[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade
- Thread starter Lil devils x_v1legacy
- Start date
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.Saelune said:
To simplify, what laws need to be changed or more strongly enforced that ends with more Nazi's being locked up?
Imminent lawless actionSaelune said:
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.
I learned that they should've shot the guy they convicted of treason instead of letting him publish a book
EDIT: Like, seriously? Your argument is "violence and censorship didn't work because he survived being a traitor and published a book"?
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE CENSORSHIP? WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE VIOLENCE? You say they made him a martyr and the VERY CLEARLY DID NOT DO THAT.
EDIT: Like, seriously? Your argument is "violence and censorship didn't work because he survived being a traitor and published a book"?
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE CENSORSHIP? WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE VIOLENCE? You say they made him a martyr and the VERY CLEARLY DID NOT DO THAT.
Or maybe just locked the guy who tried to violently overthrow the government up for more than 9 months.altnameJag said:
Okay wow. You really didn't listen to a single part of what I said.Saelune said:
I'm not defending Nazi's. I've made it clear in every response I don't agree with their ideology. I didn't say LGBT people were nazi's. I said in a functional democracy laws affect all people and not just the one's you're targetting. It's not as simple as making nazi ideas illegal. Our laws simply don't work like that.
Edit: And before you respond by being needlessly reductionist again. Let me make this perfectly clear.
"Nazis are bad" Fair enough. I agree with this basic idea. Stop telling me to stop defending things I'm not actually defending and proceed as if I'm not trying to prove you wrong on this main point. Cool? Cool
"People not stopping the Nazis" I personally think stopping Nazis is a good idea. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. There's zero reason to continue harping on this.
"stop saying LGBT people and BLM are Nazis" BLM is a political group. Nazis are a political group. That's what the comparison was setting up. Are you denying BLM is political? No? Okay, good.
This is what I meant earlier by projecting. There's really no way you can misconstrue words this badly unless you're already coming at this with hostility. Stop trying to make everyone who disagrees with you the enemy. It makes communicating ideas nearly impossible.
If you're going to reply to my posts, read them.altnameJag said:
The Nazi party was banned. Its publications were banned. Nazi leaders and Nazis were prosecuted and jailed -- repeatedly, in fact. The Beer Hall Putsch wasn't the end of Nazi prosecutions. I fail to see how this is a point in any way unclear or particularly difficult to understand, unless by intent. But you don't have to take it from me; try this article [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence] on for size, from infamous Nazi rag New Yorker:Me said:
The horror of the Holocaust serves as the founding narrative legitimizing European integration, and it's the key motivation for hate-speech laws on the continent. The European Union has called on all its member states to pass laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. This European narrative is based on a widely accepted interpretation of what led to the Holocaust. It basically says that anti-Semitic hate speech was the decisive trigger, that evil words beget evil deeds, that if only the Weimar government had clamped down on the National Socialists' verbal persecution of the Jews in the years prior to Hitler's rise to power, then the Holocaust would never have happened. I was confronted with this argument during the Danish cartoon crisis, in 2006. People condemned the cartoons as Islamophobic, and warned that the demonization of Muslims might trigger mass violence. "We know what happened in the twenties and thirties," critical voices argued, referring to the seemingly inevitable link between speech and violence.
Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der St?rmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.
I have yet to be presented with evidence for the proposition that hate-speech laws are an effective instrument to prevent violence. Seen from Europe, the history of free speech in the U.S. undermines those who insist on a causal link between legalization of hate speech, on the one hand, and racist violence and killings, on the other. Throughout the twentieth century, the U.S. witnessed a gradual relaxation of restrictions on speech; nonetheless, today racism and racial discrimination is less of a problem than it was a hundred years ago.
Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der St?rmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.
I have yet to be presented with evidence for the proposition that hate-speech laws are an effective instrument to prevent violence. Seen from Europe, the history of free speech in the U.S. undermines those who insist on a causal link between legalization of hate speech, on the one hand, and racist violence and killings, on the other. Throughout the twentieth century, the U.S. witnessed a gradual relaxation of restrictions on speech; nonetheless, today racism and racial discrimination is less of a problem than it was a hundred years ago.
In fact, allow me to put as fine a point on this as I can stand; here's a rather famous Nazi propaganda poster from 1928 (if I remember correctly):
Translation: He alone in two billion people on Earth may not speak in Germany.
https://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters1.htm
Censorship and violence feed Nazism, not suppress or end it. But of the violence, you say? Well, this article [https://theconversation.com/how-should-we-protest-neo-nazis-lessons-from-german-history-82645] may serve as a starting reference to kindly remind you of street violence during the '20s and early '30s that enabled and strengthened nascent Nazism.
So we do nothing and the right wing gets their way, or we fight back and the right wing gets their way.Eacaraxe said:
The article you link to says not to hold demonstrations within "physical presence" of them yet they actively seek confrontation. It's absolutely impossible to not be within "physical presence" of the alt-right when holding demonstrations of any kind. We hold peaceful demonstrations, they come to us. They have police protection, even, they're allowed to break the very rules the police ruthlessly enforce on any leftists demonstrating. This sure as fuck is not something we can bloody kill with kindness and if I'm to die to a fascist I'd rather die fighting than be rounded up because we're "not allowed" to put up any resistance or else we'll "lower ourselves to their level" or "we'll only legitimize them". It's too fucking late for that, they're already in the media spotlight and grabbing people's attention via mass shootings and hate crimes. They are killing people and we're supposed to just ignore them?
