[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

[The Lunatic]

So you also were against Alabama banning the airing of the gay marriage episode of "Arthur", for example?

Absolutely. Corporations should have the freedom to use their broadcasting services to distribute material they see fit.

However, as we're talking about PBS, which is an arm of the Alabama government, they have the right to choose not to air material they don't want to either.

Dude, you can drop the act.

Everyone here knows what you are.

I'm not the one backing removing rights from people because they hold opinions I don't like.

So, I guess if everyone knows I'm a gay person who respects other people's rights, I can only see that as a good thing. Thank you.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

However, as we're talking about PBS, which is an arm of the Alabama government, they have the right to choose not to air material they don't want to either.

All I needed to hear, thank you.

 

[The Lunatic]

However, as we're talking about PBS, which is an arm of the Alabama government, they have the right to choose not to air material they don't want to either.

All I needed to hear, thank you.

You're quite welcome.
Ultimately, if you want the broadcasting service of your state to represent you, it's entirely upon you to vote in those that do.

And if you still don't agree with them, just watch it on something other than PBS.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm not the one backing removing rights from people because they hold opinions I don't like.

See, that might sound convincing, except that you've consistently advocated for removing rights from people on the mere suspicion that they might hold opinions you don't like.

The story you have consistently held over your forum career is that, as a gay person, you believe that certain people should be excluded from society on the basis that their cultural or religious backgrounds mean they may harbour homophobic sentiment, and I bought that at first. I found it an incredibly selfish and naive position, but I can understand why a person who had managed to buy themselves into the position of being safe from any actual homophobia might develop a perception that said homophobia isn't a deeply rooted part of the society they live in, but some kind of external threat brought in by immigrants and scary brown people.

And yet, somehow, here you are defending your white nationalist friends when they literally attack pride parades, and suddenly your entire line that you need to defend gay people from homophobia just vanishes. Assuming we buy your story, these people literally want to kill you. They are threatening people like you with weapons, and physically attacked people like you (and if that's what they do in public, what do you think they are doing when the media spotlight isn't on them) and yet suddenly it's deeply important that they have a right to free speech at any cost. Fuck queer people feeling safe, the important thing is that neo-Nazis are allowed to bully and intimidate whoever they want provided they don't cross an imaginary line into "real" violence, and even if they do it's only a small minority, I disavow, yadda yadda.

And we know why. We've watched you bend over backwards to repeat talking points you could only have picked up from neo-Nazis, we've watched you concoct elaborate conspiracy theories about how neo-Nazi criminals must have been framed. We've seen the lengths you'll go to to protect your friends, and we've seen how intolerant you are towards anyone else. If you ever had any respect for the members of this forum, the least you could do at this point is to come clean and put your fucking armband on and just admit what you are, because if you don't know then you're lying to yourself.

I'm not going to come out and question whether you're really gay or something, that's disingenous. All I'm saying is that if you really are gay it's clear where your loyalties lie, because you choose whiteness over queerness every single time. Trying to claim the authenticity of speaking from marginalization without also politically aligning yourself with marginalization might fool some gullible cishets, but I'm not buying it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Non-violent groups shouldn't be marred by the actions of a few violent individuals.

I guess by this logic, when BLM was calling for cops to be killed, and when on of their supporters actually went out and killed a few police officers, that was also a declaration of war?

By your own logic, that's a few people. Not all of BLM did it. So BLM is a Non-violent Group that shouldn't be marred by the actions of a few violent individuals.

You can not bend logic to what you want it to be. Especially not in the same paragraph. Either the actions of a few represent the whole, or the actions of a few are meaningless to the whole. Either way, your point is rendered moot.

We can hide behind formality, but when Detriot Cops say that via their intelligence sources, that MSN came with the express desire to incite violence [https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/detroit-chief-neo-nazis-sought-gay-pride-event-63614966], logical people realize that they are playing a child's game akin to a little child goading his older sibling on into a physical altercation. Hoping to get one good shot in before welling up with tears so Mom will punish the older sibling later.

I'm not entirely sure why you think I'd care. I've no desire for respect from those who want to remove rights from others.

