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.

 posermcbogus wrote:
God almighty this thread is heading for lock hell so fast it's unreal.

Snip.

Or atleast for a lot of warnings in a short time span.


Anyways:
Attempting to repress and isolate it as an ideology is contraproductive i think though.
The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition, has always been and will always be. (because as many other forget it's the OG totalitarianism in its extentsion of transformation of private and public live, governance and system.)

To the contrary, i think exclusion and repression is part of the reason in europe as to why parties that have ardent f.e Völkische ideologies within them is part of the course of a cycle of repression and lackluster democratisation. In germany there is still the myth going around that the people voted wrong during the Weimar republic, especially in the politcal sphere and that therefore should be a reason against direct democratic rights, despite it being the politcal party of the old elite that brought the Nazis into power.

Further, like most mass movements they rely upon hatred as the core tenant of motivation and unification, isolating them is insofar contraproductive when the political atmossphere is highly polarised as it leads to wrong accusations and forces normal wings of a democratic parliament outside into these ideologies, afterall they are already regarded as x. Further it loves to highjack authoritharian systems like the other 20th century one.

Japan is a parade exemple for that considering that the current and mostly ruling party is in direct line with the monarcho-fascist imperialist personell, with a bluntly formulated heavily lackluster democratic tradition, and a neighbourhood for which it is partially responsible that is very hostile. And who could blame it?
A lot of people also forget that collective memories can be extremely long lived, personel studies of mine have brought forth that there are cases of over 150 year old incidents being brought up against actions by individuals and governments locally, repeatadly and visciously.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I think there is an issue in the forum, and I appreciate the discussion about consistent behaviours, as opposed to direct statements. It isn't a huge problem, there aren't that many posters, but there are posters that absolutely are far-right if not fascists in full, and if they are not they are just here to disrupt.

Pivoting back to something a previous poster said though about direct rule violations... Seriously, what does a poster like Goldenhorn for example actually bring to the forum as a whole? Why does someone with such evident behaviours of trolling (and that is putting it lightly) get so much leeway to disrupt?

For a start, pay attention - it's GoldenHorde

I opened what is currently the most popular thread in 40k general discussion,: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801877.page

What have you done bar namecalling? What have you done except call people nazis? What have you done bar insult and libel? How is your conduct anything but abusive?

Can you explain why you have the leeway to call people fascist and far right based on nothing but a desperate and pathetic desire to virtue signal?

I mean, you called me a nazis this that, how about you back it up with substance instead of snot?

You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition

Is people's existence up to vote? Should gays be stoned? Should jews be gassed? Should women be forced to breed for the vaterland? Vote now, if the SA doesn't beat you up before you get to the voting booth that is.

Cronch wrote:

The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition

Is people's existence up to vote? Should gays be stoned? Should jews be gassed? Should women be forced to breed for the vaterland? Vote now, if the SA doesn't beat you up before you get to the voting booth that is.

Whataboutism

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Frankly, your avatar says everything one needs to know about the level of conversation you bring to this site...which is to say "basically none".


For those not recognizing it, that's the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Rightwingers have been going nuts of late using him as some kind of posterchild for "leftist incompetence".

Cronch wrote:

The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition

Is people's existence up to vote? Should gays be stoned? Should jews be gassed? Should women be forced to breed for the vaterland? Vote now, if the SA doesn't beat you up before you get to the voting booth that is.

I fail to see what that has to do with what i have stated`?
an ardent democratic tradition entails more than yes and no votes, it implies a culture of decision making, legitimacy, and even legality.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Frankly, your avatar says everything one needs to know about the level of conversation you bring to this site...which is to say "basically none".


For those not recognizing it, that's the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Rightwingers have been going nuts of late using him as some kind of posterchild for "leftist incompetence".

