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.

American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.

None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 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.

There's a pretty wide gulf between sitting on your hands and doing nothing until there's a fully armed nazi-militia roaming the street, to a anti-nazi vigilante walking the street attacking individual persons who have written unpleasant words on blog.


If you take upon yourself to attack someone with violence, the burden is on you to justify it. It's quite a leap to say anyone who writes such and such must be subjected to unlawful violence or the forth Reich will rise.
The same way it's quite a leap to justify attacking communist blogger X for writing stuff on his blog, in order to stop the US from turning into the next Kmere-rouge-esque Kambodja. (even if said person actually does advocate driving the whole population out of the cities to work the fields, predictably causing mass starvation in the process)
.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 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.

Again under that view we have a really long list don't we. Can you imagine if Israel used that definition? All the ME would be radioactive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.

None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.

I'm driving an M4 Easy Eight in April. Look out Nazis!

Are we really going through this fething farce again? Didn't this thread almost get perma-locked last time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
American Nazis have 1st amendment rights like anybody else, and however distasteful, they should be defended in the name of liberty.

None the less, part of me hopes that somebody turns up in a replica Sherman tank just to remind these Nazis what happens if you mess with the free world.

Take away the rights of people you dislike and deem to be "dangerous", and you're taking away your own rights too. Either these Rights are universal, or they're meaningless. Using the tactics of Nazis to prevent the rise of Nazis is counter-productive and ultimately self-fulfilling.

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

I'm not saying these issues are related. I am saying that which one of those issues Dakkanauts involve themselves, and decide to care about, it pretty telling.

 jasper76 wrote:
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.

But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.

 Zywus wrote:
It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.

It's the fact that people don't even care enough to argue if the very real and very damaging violence from the ban is justified or not than unsettles me.

Maybe it's just because I'm the only one in the thread that personally knows people that would be directly affected by the ban…

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are we really going through this fething farce again? Didn't this thread almost get perma-locked last time?

For once I 100% agree with you, I do not want this thread locked. Having looked at all those previous posts on Nazis I had to think 'what am I reading?' So I will not contribute to the dark alley this discussion is now leading into...

 Zywus wrote:

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.

where did I say that? I have explicitly stated I was not concurring with this statement multiple times. However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.

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.

For the upteenth time...nowhere did I state this...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
It's the fact that many people find such violence justified that's rather unsettling on a principal level.

It's the fact that people don't even care enough to argue if the very real and very damaging violence from the ban is justified or not than unsettles me.

Maybe it's just because I'm the only one in the thread that personally knows people that would be directly affected by the ban…

It has been argued in this thread.

It was pretty conclusively shown that the ban wasn't justified, and outside of some weak attempts to claim that it's basically just a continuation of the Obama administration's polity (it isn't) there weren't much debate to be had it seems.


Freedom of expression and violence is generally considered a more fundamental right than freedom of movement across state borders so it tend to spark a more heated debate. (which I guess is Off-topic in the thread? I apologize if so and will attempt to refrain from the nazi-business from here on)

It's indeed distasteful how hastily and badly that EO seems to have been cobbled together and how it's seemingly concocted with no thought to the troubles it will cause to both refugees and asylum seekers, as well as ordinary travelers (including those with double citizenship's)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”.

That was a really stupid line of thought, and I appreciated that you called it out. (so I didn't have need to)
Frazzled don't seem to know himself when he's serious and just writing stuff to put himself over, or play some weird persona. So I can't take him seriously most of the time.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Take away the rights of people you dislike and deem to be "dangerous", and you're taking away your own rights too. Either these Rights are universal, or they're meaningless.

That's right.
Somehow though I didn't see anyone making the point that taking away the right from people from Iran to enter the US took away Trump's right to enter the US. Maybe that's not how it works and have never been. At least I think so. I am pretty sure when I look at history that group denying others people their rights generally often those rights fully. Men denying women the right to vote still had the right to vote. White people denying black people the right to vote still had the right to vote. I guess here it's mostly an issue of feeling too similar to this US nazi. And I'm not saying similar in the sense that you share his idea, I mean similar in the sense that you feel his punishment could just as well apply to you (as you both are “white male citizen of a developed Western country”), while you would never think this way in tons of other cases. Like, for instance, the ban. You would never examine the fact that it might apply to you personally. Am I wrong?

Changing topics... that Treasury action that 'eased up' the Russian sanctions?

A nothingburger that was in the works prior to Trump's administration:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-idUSKBN15H244

Seems like we need to put a 24-hour rule on any Trump reportings... just about every one of them needing 'updates' to fix the original report.

24-hour rule peeps!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
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.

But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled. I have stated what my views are on the 90 day travel ban. I didn't even have to do that much. No one even asked me, I volunteered the information.

Seems like your argument is with Frazzled, and not with me.

 Vaktathi wrote:
However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.

Ok. Sorry if I've gotten peoples statements confused.
I agree that it makes sense to classify Spencer as a nazi.

 whembly wrote:
Changing topics... that Treasury action that 'eased up' the Russian sanctions?

A nothingburger that was in the works prior to Trump's administration:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-idUSKBN15H244

Seems like we need to put a 24-hour rule on any Trump reportings... just about every one of them needing 'updates' to fix the original report.

24-hour rule peeps!

Its too late. The Aussies, never known for keeping their cool have already unleashed their wonder waffen. We have killer drop bears riding flying great white sharks from Australia INBOUND. Warm up the railguns in the Northwest boys this is no drill!

