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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.

Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.

Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.

What if, before you told him to shut up, he was talking about how all wiener dogs should be gassed?

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
. You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .

Spoiler:

and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?

Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.

this is why you let them March. Did you see the losers in those pics?

What I see are people who, in the past, found it necessary to hide their faces under white hoods/cowls and with masks.

Yet now they feel emboldened enough by the lack of condemnation from the government that they'll damn well march showing who they are.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.

Can we stop framing this as "speech you don't like"? These are literal Nazis we're talking about, advocating genocide and a return to the ideology that slaughtered millions in the name of racial purity. That is far, far away from a mere difference of opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.

Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.

This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.

Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.

What if, before you told him to shut up, he was talking about how all wiener dogs should be gassed?

Well then clearly he is insane and needs mental help.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.

Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.

This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.

Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue.

Not really. Of course posting a rant on a company network about how your co-workers are inherently inferior to you and didn't honestly earn their jobs is going to get you fired. That's a basic discipline issue, not anything related to freedom of speech.

That is not what that memo said. Not even close.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
. You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .

Spoiler:

and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?

Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.

this is why you let them March. Did you see the losers in those pics?

What I see are people who, in the past, found it necessary to hide their faces under white hoods/cowls and with masks.

Yet now they feel emboldened enough by the lack of condemnation from the government that they'll damn well march showing who they are.

I see a movement reduced to a few slack jawed yokels who have no power.

 Frazzled wrote:
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.

JFC, are you serious? You have people marching around with swastika flags and Hitler quotes and you're honestly going to tell me that what's really close to the Nazi ideal is pointing out that free speech is not, and never has been, an absolute right?

Peregrine -

Google guy pretty much dared HR to fire him, guess he figured it was worth it because he was that concerned about Google's stance. NPR reported his sentiment (re: ideological echo chambers, not supposed biological sex differences) is not uncommon in Silicon Valley. Just an example of how there actually is real debate over freedom of expression as a social value. There is no controversy over whether Nazism is bad.

Guys like Spencer pose exactly zero threat to oppressing the people of the United States. Bringing up gun rights in this thread is a total red herring.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.

Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.

This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.

Yep, all of Europe is a dictatorial hell-hole.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.

Can we stop framing this as "speech you don't like"? These are literal Nazis we're talking about, advocating genocide and a return to the ideology that slaughtered millions in the name of racial purity. That is far, far away from a mere difference of opinion.

No they are not literal Nazis. Read a book. The last Nazis died in Argentina or at NASA*. Eve. If they were they still have the same speech rights as yourself.

* Except the ones on the dark side of the Moon.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
That is not what that memo said. Not even close.

No, that's exactly what it said. It was full of pseudoscientific garbage about how men are better suited to software jobs, which implies that his female coworkers are inferior and shouldn't have their jobs. It was blatantly inappropriate to be sharing that at work, and his firing should not be a surprise to anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.

Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.

This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.

This was not a "peaceful protest".

These were people who came spoiling for a fight, and when the protests were broken up they looked for another way to get it.
These were people who had men wearing full camo+body armor with patches all over their gear and radios with loaded firearms, presenting themselves as some kind of legitimate element of authority to counterprotesters and the media at large.

Pretending that both sides were in the wrong here ignores the fact that only one side had people get mowed down by a "disaffected" white male in his car, who then fled the scene and took the license plate of the car with him.

 Frazzled wrote:
No they are not literal Nazis. Read a book. The last Nazis died in Argentina or at NASA*. Eve. If they were they still have the same speech rights as yourself.

* Except the ones on the dark side of the Moon.

...

Swastika flags. Hitler quotes. And here you are, claiming that they aren't really Nazis. Unbelievable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.

JFC, are you serious? You have people marching around with swastika flags and Hitler quotes and you're honestly going to tell me that what's really close to the Nazi ideal is pointing out that free speech is not, and never has been, an absolute right?

I am serious as a heart attack.

 Spinner wrote:
Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.

If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, than anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.

If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.

Exactly. Can we kill this thread now? The desire to kill the First Amendment as displayed here are terrifying. It's just a politics bashing thread now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
That is not what that memo said. Not even close.

