applicable to everything in politics, not just to the dichotomy of extremists vs rational people. No one is being "sacrifed" for this to work so I don't know what the heck you're on about.

The Nazis should have died with Hitler. But people look at Hitler, look at WW2, look at The Holocaust and say 'I like that, I agree with that, I want that to come back'. They are just as guilty. Arguably more so than those forced into it, since they did not have to fear SS troopers bursting into their home to conscript them.

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice. Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

 

[Shadowstar38]

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

 

[Saelune]

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

Well shit, if only we had a class of state worker whose entire job was to enforce laws and prevent that exact sort of violent and reckless behavior, entrusted by the people to employ coercive force in the name of the public good and preserving the peace, who otherwise can and should have stepped forward to suppress rioting and other forms of violent confrontation in Charlottesville. They might have been able to -- GASP -- divert traffic from scenes of protest and violent conflict, thus preventing some dumbfuck skinhead from plowing a Challenger into a group of protesters in the first place!

If only they hadn't come under attack by protesters and given orders to retreat, contain, and not intervene...

 

[Shadowstar38]

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

 

[Saelune]

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

Well shit, if only we had a class of state worker whose entire job was to enforce laws and prevent that exact sort of violent and reckless behavior, entrusted by the people to employ coercive force in the name of the public good and preserving the peace, who otherwise can and should have stepped forward to suppress rioting and other forms of violent confrontation in Charlottesville. They might have been able to -- GASP -- divert traffic from scenes of protest and violent conflict, thus preventing some dumbfuck skinhead from plowing a Challenger into a group of protesters in the first place!

If only they hadn't come under attack by protesters and given orders to retreat, contain, and not intervene...

Cops are good at 2 things, protecting Nazis from violence and not protecting black people from violence.

 

[Saelune]

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice.

Well they should have equal rights? So there's no actual issue with the merit of what I said I gather.

Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Vehicular homicide isn't included under free speech laws. So that's irrelevant.

Nazis literally want to murder tons of innocent people. That they then murdered an innocent person is not a surprise. Maybe we shouldn't let people who want to murder innocent people do what they want.

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

Good thing rules are always followed fully and fairly and no one ever breaks them or selectively enforce them unfairly.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

Laws are reactive not preventative by design (you don't want to look people up for thought crimes like in Minority Report etc.) Saelune is trying to protect themselves and laws will not do that. They just aren't designed to protect. What does work is increasing the chances of being caught, as it makes crimes more dangerous and less appealing. Awareness of the general public, increase law enforcement funding, cops specifically gathering info about groups, politicians calling them terrorists instead of "poor white boys going down the wrong road" are some examples.

The Nazis should have died with Hitler. But people look at Hitler, look at WW2, look at The Holocaust and say 'I like that, I agree with that, I want that to come back'. They are just as guilty. Arguably more so than those forced into it, since they did not have to fear SS troopers bursting into their home to conscript them.

Same thing could be said about Communists. Like, I can understand the difference between Soviet Communism and Marxism but Communism is still attached to a bad name even if it tries to be different.

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice. Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Rights is only part of the problem, Capitalism causes money to pool and the amount of money determines how many "votes" you get in the public sphere. No amount of government intervention will help that.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Good thing rules are always followed fully and fairly and no one ever breaks them or selectively enforce them unfairly.

I never claimed that's how it works, so the sarcasm seems pointless. I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, so nevermind this whole conversation I guess.

Laws are reactive not preventative by design (you don't want to look people up for thought crimes like in Minority Report etc.) Saelune is trying to protect themselves and laws will not do that. They just aren't designed to protect. What does work is increasing the chances of being caught, as it makes crimes more dangerous and less appealing. Awareness of the general public, increase law enforcement funding, cops specifically gathering info about groups, politicians calling them terrorists instead of "poor white boys going down the wrong road" are some examples.

All of that sounds like a good idea.

 

[Saelune]

I don't understand what you're actually implying needs to be changed here. We already have laws against murder. So Nazi's aren't allowed to just "do what they want".

Laws are reactive not preventative by design (you don't want to look people up for thought crimes like in Minority Report etc.) Saelune is trying to protect themselves and laws will not do that. They just aren't designed to protect. What does work is increasing the chances of being caught, as it makes crimes more dangerous and less appealing. Awareness of the general public, increase law enforcement funding, cops specifically gathering info about groups, politicians calling them terrorists instead of "poor white boys going down the wrong road" are some examples.

