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.

 sebster wrote:

Now, in order to comfortably say 'we can ban this and only this' I believe that thing you are banning would have really clear outlier to other political beliefs, but fortunately nazism is just that.

My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


While a Nazi may be completely wrong, he does still have the right to his beliefs and expressing them within reason.

Says who? Don't make the mistake of applying your own standards to someone else's country as if those standards were objective, because they aren't. After all, you guys do things, allow things, and disallow things that the rest of us find totally ridiculous, on occasion. The reverse is also true. You've got to understand that the NSDAP almost entirely destroyed Germany, causing the deaths of literally millions of people, including many from both our countries. WWII was a global catastrophe. It's all very well parroting the "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to etc." line (as if you actually believed it...), but that's something that's easy to say having not lived under the horrors of fascism. What do you do when almost everybody decides they want to be a Nazi? Just shrug your shoulders and go 'Ah, well - that's freedom!' and get in line for the gas chamber? Grow up.

This is the Germans' decision and their right, and I fully support them in it. Mind your own fething business.

This is interesting coming from someone who called pro-gun Americans fantasist morons.

Actually, that's not strictly what I said, and it isn't what I think. If you recall, I characterised the ultra right-wing pro-gun lobby on this site as 'fantasist morons'. I stand by what I said. There is a flip-side to that particular coin: I'm not anti-gun. I'm not even anti-gun ownership. If I lived in the States I'd probably own at least one. It's the only place I've been thus far where I've felt the need to be armed, and indeed did arm myself with a knife whilst I was there. That's not a dig, it's just that personal weapons are more of a fact of life there than they are here, and that is very obvious.

Fair enough. There was something in one of your posts that made me think you were grouping all pro-gun people together as an ultra right-wing group, but it seems I misinterpreted your post (especially considering you're not anti-gun). Sorry about that!

I'm not trying to rake you over the coals for that specifically, by the way. You have your right to an opinion on the matter and I'm not going to tell you to "mind your own fething business" because you have your own reasons for disagreeing how people in another country do things.

Aha, but that isn't actually what's happening, is it? He didn't say 'well, in my opinion a nazi should have the same right to express his beliefs as any other person', did he? Who could have a problem with that? No, instead he made a definitive statement. He presented it as a fait accompli. It just reads as more arrogant finger-wagging from another American right-wing fundamentalist. It gets boring after a while, and sometimes you just feel like saying 'just feth off and mind your own business - it's not as if YOU guys have it all figured out!'

Well, do we all really have to post "In my opinion..." in front of all of our posts when we share our opinion? I wouldn't expect that a Dakkaite would be expressing someone else's opinion while making such a post. One doesn't have to be a right-wing fundamentalist to believe that everyone should enjoy the right to free speech and expression, do they?

Yeah, I mean is there really a point in saying the Nazis can't participate in the political process(or even openly sport their iconography) if they already have zero chance of doing anything besides sit in their homes brooding. No Nazi is going to win an election.

The Nazis will realistically never ever gain any political traction in the future, not in Europe or the US anyway.

Forcibly keeping them out really just turns them down to where their only options are to become even more extreme. Possibly resorting to violence, terrorist activities, and other nasty stuff. Allow them to run for office, where the voting populace will never let them win.


Better the Nazis to be a fringe party constantly running candidates with no hope of winning, and to do that for eternity, than for them to be a criminalized element drivin to only being able to communicate their beliefs with spray cans and bombs.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fear is that it could happen, not that it is happening.

And part of being a human being who enjoys rationality and evolves his beliefs according to the world around him is to see something, see that what he predicted did not happen, and look to modify his political beliefs to fit the world as it actually exists.

In this instance we've seen the banning of a particular form of speach (Nazism and Nazi symbols) and we've seen that in the decades following there has been no encroachment of other speach. As such, we must reflect on our original belief that there is a slippery slope, and realise that there is sometimes a slippery slope.

Or, alternatively, we can just carry on as we always did, shouting very loudly that all speach must be protected or else we don't know what they'll ban next.

By setting a precident that it is ok in some circumstances to completely crush a certain belief system you say it can happen in certain circumstances.

Unless, of course, there is a clear identifying factor that makes this speach uniquely different to other political speach. ie this particular form of speach was part and parcel of starting a war that killed tens of millions, including many millions deliberately killed in industrialised death camps. Once you've clearly marked out those unique circumstances as justification, it becomes impossible to slippery slope your way to extending the ban to other speach.

So yes, it is a slippery slope. It may take a long time, but its always there and something to keep in mind.

Except of course, it isn't actually a slippery slope. Simply repeating that doesn't make it true. Real world observation actually matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?

Outlier doesn't mean political minority. It means something that stands well apart from the rest, something that is clearly and identifiably different in some way.

In this case, Nazism is an outlier because it's the political beliefset that led Germany to starting a war that killed tens of millions, and to build industrialised death camps that murdered millions. As such, saying 'we should ban this because of Hitler and WWII and all that' means the only way it can be extended to banning some other speach is if that political beliefset also sparked off a war that killed tens of millions.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
My question would be is if it is such a clear outlier already, what is the point in banning it?

