Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Revoltingest]

I agree with you most emphatically, Sum of Awe.

But I'm not sure that I would call it "fascism". That's a particular political ideology and I would prefer that the word continue to refer to that ideology, and not be given a new meaning as a term of abuse. Too often that's all it means in today's rhetoric, just another way of saying "f*ck you!".

A better word to describe what's happening might arguably be 'totalitarianism'. As Wikipedia puts it:

"Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism."

Except that today's new-style totalitarianism isn't coming from the government so much as from the media and educational establishments. But it does seem to be attempting to enforce thought control, where any and all expression of what is perceived as wrong-thought is punished severely. All forms of substantive disagreement are vigorously suppressed.

The way I see it, the fundamental fault of "wokism" is in how it moralizes controversial issues where disagreements arise. People who once might have been perceived as being wrong are now perceived as being evil. One mustn't compromise or seek common ground with evil, one must always seek to destroy it. So situations that used to be occasions for reason and persuasion have become occasions for suppression of all disagreement, through social shunning, loss of careers, or even (increasingly) physical violence.

We are heading into a period not so unlike earlier times in European history when religious heretics were burned at the stake. I think that the psychological motivations today are very similar to what they were then.

Be advised that it's against the rules to post profanity
with some of the letters exposed. But it's OK to
completely hide it. So the acceptable spelling is ****.

Let peace on RF reign,
& the **** not hit the fan.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I'm part German.
I once worked for a German company (Knorr Bremse).
After that experience, I sliced open me wrist to let all the Hun blood run out.
I feel much better now.

So you're just left with British blood? Better keep the booze, knives and silverware hidden then, when you're about.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I agree with you most emphatically, Sum of Awe.

But I'm not sure that I would call it "fascism". That's a particular political ideology and I would prefer that the word continue to refer to that ideology, and not be given a new meaning as a term of abuse. Too often that's all it means in today's rhetoric, just another way of saying "f*ck you!".

A better word to describe what's happening might arguably be 'totalitarianism'. As Wikipedia puts it:

"Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism."

Except that today's new-style totalitarianism isn't coming from the government so much as from the media and educational establishments. But it does seem to be attempting to enforce thought control, where any and all expression of what is perceived as wrong-thought is punished severely. All forms of substantive disagreement are vigorously suppressed.

The way I see it, the fundamental fault of "wokism" is in how it moralizes controversial issues where disagreements arise. People who once might have been perceived as being wrong are now perceived as being evil. One mustn't compromise or seek common ground with evil, one must always seek to destroy it. So situations that used to be occasions for reason and persuasion have become occasions for suppression of all disagreement, through social shunning, loss of careers, or even (increasingly) physical violence.

We are heading into a period not so unlike earlier times in European history when religious heretics were burned at the stake. I think that the psychological motivations today are very similar to what they were then.

Burning at the stake, hmm, a grisly spectacle for all the family. Inqusitor Azrael, has quite the ring to it. I like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're just left with British blood? Better keep the booze, knives and silverware hidden then, when you're about.

Very little Brit, so I've heard.
Dutch, Scottish, & some mongrel.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We are heading into a period not so unlike earlier times in European history when religious heretics were burned at the stake. I think that the psychological motivations today are very similar to what they were then.

Except that people can still freely espouse almost any belief you can think of in the U.S., so your statement is demonstrably incorrect. I would say it is extreme hyperbole based on an unfounded sense of persecution.

If you want to see what oppression and totalitarianism look like, you can look at China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other countries with neither de jure nor de facto freedom of speech except for certain popular beliefs. Putting the U.S. in the same category as those is so exaggerated and unfounded that it is no different from labeling anyone even slightly conservative a "nazi" or anyone slightly left a "communist."

 

[Debater Slayer]

This flirts with advocacy for violence in response to political speech.
How well does this work in your part of the world, where criticizing
government or Islam can get one imprisoned & tortured?

