[Politics] Nazis Attack LGBT Pride Parade

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Saelune:
snip

sigh

I'm not seeing this going anywhere.

I still haven't said a single thing in defense of Nazis. But agree to disagree I guess. Peace.

Gethsemani:
Here's an easy one: Keep the leader of the NSDAP in prison for longer then 9 months after finding him guilty of an attempted coup and treason.
* A few other easy ones: Forbid the printing of Volkische Beobachter and Der Sturmer and bring printers to justice for doing so. Forbid the printing of Mein Kampf. Enforce these bans.
* Clamp down harder and more frequently on the SA (and other "free corps"), who were allowed to roam the streets quite freely a lot of the time because the prevailing attitude was that they weren't an issue as long as they beat up Communists and other people the aristocratic, conservative establishment labelled undesirable (such as Jewish people and Roma).

Okay, once again, your second and third points are "well the Weimar didn't hard enough". To which, once again, I don't know what you're on about. Allow me to illustrate by playing devil's advocate one moment.

Let's talk about the first point, Hitler's trial. An elaborate, sensationalist, global media circus enabled by the suspension of due process, trial by jury, and judicial review concocted for the sole purpose of giving Hitler a soap box for his ridiculous beliefs, that turned him from an international laughingstock to one of the most feared orators on the goddamn planet. A trial that was such a farce, the pro-Nazi lay judge panel had to be negotiated away from acquitting him outright.

Section 7, Article 105 of the Weimar Constitution was pretty goddamn clear on the constitutionality of such a trial. So, why didn't the Weimar government's enforce its constitutional authority? Might this be because, in the midst of economic, political, and international crises, and crippled by the Treaty of Versailles, civil unrest, and a military of dubious loyalty, the Weimar government was in no position to assert its authority over a secessionist state which proved itself a breeding ground for right-wing and nationalist extremism?

Here's where I take exception with the claims being pressed. Even taking them at face value assumes the Weimar government was strong enough to do "what had to be done" in the first place. Which, frankly, would have been nothing short of invading Bavaria, placing it under martial law, and subjecting Bavarian political leadership to military tribunal. Exactly how well do you think the Reichswehr and Freikorps would have responded to that order?

My main point was that there was a naivete, especially in right wing circles in general and nationalist and conservative circles in particular, when it came to dealing with the Nazis.

I agree, but here's the problem. If you're looking at 1933, 1932, or even far back as 1929, you're looking at effects, not causes. The nails were in that coffin when the French occupied the Ruhr valley.

I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

Certainly not 2 weeks. Maybe 2 hours, but not 2 weeks.

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

SolidState:

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

Certainly not 2 weeks. Maybe 2 hours, but not 2 weeks.

The first suspension is 3 -4 days. The second one is 2 weeks.

Armadox:

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

Marik2:

SolidState:

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

Certainly not 2 weeks. Maybe 2 hours, but not 2 weeks.

The first suspension is 3 -4 days. The second one is 2 weeks.

Armadox:

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

So that she can scream at everyone that supporting any candidates other than Elizabeth Warren is giving your vote to Trump and that anyone who doesn't support her is a double secret republican shill.

Dirty Hipsters:

Marik2:

SolidState:

Certainly not 2 weeks. Maybe 2 hours, but not 2 weeks.

The first suspension is 3 -4 days. The second one is 2 weeks.

Armadox:
I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

So that she can scream at everyone that supporting any candidates other than Elizabeth Warren is giving your vote to Trump and that anyone who doesn't support her is a double secret republican shill.

Exactly

Marik2:

Armadox:

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

For me, I understand this thread is poisonous to a certain mindset. It's easy to get into a position where you want to make personal attacks. Telling someone to shut up is rude, but compared to what else Saelune would say during the resulting pages this might remain open, I don't think that was really necessary. I'm sure Saelune would dig a hole to deep eventually. Things are going to get worse in the lead up to 2020. Desperation makes strange bed fellows. We'll hit peak Saelune FAR before the election, and she'll be banned long before that tire fire even properly gets lit.

All considered. I'm sure there will be a lot of bans along the way.

Edit: https://twitter.com/arisroussinos/status/1142679526176112640

So, this was brought to my attention. And with comments like this:

Sorry, but you insisted on shoving gay shit in my kids' faces, so this is now extermination war.

Btw, the Nazi movement was the first LGBT movement and started in gay bars. Horst Wessel predates Stonewall by like 30 years.— Orb-Weaver (@No2Sovereignty) June 23, 2019

Another day, another Nazi.