Great. Take as much umbrage with the NSM, that non-violent group who's specific goal is to take rights from non-white people.

Only members of the National Community may be citizens of the State. Citizenship in the Homeland must therefore be limited to White persons who share our values, and White persons alone.

Marriage will be forever defined as a partnership between a man and a woman.

Freedom of speech, expression, points of view and advocacy of causes are to be guaranteed to citizens, including (if required) utilizing law enforcement to protect speech from violence.

We will not tolerate treasonous and seditious acts; organizing with the intention of overthrowing the people?s state, speech advocating violence against individuals or members of institutions, or the deliberate spreading of lies calculated to undermine institutions. Neither will we permit the public distribution of media that is designed to cause clear and evident harm to our people.

This will be a People?s State, there will be no room for subversive or alien elements because they are not members of our national community.

This is on their website. I will not link to it.

They are all about taking away rights of others. Speak out about them with the same vigor you have for minority groups or anyone who you think today are 'targeting white people'.

Because they are actively declaring they are targeting anyone who's non-Germanic, for removal of rights and then flat out removal.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I get what Luna is trying to say, freedom of speech and all that. But there is a line between asshole speech(which is totally legal but dickish) and hate speech/violent speech. These guys aren't voicing objectionable opinions, they're actively calling for genocide and murder. That's different

 

[The Lunatic]

By your own logic, that's a few people. So BLM is a Non-violent Group that shouldn't be marred by the actions of a few violent individuals.

I agree. I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic.

You can not bend logic to what you want it to be at all times. Especially not in the same paragraph. Either the actions of a few represent the whole, or the actions of a few are meaningless to the whole. Either way, your point is rendered moot.

We can hide behind formality, but when Detriot Cops say that via their intelligence sources, that MSN came with the express desire to incite violence [https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/detroit-chief-neo-nazis-sought-gay-pride-event-63614966], logical people realize that they are playing a child's game akin to a little child goading his older sibling on into a physical altercation. Hoping to get one good shot in before welling up with tears so Mom will punish the older sibling later.

Sure, and BLM supporters directly committed violent actions, and murdered police officers.

If we take a look at the MSN website, we can clearly see they are not a violent group and denounce any acts of violence in their name:

Racial slurs and hatred are not to be used under any circumstances.
As National Socialists we are advocates for our community, this does not mean that we have anything but respect for other ethnic communities, religions, and cultures.


NSM members and supporters should never promote violence or illegal activity, under any circumstances. Any calls for, or outright illegal actions, will result in immediate dismissal from the National Socialist Movement.

Acts of Violence & Terrorism are Dishonorable & will Not be Tolerated!

I want it made perfectly clear to all of our members, supporters, prospective members, readers, etc. that the National Socialist Movement condemns illegal actions and in such we do not endorse any acts of violence or terrorism. The NSM is a White Civil Rights Movement that adheres to Political activism, and a legal means to restore America to its former glory.

Any individual, whom feels compelled to act upon, or advocate illegal actions on their own accord, is expected to resign from the Party, as those goals are clearly not in line with NSM policy.

As such, we have to accept that they are a legal and lawful group enacting their right to freedom of speech. They denounce any violence, and actively promote peace and lawfulness.

 

[The Lunatic]

See, that might sound convincing, except that you've consistently advocated for removing rights from people on the mere suspicion that they might hold opinions you don't like.

The story you have consistently held over your forum career is that, as a gay person, you believe that certain people should be excluded from society on the basis that their cultural or religious backgrounds mean they may harbour homophobic sentiment, and I bought that at first. I found it an incredibly selfish and naive position, but I can understand why a person who had managed to buy themselves into the position of being safe from any actual homophobia might develop a perception that said homophobia isn't a deeply rooted part of the society they live in, but some kind of external threat brought in by immigrants and scary brown people.

Immigration is not a right. I've only ever said we should be more careful about who we let in, and ensure they align with our beliefs. The difference is the ability to choose.
We should work to convince people like the MSN that they are wrong. As we have done across history.
We shouldn't, after having made progress in regards to things like the LGB community, then bring in more people who hold the views we have fought so hard to disprove.