The Nazis should have died with Hitler. But people look at Hitler, look at WW2, look at The Holocaust and say 'I like that, I agree with that, I want that to come back'. They are just as guilty. Arguably more so than those forced into it, since they did not have to fear SS troopers bursting into their home to conscript them.

Same thing could be said about Communists. Like, I can understand the difference between Soviet Communism and Marxism but Communism is still attached to a bad name even if it tries to be different.

In practice, people do not have equal rights to express themselves under the law though. Black people, women, LGBT people, non-Christians do not have the same rights in actual practice. Heather Heyer was certainly sacrificed for the sake of Nazi's being allowed to speak their views.

Rights is only part of the problem, Capitalism causes money to pool and the amount of money determines how many "votes" you get in the public sphere. No amount of government intervention will help that.

Same thing could be said of Stalinist Russia perhaps. And I assure you, I don't want anyone suggesting Stalin had the right idea marching through the streets either. Or Mao, or even Putin. I don't think any of them are actually communist, just as I don't think Hitler was actually socialist nor do I think North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic.

Well, government intervention could help, if the government was working for the common people and not for corporate interests. That said, while I just defended Communism, let me humor a defense of capitalism, I don't think the US is a true capitalist country, because if it was, corporations would rise and fall on the common person's dollar, instead of being kept alive by corrupt government policies. A bakery shutting down because a lot of people got mad at them for discriminating? THATS capitalism at its purist, people voted with their wallets, and they voted against that bakery. Trying to create a law to prevent Chick-Fil-A from suffering 'discrimination' is not.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/texas-governor-save-chick-fil-a-bill-law

Edit: Leg End actually pointed out my folly on the striked out part.

 

[Saelune]

Good thing rules are always followed fully and fairly and no one ever breaks them or selectively enforce them unfairly.

I never claimed that's how it works, so the sarcasm seems pointless. I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, so nevermind this whole conversation I guess.

Laws are reactive not preventative by design (you don't want to look people up for thought crimes like in Minority Report etc.) Saelune is trying to protect themselves and laws will not do that. They just aren't designed to protect. What does work is increasing the chances of being caught, as it makes crimes more dangerous and less appealing. Awareness of the general public, increase law enforcement funding, cops specifically gathering info about groups, politicians calling them terrorists instead of "poor white boys going down the wrong road" are some examples.

All of that sounds like a good idea.

You did actually claim that by using its mere existence as proof I am wrong. So yes, the sarcasm is quite necessary.

 

[Shadowstar38]

You did actually claim that by using its mere existence as proof I am wrong. So yes, the sarcasm is quite necessary.

That might be what you read into it, but that's not what was written. You keep mentioning fucked up things up things that happen as part of the justification for what rights people should and shouldn't have. I kept clarifying that I'm already against people doing said fucked up things, so why even bring it up? It doesn't detract from or add to the point.

 

[Leg End]

I don't think the US is a true capitalist country, because if it was, corporations would rise and fall on the common person's dollar, instead of being kept alive by corrupt government policies. A bakery shutting down because a lot of people got mad at them for discriminating? THATS capitalism at its purist, people voted with their wallets, and they voted against that bakery.

I agree totally. But are you talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop? Because he's still open. We really should just get every bit of crony capitalism out of the process and let the free market decide, though. Fucking Telecoms.

Trying to create a law to prevent Chick-Fil-A from suffering 'discrimination' is not.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/texas-governor-save-chick-fil-a-bill-law

Going solely off of the link provided, the bill appears to be aimed at preventing a city council from preventing the business in question from opening a location. The problem with this is, it goes against what you just said, by preventing them from entering the marketplace to begin with. If the people want their supposedly delicious food and their money to go towards whatever the hell CFA donates to, that should be their choice. Same for shit like Target, or anyone else that donates to whatever the hell they donate to. Walmart, whatever.

 

[Saelune]

I don't think the US is a true capitalist country, because if it was, corporations would rise and fall on the common person's dollar, instead of being kept alive by corrupt government policies. A bakery shutting down because a lot of people got mad at them for discriminating? THATS capitalism at its purist, people voted with their wallets, and they voted against that bakery.

I agree totally. But are you talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop? Because he's still open. We really should just get every bit of crony capitalism out of the process and let the free market decide, though. Fucking Telecoms.

Trying to create a law to prevent Chick-Fil-A from suffering 'discrimination' is not.