Dirty Hipsters:

Marik2:

SolidState:

Certainly not 2 weeks. Maybe 2 hours, but not 2 weeks.

The first suspension is 3 -4 days. The second one is 2 weeks.

Armadox:
I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

So that she can scream at everyone that supporting any candidates other than Elizabeth Warren is giving your vote to Trump and that anyone who doesn't support her is a double secret republican shill.

What about people like me who are going to vote for Trump anyways?

Armadox:

Marik2:

Armadox:
I second that. That felt personal, considering the post they pinged. Though this thread is probably going to be the end of her.

One of the mods must be a nazi, bigot, and a racist! /joke

I do hope she will at least stick around for the 2020 election.

For me, I understand this thread is poisonous to a certain mindset. It's easy to get into a position where you want to make personal attacks. Telling someone to shut up is rude, but compared to what else Saelune would say during the resulting pages this might remain open, I don't think that was really necessary. I'm sure Saelune would dig a hole to deep eventually. Things are going to get worse in the lead up to 2020. Desperation makes strange bed fellows. We'll hit peak Saelune FAR before the election, and she'll be banned long before that tire fire even properly gets lit.

All considered. I'm sure there will be a lot of bans along the way.

Edit: https://twitter.com/arisroussinos/status/1142679526176112640

So, this was brought to my attention. And with comments like this:

Sorry, but you insisted on shoving gay shit in my kids' faces, so this is now extermination war.

Btw, the Nazi movement was the first LGBT movement and started in gay bars. Horst Wessel predates Stonewall by like 30 years.- Orb-Weaver (@No2Sovereignty) June 23, 2019

Another day, another Nazi.

Is he talking about Ernst R?hm and the leadership of the SA? Because to describe them as the first LGBT movement is a bit... inaccurate. That would also make Horst-Wessel-Lied a gay pride song.

Saelune, if you read this, please cool off until the 2020 election. I want you to stick around for next November at least.

Eacaraxe:

Gethsemani:
Here's an easy one: Keep the leader of the NSDAP in prison for longer then 9 months after finding him guilty of an attempted coup and treason.
* A few other easy ones: Forbid the printing of Volkische Beobachter and Der Sturmer and bring printers to justice for doing so. Forbid the printing of Mein Kampf. Enforce these bans.
* Clamp down harder and more frequently on the SA (and other "free corps"), who were allowed to roam the streets quite freely a lot of the time because the prevailing attitude was that they weren't an issue as long as they beat up Communists and other people the aristocratic, conservative establishment labelled undesirable (such as Jewish people and Roma).

Okay, once again, your second and third points are "well the Weimar didn't hard enough". To which, once again, I don't know what you're on about. Allow me to illustrate by playing devil's advocate one moment.

Let's talk about the first point, Hitler's trial. An elaborate, sensationalist, global media circus enabled by the suspension of due process, trial by jury, and judicial review concocted for the sole purpose of giving Hitler a soap box for his ridiculous beliefs, that turned him from an international laughingstock to one of the most feared orators on the goddamn planet. A trial that was such a farce, the pro-Nazi lay judge panel had to be negotiated away from acquitting him outright.

Section 7, Article 105 of the Weimar Constitution was pretty goddamn clear on the constitutionality of such a trial. So, why didn't the Weimar government's enforce its constitutional authority? Might this be because, in the midst of economic, political, and international crises, and crippled by the Treaty of Versailles, civil unrest, and a military of dubious loyalty, the Weimar government was in no position to assert its authority over a secessionist state which proved itself a breeding ground for right-wing and nationalist extremism?

Here's where I take exception with the claims being pressed. Even taking them at face value assumes the Weimar government was strong enough to do "what had to be done" in the first place. Which, frankly, would have been nothing short of invading Bavaria, placing it under martial law, and subjecting Bavarian political leadership to military tribunal. Exactly how well do you think the Reichswehr and Freikorps would have responded to that order?

My main point was that there was a naivete, especially in right wing circles in general and nationalist and conservative circles in particular, when it came to dealing with the Nazis.

I agree, but here's the problem. If you're looking at 1933, 1932, or even far back as 1929, you're looking at effects, not causes. The nails were in that coffin when the French occupied the Ruhr valley.

I think your looking at only point of reference for suppression and its effectiveness. Take another form, the Red Scares in America. This has suppressed conversation in America so much that even today, 100 years on, any criticism of Capitalism is seen as Communism/ Socialism. The Overton window is significantly shifted so much that there is no Left party in America.