And yet, somehow, here you are defending your white nationalist friends

They're not my friends. Cool it with the personal attacks.

when they literally attack pride parades, and suddenly your entire line that you need to defend gay people from homophobia just vanishes. Assuming we buy your story, these people literally want to kill you. They are threatening people like you with weapons, and physically attacked people like you (and if that's what they do in public, what do you think they are doing when the media spotlight isn't on them) and yet suddenly it's deeply important that they have a right to free speech at any cost. Fuck queer people feeling safe, the important thing is that neo-Nazis are allowed to bully and intimidate whoever they want provided they don't cross an imaginary line into "real" violence, and even if they do it's only a small minority, I disavow, yadda yadda.

Come back to me when they're throwing people off rooftops or denying education to people. At most, they've said some questionable things. I don't agree with it. But, speech is not action. Freedom of speech allows us to do just that, speak.

I'm not advocating for freedom of action.

And we know why. We've watched you bend over backwards to repeat talking points you could only have picked up from neo-Nazis, we've watched you concoct elaborate conspiracy theories about how neo-Nazi criminals must have been framed. We've seen the lengths you'll go to to protect your friends, and we've seen how intolerant you are towards anyone else. If you ever had any respect for the members of this forum, the least you could do at this point is to come clean and put your fucking armband on and just admit what you are, because if you don't know then you're lying to yourself.

I don't think the first amendment is a neo-nazi talking point. It's literally the constitution of the United States, and is mirrored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I think you need to take a closer look at yourself if you're opposed to such things, as you are, by far, in a minority of people.

I'm not going to come out and question whether you're really gay or something, that's disingenous. All I'm saying is that if you really are gay it's clear where your loyalties lie, because you choose whiteness over queerness every single time. Trying to claim the authenticity of speaking from marginalization without also politically aligning yourself with marginalization might fool some gullible cishets, but I'm not buying it.

Ah, yes, because the homosexual doesn't agree with you, he must not be a homosexual. Very homophobic of you.

 

[IceForce]

Oh no, a couple of assholes attacked a pride parade.
Let's round up every white guy and accuse them of being war criminals.

Strange, when people within the BLM movement was destroying shops, shooting people and generally being a complete load of assholes, we heard constantly that a few bad examples don't override the entire movement.

I guess the same doesn't apply when it's white people asking to uphold their freedom of speech. Seems a little racist to me.

Oh my oh my, you've really overplayed your hand this time. And I'm glad it's transparent to other people too.

Right here in this post, you're saying that a person's skin color is more important than their sexual identity. So tell me, who here is really being racist, hmm?

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh no, a couple of assholes attacked a pride parade.
Let's round up every white guy and accuse them of being war criminals.

Strange, when people within the BLM movement was destroying shops, shooting people and generally being a complete load of assholes, we heard constantly that a few bad examples don't override the entire movement.

I guess the same doesn't apply when it's white people asking to uphold their freedom of speech. Seems a little racist to me.

Oh my oh my, you've really overplayed your hand this time. And I'm glad it's transparent to other people too.

Right here in this post, you're saying that a person's skin color is more important than their sexual identity. So tell me, who here is really being racist, hmm?

I'd say shooting people and destroying property is more important than standing on a flag.

If you're more upset at a group because they stand on a flag than you were at a group who murdered and rioted, simply because one is black and the other is white, then yeah, you're a racist.

 

[Saelune]

They're not my friends. Cool it with the personal attacks.

Defending Nazis is a personal attack against all Jews, Blacks and LGBT people.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This shouldn't be made illegal by any means. Let this surface, identify the ring-leaders and plan retribution. If you allow this to bubble under your feet you will lose track of the movement.

I regularly play devil's advocate here when "white nationalists" (as if that's a thing, bitter poor whites turning to populism for salvation) gets conflated with nazis. It's more productive to have a dialogue with these people and understand why they are lashing out (hint: It's opium, mechanization and globalization), and maybe even address these issues... These nazis? Break them.