Nice whataboutism,
In reality you know none of these people can back up their fascist/nazi allegations.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Its nice to be polite when engaging in discourse online (or in person) because its part of your basic manners and common decent behaviour. A basic standard that most should aim to uphold in most situations. Especially online where your words remain in the long term. Even if you're being insulted, if you are polite that has an impact on how others read your posts and build their impression of your character and who you are.

Sure, at the end of the day giving them fire for their ammunition via taking a written approach that reminds me of Kindergarteners having a temper tantrum over the nice red ball and who's playing with it is .... not productive or conductive.

Edit: Overread has put that far better than i could.

 Overread wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Its nice to be polite when engaging in discourse online (or in person) because its part of your basic manners and common decent behaviour. A basic standard that most should aim to uphold in most situations. Especially online where your words remain in the long term. Even if you're being insulted, if you are polite that has an impact on how others read your posts and build their impression of your character and who you are.

I have the manners to take them at their allegation.
It is time for them to back up their words or retract.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Frankly, your avatar says everything one needs to know about the level of conversation you bring to this site...which is to say "basically none".


For those not recognizing it, that's the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Rightwingers have been going nuts of late using him as some kind of posterchild for "leftist incompetence".

That's a dishonest take, I could drag this thread further political and off topic by listing out why, but instead I'll just request that for once you don't needlessly politicize and raise the temperature of the thread.

"For those not recognizing it, that's the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial" That's a non political statement if you just could have left it there.

Hard to find it when the mods have had to remove so many of your posts. How many warnings have you been given now considering you've been one of the main agitators in the many threads that have been derailed by fascist/nazi apologism Golden? How many posts of yours have been deleted because they contained many rules violations?

Edit: not worth the effort, this thread sucks.

Snip - ingtær.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Cronch wrote:

The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition

Is people's existence up to vote? Should gays be stoned? Should jews be gassed? Should women be forced to breed for the vaterland? Vote now, if the SA doesn't beat you up before you get to the voting booth that is.

I fail to see what that has to do with what i have stated`?
an ardent democratic tradition entails more than yes and no votes, it implies a culture of decision making, legitimacy, and even legality.

Which can be easily taken over step by step by bad faith actors. Democracy isn't magically resistant to radicalization. Even the actual nazis realized that very few people will but into brutal authoritarian rule they wanted, so they "moderated" their demands and then as they took over political positions of power, they escalated. The threat of "discussing" anything with them is that they aren't interested in democracy except as means to removing it.

Cronch wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Cronch wrote:

The best protection against the big 2 totalitarian ideologies is an ardent democratic tradition

Is people's existence up to vote? Should gays be stoned? Should jews be gassed? Should women be forced to breed for the vaterland? Vote now, if the SA doesn't beat you up before you get to the voting booth that is.

I fail to see what that has to do with what i have stated`?
an ardent democratic tradition entails more than yes and no votes, it implies a culture of decision making, legitimacy, and even legality.

Which can be easily taken over step by step by bad faith actors. Democracy isn't magically resistant to radicalization. Even the actual nazis realized that very few people will but into brutal authoritarian rule they wanted, so they "moderated" their demands and then as they took over political positions of power, they escalated. The threat of "discussing" anything with them is that they aren't interested in democracy except as means to removing it.

And in which countries did they actually manage to do that?
Italy? Authoritharian government typus.
Germany? Authoritharian government typus, especially the late weimar Republic.
Romania? -""-
Hungary-""-
Yugoslavia-""-

What have they in common, no traditions more or less at the time and even comparably today with democracy.
Banning them will not facilitate anything, beyond forcing them underground and becoming smart.