You could claim that Communists are still somewhat around. Some people call themselves Communist now, but it's more likely they call themselves Marxists becuase of the obvious link terrible Lenin-Stalin version of Communionism, This Marxism (pro Free speech, markets, worried more about owners being the employees which is rather entrepreneurial) is more palatable to the conservatives and they can still claim that they are for top down economics (somewhat true, some are very anti-government) becuase stereotyping.

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

It was worth a suspension for anyone.

Telling someone it's their fault that there are Nazis and, let's be honest, being incapable of having a discussion without resorting to personal attacks when the topic being discussed has nuances are good grounds for suspension. Saelune has a bad habit of attacking would-be-allies because they have a differing opinion in how to combat their shared foe.

Eacaraxe:

Okay, once again, your second and third points are "well the Weimar didn't hard enough". To which, once again, I don't know what you're on about. Allow me to illustrate by playing devil's advocate one moment.

They didn't try hard enough, that's a simple fact. They didn't even try hard enough to actually enforce court mandated punishments for some of the worst crimes in the German penal code. What you're talking about afterwards is the inherent and inescapable political instability of the Weimar Republic, which was a democracy forced onto a people who didn't want a democracy and run by the same aristocratic elite that had previously been the cause of Germany's belligerent foreign diplomacy and nascent ambitions to be a superpower. The people didn't want a democratic system, as seen by how many kept voting for nationalists, fascists and communists, and the old aristocracy kept doing their thing irregardless. That Weimar was forced to adopt an unwanted system of government and then quell the (totally expected) resistance to it without any support from either France, the UK or USA was where the political impotence and incompetence of the Weimar Republic was cemented, in that the Freikorp uprisings of 1919 and 1920 clearly showed that the Republic lacked the necessary political clout and violence capital to keep the constituent German states in line.

That, however, should not be confused with the leniency with which the Republic treated the extreme right wing of its politics. Hitler and the NSDAP got off easy because the hardcore conservative, nationalist aristocrats that were the de facto power of the Weimar Republic wanted a return to nationalistic policies and saw the NSDAP and other nationalist and fascist parties as useful tools to keep the communists in check (both by drawing malcontents away from communists and by using their paramilitary branches to fight and intimidate communists) and because they absolutely failed to see the threat that these violent, right wing extremists posed.

The root cause of the NSDAP's rise to power was always that the German establishment didn't see them as a political threat and as a much preferable alternative then Communism. This led to German politicians underestimating the NSDAP and not handling it with the diligence and concern it merited. As I said, the thing we can learn from the rise of the NSDAP is to never condone or compromise with extremists, even if those extremists are nominally are on our side and could, maybe, be politically useful to us. Much else is hard to learn, because the political system and landscape of the Weimar Republic is very much unlike any modern day Western democracy.

Eacaraxe:

Gethsemani:
Here's an easy one: Keep the leader of the NSDAP in prison for longer then 9 months after finding him guilty of an attempted coup and treason.
* A few other easy ones: Forbid the printing of Volkische Beobachter and Der Sturmer and bring printers to justice for doing so. Forbid the printing of Mein Kampf. Enforce these bans.
* Clamp down harder and more frequently on the SA (and other "free corps"), who were allowed to roam the streets quite freely a lot of the time because the prevailing attitude was that they weren't an issue as long as they beat up Communists and other people the aristocratic, conservative establishment labelled undesirable (such as Jewish people and Roma).

Okay, once again, your second and third points are "well the Weimar didn't hard enough". To which, once again, I don't know what you're on about. Allow me to illustrate by playing devil's advocate one moment.

Let's talk about the first point, Hitler's trial. An elaborate, sensationalist, global media circus enabled by the suspension of due process, trial by jury, and judicial review concocted for the sole purpose of giving Hitler a soap box for his ridiculous beliefs, that turned him from an international laughingstock to one of the most feared orators on the goddamn planet. A trial that was such a farce, the pro-Nazi lay judge panel had to be negotiated away from acquitting him outright.

Section 7, Article 105 of the Weimar Constitution was pretty goddamn clear on the constitutionality of such a trial. So, why didn't the Weimar government's enforce its constitutional authority? Might this be because, in the midst of economic, political, and international crises, and crippled by the Treaty of Versailles, civil unrest, and a military of dubious loyalty, the Weimar government was in no position to assert its authority over a secessionist state which proved itself a breeding ground for right-wing and nationalist extremism?

Here's where I take exception with the claims being pressed. Even taking them at face value assumes the Weimar government was strong enough to do "what had to be done" in the first place. Which, frankly, would have been nothing short of invading Bavaria, placing it under martial law, and subjecting Bavarian political leadership to military tribunal. Exactly how well do you think the Reichswehr and Freikorps would have responded to that order?

