Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

A good attitude to have. So long as you're safely in the majority.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

...and you're using your Freedom of Speech to implant a government that will deny them their Freedom of Speech.

Put another way: "Freedom is Slavery"

...and you're using your Freedom of Speech to implant a government that will deny them their Freedom of Speech.

Put another way: "Freedom is Slavery"

Admittedly, yes, up to a point. But I see it as slavery to reason. Still, like denying freedom of actions to violent criminals, I think it's a lesser evil than allowing them to use Freedom of Speech in order to subvert just about every other basic right, some of which are much more important than Freedom of Speech (like Right to Life, for exemple)

A good attitude to have. So long as you're safely in the majority

Yeah, well of course if the majority became fascist I would have to switch to more dire means of denial of rights, like denying their right to live with high explosives. See, if you allow them the right to assemble publicly and enter the democratical arena, how can you then conscentiously (sp?) deny them the right to enact their policies once they get elected? Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

Kovnik Obama wrote:Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

In this day and age, it would be incredibly unlikely, although not impossible if somewhere had the troubles that say Greece does currently. I'm not that up on German history, but I think the fall of the Weimar Republic and economical troubles of Germany in the 30s led to the election of Hitler. Here in Britain we have the BNP, they have 4,200 members, out of 65 million people. And they are quite moderate on the far right scale. These people are no threat to anyone and will never see power.

If it ever happened, then no, they would not be a just government (quite the opposite), but they would, unfortunately, be a legitimate one.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, well of course if the majority became fascist I would have to switch to more dire means of denial of rights, like denying their right to live with high explosives. See, if you allow them the right to assemble publicly and enter the democratical arena, how can you then conscentiously (sp?) deny them the right to enact their policies once they get elected?

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Now is anyone going to argue that a democratically elected fascist government is a just government? Because THAT will make me go ballistic...

"Just" government? No, I wouldn't say such a government is "just" because that's a value judgment. But I would say it's legitimate. If not the people, who decides whether a government is legitimate?

I guess there are subtleties on the term 'legitimate', in my opinion a legitimate goverment isn't just one elected by proper means. Democracy doesn't, or shouldn't imply the means of becoming a dictatorship, it should have every possible stop-gap measures in place to avoid it, including the populace rising against it's elected officials.

And by fascist government I don't just refer to a gov that has the swatiska on it's flag, I mean full-on paramilitary pogroms, institution promoting racial violence, hatred and an ultra-violent culture (''war is to man what giving birth is to women'' and all that horrible crap), expansionnism, propaganda, full scale paranoia and denunciation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If not the people, who decides whether a government is legitimate?

Reasonnable people, Directors of Elections, Supreme Court...

Hyd wrote:Hate speech is illegal around here. Last I checked, France was not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, we're pretty itchy about our freedom of speech too. But hey, that places us on the proverbial slippery slope and we're firmly on our way to it, right ? Well, in fact, it's been the case since 1881, and still no would-be totalitarian government in sight...

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

I guess it's obvious I'm a dirty elitist. but I don't trust people any further than I can throw them. And I'm a short skinny dude, so I can't throw the average fat bastard very far.

So I'd rather not take the risk of letting elections (which, designed as they are right now, allow the legal overthrowing of democracy) decides which races can and can't live.

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You are talking about one fascist government put in place by another fascist government after a conquest. Not exactly something that can be linked back to free speech.

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are? So you denounce hate speech, great, I do too. Unless of course its a Polack joke, or a Newfie joke, those are hysterical. Oh wait, maybe not to some people. So if I call someone a monster because the told a particularly offensive Polish joke, and you don't agree, are you a monster too? If you and I agree along 99% of EVERYTHING, but that 1% disagreement is contentious and heated, is one of us a monster? Who then? That is the slippery slope of that argument IMHO


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

You can't.

Which is why you campaign against people who want to enact policies you find abhorrent. And you vote.

I guess it's obvious I'm a dirty elitist. but I don't trust people any further than I can throw them. And I'm a short skinny dude, so I can't throw the average fat bastard very far.

So I'd rather not take the risk of letting elections (which, designed as they are right now, allow the legal overthrowing of democracy) decides which races can and can't live.

Splitting hairs on this one, but the Vichy Government from 1940 to 1945 was just a bit, very slightly fascist in France, almost to the point of being NSDAP fascist. Currently that is indeed not the case, but still it has not been since 1881, though that may be where it started

You are talking about one fascist government put in place by another fascist government after a conquest. Not exactly something that can be linked back to free speech.

Not linking it to free speech, linking it to a statement that forgot 5 years worth of the 20th century

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are?

Again, the reasonnable people.

So if I call someone a monster because the told a particularly offensive Polish joke, and you don't agree, are you a monster too?

If its a joke, then no. Hate speech isn't 'Speech that hurts x or y 's feelings', it's speech which advocate violence toward a legally protected group, and strong advocacy at that, too.