No, that's exactly what it said. It was full of pseudoscientific garbage about how men are better suited to software jobs, which implies that his female coworkers are inferior and shouldn't have their jobs. It was blatantly inappropriate to be sharing that at work, and his firing should not be a surprise to anyone.

Once again that is not what it said. And pseudoscientific? So apparently all of the behavioral sciences are now pseudoscience. Did you actually read the memo? Because I did and that isn't what it says.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.

If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.

Right, Klingons are a fictional species in a sci-fi universe. Nazis were a real ideology, and if you believe in the tenets of an ideology, then guess what? You're part of that ideology.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge the people chanting 'Jew will not replace us' and wearing shirts with Hitler quotes on them are Nazis?

My rambling takeaways from this entirely dirty situation?

-The driver is thankfully being charged with murder. Good. Should also be treated as a domestic terrorist, as frankly, anyone on t.v. would clamor for if he was a muslim workplace/club shooter. The only way to eliminate hateful actions in a civilized society is to crack down harshly and equally to all such actions no matter the source.

-I am also disgusted at the actions of the counter-protestors (not just in Charlottesville). Violent acts on the side of anti-hate group protestors make them just as dirty as those hate groups. The way to combat such groups is not to sound just like them. You need to show you are better than them, dammit. Make your side a stark difference from the ominous undertone of the hate groups, and the moment a collection of people on your side look like they are going to cause trouble, get the cops notified and get them gone so as to not taint your side.

The best way to show the insanity of hate groups is to have a situation where your group looks like well-centered adults while they look like Lord Humongous' goons.

-It was also extremely suprising to learn that a lot of the pictures of what look like cops and swat team officers are actually groups of white-supremacists who used an open carry situation to come loaded for bear, which I feel should be counted as inciting the situation just as bad as if groups on the other anti-side has bats and 2x4's.

If a group of hipsters with a rainbow flag shows up with bats and improvised weapons, they would be accused of coming to a situation ready to do violence. But if 20 Neo Nazi KKK members show up with rifles and body armor, they are just being mindful for their fellow's safety. Wait....huh?

-I think it's so funny that these white supremacist hate groups are built upon what is functionally White Tribalism. So completely ironic.

I find it so completely insane to hate people based on skin color or origin of birth.

 Manchu wrote:
If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.

Lacking, at the moment, the power that the Nazis had in 1930s Germany does not stop them from being Nazis.

 Frazzled wrote:
Can we kill this thread now?

Reporting on Fields and his motives is on the way so hopefully we can stay on topic and polite enough to keep it open when we learn more about him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Lacking, at the moment, the power that the Nazis had in 1930s Germany does not stop them from being Nazis.

Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.

The Google guy was foolish, sure, however what he did was not gross misconduct and he did not deserve to be sacked for it.

He should have been given a disciplinary by HR and sent on a diversity awareness course.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Once again that is not what it said.

Yes, it actually is. Have you read it? He openly argues that the under-representation of women in tech jobs can be explained by women being less suited for those jobs than men.

And pseudoscientific? So apparently all of the behavioral sciences are now pseudoscience.

Not all, but large parts of them are. Evolutionary psychology, as a general rule, is pseudoscientific garbage. It makes up stories about how something could have evolved, offers no means of testing its theories, ignores alternative explanations, ignores contradictory examples from outside the popular sample group of "college students in Psych 101 who take my study for extra credit", and often makes serious mistakes about genetics and evolution. And when it very often conveniently "proves" that the social opinions and biases of 2017 are universal and inherent truths it's awfully hard to believe in it as a credible scientific discipline, and not just an exercise in making up justifications for existing beliefs.

And, in any case, even if you take the most charitable interpretations of the author's arguments it's still cringe-worthy and poorly thought out. Posting it on a company network was a very bad decision, and generated bad PR for the company. Firing an employee for something like this is not something new in 2017, and it is not a free speech issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.