My main point was that there was a naivete, especially in right wing circles in general and nationalist and conservative circles in particular, when it came to dealing with the Nazis.

I agree, but here's the problem. If you're looking at 1933, 1932, or even far back as 1929, you're looking at effects, not causes. The nails were in that coffin when the French occupied the Ruhr valley.

Your talking an awful lot about how the Third Reich came to be yet not how it ended. Because we both know what brought it down: Relentless violence, and if there is one thing to be lamented is that this violence neither came soon, nor hard enough. The reason I have the privilege to live in a civilized country, in a country where human rights are acknowledged and enforced, is because the Soviet Union, the United States and a few other nations did us the favour of killing more than 4 Million Nazis. If they had done so earlier there may have never been a Holocaust and the countless crimes of the Fascist Party, not only against the people it waged war against but against its own people, may have never been commited. Likewise, had there been a more thorough purge in the aftermath of World War 2, ex party member Georg Kiesinger may have never been chancellor of Germany, industrialists like Otto Ambros who oversaw forced labour and extermination in Ausschwitz may have not lived out their lives as trusted economic advisors of the West German government and the granddaughter of Nazi Germany's Minister of Finance would not have a seat in the German parliament right now, carrying on the legacy of the fascist death cult that used to rule our country with an iron fist.

I don't know if the government of the Weimar Republic could have put a quick end to the Nazi Party but that doesn't mean that the violence used against it was wrong, but merely that it was insufficient.

If we are going to encourage vigilante violence against certain political groups of people, are we going to make the distinction trough self-affiliation (Yes, I am a nazi, here be my swastika) or by appointed affiliation (He is nazi, because (legally defined requirement of proof]?

Marik2:
Saelune, if you read this, please cool off until the 2020 election. I want you to stick around for next November at least.

I am of the belief that Saelune is a direct descendant of Cato the Younger.

In terms of her political and moral rigidness.

Samtemdo8:
I am of the belief that Saelune is a direct descendant of Cato the Younger.

In terms of her political and moral rigidness.

Demanding an act that will lead to the fall of a republic and the introduction of imperial rule?

Samtemdo8:

Marik2:
Saelune, if you read this, please cool off until the 2020 election. I want you to stick around for next November at least.

I am of the belief that Saelune is a direct descendant of Cato the Younger.

In terms of her political and moral rigidness.

Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

CM156:
Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

Adam and Eve, maybe.

Agema:

CM156:
Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

Adam and Eve, maybe.

Adam and Steve

Agema:

CM156:
Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

Adam and Eve, maybe.

This seems likely.

trunkage:

Agema:

CM156:
Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

Adam and Eve, maybe.

Adam and Steve

This seems less likely, due to biology. Perhaps if either Adam or Steve is a trans man then I might be possible, yes?

Also I've been meaning to watch HBO's Rome

Is it good?

CM156:
Also I've been meaning to watch HBO's Rome

Is it good?

Some of the time skips can be a bit jarring, and its best to recognize that its a dramatization, so some of the characters are (almost) entirely fictional. But it's a great series and you'll fall in love with Titus Pullo.

Gethsemani:
They didn't try hard enough, that's a simple fact.

This statement is irreconcilable with this statement,

...the inherent and inescapable political instability of the Weimar Republic, which was a democracy forced onto a people who didn't want a democracy and run by the same aristocratic elite that had previously been the cause of Germany's belligerent foreign diplomacy and nascent ambitions to be a superpower...the Freikorp uprisings of 1919 and 1920 clearly showed that the Republic lacked the necessary political clout and violence capital to keep the constituent German states in line.

because the Weimar Republic was either capable of suppressing far-right nationalism in Bavaria, or it wasn't. For the Weimar Republic to be on the hook for failure of "trying hard enough", one has to make the case they were capable of acting decisively in the first place. Here, you cede it wasn't.

It is also irreconcilable with this statement,

Hitler and the NSDAP got off easy because the hardcore conservative, nationalist aristocrats that were the de facto power of the Weimar Republic wanted a return to nationalistic policies and saw the NSDAP and other nationalist and fascist parties as useful tools to keep the communists in check (both by drawing malcontents away from communists and by using their paramilitary branches to fight and intimidate communists) and because they absolutely failed to see the threat that these violent, right wing extremists posed.

because here you cede many of those in power, particularly among the German military, were also far-right, ultra-nationalist, rabidly anti-semitic, extremists who enabled Nazism as opposed to trying to stop it. This is doublethink of the highest order. And, yet again, you're looking six years too late and proposing some magical solution would have made everything better had it underpants gnomed into existence.

