De-platforming fascists works

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.

No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!

Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed!

There are several currently active across the globe, even before taking ones into account in the decades between the 1950s and now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazi_political_parties

By my count and only including active ones, this lists Australia, the UK, Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland. It is not listed on that page, but the USA also has a political entity quite literally called the American Nazi Party.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.

Yes. I'm advocating for talking to those people, and not criminalizing what they say and do(that doesn't commit a crime already), for fear of me no longer knowing who they are. Hence exposing their ideas to ridicule and not allowing their 'movements' to grow.

Joe Biden recently said about working with segregationists:

"You'd get up there and argue like the devil with them, and then you'd go down and have lunch or dinner together. We were divided on issues, but the political system worked."

He was lambasted by the left and forced to apologize!

How many segregationists do you see left in US congress?

Veritas Libertas

rocksolidfat wrote: »

There are several currently active across the globe, even before taking ones into account in the decades between the 1950s and now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazi_political_parties

By my count and only including active ones, this lists Australia, the UK, Netherlands, Greece, Lithuania, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland. It is not listed on that page, but the USA also has a political entity quite literally called the American Nazi Party.

Of your list, where is nazism currently on the rise?
I'd predict most if not all of them dissolved within a few years(just checked a few they lasted 4 years). Just like you'd expect when people are free to express stupid ideas.

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Of your list, where is nazism currently on the rise?

Australia and Slovakia would be a start, as both have had elected Nazi representatives recently, while neo Nazi attacks and activity have both been on a sharp rise throughout Europe for the last several years.

In the US, far right and neo Nazi terror attacks and activities have risen hugely recently and now make up more terror attacks than any other group, they have elected US Senators with several ties to neo Nazis asking "what is wrong with white supremacy?" which would have been unfathomable only 3-4 years ago.

Claiming that there are no Nazi parties anywhere in the world bar Germany is definitively false and incorrect.

I'd predict most if not all of them dissolved within a few years(just checked a few they lasted 4 years). Just like you'd expect when people are free to express stupid ideas.

You would be wrong there - I excluded any party/country without a currently active Nazi party, which I stated twice in my initial post.

Veritas Libertas

rocksolidfat wrote: »

Australia and Slovakia would be a start, as both have had elected Nazi representatives recently, while neo Nazi attacks and activity have both been on a sharp rise throughout Europe for the last several years.

Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
Europe:? Where else?

In the US, far right and neo Nazi terror attacks and activities have risen hugely recently and now make up more terror attacks than any other group, they have elected US Senators with several ties to neo Nazis asking "what is wrong with white supremacy?" which would have been unfathomable only 3-4 years ago.

A recent FBI document was released the suggested black identity movements were more a risk to the US than white identity groups in terms of domestic terrorism.
https://www.scribd.com/document/421166393/FBI-Strategy-Guide-FY2018-20-and-Threat-Guidance-for-Racial-Extremists
I despise all identity politics.

Claiming that there are no Nazi parties anywhere in the world bar Germany is definitively false and incorrect.

Indeed, I altered my claim already to say they they don't last. I'll ask you a second time if you can prove this wrong.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

People mature at different rates, and some don’t mature at all

You could make the same argument for young adults drinking alcohol etc.. we shouldn't allow pubs because someone might drink who's not mature enough to do so.

Those that have conditions or are not mature enough generally have someone to care for them anyway and 'screen' for them?

rocksolidfat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
Europe:? Where else?

You might now have known, but Kobleta got over 10% of the national vote for Slovakian president only this year.

In Australia they had Fraser Anning who was only voted outas Queensland Senator this summer. Some of his highlights include suggesting a "final solution" to Australia's immigration policy, and blaming Muslims for the Christchurch shooting earlier this year, and who likes attending rallies organised by the same neo Nazis the Christchurch shooting was also a big fan of.