For a historical sidenote, Mussolini took over Italy because Victor Emmanuel, the king of Italy, thought he could use Mussolini to restore order and prevent a civil war. Mussolini's fascists were still a minority in the early years with nationalist, liberal, and two members of a Catholic-democratic party supporting the fascists in a coalition. When the 1924 elections rolled around, there were irregularities all over the place, and a socialist, Giacomo Matteotti, proposed a recount. Mussolini then had him assassinated because he genuinely believed that a few people would be fully capable of toppling his government and party. Less than a year later Mussolini was essentially a dictator, with only the king able to remove him from power.
Because the nationalists, liberals, and others facilitated and co-operated with Mussolini's fascists, Italy became an authoritarian semi-dictatorship. That's what discussion gets you, by legitimising the views and opinions of fascists and nazis, they come into the wider political sphere and then shatter any opposition to them.

I probably come across far more left leaning then right, but the 2 extremes are both bad, equally.

The left cooks up insane plans to rectify problems that are either impractical and blind to resources and the way people and society actually function.

But the right pretends the problems don't even exist.


Case in point, fascism is a problem and supremacists do exist and the paradox of tolerance does say we have a right to protect ourselves from their destructive ideologies.

But blanket calling everyone who disagrees with you or does anything wrong on any level at any point in thier life a nazi/sexist/whatever. "Canceling" them. And creating a system in which people who made mistakes 10 years ago can today find their ability to live their life completely taken away. The loss of jobs and friends and opportunities with no limitations, no recuperation, no way back is just as destructive to society. It's a witch hunt.

While the right is whatabouting and changing the subject and pretending the problem doesn't need addressing the left is creating a whole new problem in their crusade to persecute.


Both sides need to get their gak together. If the lefts solutions don't work then the right should bring some solutions to the table. And the left should be working with them to get something that actually benefits society instead of being knee jerk reactions with no thought towards end result or impact.


In terms of this forum, it's not supporting the right by not allowing the left to run rampant. They are attempting to be the reasonable middle ground between 2 groups of morons, neither of which are helping anyone in the long run.

Ok, so you agree that in modern germany, whose "strong" democracy is barely 70 years old and half of the country was a communist dictatorship until 30 years ago, its probably not a good idea to let them freely advertise? What's the cut off point?

You can't stop someone from being a nazi, but making it a social suicide to announce yourself as one ensures that the nazis reach is limited to well, themselves and other people who already have nazi-like beliefs. Which is the desired effect. If you allow nazis to debate their views publically, you just announced their views are as valid an option as any other.

If someone comes up to you and says "let's cut your hand off", will you start debating the merits of having your hand cut? Cause remember, the goal of alt-right movements isn't to make taxes low or high, it's physical elimination of certain groups from the society, be it via expulsion, removal of rights or actual elimination of your country's citizens.

 Gert wrote:
For a historical sidenote, Mussolini took over Italy because Victor Emmanuel, the king of Italy, thought he could use Mussolini to restore order and prevent a civil war. Mussolini's fascists were still a minority in the early years with nationalist, liberal, and two members of a Catholic-democratic party supporting the fascists in a coalition. When the 1924 elections rolled around, there were irregularities all over the place, and a socialist, Giacomo Matteotti, proposed a recount. Mussolini then had him assassinated because he genuinely believed that a few people would be fully capable of toppling his government and party. Less than a year later Mussolini was essentially a dictator, with only the king able to remove him from power.
Because the nationalists, liberals, and others facilitated and co-operated with Mussolini's fascists, Italy became an authoritarian semi-dictatorship. That's what discussion gets you, by legitimising the views and opinions of fascists and nazis, they come into the wider political sphere and then shatter any opposition to them.

First and foremost mussolini was legitimised by the king, which still had far more authorithy and legitimacy than most political parties in italy left after the desaterous disarmament efforts.
Also that stunt nearly cost him his position and i rekon he would've gotten removed if the king had the balls, alas like most authoritharian systems relying upon a single person at the head, that person easily is manipulated and freightened.

Cronch wrote:
Ok, so you agree that in modern germany, whose "strong" democracy is barely 70 years old and half of the country was a communist dictatorship until 30 years ago, its probably not a good idea to let them freely advertise? What's the cut off point?