That is the slippery slope of that argument

All legal arguments have a slippery slope side to them. They can all be abused in the right context. It's why you see 'reasonnable' added on next to just about every article. It's a test, either a subjective one (reasonnability in the eyes of the judge), or an objective one (reasonnability by tests). That doesn't mean that one should revert to simply accepting hate speech and hateful public demonstrations (like the hanging and burning of black baby dolls at KKK fairs) because it's sometimes hard(er) to draw the line.

Not linking it to free speech, linking it to a statement that forgot 5 years worth of the 20th century

Well, no one can deny that. But while there's definitly a cross-section of French higher class with heavy fascist elements, at least I think it's safe to say that it's not a inherent characteristic of French politics, just a (really stupid) reactionnary mouvement to the loss of influence by the military and the church (unfortunately, the Catholic Church in France was very much behind Vichy)

The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

@Kovnik, Who decides who the monsters are?

Again, the reasonnable people.

As defined by who? "Reasonable" is a fairly subjective definition and gives plenty of wiggle room. a group of "reasonable" people may decide they don't like something that you do. Does that make you unreasonable?

If its a joke, then no. Hate speech isn't 'Speech that hurts x or y 's feelings', it's speech which advocate violence toward a legally protected group, and strong advocacy at that, too.

Polish jokes, Italian jokes, Chinese jokes, etc. are all indicative of intolerance and ignorance. Intolerance and intolerance are the foundation that racial supremacy are built upon. Not everyone who smokes weed will become a thieving crackhead, but some will (and a small percentage at that, but one out of 100 is still too many).

All legal arguments have a slippery slope side to them. They can all be abused in the right context.

And here is where you agree with me. Your "monster" argument against white power movement is not by itself bad in all parts (using violence to stop violence has a tendency to backfire 100% of the time). Now suppose a group of these reasonable people who opposed the racists, we will say they are from Ontario, decide that they are sick and tired of having everything printed in English and in French. Furthermore, they are sick and tired of black flies. So this group of reasonable people decides to violently oppose and destroy Quebec, just as all reasonable people just destroyed racism.

Some have called me a monster because I eat meat, and enjoy leather shoes. Some have called me a monster because I joined the military and went to war. Some have called me a monster because I worked for the Department of Corrections. Some have called me a monster for my religious beliefs.

Are these people reasonable? Probably. Am I a monster? Don't think so, but who knows. If enough reasonable people tell me I am they may convince me.

Piston Honda wrote:Ah, stormfront.

One of 3 forums where I have an IP ban.

Other 2 are the Raiders Message Board and the Chiefs.

Not the chargers as well Piston?

Could also aim at the Seahawks just for old times.




As to Stormfront, its sadly one of those things I'd just avoid on the net. Way too much stuff about to raise my blood temprature, and the sad truth is there is not much in the way of hell I can do about it, so I just tend to ignore them.

Albatross wrote:
He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

Indeed.

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Kilkrazy wrote:We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Surely if you take the viewpoint of communism that everyone is equal, you're not really allowed to be racist.

Mel, KO advocated violent suppression of racist, facist scumbags, and that it happen via popular action (grassroots as opposed to governmental). I would guess that a person could describe this as leftist because it's in opposition to a facist (right) group, and it's supposed to be action coming from the people rather than the state. It's radical because it's advocacy of violence, obviously enough.

This is actually not all that different from how a lot of people on here have talked about the Westboro Baptists, for one example, but most of us have come to the conclusion that violence is not the proper answer to hateful speech.

Mannahnin wrote:I would guess that a person could describe this as leftist because it's in opposition to a facist (right) group

What does support for the economic system of free markets have to do with fascism?

Facism is authoritarian. Authoritarianism is classically on the Right side of the political spectrum, isn't it?

wiki wrote:In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist have been defined as support or acceptance of social hierarchy.[1][2][3] Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1] whether it arises through traditional social differences[4] or from competition in market economies.[5][6]

The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, and were a reference to where people sat in the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the president's chair were broadly supportive of the institutions of Ancien Régime[7][8][9][10] The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[11] The Right invoked natural law and divine law to explain the normality of social inequalities.[1] Use of the expression le droit (the right) became more prominent in France after the restoration of its monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[12]