Meanwhile, Steve King who is a Senator in the USA is outright questioning why people dislike white supremacy, while having has a history of links to white supremacist and neo Nazi groups, and whose website literally links to an antisemitic, white supremacist blog. And on that note, links from that same blog have for some weird reason been repeatedly sent from the staff in the Trump administration on government communications to various groups, including Jewish lawyers. On top of the Trump administration having to previously get rid of staff members (a speech writer, no less) for their white supremacist ties, who were then promptly hired by other elected national politicians. An then you've got other elected US representatives plotting with white supremacist Christian Identity groups in a plan to train children for Christian holy wars.

So having covered that, a Nazi won an election in a German village recently for the reason that literally nobody else ran... but have any Nazis won a contested election in Germany in recent times?

A recent FBI document was released the suggested black identity movements were more a risk to the US than white identity groups in terms of domestic terrorism.
https://www.scribd.com/document/421166393/FBI-Strategy-Guide-FY2018-20-and-Threat-Guidance-for-Racial-Extremists
I despise all identity politics.

I'm not talking identity politics or fears here, I am talking about raw statistics: white supremacists made up 76% of all extremist murders in the USA in 2018, a staggering amount that has been on a rise for the last few years now but really blew up in 2017, no doubt emboldened as we have similarly seen huge increases in post-Brexit UK as per the Home Office, and increases have been noted across Europe also.

Neo nazism has been on the rise across large chunks of the globe for years, not just Germany.

Indeed, I altered my claim already to say they they don't last. I'll ask you a second time if you can prove this wrong.

I have already addressed that - every country I listed has active Nazi parties, not just historical ones.

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Good grief. You've been so sucked in by the 'free market of ideas' thing you're tacitly advocating for people who, given the right circumstances, would happily beat you to death to prevent you from expressing yours.

So you do advocate the policing of thoughts? It isn't that these people have beaten anybody to death that is the concern here, it is that they have a predilection to do so, right?

What people say and what people do are two different things. And right, while speech is this grey area somewhere between thought and action, we can agree that it is a grey area. There's a stark difference between The Beatles writing Helter Skelter, and Manson ordering the murder of Sharon Tate.

Okay while totalitarian regimes police speech for the very reason that it is the easiest way to police thought, even in western countries today the fact that speech occupies a kind of grey area can be used as a weapon. The two biggest contributory aspects to this grey area is the problems of analyzing the intent behind words, and the problem of causation between the words and the actions of the listener. This is problematic because in both instances you are having to analyze peoples' thoughts. Only in edge cases is this a simple task (we can interpret with confidence the intent behind a mafia boss telling his goons to 'take care of the rat'). Most of the time this ins't the case, and seeing that so-called 'de-platforming' is one of the first actions of any authoritarian regime, it should make us careful about adopting such measures.

RandomName2

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Slovakia: In 2013, the far-right politician Marian Kotleba won a shock victory in regional elections. 4 years later, he was overwhelming voted out.
Australia: I find this claim quite absurd, could you please provide some proof?
Europe:? Where else?

He won't be able to reply any further as he has been silently banned. Presumably rereg, but his posting seems reasonable enough (as in, not an obvious troll). It would be nice if there was more transparency about this.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So you've got no rebuttal then....

I cite some examples of what I am referring to and all you can respond with is this babble.

Rebuttal to what? You gave an opinion and refereed to "fascist left".
I explained why the right like to turn their own traits around on others as a deflection.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS54CyMLXmI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqARrnQdcQM

So are the left and right equal now because of these individual women? :rolleyes:

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Rebuttal to what?

You said that we should use the democratic processes, namely de-platforming, to combat fascists to stop them getting into government and changing the law.

Only real issue is that you haven't really defined fascism, or how censorship is the best 'democratic' process to do this. Censorship sounds like a distinctly undemocratic process to be honest.

