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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.

Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.

Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.

But once you remove freedom and free speecg from somebody for their views you enter path where those are at danger for everybody

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.

Ever hear the saying "never again"? If the price of making "never again" mean "never again" not "never again, unless the Nazis are acting within the law or stopping them would mean doing something illegal" is that Nazis occasionally get punched in the face when it isn't strictly necessary, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over some alternative hugs.

We have laws against assault and battery.

No where in there has any exemptions that allows assault and battery over something said that you may strenuously object.

He's free to be an donkey-cave. The most effective way to counter his ideals, is more liberal ideals to convince him that he's on the wrong path (and more importantly, to teach others that his views are wrong).

But, if you can't make that counter-argument and encourage violent response to a heretical viewpoint... then... you're abandoning the principles of a liberal society.

tneva82 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.

Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.

Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.

But once you remove freedom and free speecg from somebody for their views you enter path where those are at danger for everybody

I didnt advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want, only that, in the case of actual Nazi's, "winning the argument" when calling them such isnt unreasonable.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…

Really?

Supporting everyone's freedom free speech and assembly has zero to do with the current refugee PAUSE.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?

Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…

It's quite possible to both a) hold the view that freedom of speech and peaceful assembly should be fundamental rights, and (b) think that Trumps 90 day ban is a bad (or good) idea.

These issues are not really connected.

For my part, I think the travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, and I also think that US citizens should be free to exercise their first Amendment rights.

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power?

You mean like Franco or do you mean modern China?

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of. Can we attack them? How about their embassy personnel? How about marxist college professors?

Lets try it again. In the US the simple response to the argument attacking a person just because they are the member of a political party "NO NO BAD DOG."
You can't. You go to jail.

If this is a difficulty for you, Mexico with its usual one party state, is just south. Watch out for the Zetas though, Gringo.

 cuda1179 wrote:

You don't like Milo speaking at your campus? That's fine. Grab a sign and protest him. Denying him his right to speak his mind is wrong. Being violent about it is even more wrong. I wouldn't blame someone if they brought a giant canister of bear repellant to spray protesters with. Heck, after some of the violent I wouldn't blame someone for a self-defense shooting.

Yiannopoulos uses his speech to target people for harassment. That's why he became known in the first place and is something he even managed to get banned from Twitter for doing. Imagine that! He was deemed so nasty he was actually thrown off Twitter. That's a feat and a half. Last time he spoke at a college he outed a trans student, showed pre-transition pictures and mocked and misgendered her. Given the sort of crowd he draws and the vulnerable context of trans people this is a clear threat. So if you want to protect vulnerable groups you have to prevent him from showing up. You have to drive away those who share his goals.

Fascists speak their mind to terrify minorities into submission and draw more people to their cause so they can further terrorise minorities. This requires the liberal understanding of tolerance and is why liberals can't defeat fascism.

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?

Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.

in the case of the individual in question that sparked this conversation, its not a matter of people just labelling him a Nazi. He draws directly from their terms, language, phrasings, policies, etc and replicates them for the modern US. Again, this was the guy standing in front of a crowd of people giving the Nazi salute and stating "Hail Trump, Hail Victory", a direct adaptation of the nazi "Sieg Heil!" stuff.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…

It's been pointed out several times how Trumps immigration EO is bs (and it absolutely is).

I doubt many is particularly heartbroken over Spencer the person being punched. It's really no big deal in the particular case (I suspect even he himself sees it as a net-gain due to the exposure he's gotten).
It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.

 Zywus wrote:

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?.

That was an insufficient scale of armed resistance. The Third Reich was eventually defeated through the combined might of the Allies. Now we know exactly what nazis want and know that if they come into power it will take the sacrifice of millions of people to stop them. So stopping them before they get the chance is the best bet.

 Zywus wrote:

Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.

So you say.


EDIT:

 Zywus wrote:
(I suspect even he himself sees it as a net-gain due to the exposure he's gotten).

He's actually been quite rattled and considers it crucial to be able to fight back against such assaults or else his movement is doomed. His exposure has been overwhelmingly people cheering over him getting punched. It's an actual meme to edit hilarious music or sound effects into the video.

Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.

The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.

Or something like that.

At least there seems to be some consensus on this board that the term Nazi should be reserved for actual Nazis. The degradation of language is real when Nazi just means "someone I disagree with".

 Frazzled wrote:

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.

A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?

I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.

 Frazzled wrote:

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power?

You mean like Franco or do you mean modern China?

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of. Can we attack them? How about their embassy personnel? How about marxist college professors?

You're mixing and matching a large number of political theories here. Franco was not a Nazi, the Falangists were fascist but not Nazi's. 19th century Marxism bears little resemblance to Stalinism or China under Mao beyond superficialities.

When we're talking about Spencer, we're talking very specifically about someone advocating for pondering the question of genocide and direct Nazi idiosyncrasies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?

Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.

in the case of the individual in question that sparked this conversation, its not a matter of people just labelling him a Nazi. He draws directly from their terms, language, phrasings, policies, etc and replicates them for the modern US. Again, this was the guy standing in front of a crowd of people giving the Nazi salute and stating "Hail Trump, Hail Victory", a direct adaptation of the nazi "Sieg Heil!" stuff.

I guess he can indeed be called a nazi according to many reasonable definitions. It's beyond the point though.

It seems as you're position is that as long as you can brand someone as being a nazi, certain principles of free-speech and due process of law suddenly don't apply. I feel that is unsettling.
It's perhaps extra unsettling that you seem to think the discussion turns upon whether or not we can call him a nazi. As if, once he's shown to be a nazi, you think it's a done deal that we're justified in individually subjecting him to violence when we feel like it.

 jasper76 wrote:


At least there seems to be some consensus on this board that the term Nazi should be reserved for actual Nazis. The degradation of language is real when Nazi just means "someone I disagree with".

aye, there are people out there who deserve the label because its what they are, and it is cheapened when used inappropriately


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:

He is indeed a nazi according to most reasonable definitions.

It seems however as you're position is that as long as you can brand someone as being a nazi, certain principles of free-speech and due process of law suddenly don't apply. I feel that is unsettling.
It's perhaps extra unsettling that you seem to think the discussion turns upon whether or not we can call him a nazi. As if, once he's shown to be a nazi, you think it's a done deal that we're justified in individually subjecting him to violence when we feel like it.

not arguing there, was only addressing a definitional issue. I'm not defending the use of violence against anyone, only pointing out that the use of Nazi in the case of this dude is fully justified.

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?

Anyway, if your solution to combat nazism is to point to someone, declare that due to what they've said you've decided to put a label on them and thus they no longer enjoy fundamental rights and it's now justified for any individual to subject them to violence. Then I may as well go with the nazis. At least their founders had cool looking uniforms.

Exalted

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.

A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?

I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.

100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.

History professors gloss over what has been done.

 jasper76 wrote:
Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.

The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.

Or something like that.

There isn't much in the way of free speech you can do against a group that uses theirs to organise and kill you. That's what nazism is about: the extermination of all those who weaken the pure white bloodline through racial mixing and degeneracy in the form of homosexuality, judeobolshevism, or feminism. You can say that they want us dead or enslaved but saying that doesn't help unless you have people who actually physically stop nazis from gathering the strength to terrorise minorities and workers.

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):

I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)

You should. Thats exactly what he thinks and has vehemently said as much.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):

I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)

You should. Thats exactly what he thinks and has vehemently said as much.

Real Nazis would welcome Peregrine's attempts. No one outstreet hooligans the Nazis.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

Fighting with Nazis in the streets didn't stop them either for that matter. What do you think the SA and the Communists were doing in the 20's?.

That was an insufficient scale of armed resistance. The Third Reich was eventually defeated through the combined might of the Allies. Now we know exactly what nazis want and know that if they come into power it will take the sacrifice of millions of people to stop them. So stopping them before they get the chance is the best bet.

So I guess if I'm sufficiently abhorred by the acts of communist regimes, I'm justified in seeking out communists today to administer violence upon them? We have seen what happened in Sovjet, Kambodja etc.