There's a major difference between criticism of an ideology or government and calling for or inciting violence against specific groups. Nazism falls squarely within the latter category due to its racially supremacist, genocidal stances.

Banning incitement of violence is nothing novel or radical; it's already done with many crimes and terrorist activities. I don't see why advocacy for genocide should be treated any differently, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, multiple highly developed and prosperous countries (e.g., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands) already ban Nazi symbols and speech. They certainly aren't any worse off for doing so.

Another problem with it is who gets to decide when someone
deserves to be assaulted for speech? Such violence could be
towards anyone...BLM, atheists, liberals, conservatives, Democrats,
Republicans. The masses are diverse, as are their hatreds.

Well, a generally reasonable rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that as long as speech doesn't incite violence or directly contribute to it, then it should be allowed. Again, Nazism runs afoul of this due to its endorsement of genocide and stuff like concentration camps.

You change no one's mind by punching them....except to hate you,
& fight back. Why escalate hostilities?

I think you have this reversed: Nazis already hate and fight specific groups that they deem inferior on racial grounds. Punching them doesn't have to change their minds; silencing them and preventing them from spreading genocidal rhetoric already nips a lot of harm in the bud.

Mind you, I wouldn't punch a Nazi myself unless I needed to do so for self-defense, but I also wouldn't lose a moment of sleep if someone else did it. I believe Nazi symbols and speech should be banned in the first place, so discussing whether or not Nazis should be punched is kind of a moot point and a secondary issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a major difference between criticism of an ideology or government and calling for or inciting violence against specific groups. Nazism falls squarely within the latter category due to its racially supremacist, genocidal stances.

Banning incitement of violence is nothing novel or radical; it's already done with many crimes and terrorist activities. I don't see why advocacy for genocide should be treated any differently, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, multiple highly developed and prosperous countries (e.g., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands) already ban Nazi symbols and speech. They certainly aren't any worse off for doing so.

Well, a generally reasonable rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that as long as speech doesn't incite violence or directly contribute to it, then it should be allowed. Again, Nazism runs afoul of this due to its endorsement of genocide and stuff like concentration camps.

I too favor illegalizing incitement of violence.
But is a group under a particular banner today inherently
identical to the group's historical origins? What if their
method is by peaceful means rather than violent?

The American Nazi Party platform....
What We Stand For – American Nazi Party
It's very liberal in many ways, eg, pro environment. There's
no call for genocide. They call for change by "spiritual rebirth".

Not because of what they say, but because of the
banner they fly is to incite violence in your view?

I think you have this reversed: Nazis already hate and fight specific groups that they deem inferior on racial grounds. Punching them doesn't have to change their minds; silencing them and preventing them from spreading genocidal rhetoric already nips a lot of harm in the bud.

Do you believe that punching nazis will silence them?

Mind you, I wouldn't punch a Nazi myself unless I needed to do so for self-defense, but I also wouldn't lose a moment of sleep if someone else did it. I believe Nazi symbols and speech should be banned in the first place, so discussing whether or not Nazis should be punched is kind of a moot point and a secondary issue.

Moot? No.
Tacit approval of violence towards nazis encourages assault.

If you knew a nazi, I say it would be more productive to try
changing them by gentle persuasion (the Daryl Davis method),
ie, finding common ground from which to change to their
views, & ease their hatred. Tis more productive than
expressing hostility towards the person or group.


Notice:
I oppose nazi views on racial purity, Christian theocracy,
command economy, & all such oppressive policies.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Very little Brit, so I've heard.
Dutch, Scottish, & some mongrel.

Scottish is British though. There are three British countries. Scotland England and Wales.

 

[Revoltingest]

Scottish is British though. There are three British countries. Scotland England and Wales.