Sadly much of the white nationalist movement in the US is far from poor, more like many are middle class/upper middle class and feel threatened by the thought of being forced to see "other cultures" on a regular basis and see it as a threat to their own. They are offended when they hear someone speaking a foreign language or listening to another culture's music or wearing clothing that is different than their own. One of their biggest fears is that their children will grow up and want to live a different lifestyle than theirs or marry someone outside their race or culture. They see this a threat to the continuation of their lifestyle and culture and are willing to resort to violence to prevent it from happening. I sent you a list from the SPLC previously, if you had researched the white nationalists groups on that list, you would see most of them are far from being the poor in the US, but rather they are the one's trying to uphold the status quo. White nationalist groups like identity evropa are just Nazi's by a different name celebrating admiring and promoting Nazis and their beliefs, and they are most definitely a " thing" in the US right now and sadly have been growing in membership and popularity. They have been trying to push into the mainstream and sadly, yes have been more successful than we previously thought possible.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/20/fact-check-truth-white-nationalism/3226378002/

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/419659-texas-gop-platform-committee-member-damn-right-im-a-white

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

And any ideology can be twisted into killing people. You had the gas chambers and you had the gulags and all those people sent to Siberia and so on. The thing in common those ideologies all have is their authoritarian nature. The more you approach it the likelier you are to become corrupted by the power you're messing with and commit atrocities.

This comparison doesn't work.

The gulags (as we call them in English) were concentration camps. They were, essentially, prisons. They were unusually harsh prisons with a very high rate of inmate mortality, but they were still prisons. Their motivation was not "ideological" except in the sense that some prisoners held in the gulags had been detained for political reasons. There was never any organised political intent to kill the imprisoned population. They were (with some possible exceptions, and we'll get to that) not victims of deliberate genocide, they were not victims of "ideology", they were victims of a prison system which sought to extract maximum benefit from them at the lowest possible cost, even if it meant people died.

The vast majority of "liberal" societies have used concentration camps. Some still do. Many US prisons, for example, are essentially concentration camps. They are designed to house a large, controlled population in a small space at low cost. Many also use forced labour. The actual concept of a concentration camp was invented by European colonial administrators as a means of controlling potentially rebellious populations in the colonies. All concentration camps have casualties. People die in prison. People die in detention centres. This is not ideology, it's pragmatism.

The Nazis had concentration camps. All kinds of prisoners, political and otherwise, went to concentration camps for all kinds of reasons. The concentration camps did not have gas chambers. People died in them (a lot of people, in fact) but those people dying was not the objective. The gas chambers were housed in extermination camps. These camps were not designed to house or contain people, but to kill them within hours of arriving and in as fast and efficient a way as possible. That was the only purpose of those camps.

There was genocide in the Soviet Union. Specific minorities were targeted for persecution and pogroms (although unlike the Nazi genocides, the goal was never to wholly eliminate those groups). For example, it's quite likely that Soviet agricultural policy specifically targeted Ukrainians for deliberate starvation as a means of consolidating power within the Russian Soviet, but note that even here I had to add that, because even there the goal was not the ideological elimination of "subhuman" Ukrainians but the maintenance of political control.

This idea that "authoritarianism" is the problem is only true in the sense that state killing is always authoritarian, whether it's in a democratic society or not. A prison is always an authoritarian institution, it's a place where people are detained against their will by the state. Border controls are authoritarian. Militarized police are authoritarian. Corporate hierarchies are authoritarian. Authoritarianism can exist quite comfortably within "liberal" societies. The problem with Nazism wasn't that it was authoritarianism and that the Nazi leaders got corrupted by power and thus were compelled to kill all Jews, it's that their entire ideology was based on a chauvinistic sense of superiority and a desire to exterminate others. It still is. That is something quite profoundly different to a simple abuse of power, or instrumental pursuit of "order" or "efficiency".

If you want to indulge in some kind of horseshoe theory, an appropriate horseshoe would be to compare the deliberate starvation of Indians under the Raj as a result of cruel and negligent agricultural policy with the deliberate starvation of Ukranians under Stalin as a result of cruel and negligent agricultural policy. Or to compare the use deliberate use and promotion of torture in both US and USSR-backed puppet regimes as a means of maintaining ideological control. These are horrific, horrific crimes against humanity, but they were ultimately the product of instrumental political goals. For the Nazis, killing millions of people was the goal. It was not the means, it was the end, and that is fundamentally different.