I think I've been silent long enough on this one:
Forums like Stormfront allow people who already hold a certain set of beliefs to share them semi publicly with other people like them. That's not so much a bad thing.
I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist. Throughout the course of my life I have become aware that I am in fact highly prejudiced. That doesn't make me walk down the street yelling racial slurs at every person I meet. It makes me aware of my preconceived notions of the people I meet based on their ethnicity given by their name, appearance, and accent or language. I have always held to the belief that racist people (talking white in this instance) will always be racist, in the absence of color they are perfectly willing and able to be prejudiced against other people of the same skin tone. American history has provided us with perfect examples when the influx of the Irish in the early 19th century, Germans in the late 19th century, and Italians in the early 20th century had wide spread racism against other Caucasian groups from the primarily Anglo (and let's be honest Anglo-Irish) majority.
We have created a cultural stigma in the US probably starting in the 70's where supporting your own culture became unpopular if you happened to be white, but supporting other cultures made you sophisticated. I'm sure nearly every American knows that February is Black History Month, I am equally sure that nearly every American does not know that March is Irish History Month (or Irish-American but I despise the concept of hyphenated Americans).
I'm not advocating hate, there's really no place for hate in society. But I would rather have separatists and supremacists of every color out in the open. I also want them to be treated with equal disdain. I want white advocacy groups to find the same acceptance as those for latinos and blacks. I want every culture to receive the same respect and the same scrutiny. I also want to see where my and my children's enemies are in society, and where their advocates are. We certainly won't be attending any Klan meetings, but I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority. Stormfront.org ain't it and is in fact an enemy to everything I believe in, but they are an example of the freedoms American's enjoy. Even the freedom to be a bigot.
Before you decide to label me some sort of white supremacist, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is actually not all that different from how a lot of people on here have talked about the Westboro Baptists, for one example, but most of us have come to the conclusion that violence is not the proper answer to hateful speech.

You may have come to that conclusion, I have not. The last person who espoused his belief in the "one drop" theory to me was politely allowed to finish his discussion and outline his beliefs. I quoted Heinlein right before I rearranged his face for him. Blah blah internet tough guy, blah. I still believe in a society of personal responsibility where I don't have to call the cops to right every wrong, sometimes a right proper beating gets the message across.

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

SHOCK say it ain't so! The American right is similar to the Original right! I am horrified.
/Sarcasm off.
Except for the part where American conservatives have more in common with the Revolutionary Left, being that they are conservatives in a country founded on basic classical liberal principles.

AustonT wrote:I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist.

I think you made a lot of good and reasonable points, but this is the one I would be wary of. There are two reasons why people standing up as proud of their White or Anglo/Nordic or Northern European heritage are viewed differently than people standing up as being proud of their Black, Hispanic, or Native American heritage.

1. Power. Historically in the US the white folks have had the wealth and the power- cultural, legislative, and physical (military and police). The folks standing up as something else are reacting to their own lesser power and embracing their culture despite how it has been viewed or treated as being of lesser value.
2. Hate groups. The KKK and other hate groups have used the language of pride in their own heritage as disingenous cover for their hatred and abuse of others. The KKK claimed to be defending "traditional" morality, religion, and American values as they terrorized and murdered innocent people. They still do it today, though thankfully their actual violence is at least mostly abated.

The latter reason is, I think, why most folks' gut reaction to a white person standing up for his race is looked at as disturbing and suspicious. Because point 1 means there's little or no practical need or call to stand up in defense of white people/culture, and point 2 means even a non-hateful person using the same language that the hatemongers and terrorists do is making himself look like one of them.

AustonT wrote:Throughout the course of my life I have become aware that I am in fact highly prejudiced.

Cherry picking a quote, but doing it to support his statement. EVERYONE is born and raised with prejudice. We get them from our parents, our neighbors, and from personal experience. Regardless of race, and having these prejudices does not make you a racist. By no litmus test. Recognizing that you have prejudice(s?) is an important step to understanding yourself. Knowing where they came from will help you to overcome them.

I personally celebrate both my Polish and Italian heritage. Mostly through food. That's why I'm fat. Back OT tho. Being proud of where I came from, to me anyway, makes it more exciting to see where we are going. Celebrate where you came from, share your culture with those around you, and teach your children to respect other cultures, while maintaining pride in their own. My nieces may have some trouble with that, being Polish, Italian, Puerto Rican, Kentucky Hill Folk.

Having pride is different than advocating separation from, or hate of other races.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

wiki wrote:The original right in France was composed of those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

Sounds familiar. Sounds like American conservatism.

SHOCK say it ain't so! The American right is similar to the Original right! I am horrified.
/Sarcasm off.
Except for the part where American conservatives have more in common with the Revolutionary Left, being that they are conservatives in a country founded on basic classical liberal principles.

Well, there's multiple different parts of American conservatism, of course. Shock! A two-sided axis results in broad groupings!

Generally speaking, American Conservatives do support hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. I don't think Libertarians really fit into the mainstream of American Conservatism, though they or some of their ideas have gotten co-opted a bit in recent years and gotten more airtime.

dæl wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:We're not talking about extreme right or left, we're talking about extreme racism. There are racists all over the political spectrum.

Surely if you take the viewpoint of communism that everyone is equal, you're not really allowed to be racist.

No doubt that is true in theory. In practice, racism is found among left wing voters too.

I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Mannahnin wrote:Generally speaking, American Conservatives do support hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. I don't think Libertarians really fit into the mainstream of American Conservatism, though they or some of their ideas have gotten co-opted a bit in recent years and gotten more airtime.

Then they get promptly ignored when the powerful social conservative lobbyists get their say.

These days, apparently it's controversial to say that social conservatism is in direct conflict with libertarianism

Shock and dismay. Or something.

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.