[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[Thaluikhain]

So, if a law was passed specifically banning Nazis and allowing people to punch them, you'd be fine with that?

Do you really want to bring up state-sanctioned vigilantism against political parties and organizations in the same breath as Nazism? Really?

I was using an extreme example to clarify Abomination's "legal is fine" stance.

 

[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.

 

[Trunkage]

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Isn't suppression only something the government can realistically achieve? The only method the public has to combat ideas is counter protest, which you seem to agree with. What does the suppression you speak of actually look like?

Depends if you are only concerned about mass suppression or smaller group or individual suppression. Criminal gangs are pretty good at it for smaller groups, as well as corporations. Military contractors are well know for suppression in other countries. Neo-Nazis and Antifa are also good at it.

At that point I'd imagine these groups would be breaking the law to achieve this and I'm pretty sure we're all on the side of finding and prosecuting such groups, so I didn't really bother mentioning them. Except for I guess the military contractors, but that whole thing is a muddy scenario.

You assume that they'd get caught. Like, for example, there is a trope in movies/shows about shakedowns happening against shop owners etc. There is a deliberate fog placed onto law enforcement that try and break such suppression, like distance between the boss and the enforcers. Just keeping your mouth shut, destroying evidence, bribing/killing witness and having the best lawyers kept most people out of jail.

Now whether this still happens today is a separate issue as is how many people they were really able to effect.

Edit: Also the recent controversy about Facebook etc, and Alex Jones etc, could be called suppression

 

[Trunkage]

Let's start with this:

Are you just misunderstanding or not willing to discuss my point...If your so offended that this somehow is misconstrued into anti-Free Speech, that's on you.

I'm saying you have no point. Your point is a complete non-starter. It's not even worth discussing, because it's unadulterated garbage.

You're either for speech, or you're against speech. There is no middle ground. Being only in favor of speech you like, is not being in favor of speech at all. As Noam Chomsky famously pointed out, Hitler, Stalin, and their inner circles were all for free speech, as long as it was speech they liked. If you truly support speech, then you support all speech, but especially speech you hate.

So, to paraphrase, the only way to be FOR something is to never criticise it. That's a no from me. One of my favourite games is the Witcher 3. If you ever seen me talk about it here on the forums, I still highly criticise it. I can see Capitalism is the best economic system at this time. I'm still going to criticise its flaws. (And probably get called a Communist, because there are plenty of people like you who think that criticism means "not in favour" or "hate" and thus are clearly "for the other side".) I can be for national healthcare but also criticise its failings.

I can be in favour of something and still criticise it. Because things aren't black and white, on or off. Being in approval of something doesn't mean I like it. (see abortion rites for an example of the latter for me.)

Ah, yes. Let's not forget: the best way to protect Free Speech is to suppress. LET'S NEVER TALK OF IT AGAIN. Me thinks you don't know what Free Speech is if you don't support my criticism of Free Speech. I'm not asking you to like it. You may find it abhorrent. But it is Free Speech and I'm not putting up with your suppression of my Speech.

In fact, you should do that for people who advocate for hate speech as well. It's their constitutional right.

If you are worried about it, do something.

I was already corralled into cages and surrounded by militarized police at one point in my life for daring to suggest perhaps the US shouldn't be waging wars of aggression in the middle east, on behalf of no one but the fossil fuel and defense industry.

Once again, since the point seems to not be sticking, the same Constitutional provisions that nominally protect anti-war protest -- Comity, Equal Protection, Due Process, Assembly and Speech -- are the same ones that protect political protest of all kinds. Restrict one, you restrict them all. And indeed, while the Bush administration was a black mark against the right to protest, one must absolutely acknowledge this is no [https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill]. partisan [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-28/free-speech-cage-keeps-anti-hillary-protesters-away-dnc-convention]. issue [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-free-speech-graveyard-a_b_114045].

And indeed, while there is a vested interest in ensuring chaos such as that which erupted during the 1968 DNC never happens again, restraining speech is not the way to do it. For Democrats or Republicans. Perhaps try not being corrupt as fuck?

And once again, since the point seems to not stick, people who want 'hate speech' criminalized aren't the people who get to decide what 'hate speech' is. The Weimar Republic had plenty of 'protection' from hate speech, dangerous and violent rhetoric, public protest, and hate crimes. Then the Nazis got to decide what that meant and what should be done about it.

Hate speech legislation is like leaving a crate of live hand grenades in a room full of howler monkeys.

So the only thing to do about Trump is... make Hate Speech laws? Have I advocated for this? Is there literally no other option?

Most people who advocate for Hate Speech Laws don't like me. I think if we ever have hate speech laws it should be fair and based on attacks from all sides. Thus words like RacisT, Sexist, Politically Correct and Evil should be banned too. This tends to ruffle feathers.

Trump-a-Lump-a-Doodle-Dump

Your TDS doesn't negate the fact war with Iran has been something Republicans have advocated since the Bush administration.

So... because other Republicans have done the same before negates pointing out Trump's rhetoric now? Or are you just getting offended that I quoting Trump?

Not that this has been an ongoing issue since Operation Ajax [https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/] 66 years ago, when the corporation now known as BP decided profits mattered less than state sovereignty, and had to cry to two different NATO powers to get their way. But hey, you wanna mouth-fart about Trump, be my guest.

Previous actions, again, doesnt negate Trump's current action.

Also, why dont you bring up Obama's lacklusture plan with Iran. That sure negates Trump's actions of today. (The only benefit of Obama's plan was that we could get people on the ground trying to actually find weapons. Now we can't. So I do find it lacklusture. Just as I find it hypocrical of Dems complaining about a wall at the top of Mexico when, duirng their term, they created a wall at the bottom of Mexico to keep those central Americans out.)

 

[Silvanus]

Except others are promoting the idea that Neo Nazis have their political affiliation be open to suppression by either the public or the government. Because they are Nazis. Again "Punch a Nazi" being acceptable.

Almost every country recognises restrictions to political affiliation for certain organisations: usually terrorist or otherwise violent organisations.

To clarify, do you disagree with this? I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be arguing that the freedoms of speech and association should not be limited even in cases of advocating violence, or associating with violent organisations such as Neo-Nazi groups.

That would be a damn extreme position, well beyond even what the most fanatical US libertarians call for.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

 

[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.