You're approaching this from an ethical perspective. You're saying "this ideology prescribes the elimination of people, so it's by default worse".


I'm approaching it from a utilitarian one. I don't really care to look whether an ideology "intends" to exterminate people or if it's merely too incompetent to keep them from starving to death or dying in "regular prisons/concentration camps".

To me the crucial factor is how many people actually end up dead as a cause of the maxims of an ideology being put into practice. Whether one of those maxims is the actual wiping off of people is irrelevant if people end up dying as an unintended byproduct of other maxims that don't have that as a desired goal all the same.

If anything, having deathcounts that rival the nazis without TRYING to kill people is actually an order of magnitude worse for the ideology.


Oh and we both kinda forgot Mao's China and all the people who starved there too. You gotta add those to the deathcount as well.


Oh and just to be clear, I don't actually think communism doesn't want to kill people, I'm just working on that premise to show how it's still a bad idea. I think they're just not as honest about it as other authoritarians.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am completely against the idea that people should be arrested or punished because of their political views, no matter how abhorrent they may be.

But when one breaks the law they should be punished with the same severity as any other, and especially should not be able to get away with it due to fear from their political association.

If they were violent, they should have been arrested for violence.

What action do you think should be taken to prevent another "Hitler" from coming to power? Some political beliefs are not just " abhorrent" but dangerous if allowed to gain traction. Without intervention, we have seen what will happen when these things are left unchecked. We have learned through past actions that even the most dangerous of people and beliefs can become extremely popular given the right mixture of propaganda and circumstance. Taking no action means allowing atrocities to happen. If they take over the agencies enforcing the law, they can legally inflict harm upon others. If they take control of making the laws, they can pass laws to violently harm others. Doing nothing to prevent that from happening before they are able to take control over the very institutions and organizations that are responsible for creating and enforcing the laws means you are willing to allow it to happen rather than doing everything possible top prevent history from repeating itself.

When their political beliefs are to take over the institutions so they can inflict legal violence upon others, how is that not just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than inflicting violence upon those in front of them at the moment? Them refraining from violence until they have seized the institutions to be able to carry out their objective isn't somehow a better idea here. How should this be addressed when it is becoming popular? What about when it becomes a majority opinion due to nothing being done to prevent it?

 

[generals3]

Well this went down the crapper for some time due to someone's thinly veiled Neo-Nazi apologism. All I can say is this, whoever breached any law through intimidation & violence should face justice. And any other Nazi present should be investigated for instigating violence. As we all know Nazism is at its core a violent ideology which encourages the cleansing of one nation from non germanic races, handicapped people and any other kind of person deemed "deviant". And these people were branding Nazi symbols, suggesting support to aforementioned violence.

You're approaching this from an ethical perspective. You're saying "this ideology prescribes the elimination of people, so it's by default worse".


I'm approaching it from a utilitarian one. I don't really care to look whether an ideology "intends" to exterminate people or if it's merely too incompetent to keep them from starving to death or dying in "regular prisons/concentration camps".

I'm with you on this one. Whether someone dies in a camp because he was gassed or because of forced labor in purposely poor conditions has the exact same result. The person died unjustly. If Millions die due to a planned effort to kill them or millions die due to a planned effort to extract the most labor out of them at the lowest cost the end result is still the same. They all died.

 

[Majestic Manatee_v1legacy]

It is bizarre the free speech advocates never defend ISIS right to promote their ideology in public. Both are terrorists. Both indulge in discriminatory murder as a defining tentpole of their beliefs. Yet only the Nazis are accepted. Bizarre.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It is bizarre the free speech advocates never defend ISIS right to promote their ideology in public. Both are terrorists. Both indulge in discriminatory murder as a defining tentpole of their beliefs. Yet only the Nazis are accepted. Bizarre.

Has there been a case of ISIS parades in the USA being met with resistance by the same people who defend freedom of speech? Or are you just assuming that they wouldn't defend them?