Scotland is full of Scots though.
They're barely human.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Mind you, I wouldn't punch a Nazi myself unless I needed to do so for self-defense, but I also wouldn't lose a moment of sleep if someone else did it. I believe Nazi symbols and speech should be banned in the first place, so discussing whether or not Nazis should be punched is kind of a moot point and a secondary issue.

If someone espouses hateful violent and prejudicial views. Publically disseminating those views. Then they are a party to their own victimhood if they do get physically assaulted. Of course, on the other hand we operate by the rule of law and not vigilante justice.

Every criminal, deserves to be protected from the mob. Even Nazis. However, if Nazis are permitted to promote their ideological narrative with impunity, and the police or state merely stands by doing nothing permitting nazism to spread like a cancer. Then reactionary anti nazi confrontation, is inevitable.

Like you, I would sleep fine with the knowledge a Nazi received a bump on the nose from some angry chappie taking exception to a Nazi calling for his wife and children to be deported.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Scotland is full of Scots though.
They're barely human.

They're barely intelligible that's for sure.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting how things work out. Considering the two largest European ethnic groups in the USA originate from what is now the UK and Germany.

Yeah, although the U.S. is also considered a melting pot of multiple ethnicities and cultures. Hitler thought the U.S. was nothing but a country of mongrels, and he sorely underestimated us, as did the Japanese. I don't believe the British thought too highly of us either, even though we were on the same side.

But even the British and Germans have their disobedient, rebellious side as well. Those who came to America were away from their home countries and governments, and pretty much saw an open continent and ran wild.

As for those Hugo boss uniforms they've of course been shelved. I prefer the unadorned pragmatic utilitarian British army uniform myself. A soldier ought not to be too fancy looking, otherwise it glorifies the dirty business of war, imo.

On the other hand, if they wore really fancy (and silly) uniforms, both sides would be laughing so hard that they wouldn't feel like fighting anymore.

 

[Stevicus]

I too favor illegalizing incitement of violence.
But is a group under a particular banner today inherently
identical to the group's historical origins? What if their
method is by peaceful means rather than violent?

The American Nazi Party platform....
What We Stand For – American Nazi Party
It's very liberal in many ways, eg, pro environment. There's
no call for genocide. They call for change by "spiritual rebirth".

Not because of what they say, but because of the
banner they fly is to incite violence in your view?

Well, they make it very clear what they stand for at the very beginning. From the link:

Race:
The union of all Aryans in North America.

We believe that the Aryan population of this continent should be free, along with all the peoples of good will, to pursue its separate destiny according to the principles of self-determination and racial solidarity in a sovereign state representing its vital needs and interests. We must have an all-White National Socialist America; an America in which our children and our grandchildren will play and go to school with other White children; an America in which they will date and marry other young people of our own race; an America in which all their offspring will be beautiful, healthy White babies. We must have an America in which our cultural, social, business and political life is free of alien, Jewish influence; an America in which White people are the sole masters of our own destiny.

An all-white National Socialist America? How much more clear can it be? That means that anyone who is not white or not Aryan (which is a term that's always confused me) has no place in America. If that's their political objective, then that would imply genocide - or at least some sort of forced mass resettlement of over 100 million human beings.

This pretty much says it all.

Citizenship:
We demand that only those of Aryan blood be allowed to become citizens of the state. Citizenship – and the rights which go along with it – will be conferred only on those Aryans who prove themselves worthy of it.

We believe that citizenship in an Aryan state should be an honor and a privilege, rather than a right which is gratuitously bestowed simply on the basis of birth or national residence, and that only those Aryans who show themselves deserving of it, and who are prepared to accept its accompanying responsibilities, should be granted its rights and benefits.

So, according to their platform, only those with "Aryan blood" are allowed to become citizens. Is there some sort of blood test?

But yeah, they also talk about education and environment and a spiritual rebirth later on in their platform. They can also say that kittens are cute for all I care.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're barely intelligible that's for sure.