You can't stop someone from being a nazi, but making it a social suicide to announce yourself as one ensures that the nazis reach is limited to well, themselves and other people who already have nazi-like beliefs. Which is the desired effect. If you allow nazis to debate their views publically, you just announced their views are as valid an option as any other.

Is it good to put people into an echo chamber where they can foster their beliefs and bring in more people slowly? Indoctrinate their kids?

What your talking about is basically Flat Earthers and Scientologists.

You don't fix ignorance with isolation. You fix it with education.

And make no mistake, Nazi's are ignorant.

Cronch wrote:
Ok, so you agree that in modern germany, whose "strong" democracy is barely 70 years old and half of the country was a communist dictatorship until 30 years ago, its probably not a good idea to let them freely advertise? What's the cut off point?

You can't stop someone from being a nazi, but making it a social suicide to announce yourself as one ensures that the nazis reach is limited to well, themselves and other people who already have nazi-like beliefs. Which is the desired effect. If you allow nazis to debate their views publically, you just announced their views are as valid an option as any other.

If you make it to be social suicide you burn the bridges people need to cross out of the scene.
also only a 3rd realistically, the most important bits of germany were not a dictatorship. (and yes southern-germany was always more important than Berlin and saxony.)

And just because someone can and has broadcasted their oppinion doesn't make it valid or more accurately legitimate, cue flat earthers, their views are easily disprovable and should be done so by everyone.
And if they want to use their normal strategies of violence, well, there's the police force and the monopoly of power no?

And just because someone can and has broadcasted their oppinion doesn't make it valid

It's valid enough that people follow alt-right/fascist/neonazi ideologies.

And flat-earthers, stupid as their beliefs may be, are not quite on the same level as "let's remove all the disabled people, they're parasites on our nation".

And if they want to use their normal strategies of violence, well, there's the police force and the monopoly of power no?

https://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-scandal-hits-german-elite-military-unit/a-51490089
Would be a pity if someone took over your force structures from within. (no, i'm not saying german bundeswehr is on the brink of donning the sigrune)

If you allow neo-nazis to openly proclaim their beliefs, all you do is legitimize them. After all, if they're allowed to publicly voice them, they must not be that bad. Inciting to crime is illegal, so they'd be stopped if it was THAT bad.

 Lance845 wrote:

Is it good to put people into an echo chamber where they can foster their beliefs and bring in more people slowly? Indoctrinate their kids?

What your talking about is basically Flat Earthers and Scientologists.

You don't fix ignorance with isolation. You fix it with education.

And make no mistake, Nazi's are ignorant.

Removing fascists and nazis from public discourse doesn't create an echo chamber though, it just removes fascists and nazis from being allowed to spread their ideology. Just because the maniacs have been told "No" doesn't mean all the other parties are going to start magically working together.

Not Online!!! wrote:

First and foremost mussolini was legitimised by the king, which still had far more authorithy and legitimacy than most political parties in italy left after the desaterous disarmament efforts.
Also that stunt nearly cost him his position and i rekon he would've gotten removed if the king had the balls, alas like most authoritharian systems relying upon a single person at the head, that person easily is manipulated and freightened.

Yes, I did say that Victor Emmanuel put Mussolini in power but that didn't automatically mean that every single person had to cooperate with the fascists. The king and the establishment thought they could control Mussolini and use him, instead Mussolini used the system they gave him to essentially remove the people that put him into power from being a threat to the fascists.
The king had a large degree of power but not enough that he could entirely subvert parliament and the will of the people. Those that helped Mussolini into power by legitimising his party and cooperating with them didn't matter when a year into his takeover, Mussolini flat out abolished parliament and outlawed all other parties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And just because someone can and has broadcasted their oppinion doesn't make it valid or more accurately legitimate, cue flat earthers, their views are easily disprovable and should be done so by everyone.
And if they want to use their normal strategies of violence, well, there's the police force and the monopoly of power no?