In any case, I can see why someone would make a distinction between someone we're in active armed conflict with and remnants of the ideology of an enemy that has been defeated for 70 years, deeming them an enemy combatant and in so doing perceiving their promoting their ideology as an act of espionage and so on.


In any case, we have freedom of religion in this country and we tolerate people like the westboro baptist church so I see no reason why we wouldn't tolerate Wahhabi Islam after we've defeated them.



You know what's interesting though, since you brought up ISIS. I'm pretty sure the same people who were advocating leniancy for isis fighter women that left western countries to go to Syria, who regretted their treason and wanted to leave isis and return home and not face the consequences of their action, would be the same people who would be against freedom of speech for these nazis here, cause according to intersectionality muslims are oppressed enough to cancel out treasonous terrorism or something, I guess.

 

[Agema]

The opioid epidemic is a name for the rampant consumption of drugs - prescribed or obtained via the black market - which are produced from the poppy plant. Opium is one of the first iterations of the drug. Modern drugs are distilled differently (you can produce heroin and codein from poppy, for example) and their compounds can differ from Opium (there are similar synthetics, for example Pethidine and Fentanyl), but it's essentially the same damn thing... it's highly addictive.

If I wanted to be a total pedant (and I don't often get a chance to put my profession to use on forums), opium is a mixture of about 30 alkaloids (not all of which are addictive, or have the same pharmacological activity) of which morphine is the most relevant. Morphine was isolated from opium about 2 centuries ago; codeine is another natural opioid from the opium poppy.

Heroin (diamorphine in medicine) is a "semi-synthetic", it can be easily synthesied from some opiates, but is not natural to the poppy. As you say, pethidine, fentanyl and others are fully synthetic and have a very different chemical structure. Although all medical opioids including morphine and codeine are made synthetically these days. Drugs of abuse, not necessarily.

The history of opioids is tragically hilarious. Opium and distillations of it such as laudanum were quickly recognised as addictive. Morphine was isolated by Friedrich Seturner in the hope that it could provide the medical benefits without being addictive; Seturner ended up addicted to morphine. Heroin was likewise synthesised in the hope it would provide painkilling and antitussive action without being addictive, and we know how that turned out. Later synthetics were developed in the same hope... all in vain. The type of proteins in your body (opioid receptors) that opioids act on to generate analgesia are exactly the same ones that cause addiction, and it is to all intents impossible to separate opioid analgesia from addiction risk. The current US opioid crisis is a lot about some pretty foul dealings by some pharmaceutical companies, and the ridiculous claim that certain opioid slow release formulations would not be addictive, in total defiance of everything we know about biology.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

But also you're saying the ends justify the means. I mean, I agree in this case, but I think there is a lot of virtue signaling that never wants to consider the between parts. WW2 ended with violence. There is no way the Nazis were going to be defeated by anything except violence. I do not think that truth has changed.

I am saying the exact opposite: That the ends do not justify the means and that we should never pre-emptively punch anyone, Nazi or otherwise, unless we are absolutely certain that they are an imminent physical threat to us (ie. specific death threat, brandishing a weapon). That's both literal and metaphorical, by the way.

My take away from the events of 1933 to 1945 is that the only way to stop Nazis, or fascists of any kind, is to never give them the time of day. We should never listen to their rhetoric, never compromise or deal with them, always be around to shout them down, counter-protest and generally make their attempts at spewing their vile hatred or making their presence known hard, uncomfortable and contested. But until the day that they specifically target someone ("I know where you live, dyke", coming at you with a weapon), we should never be the ones to escalate to violence first.

There are plenty of things we should be doing, and often are doing, to curb the rise of the alt-right and neo-nazism, chief among them being to institute or enforce laws that makes it illegal for them to protest, march or whatever else they might do in group. As individuals we should never escalate to violence wit them, because they want violence, they are better at violence and the moment we come at them with physical force before they attack us, we've lost the moral high ground of being the people that doesn't want to physically harm or kill our opponents.

Do note that this is my stance on pretty much all interaction with people who might want to do you harm. I volunteered for conscription based on the idea that I absolutely want peace, won't strike first, but will defend my country if someone attacks it. Because you can't claim to want peace or being the gentler person if you're the one instigating violence.