This is like looking at corpses and assorted body parts at the site of an airplane crash, and saying "well if they had their oxygen masks on they might have lived".

PsychedelicDiamond:
Likewise, had there been a more thorough purge in the aftermath of World War 2...the legacy of the fascist death cult that used to rule our country with an iron fist.

On the other hand, this never would have happened,

but I don't see too many people shedding tears over that. Sure as shit don't see any Antifa morons protesting any of the basically half the fucking city of Huntsville, AL, named after Wernher von Braun.

CM156:

Agema:

CM156:
Oh, that sounds like fun! I wonder who I'm a direct descendant of. Probably Lepidus.

Adam and Eve, maybe.

This seems likely.

trunkage:

Agema:

Adam and Eve, maybe.

Adam and Steve

This seems less likely, due to biology. Perhaps if either Adam or Steve is a trans man then I might be possible, yes?

Also I've been meaning to watch HBO's Rome

Is it good?

It's pretty good, but it does have some budget issues. The entire city of Rome often times seems to be a couple of alleys, and there are a lot of battles that get cut-aways because they couldn't pay hundreds of extras for very long and CGI was harder to do and more expensive back in...2004ish?

CM156:
Also I've been meaning to watch HBO's Rome

Is it good?

I'd say yes. Their history is a bit loose, with some characters having importance in the story beyond the point where they'd died in real history, but the characters are fun and the story romps along in a colourful fashion. Pullo and Vorenus are a great double act, and most of the people playing real historical figures are having massive fun with it. It kind of a proto-Game of Thrones in a way

Eacaraxe:

Gethsemani:
They didn't try hard enough, that's a simple fact.

This statement is irreconcilable with this statement [snip for brevity]

Not really, no. Both statements, concerning the political instability and toothlessness of the Weimar Republic and the indifference to the radical politics and violence of the NSDAP, are totally reconcilable with the idea that the Weimar Republic didn't try hard enough to curb the NSDAP. All they needs to reconcile with each other, and which you seemed to have overlooked in your eagerness to find double think and logical fallacies in my argument, is the simple fact that the statement "they didn't try hard enough" is an ought statement (as in: they ought to have tried harder), whereas the remaining explanation posits why the Weimar Republic didn't try harder.

Even if we work on the premise that I wasn't delivering an ought statement and was discussing the actual possibility of Weimar to act more decisively, it still is eminently reconcilable because the Republic choose to not act decisively (for various reasons, including the risk in a power play against a state as strong as Bavaria) and the conservative people in power choose to take a reconciling attitude towards the NSDAP. These are historical facts, but that does not mean that they couldn't have tried harder to curb the NSDAP. That lands us dangerously close to the pointless bickering of alt-history what-if's, but the ability to suppress the NSDAP and end Hitler's political career was always there, up until 1930 or so anyway, but wasn't used for various reasons.

Eacaraxe:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Likewise, had there been a more thorough purge in the aftermath of World War 2...the legacy of the fascist death cult that used to rule our country with an iron fist.

On the other hand, this never would have happened,

but I don't see too many people shedding tears over that. Sure as shit don't see any Antifa morons protesting any of the basically half the fucking city of Huntsville, AL, named after Wernher von Braun.

We're having enough problems convincing people that literal slaving traitors shouldn't be celebrated. Trying to get people behind cancelling a converted evangelical Christian who help develop our ICBMs and put us on the moon is going to be several orders of magnitude more difficult.
Operation Paperclip sold our soul for rockets

Eacaraxe:

but I don't see too many people shedding tears over that. Sure as shit don't see any Antifa morons protesting any of the basically half the fucking city of Huntsville, AL, named after Wernher von Braun.[/spoilered]

According to the Germans I have discussed this with here, My S.O.'s family and friends (including those whose family's histories actually involved Nazi's themselves) is that you are incorrect in thinking that supressing the Nazi propaganda is what lead to Hitler's rise, from what they told me from their own family history and what they were taught in schools is that the government could not enforce reducing it by that point because it was already too widespread. It was too little too late and that the racism nd hatred had already been festering long before getting to that point. They acted too late and without enough enforcement. If they had acted sooner and with stronger enforcement, it would have not have been allowed to spread as badly as it had already. They should have addressed it with both large scale education and enforcement if they had actually wanted to make a difference, but that failed to happen in time.