To their credit though, Scotland greatly
improved when my family emigrated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, they make it very clear what they stand for at the very beginning. From the link:



An all-white National Socialist America? How much more clear can it be? That means that anyone who is not white or not Aryan (which is a term that's always confused me) has no place in America. If that's their political objective, then that would imply genocide - or at least some sort of forced mass resettlement of over 100 million human beings.

This pretty much says it all.



So, according to their platform, only those with "Aryan blood" are allowed to become citizens. Is there some sort of blood test?

But yeah, they also talk about education and environment and a spiritual rebirth later on in their platform. They can also say that kittens are cute for all I care.

In general, should such imaginative implications be made
when the speech is apparently peaceful? If so, then your
advocating socialism should be just as illegal, because it
implies the historical record of starvation, pogroms, & the
oppression that has accompanied all socialist regimes.
Obviously, this is reductio ad absurdum.

The Nazi Party platform is legal speech, & doesn't advocate
what you attribute to it. Beware giving government such
broad power to read agenda laden inferences into speech.
Remember McCarthy? And how about Trump...what if he
had such power, able to decide who can speak or not?
You'd find yourself hanging by your thumbs.

We're fortunate that most of the people clamoring for
more censorship of speech in Ameristan aren't
citizens here. Let them keep their authoritarian ways
overseas so that my right to call you a "poopy head"
is preserved.

 

[Stevicus]

In general, should such imaginative implications be made
when the speech is apparently peaceful? If so, then your
advocating socialism should be just as illegal, because it
implies the historical record of starvation, pogroms, & the
oppression that has accompanied all socialist regimes.
Obviously, this is reductio ad absurdum.

The Nazi Party platform is legal speech, & doesn't advocate
what you attribute to it. Beware giving government such
broad power to read agenda laden inferences into speech.
Remember McCarthy? And how about Trump...what if he
had such power? You'd find yourself hanging by your thumbs.

I was just taking their words at face value, not implying anything historical. That's a key difference.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just taking their words at face value, not implying anything historical. That's a key difference.

No, you added your own inference.
Underlining added....

An all-white National Socialist America? How much more clear can it be? That means that anyone who is not white or not Aryan (which is a term that's always confused me) has no place in America. If that's their political objective, then that would imply genocide...

Your advocacy for socialism implies oppression, economic woe,
& starvation. But because you don't overtly advocate violence,
I see no reason to make your speech illegal.

BTW, the Nazi Party platform is very socialistic, eg, government
takeover of all banks. I oppose them even more than you do.
But I also oppose making laws to silence political speech of
my enemies.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

We're fortunate that most of the people clamoring for
more censorship of speech in Ameristan aren't
citizens here. Let them keep their authoritarian ways
overseas so that my right to call you a "poopy head"
is preserved.

Its ok to call people poopy head in EU states. It's not ok to call for the gassing of the Gypsies. Know what I mean? There is a significant difference between the two types of speech. The former is merely insulting, it is not persecutory or otherwise potentially harmful.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its ok to call people poopy head in EU states. It's not ok to call for the gassing of the Gypsies. Know what I mean? There is a significant difference between the two types of speech. The former is merely insulting, it is not persecutory or otherwise potentially harmful.

Unlike Eurostan, we don't have a big problem with
people calling for gassing of Roma...or anyone else.
So I prefer to avoid unnecessary censorship that
could be mis-used by politicians. As you've seen,
we've had leaders who don't deserve such power.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

No, you added your own inference.
Underlining added....

Your advocacy for socialism implies oppression, economic woe,
& starvation. But because you don't overtly advocate violence,
I see no reason to make your speech illegal.

BTW, the Nazi Party platform is very socialistic, eg, government
takeover of all banks. I oppose them even more than you do.
But I also oppose making laws to silence political speech of
my enemies.

Socialism is a broard church without a centralised orthodoxy. At its heart lies the simple premise that workers ougt to have ownership of the means of production. Everything else that is said about socialism, is debatable.