What especially helped Nazism a great deal is that the suppression of it went almost entirely unenforced. Hitler served 9 months in prison, there was no serious attempt at disbanding the NSDAP or even the brownshirts and the NSDAP could keep agitating and publishing their newspapers. So when Hitler got out of prison he could publish his book (which wasn't stopped from being published) and just resume his oration, because no one made any serious effort to ensure that Nazism remained censored. Even so, NSDAP was a fringe party with an unusually violent paramilitary wing (the Brownshirts) and would likely have remained so had it not been for the Depression.Eacaraxe said:
What really allowed the NSDAP to gain power was that almost all of the traditional parties hemorrhaged voters after 1929 and these voters went to the communists and Nazis. The Nazis rose to become one of the largest parties, feeding off of the upheaval that was the Great Depression and suddenly having people listen to their ideas about how international trade was bad for Germany and how Jewish people had orchestrated the Great Depression to screw over good Aryans. This is how the Nazis managed to become the largest party in 1932, when Franz von Papen and Zentral tried to use the NSDAP as a supporting party to form a coalition government after the election. Shortly there after von Papen was forced out of office and in the new elections the Nazis came within an hairs width of gaining a majority, but instead opted for simply putting Brownshirts in the Reichstag when the vote for the Enabling Act went through in 1933.
Had the Weimar republic actually crushed the NSDAP and harshly enforced its censorship, the Nazis would have been boned. What Weimar actually did was outlaw the Nazis and then do nothing to enforce it, which gave the Nazis the best of both worlds, they were outlawed and could play the victim card but could go about their business as usual. However, what really allowed the Nazis to thrive was a socioeconomic disaster, followed by other parties thinking they could co-operate with the Nazis and control them, which allowed the NSDAP legitimacy and then an opening to coup the nation. I'll continue to argue that the real lesson from Germany in the early '30's is that you should never give Nazis an inch, never trust then and never co-operate with them.
Bullshit. I can show you the exact same propaganda with modern alt right leaders that constantly decry the vile censorship they endure TO THEIR AUDIENCE OF LITERAL MILLIONS. It's almost like propaganda is LIES.Eacaraxe said:In fact, allow me to put as fine a point on this as I can stand; here's a rather famous Nazi propaganda poster from 1928 (if I remember correctly):
Translation: He alone in two billion people on Earth may not speak in Germany.
https://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/posters1.htm
Censorship and violence feed Nazism, not suppress or end it. But of the violence, you say? Well, this article [https://theconversation.com/how-should-we-protest-neo-nazis-lessons-from-german-history-82645] may serve as a starting reference to kindly remind you of street violence during the '20s and early '30s that enabled and strengthened nascent Nazism.
But sure, the Nazis were so banned they...could still hold rallies and get their books published, all while talking to the press constantly. So fucking censored that their literal-traitor-to-the-nation-who-attempted-and-failed-a-coup leader...published his manifesto and entered politics after being aloud to widely spread his platform at a trial that resulted in a mere 9 months in prison. For literal treason.
So fucking censored.
Bollocks, frankly.Eacaraxe said:
The Nazis didn't gain significant power for years after the Beer Hall Putsch. They made their name and reputation 1929-1930 off the back of the Wall Street crash and ensuing economic collapse (with the dissatsifaction that brought on the mainstream parties), and with increasingly aggressive anti-Communist violence and headline-grabbing attempts to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles.
Hitler exploited the Weimar constitution to suppress civil liberties, but not in the way you think. He effectively got the German President Hindenburg to sign a form of "state of emergency" decree that gave the government (i.e. the Nazis as the largest party) widespread powers to rule without oversight, and shortly after the "Enabling Act" that made him de facto dictator. With those under his belt, Weimar laws were all but meaningless as the Nazis had, and used, the power to do what they pleased.
You're not right about saying Nazis shouldn't have rights(you know, the thing I first responded to).Saelune said:
And would you mind knocking it off with this bullshit. I'd gladly stand up against Nazis. That's not the point of this discussion. I just got finished telling you I'm against Nazis. But I'm also against the ways you suggest dealing with the issue because it sounds ill thought out from a legal perspective. The moral viewpoint behind it is solid enough. Totally separate issue. Argue against the point of contention, not the points where we agree.Saelune said:
They have the right to not be Nazis. Once you ascribe to terrorism, which is what Nazi ideology is, then you should be treated as a terrorist.Shadowstar38 said:
THEN DO IT!
You're not doing anything to make me believe you.
When the law supports evil, then fuck the law. Slavery was legal once. Something being law does not make it ok.
No fucking shit.
I don't think we actually agree. You have done little to ever make me think so. You make paltry claims of opposing the evil of Nazis yet everything you have done in this topic about Nazis being Nazis is defend them.
The only people on your side here are the people who keep defending Nazis. altnamejag, Thaluikhain, Dr. Thrax, Agema and myself all stand opposed to you and Eacaraxe on this. THEY have shown to oppose Nazis, oppose oppression and evil. The side they are supporting is not yours.