For a modern comparison, let's take child molesters for example. People in general think very badly of child molesters and law enforcement usually takes this very seriously. We do not allow child molesters to promote child porn in the streets and would be arrested for even possessing such material. Websites that promote such when found are targeted heavily by the feds. We educate the general public on why this is bad and not tolerated in any way. Even in Prison, other criminals are not fond of child molesters and are treated harshly. If they treated Nazism, white nationalism and racism in general the same way as child molesters, we would have a hell of a lot less of it happening I would think and many more people would be less likely to try and promote such. It would effectively stop the spread and acceptance, in the same way that treating child molestation negatively has.

Police officers in the US would never think about openly joining child porn promotion groups on Facebook as they have openly joined racist extremist groups. This is due to how society treats the two very differently. How society treats racism is what has to change in order to change this long term. This can only be done via enforcement and education. That is what changed that changed the mindset of allowing grown men to marry 8 year old girls in the US and why this happens so much less now. If we want to reduce racism, treat it the same as we do selling children to sexual predators. We have far less child brides in the US than in the past because we outlawed it, enforced it and disparaged it making it no longer socially acceptable.

Marik2:
I dont think that post was worth a suspension for saelune.

I think it's just a bunch of years of mod leniency waning off. She's written plenty of stuff in the past which would warrant a suspension before, and got off with a slap on the wrist.

Gethsemani:
Not really, no.

Yes, really. Because all this boils down to two simple statements.

1. The policies effected were insufficient to stop the rise of the Nazi party.

2. The policies that would have been able to stop the rise of the Nazi party, were impossible to enact and enforce from economic, social, political, and military perspectives.

The narrative the Weimar Republic "didn't try hard enough", or "ought to have tried harder", or however you want to frame it, ignore the first point and attempt to misplace culpability for the second. It's the denial of the first with which I take exception, because the issue is that thought process leads to the exact wrong conclusions about the most effective response to contemporary right-wing extremism would be today. Which is because...

Lil devils x:
Snip.

Absent massive, systemic reform of our criminal justice system, what you suggest by comparing it to diddling would be literally the stupidest possible thing our society could possibly do. Surprise, prison gangs and violence are highly racialized, white supremacist prison gangs exist, and they're extensively connected to white nationalist and supremacist organizations outside bars. White prisoners and ex-cons are primo recruitment targets, thanks to racialized prison violence and institutional bias against ex-cons in society. What you suggest would make the problem immeasurably worse, because you'd be putting racists in environments where they could network instead of rehabilitate, and giving more prisoners more reasons to retreat to the safe confines of white supremacist gangs.

Yeah, the feds just nailed the AB's ass to the wall. They also got nailed to the wall not for the stupid racial shit, but for being an organized crime syndicate. It's a case example of our criminal justice system actually working for a change. And there are over a hundred other white supremacist prison gangs out there with thousands of members ready to take the AB's crown, should this bust take the gang down once and for all.

Even sparing that, targeting people on the basis of political belief only serves to further radicalize, and drive extremists further underground where they're harder to count, harder to track, more likely to recruit, more likely to engage in political violence, and whose plots are harder to investigate and prosecute in a court of law. Least of all without blowback. We tried that shit in the '90s, and it caused OKC. I'd prefer dealing with the situation in a way that doesn't have a track record of leading to vans full of ANFO, thanks.

Eacaraxe:

Absent massive, systemic reform of our criminal justice system, what you suggest by comparing it to diddling would be literally the stupidest possible thing our society could possibly do. Surprise, prison gangs and violence are highly racialized, white supremacist prison gangs exist, and they're extensively connected to white nationalist and supremacist organizations outside bars. White prisoners and ex-cons are primo recruitment targets, thanks to racialized prison violence and institutional bias against ex-cons in society. What you suggest would make the problem immeasurably worse, because you'd be putting racists in environments where they could network instead of rehabilitate, and giving more prisoners more reasons to retreat to the safe confines of white supremacist gangs.

Yeah, the feds just nailed the AB's ass to the wall. They also got nailed to the wall not for the stupid racial shit, but for being an organized crime syndicate. It's a case example of our criminal justice system actually working for a change. And there are over a hundred other white supremacist prison gangs out there with thousands of members ready to take the AB's crown, should this bust take the gang down once and for all.

Even sparing that, targeting people on the basis of political belief only serves to further radicalize, and drive extremists further underground where they're harder to count, harder to track, more likely to recruit, more likely to engage in political violence, and whose plots are harder to investigate and prosecute in a court of law. Least of all without blowback. We tried that shit in the '90s, and it caused OKC. I'd prefer dealing with the situation in a way that doesn't have a track record of leading to vans full of ANFO, thanks.