Flat Earthers don't want to remove the democratic system or enact genocide though do they? There's no Flat Earther Party in the UK parliamentary system, there are fascists.
And as for the police/armed forces, they have always been hotbeds for conservative views and are often the first port of call for fascists and neo-nazis looking to garner support. The British Army got in some hot water recently when one of its barracks hosted a well-known Islamaphobe fascist and all the recruits had pictures with them.

Cronch wrote:

And just because someone can and has broadcasted their oppinion doesn't make it valid

It's valid enough that people follow alt-right/fascist/neonazi ideologies.

And flat-earthers, stupid as their beliefs may be, are not quite on the same level as "let's remove all the disabled people, they're parasites on our nation".

And if they want to use their normal strategies of violence, well, there's the police force and the monopoly of power no?

https://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-scandal-hits-german-elite-military-unit/a-51490089
Would be a pity if someone took over your force structures from within. (no, i'm not saying german bundeswehr is on the brink of donning the sigrune)

If you allow neo-nazis to openly proclaim their beliefs, all you do is legitimize them. After all, if they're allowed to publicly voice them, they must not be that bad. Inciting to crime is illegal, so they'd be stopped if it was THAT bad.

If you persecute nazis who are doing nothing bar vomit out their vile ideology, guess what happens, they get to play victim and you increase the chances people will listen to them, like exactly what happened in Wiemar, if you directly challenge them on their views, engage them in debate and show them to be utter utter idiots guess what happens, you de legitimise them, exactly what happened in the UK when the BNP lost all support overnight after being on question time and people saw what they really were, prior to that they had been barred from being on TV, were able to pretend to care about key issues and even won some local seats.

So the liberal answer was the correct one in this case, where as the socialist censorship one is the one that allowed them to gain a small amount of support.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Its nice to be polite when engaging in discourse online (or in person) because its part of your basic manners and common decent behaviour. A basic standard that most should aim to uphold in most situations. Especially online where your words remain in the long term. Even if you're being insulted, if you are polite that has an impact on how others read your posts and build their impression of your character and who you are.

I have the manners to take them at their allegation.
It is time for them to back up their words or retract.

At a curiosity, what kind of material specifically are you looking for as proof when someone is trying to back up their statements? I ask only to get an understanding for future reference.

Cronch wrote:

And just because someone can and has broadcasted their oppinion doesn't make it valid

It's valid enough that people follow alt-right/fascist/neonazi ideologies.

And flat-earthers, stupid as their beliefs may be, are not quite on the same level as "let's remove all the disabled people, they're parasites on our nation".

And if they want to use their normal strategies of violence, well, there's the police force and the monopoly of power no?

https://www.dw.com/en/neo-nazi-scandal-hits-german-elite-military-unit/a-51490089
Would be a pity if someone took over your force structures from within. (no, i'm not saying german bundeswehr is on the brink of donning the sigrune)

If you allow neo-nazis to openly proclaim their beliefs, all you do is legitimize them. After all, if they're allowed to publicly voice them, they must not be that bad. Inciting to crime is illegal, so they'd be stopped if it was THAT bad.

bringing up a failed system (democracies without conscription lead to an institution which is easily infiltrateable) proves not much tbh. And yes laws against incitement to crimes prevent the worst or should if handled propperly.

 SkavenLord wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You could've made your point more polite. On many an occaision GoldenHorde.

Yeah I'm going to be polite to someone who views me as a complete write off.

Its nice to be polite when engaging in discourse online (or in person) because its part of your basic manners and common decent behaviour. A basic standard that most should aim to uphold in most situations. Especially online where your words remain in the long term. Even if you're being insulted, if you are polite that has an impact on how others read your posts and build their impression of your character and who you are.

I have the manners to take them at their allegation.
It is time for them to back up their words or retract.

At a curiosity, what kind of material specifically are you looking for as proof when someone is trying to back up their statements? I ask only to get an understanding for future reference.

It's their premise of allegation not mine. They can produce anything they want

Right now its fairy dust.