Or if I'm sufficiently abhorred by the acts of the great Satan herself and her support for repressive regimes in the middle east, I'd be justified in gathering some mates, get flying lessions and aim a few planes towards the skyscrapers?

No one is ever abhored by Brazil...SAMBA!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.

A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?

I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.

100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.

History professors gloss over what has been done.

ascribing these directly to an ideology in the same way as say, the Nazi's and the Holocaust is somewhat mistaken. The cultural revolution was mostly an internal power struggle amongst the communists, and the deaths mostly indirect from negligence. Cambodia was...extremely weird and techno-regressive in a way directly counter to many established Marxist principles, the concept of an industrial worker, the core of original communism, was anathema to the agricultural village focus of the Khmer Rouge that they became obssessed with, like militant Amish dialed up to 13

 Frazzled wrote:
No one is ever abhored by Brazil...SAMBA!

Speak for yourself. All those hot women loving life and dancing like there's no tomorrow....something ain't right down there!

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Here's some food for thought. If you can't win the battle of ideas against a true-to-form Nazi, than maybe you should incorporate ideas that can win that particular battle.

The best counter to offensive free speech is better free speech.

Or something like that.

There isn't much in the way of free speech you can do against a group that uses theirs to organise and kill you. That's what nazism is about: the extermination of all those who weaken the pure white bloodline through racial mixing and degeneracy in the form of homosexuality, judeobolshevism, or feminism. You can say that they want us dead or enslaved but saying that doesn't help unless you have people who actually physically stop nazis from gathering the strength to terrorise minorities and workers.

Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.

If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.

Recognizing why someone would hit someone is not the sames as advocating for someone to be hit. The donkey-cave shouldn't have been punched but I'm not going to pretend I don't understand why someone would hit him. It wasn't right when the white guy sucker punched a young black protester at a Trump rally and it wasn't right when a young black guy sucker punched a young white guy calling for genocide.

 Frazzled wrote:

100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.

History professors gloss over what has been done.

Not even remotely.

High school history text books maybe, but college professors no and you don't generally find professors in K-12 education. You'd be surprised how effectively some of these tidbits actually manage to slip into material not even remotely about them. They're practically go to references (china probably more so than Cambodia but the US isn't really loaded to the brim with Cambodian history experts).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Commmunists killed far more people then Nazis ever dreamed of.

A bold statement, with no true numbers and sources to back it. Why would we trust you more than any other making a statement out of the blue, as usual? Refering to history? History doesn't say that thing. What numbers? From what date to what date? Can you verify the source?

I can say something similar : "right wingers have bullied and provoked death and suffering in the whole world more than any other political stream". And what would be the good of it, if just saying something that suits my own beliefs? It just adds nothing to the debate.

100mm dead in China alone during the Great Cultural Revolution alone.
1/4 of Cambodia's population
etc. etc.

History professors gloss over what has been done.

ascribing these directly to an ideology in the same way as say, the Nazi's and the Holocaust is somewhat mistaken. The cultural revolution was mostly an internal power struggle amongst the communists, and the deaths mostly indirect from negligence. Cambodia was...extremely weird and techno-regressive in a way directly counter to many established Marxist principles, the concept of an industrial worker, the core of original communism, was anathema to the agricultural village focus of the Khmer Rouge that they became obssessed with, like militant Amish dialed up to 13

So we let the communists define what is communism, who is a communist and who of the hundred of millions dead under formally communist rule due to engineered starvation, executions, torture, war etc, can be attributed to communism.

But in the case of nazis, we just let any concerned citizen beat up anyone they think are sufficiantly nazi.


It must be real easy to live in a world where any kind of morality and principle can just be thrown away as soon as we can get hold of that sweet, sweet nazi label and stick it to someone.

 Zywus wrote:

Free speech can do a hell of a lot against a group using their free speech to organise and kill you.

If a group starts to actually organise to kill you, then you can start to use violence. Before they do, you are the one doing the terrorizing.

It seems stupid to know that a group is actively plotting to murder you but not do anything until they've acquired enough power and weaponry to start. So much for saying "never again" if you wait until they start again before you even try to stop them.