You are acting like systemic reform isn't already needed. The US prison system as already failed and Systemic reform has been called on by most of the presidential and congressional candidates as it is. There is no reason why we should continue to allow prison gangs to exist or allow predators access to prey within the prison system itself, as this is a core part of the problem preventing rehabilitation to even exist in the US system. Much change is already needed and has shown that other systems work much better and we should begin shifting to those systems immediately rather than just allow a failed system to get worse.

Yes, there are countries that have effectively banned hate speech and it has proven to reduce the amount of hate crimes and amount pf recruitment taking place overall. This has been proven to be an effective tool and does not lead to the hypothetical scenario of increased activity you laid out here. They never adequately bothered to address racism in the 90's, to suggest such is ignoring the facts. Never in our history, has the US adequately addressed racism. Doing very little as suggested in the 90's is not much better than doing nothing at all. They actually have to do something this time, with actual enforcement, not give lip service. That has never actually been done here.

Part of the problem here is you consider white nationalism to be a "political belief" rather than "incitement of violence and criminal behavior" that classification is part of the problem. At one time child molestation was legal and widespread with child brides. Once they changed it from being considered a "political and religious issue" to " abusive and criminal behavior" that changed. The same needs to happen here. Racism has no place on a political platform and should not be considered a political issue at all, it should be considered an abusive and criminal issue, thus solving the problem long term. Just as we had people fight being able to buy and sell child brides, to defend their sexual abuse you expect them to fight to remain racially abusive. That does not mean we should allow either the sex or race abuse to continue, no we change it and keep it changed long term. You somehow think racial abuse is some how harder to change than sexual abuse. It isn't. Sex abuse is actually far more difficult to change and we were able to reduce it. We can do this too.

You act as if everyone is going to start blowing everything up if they are forced to stop being racists. If it really is that bad, you would think you would see the urgency to have this stopped ASAP before it gets worse rather than allow it to continue over and over and over again.

AND BTW McVeigh was a militant worried they "were coming fer our gunz" all hyped up on right wing propaganda that caused that, not the restriction of it.. They were a direct result of the harms of allowing propaganda, not an example of restricting the propaganda being bad. You can thank the NRA for bringing us OKC, their propaganda is a huge part of the problem fueling not just gun violence, but violence because they are worried about people taking their guns. Waco was handled badly, but not because they were enforcing illegal firearms laws. They should have arrested the men in town when they had 6 different people reporting they had opportunities to do so. It is all about how they go about doing things, not just say "oh well it will be too much trouble to do it right".

Lil devils x:
You are acting like systemic reform isn't already needed. The US prison system as already failed and Systemic reform has been called on by most of the presidential and congressional candidates as it is. There is no reason why we should continue to allow prison gangs to exist or allow predators access to prey within the prison system itself, as this is a core part of the problem preventing rehabilitation to even exist in the US system. Much change is already needed and has shown that other systems work much better and we should begin shifting to those systems immediately rather than just allow a failed system to get worse.

You acknowledge this, yet you insist on putting the cart before the horse anyways...

Yes, there are countries that have effectively banned hate speech and it has proven to reduce the amount of hate crimes and amount pf recruitment taking place overall. This has been proven to be an effective tool and does not lead to the hypothetical scenario of increased activity you laid out here.

Whatever you say. Let me spend thirty seconds on Google...

Yup, totally not a problem.

Not at all.

Right-wing extremism isn't on the rise in Europe, with all those meaty hate speech laws That Are Totally Working, at all.

Crypto-fascist parties don't hold seats in the European Parliament, and Bundestag, at all. Certainly not in France would they be a major contender in national politics. Austria, nothing to see here. Oh, let's not forget our favorite debtor of all Europe, Greece; definitely nothing there.

Yup, hate speech laws work so well at curbing right-wing extremism, don't they?

Part of the problem here is you consider white nationalism to be a "political belief" rather than "incitement of violence and criminal behavior" that classification is part of the problem.

That's because it is a political belief. Just because you find the ideology repulsive doesn't mean it isn't a political belief. Perhaps you should start taking this seriously?

If it really is that bad, you would think you would see the urgency to have this stopped ASAP before it gets worse...

Stop being myopic and partisan. My position is censorship and oppression is going to cause violent blowback, as it has repeatedly in the past and will continue to. Ergo, my prescriptive relief is to allow the idiots to peacefully assemble, hold politicians and law enforcement accountable for preserving the peace and interdicting violence as is their fucking job (like they didn't in Charlottesville), vociferously peaceably counter-protest and denounce black bloc bullshit, and get out the fucking vote.