Here's a definition of fascism

Political agitation through violence
Taking back 'former territories' through aggressive foreign policy (restoring former glory)
Censorship of press and academia
Strict redefining of national identity (along ethnic, cultural, and sexual lines)
Distrust of monarchism and clericalism
Totalitarianism, and absolute antipathy to both democratic and union movements
Autarky and economic dirigism

Also it's not in any way unusual for national-socialists to pretend to be left wing. You might notice the socialist bit of national-socialists. A nationalist may wear a che geurvera t-shirt, but that doesn't mean he's anywhere near being a classic liberal.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

You said that we should use the democratic processes, namely de-platforming, to combat fascists to stop them getting into government and changing the law.

Only real issue is that you haven't really defined fascism, or how censorship is the best 'democratic' process to do this. Censorship sounds like a distinctly undemocratic process to be honest.

Here's a definition of fascism

Political agitation through violence
Taking back 'former territories' through aggressive foreign policy (restoring former glory)
Censorship of press and academia
Strict redefining of national identity (along ethnic, cultural, and sexual lines)
Distrust of monarchism and clericalism
Totalitarianism, and absolute antipathy to both democratic and union movements
Autarky and economic dirigism

Also it's not in any way unusual for national-socialists to pretend to be left wing. You might notice the socialist bit of national-socialists. A nationalist may wear a che geurvera t-shirt, but that doesn't mean he's anywhere near being a classic liberal.

He never asked that. Can you point to anyone who has a clear black and white definition that can be used definitively in every case? I can't.
IMO, if it stirs hate it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate, but as I've asked a number of times with no response, what do the likes of Milo add to society in the positive? Just being able to be might be great for his freedoms, while he stirs hatred for others. We need balance what's in the best interests of society. As I've said the irony is Milo and his partner would likely be severely beaten by his own audience demographic if they walked hand in hand in Alabama and would need SJW's to come to their aid.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Rebuttal to what? You gave an opinion and refereed to "fascist left".

You do realise that users are capable of scrolling back, right?

That is no way that was all I did in that post. It was however the only line which you emboldened.

Here's the rest of my post where I clearly made an argument:

With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

Now either respond to those points or ignore them, but don't pretend I didn't make them.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So are the left and right equal now because of these individual women? :rolleyes:

The clip I posted is of Crowder and a leftist debating free speech, what the hell has your clip got to do with the thread topic??

One of the weirdest replies I've ever seen on Boards.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You do realise that users are capable of scrolling back, right?

That is no way that was all I did in that post. It was however the only line which you emboldened.

Here's the rest of my post where I clearly made an argument:

Now either respond to those points or ignore them, but don't pretend I didn't make them.

I referred to your opinion. All that is your opinion.
If it makes you feel better I'll give my opinion:

With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

You seem concerned about what may constitute hate speech. Fair concern. Doesn't dismiss the entire concept. You yourself take umbrage at the Proud Boys and Trump being labeled racist of fascist. Maybe get over it so?

Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

Nonsense. calm yourself.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The clip I posted is of Crowder and a leftist debating free speech, what the hell has your clip got to do with the thread topic??

One of the weirdest replies I've ever seen on Boards.

You posted a lone video clip of a 'leftist' being irrate. I assumed the idea was to belittle 'the left'. I posted a video of a right winger being dangerously ridiculous to basically say, 'so what?'.
The woman in your video is not the elected President of 'the left'. The post was pointless beyond trying to get a dig in in your war against the pinkos.

Veritas Libertas

rocksolidfat wrote: »

So having covered that, a Nazi won an election in a German village recently for the reason that literally nobody else ran... but have any Nazis won a contested election in Germany in recent times?

Neo nazism has been on the rise across large chunks of the globe for years, not just Germany.

I have already addressed that - every country I listed has active Nazi parties, not just historical ones.

A very fair reply that highlights where we disagree.


I would argue that akin to the Streisand Effect, any attempt to hide, remove or censor information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

I certainly would agree Neo-Nazism is on the rise seeing how willy nilly people throw the word nazi around these days(including to people that advocate for less immigration).

Interestingly the 'Grievance Study' hoaxers submitted an extract from Mein Kampf re-written as feminist manifesto.
They just replaced the words nazi, third reich etc.. with feminist buzz words- Not only accepted, but rewarded by journals.