Outlier doesn't mean political minority. It means something that stands well apart from the rest, something that is clearly and identifiably different in some way.

In this case, Nazism is an outlier because it's the political beliefset that led Germany to starting a war that killed tens of millions, and to build industrialised death camps that murdered millions. As such, saying 'we should ban this because of Hitler and WWII and all that' means the only way it can be extended to banning some other speach is if that political beliefset also sparked off a war that killed tens of millions.

Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.

 sebster wrote:
In this instance we've seen the banning of a particular form of speach (Nazism and Nazi symbols) and we've seen that in the decades following there has been no encroachment of other speach. As such, we must reflect on our original belief that there is a slippery slope, and realise that there is sometimes a slippery slope.

Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.


As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.

 Hordini wrote:
Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.

The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.

Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.

One instance of the rule being used to ban depictions in media, and one instance where it wasn't applied to a form of media... doesn't do half of one gak to show the expansion of the rule outside of Nazis. And that's the whole point, unless you can somehow find a way that this law could jump from Nazis to some other group, then the slippery slope doesn't apply.

As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.

You can't just keep saying that. I point out that the slippery slope doesn't automatically apply, and you just respond 'but my ideology says it does, so let's go with that instead'.

 sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Except we kind of have seen the very same laws used to censor games, and it's only a court ruling that "art" is protected speech that keeps them from censoring violence or depictions of Nazis in movies as well. And yes, the UK, Australia, and other countries do all of this too. None of them are in the right here either.

One instance of the rule being used to ban depictions in media, and one instance where it wasn't applied to a form of media... doesn't do half of one gak to show the expansion of the rule outside of Nazis. And that's the whole point, unless you can somehow find a way that this law could jump from Nazis to some other group, then the slippery slope doesn't apply.

The law isn't restricted to depictions of swasticas, which is idiosyncratic enough when applied so indiscriminately, but on vague "advocation of violence", which in true form of "being used to attack something completely different that's unpopular with the ruling parties" is applied to games portraying or involving violence.

As much as I'd love a ban on genuinely advocating dangerous, factually flawed ideologies, there's simply no way this can be enacted in a manner which isn't a constant danger to other things that just happen to be unpopular with those in power.

You can't just keep saying that. I point out that the slippery slope doesn't automatically apply, and you just respond 'but my ideology says it does, so let's go with that instead'.

Actually, that's the first time I've said that here. I'm throwing my voice in with the others on this.


It's not even really a slippery slope, which implies it could possibly be expanded to undesirable levels. It's more giving a loaded gun and license to do as they wish with it to someone you can't trust not to use it frivolously, and which will be inherited by someone completely different every few years.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.

The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.

Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.

That might be part of the point, but I'm pretty sure another part of the point is making sure Nazis cannot regain any sort of legitimate political power. And, in the direct aftermath of WWII, simply making anything to do with the Nazis illegal was probably the best way to achieve that goal. I totally get that. I'm just not sure if in the long run, making the expression of certain ideas and opinions illegal is a good thing to do. Obviously at this point, decriminalizing something like Nazi expression in Germany would be awkward and not really worth the trouble, and I get that too. That doesn't mean I don't still think that people should have the right to express their opinions and ideas, even ones that are abhorrent and idiotic.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing that it's a slippery slope. You seem to be grouping me with the posters who are making that claim.

 Hordini wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Okay, but in this case it's an outlier and also a very small political minority. A very small political minority that stands so far apart from the rest that it has no chance of becoming powerful again even if it wasn't banned.

The point isn't because the Nazis could one day come to power again. It's because, you know, Germany did that stuff, and they don't find it tolerable to the victims or their children to have people carrying on talking about it in public.

Now, whether that's a good reason or not is plenty debateable (I'm not sure myself), but the point is that the 'OMG slippery slope what'll they ban next?' argument just doesn't work.

That might be part of the point, but I'm pretty sure another part of the point is making sure Nazis cannot regain any sort of legitimate political power. And, in the direct aftermath of WWII, simply making anything to do with the Nazis illegal was probably the best way to achieve that goal. I totally get that. I'm just not sure if in the long run, making the expression of certain ideas and opinions illegal is a good thing to do. Obviously at this point, decriminalizing something like Nazi expression in Germany would be awkward and not really worth the trouble, and I get that too. That doesn't mean I don't still think that people should have the right to express their opinions and ideas, even ones that are abhorrent and idiotic.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not arguing that it's a slippery slope. You seem to be grouping me with the posters who are making that claim.

As far as my knowledge about German law goes, there is no specific "Anti-Nazi" law that is actually called so. We have laws against unconstitutionial political parties, as in, parties which try to change the German political system in such radical ways that it ignores or changes or basic constitution. Which Nazis are more or less openly trying to do. I'm sure Americans can relate that it's important to protect the constitution of a country, right?

And these laws are at least partially in place because the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP to power was possible due to THEM playing the democratic and political system back in ~1930-1939, where no kind of protective laws kept them from gaining power.