AND BTW McVeigh was a militant worried they "were coming fer our gunz" all hyped up on right wing propaganda that caused that, not the restriction of it.. They were a direct result of the harms of allowing propaganda, not an example of restricting the propaganda being bad. You can thank the NRA for bringing us OKC, their propaganda is a huge part of the problem fueling not just gun violence, but violence because they are worried about people taking their guns.

No, McVeigh was a full-on Turner Diaries-worshiping lunatic. Gun rights was but one plank of a whole platform of crazy radicalized bullshit, and OKC was directly modeled after The Organization's bombing of the FBI headquarters to kickstart La Resistance. The whole thing was meticulously planned, beginning to end, right down to target selection, method, even the date, as a targeted message and call to action.

It was done in retaliation for Ruby Ridge and Waco. Ruby Ridge being the result of a botched attempt by the ATF to flip Randy Weaver, and Waco being the result of botched opsec by ATF to serve a search warrant that culminated in a botched assault by the FBI because Janet Reno was afraid of political blowback rather than simply wait the Branch Davidians out. Gun rights was just the tip of that goddamned iceberg.

That's why you don't censor or oppress shit. It makes you too mush-minded to add two and fucking two when "the opposition" is up to something, what they're really after, and how to stop it. See, I read Turner Diaries after OKC, because I wanted to understand what the fuck happened; I also had to re-read excerpts of it in undergrad because I was taking a grad-level class on the psychology and methodology of terrorism.

The "problem" with this is there are a not-insignificant number of brain-dead idiots out there who, like right-wingers of yesteryear with the Communist Manifesto, think that reading Turner Diaries, or the mere presence of Turner Diaries on bookshelves, somehow magically turns people into Nazis. Or, even having a base level of insight into the psychology and methods of right-wing extremists, means one must by definition be a Nazi. I don't play ball with that bullshit, because I'm unwilling to willfully suspend my own intellect and education to satisfy the atavistic urges of modern-day Robespierre wannabes dead-set on an escalating cycle of violence that never has in the entirety of human history, and never will, break the way they think.

Eacaraxe:

You show examples of lack of enforcement leading to increased activity when that is only proving the point that more enforcement in necessary. This proves you cannot even give them an inch or it becomes ineffective.

Nazism is no more a political position than Isis and deserves no more than Isis is given. If they are not confiscating their bank accounts, outlawing their propaganda, taking down their websites and treating them like the terrorists they are, they are not treating them the same as they do Isis and they should be as they are even worse than Isis. They should be barred from holding any office, just as they see child molesters unfit for office.

The problem is treating them as a legitimate political position when they really are just terrorists at the core. Why should they be treated any different than Isis? white supremacist have carried out more attacks on US soil than all other groups combined and are a bigger threat. Treat them the same way and you remove their power. To promote, support, or fund Isis in any way will get you arrested in the US already. Treating white nationalists the same would change how this is viewed long term.

If this is not an effective way why are people now criminally and socially stigmatized for having sex with children when not that long ago it was a social norm? It wasn't all that long ago that if you were not married by the age of 16 you were already an 'old maid' and considered undesirable. This was considered their god given right by Christians in the US and very much a religious and political issue protected by the freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution. How did they go about changing that eh? Oh yea they outlawed it and strictly enforced it because it is the most effective tool to do so. Use the right tool for the job for the best results.

Promoting, sharing and funding white nationalism should be treated no different than promoting, sharing and funding child porn.

EDIT: In addition, what could possibly be partisan about it? Threatening to come into your home and take you and your sleeping children and strip them of their citizenship and ship them off to a country you have never been before confiscating your property, life and everything you have known is a terroristic threat. Threating to come into your work and arrest you, kidnap you and strip you of your citizenship and ship you off to a nation you have never been before is a terroristic threat. Threatening to sterilize you and your family is a terroristic threat. If you resist any of this or defend yourself you will be killed. This should never be up for debate as a partisan issue. It is abusive and criminal and deserves to be treated as such. There is no part of being a white nationalist, white supremist or racist that should be considered a legitimate political stance or treated as such. By even being one, you are engaging in a terroristic threat of others due to their actual platform. There is no such thing as a " peaceful Nazi protest" because their very platform is an incitement of violence against others. Trying to remove rights and citizenship from other citizens is an incitement of violence in itself.

Eacaraxe:

On the other hand, this never would have happened,

but I don't see too many people shedding tears over that. Sure as shit don't see any Antifa morons protesting any of the basically half the fucking city of Huntsville, AL, named after Wernher von Braun.

So what? If anything it's a mark of shame for the United States that one of their greatest accomplishments wasn't possible without the help of criminals. I'd rather have had Braun in prison or underground than Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here