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.

You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
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.

But while you just can't let someone say that punching a nazi is a good thing without reacting, you wouldn't argue with Frazzled claim that “Death to America” somehow magically means “It's reasonable to ban all Iranians from entering the US”. You pick your debates.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled. I have stated what my views are on the 90 day travel ban. I didn't even have to do that much. No one even asked me, I volunteered the information.

Seems like your argument is with Frazzled, and not with me.

I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.

So this is a lovely little fifteen second diversion. Needs sound.

trumpdonald.org

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.

You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.

Again... you're conflating the two. Don't do that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.

You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.

Sure its ok to ban iranians, but I would restrict it to specific groups: the Republican Guard, the government, anyone not reviewed via background check. The background check is for everyone. Once they pass the background check give them auto app for asylum like we would nations during the Cold War.

 whembly wrote:
Changing topics... that Treasury action that 'eased up' the Russian sanctions?

A nothingburger that was in the works prior to Trump's administration:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-idUSKBN15H244

Seems like we need to put a 24-hour rule on any Trump reportings... just about every one of them needing 'updates' to fix the original report.

24-hour rule peeps!

well thats good at least. If it was a preplanned deal, fine. Thats what kept me from posting anything on the Yemen raid as it looked to have been in the works for some time and not some off the hand last second operation.

The timing with fresh violence in Ukraine was odd.

 Zywus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
However, again, in the case of Spencer specifically, I argued he fit the definition of Nazi, including their direct idiosyncrasies, to a T. Not just an authoritarian or Falangist or a generic Fascist. I didn't argue anything beyond that.

Ok. Sorry if I've gotten peoples statements confused.
I agree that it makes sense to classify Spencer as a nazi.

s'all good

 Frazzled wrote:
I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.

That's not what I understood from what you wrote. If that's what you think, then that's great.
Unless you somehow include Iran on that list, even though it is in not way comparable to any of those countries?

Don't get me wrong... I'm imminently concerned about what's going on in the Ukraine and I'm not convinced that Trumpesto or SoS T-Rex will be prepared to handle that...

 Frazzled wrote:
Sure its ok to ban iranians, but I would restrict it to specific groups: the Republican Guard, the government, anyone not reviewed via background check.

Well then we are in agreement.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under some obligation to start an argument with Frazzled.

You had no obligations to do that. You had no obligation to react to the nazi punching discussion either. Yet basically every dakanaut in this thread made the same decision to react to the nazi punching rather than whether it was okay to ban Iranians. I am just noting this, and reflecting on why.

Zywus had something useful to say about this

Freedom of expression and violence is generally considered a more fundamental right than freedom of movement across state borders so it tend to spark a more heated debate.

For what its worth, I have visited three countries outside of the US: the Republic of Ireland, Mexico, and Bermuda. It was awesome that these countries allowed me to pass their borders for a visit, especially for something so trivial as tourism. I am grateful that these countries allowed me to visit them. I never once thought that I had a fundamental right to do so.

I am disappointed that Trump decided to ban travel to the US for citizens of the various countries he identified. I feel great sympathy for the people affected by this ban that have a legitimate reason to be here. I also believe this plays right into the hands of radicals. I am powerless to do anything about it other than speak my mind, which I have done. I hope that at least our federal government can make some real improvements to our vetting procedures, so all of this won't have been for naught.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have as well, to restate I have issues with the ban except for Syria, Yemen, Somalia, or any locations where failed states make vetting difficult at that point in time.

That's not what I understood from what you wrote. If that's what you think, then that's great.
Unless you somehow include Iran on that list, even though it is in not way comparable to any of those countries?

I did not include Iran. I did not include Iraq. I would have included Iraq a year ago when everything was in chaos.

I would also include Belgium, because any country named after one of the worst profanities in the universe...I mean come on. Also hipsters.

Dirty filthy hipsters and their iphone connected phonographs...

*shudder*

Now you understand.

 Frazzled wrote:
I would also include Belgium, because any country named after one of the worst profanities in the universe...

I am missing a clever play on word? Or just being ignorant about the origins of the name, or some similar-sounding English word?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am missing a clever play on word? Or just being ignorant about the origins of the name, or some similar-sounding English word?

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Belgium

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

As soon as there is a movement to turn the US into a Stalinist dictatorship and start committing similar mass murder I will support punching them in the face. However, since this movement remains hypothetical, I don't think it's really worth talking about.

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

Ah yes, the classic conservative slippery slope from "Nazism should not be tolerated and should be crushed by any means necessary" to "no objection to my opinions is permitted". Why is it so hard to understand that one can permit disagreement about policy without permitting Nazism?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I would also include Belgium, because any country named after one of the worst profanities in the universe...

I am missing a clever play on word? Or just being ignorant about the origins of the name, or some similar-sounding English word?

I'm guessing it refers to Belgian Waffles or Belgian Fries...don't know which. Anyways, it's Texan humor, you'll get used to it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that one can permit disagreement about policy without permitting Nazism?

How do you even propose that we "not permit Nazism"? Would this just be for people who openly espouse Nazism? Or even for people who think Nazi thoughts? What should the punishment be? How would this get past the courts given that we have freedom of speech?

I suggest ridicule is the better answer. Nazi ideology is ridiculous in modern times, so ridicule it. Make sure it stays ridiculous wherever you come into contact with it. Use your free speech as an antidote.

Your own rights are not worth sacrificing over the thoughts and speech of a derided fringe in our society.