Now you're just nitpicking. "Well they aren't technically Nazis because they aren't living in Germany in the 1930s" is a ridiculous argument. They proudly embrace Nazi ideology, Nazi symbols, etc, and labeling them "genocidal white supremacists" isn't exactly improving their status. It's a standard of dictionary literalism that is rarely applied to anything else, and I find it hard to believe that dismissing the Nazi label comes from nothing more than an immense level of concern with using proper terms.

Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.

Exactly. They have Shanghai-ed the power of pop culture to make them seem tough, and to establish an easy way for them to always have opponents to 'defend' their beliefs against by using the worlds most devisive word. They do not have the effort to actually research and follow the ethics that would require them to live as actual members of the Nazi party, much less even just a patriotic German soldier from that period, who 90% of the German military were.

They are simply using the fact that 'Nazi' is the easiest possible buzz-word to harness attention.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Once again that is not what it said.

Yes, it actually is. Have you read it? He openly argues that the under-representation of women in tech jobs can be explained by women being less suited for those jobs than men.

Yes I have read it. You are saying that he is implying that women who he works with aren't qualified for their jobs. Which is a load of BS. He is giving the argument that women may not entering the field because of differences between men and women on average. Taking about documented differences between men and women on average isn't making a judgement on an individual person. I am sure there are plenty of individual men who are terrible software engineers and women are excellent ones.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not all, but large parts of them are. Evolutionary psychology, as a general rule, is pseudoscientific garbage. It makes up stories about how something could have evolved, offers no means of testing its theories, ignores alternative explanations, ignores contradictory examples from outside the popular sample group of "college students in Psych 101 who take my study for extra credit", and often makes serious mistakes about genetics and evolution. And when it very often conveniently "proves" that the social opinions and biases of 2017 are universal and inherent truths it's awfully hard to believe in it as a credible scientific discipline, and not just an exercise in making up justifications for existing beliefs.

And, in any case, even if you take the most charitable interpretations of the author's arguments it's still cringe-worthy and poorly thought out. Posting it on a company network was a very bad decision, and generated bad PR for the company. Firing an employee for something like this is not something new in 2017, and it is not a free speech issue.

Ok you don't like evolutionary psychology. Got it. So what do say to evidence from others fields then? Do you believe that biology has no influence on sex differences in behavior/personality?

I actually believe a new movement should start where absolutely no one ever shows up to protest hate groups to show they are not worth the time and effort. They just end up standing in front of a public building shouting at no one, where passers-by simply walk faster to get away from them.

Most of their support and membership comes from the need to be recognized, even in a negative way, under the vastly incorrect belief that being recognized makes you important.

 Frazzled wrote:

I see a movement reduced to a few slack jawed yokels who have no power.

Trump is in the White House and quite happy to have Steve Bannon with him. The people drawn to fascism are not poor, inbred classist stereotypes of rural white Americans. They're middle and upper class whites who fear that their status as the only group that matters is threatened. The original nazis were mocked in the exact same way, too, and were thought to be useless up until they took power and enacted their ideology leading to the murder of millions who did not live up to the nazi standards of racial purity. There are a lot more non-white people in the US than in 1930 Germany so things won't shake out exactly the same but it's at best naive to act like nazis organising rallies and killing people they view as degenerates is harmless.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.

Exactly. They have Shanghai-ed the power of pop culture to make them seem tough, and to establish an easy way for them to always have opponents to 'defend' their beliefs against by using the worlds most devisive word. They do not have the effort to actually research and follow the ethics that would require them to live as actual members of the Nazi party, much less even just a patriotic German soldier from that period, who 90% of the German military were.

They are simply using the fact that 'Nazi' is the easiest possible buzz-word to harness attention.

The original nazis were just as big a bunch of donkey-caves as the current nazis. They weren't better in any way. The legacy of the Third Reich is not being tarnished by modern nazis. In a historical academic context, sure, we can say Nazis to mean the original bunch and Neo-Nazis to mean the modern inheritors simply for clarity but in practical matters it's fine to just call them nazis. To act like there's some mystical essence to nazism that these crude men lack and thus aren't true pure Nazis is deeply suspicious.

As a neutral observer, I can never understand why anybody in the USA would want to associate themselves with Nazism, when you consider that thousands of Americans died fighting the Nazis in WW2.

I've never seen the logic in that...