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/texas-governor-save-chick-fil-a-bill-law

Going solely off of the link provided, the bill appears to be aimed at preventing a city council from preventing the business in question from opening a location. The problem with this is, it goes against what you just said, by preventing them from entering the marketplace to begin with. If the people want their supposedly delicious food and their money to go towards whatever the hell CFA donates to, that should be their choice. Same for shit like Target, or anyone else that donates to whatever the hell they donate to. Walmart, whatever.

Hm, for once I think I must concede defeat to you on this.

Though I do not doubt the Governor's intent was protecting bigotry rather than protecting fair business.

 

[Saelune]

You did actually claim that by using its mere existence as proof I am wrong. So yes, the sarcasm is quite necessary.

That might be what you read into it, but that's not what was written. You keep mentioning fucked up things up things that happen as part of the justification for what rights people should and shouldn't have. I kept clarifying that I'm already against people doing said fucked up things, so why even bring it up? It doesn't detract from or add to the point.

Funny that. What is written versus what was intended.

If you're against bad people doing bad things, why act like everything is fine then? Either the law is lacking, or the law is not being upheld. Pick one.

 

[Shadowstar38]

You did actually claim that by using its mere existence as proof I am wrong. So yes, the sarcasm is quite necessary.

That might be what you read into it, but that's not what was written. You keep mentioning fucked up things up things that happen as part of the justification for what rights people should and shouldn't have. I kept clarifying that I'm already against people doing said fucked up things, so why even bring it up? It doesn't detract from or add to the point.

Funny that. What is written versus what was intended.

If you're against bad people doing bad things, why act like everything is fine then? Either the law is lacking, or the law is not being upheld. Pick one.

I'm not acting like everything's fine. That's you projecting intent and has nothing to do with what I wrote. Your claim is that certain people shouldn't have rights based on their ideology. What I'm trying to figure out is how you plan on enforcing that idea in any practical way that doesn't have blowback.

To simplify, what laws need to be changed or more strongly enforced that ends with more Nazi's being locked up?

 

[Saelune]

You did actually claim that by using its mere existence as proof I am wrong. So yes, the sarcasm is quite necessary.

That might be what you read into it, but that's not what was written. You keep mentioning fucked up things up things that happen as part of the justification for what rights people should and shouldn't have. I kept clarifying that I'm already against people doing said fucked up things, so why even bring it up? It doesn't detract from or add to the point.

Funny that. What is written versus what was intended.

If you're against bad people doing bad things, why act like everything is fine then? Either the law is lacking, or the law is not being upheld. Pick one.

I'm not acting like everything's fine. That's you projecting intent and has nothing to do with what I wrote. Your claim is that certain people shouldn't have rights based on their ideology. What I'm trying to figure out is how you plan on enforcing that idea in any practical way that doesn't have blowback.

To simplify, what laws need to be changed or more strongly enforced that ends with more Nazi's being locked up?

Not letting genocidal hate be 'protected free speech'. Its not complicated.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not acting like everything's fine. That's you projecting intent and has nothing to do with what I wrote. Your claim is that certain people shouldn't have rights based on their ideology.

No, it's not. You cannot in good conscience criticize somebody for misrepresentation, and then immediately do the same.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Not letting genocidal hate be 'protected free speech'. Its not complicated.

Imminent lawless action

Makes it so(if correctly enforced) all ideologies are judged by the same metric of whether or not they count as being protected. When you single out one particular group and tell the government "do more about that" you're essentially giving them more power and making the limits of what protect speech is smaller. Which in actual practice effects your black lives matters, and other LGBT or civil rights people who get a bit too passionate and threaten police officers(not getting into the argument of if the cops deserve it). So it isn't just about the genocidal maniacs. It's about the consequences of the actions you take in the process of stopping the genocidal maniacs.

So yeah, more complicated than you'd think.

 

[Saelune]

Not letting genocidal hate be 'protected free speech'. Its not complicated.

Imminent lawless action

Makes it so(if correctly enforced) all ideologies are judged by the same metric of whether or not they count as being protected. When you single out one particular group and tell the government "do more about that" you're essentially giving them more power and making the limits of what protect speech is smaller. Which in actual practice effects your black lives matters, and other LGBT or civil rights people who get a bit too passionate and threaten police officers(not getting into the argument of if the cops deserve it). So it isn't just about the genocidal maniacs. It's about the consequences of the actions you take in the process of stopping the genocidal maniacs.

So yeah, more complicated than you'd think.

Nazis are not the same as LGBT people or BLM. Stop defending Nazis, stop saying LGBT people and BLM are Nazis.


Want to talk about consequences? THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST! People not stopping the Nazis lead to it.