If Mein Kampf had been banned from all literature after WWII, how would we recognize when journals make such profound mistakes?

RandomName2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you point to anyone who has a clear black and white definition that can be used definitively in every case? I can't.

I think the definition that I wrote pretty much covers it. Sure there are people and organizations that meet some, but not all, of those criteria, but those people aren't fascists. They mightn't be very nice people, but fascist they ain't.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

IMO, if it stirs hate it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate

What is hate? If you say that it is the defining aspect of legislation which you advocate, don't you think it is important that it can be universally defined? Can you think of any crime, where anybody deliberately attacks someone else (verbally, physically, or financially) that doesn't involve hatred?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

what do the likes of Milo add to society in the positive?

Not much, but that's a slippery slope. There's plenty of people I don't think add much to society, but that wouldn't necessarily justify censoring them.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We need balance what's in the best interests of society.

And who decides that, and using what criteria? That's a pretty big deal. Most totalitarian regimes have said they have been looking out for the best interests of society, and used that line to justify pretty brutal behavior.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I posted a video of a right winger being dangerously ridiculous to basically say, 'so what?'.

Granted that the term 'left' and 'right' tends towards being meaningless, in this case its use was so obtuse that most people would have missed it. What part of her being against the selling of bottled water do you think made her right wing? The appeal to authority? I mean one of the things that is meant to be right wing is opposition to state interference in private enterprise. You could argue the woman was being left wing...

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You could make the same argument for young adults drinking alcohol etc.. we shouldn't allow pubs because someone might drink who's not mature enough to do so.

Those that have conditions or are not mature enough generally have someone to care for them anyway and 'screen' for them?

There’s a big difference between allowing someone to drink who might not be ready for it, and allowing someone to be indoctrinated with bullsh1t ideas because they’re either not clever enough, or don’t have enough knowledge of how things actually work, to reject them.

The drunk guy or girl will usually learn the consequences of drinking too much without killing anyone or causing any wars, the stakes are much lower there.

They are bullsh1t ideas because they’ve been proven time and time again to be wrong, yet some people don’t want to listen, and they try to seek out other people who haven’t heard all the info and who don’t know much, to try and convert them.
It’s exactly like a religion, and if we’re not careful, it’ll take over just like religion did a long time ago.
By definition, the world started out atheist, and all major world religions pretty much disprove themselves using logic alone as they all assume a human-centric view of the world, and yet they are still here and in the majority.

ohnonotgmail

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I saw this and found it funny, although I dont agree with all the points as I am not a conservative(or American), There are some contradicting points highlighted that are undeniable.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/3ghxjw/liberal_double_think_explained/

If that is the level of discussion you are at then i feel sorry for you. all the depth of a puddle.

SexBobomb

yoke wrote: »

There’s a big difference between allowing someone to drink who might not be ready for it, and allowing someone to be indoctrinated with bullsh1t ideas because they’re either not clever enough, or don’t have enough knowledge of how things actually work, to reject them.

The drunk guy or girl will usually learn the consequences of drinking too much without killing anyone or causing any wars, the stakes are much lower there.

They are bullsh1t ideas because they’ve been proven time and time again to be wrong, yet some people don’t want to listen, and they try to seek out other people who haven’t heard all the info and who don’t know much, to try and convert them.
It’s exactly like a religion, and if we’re not careful, it’ll take over just like religion did a long time ago.
By definition, the world started out atheist, and all major world religions pretty much disprove themselves using logic alone as they all assume a human-centric view of the world, and yet they are still here and in the majority.

But the trouble is who decides what the "bull**** ideas" are ?
And what if dis honest people get into the position of deciding what ideas or speeches are unacceptable?

I think your genuine in your desire to keep people safe but I just think this leads to stagnation of a societies ideas and thinking.

WengerOutIn

Can Justin Trudeeeaauuuuu be de-platformed please? His pontificating is destroying the atmosphere quicker than a Brazilian farmer.

OMM 0000

This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.

OMM 0000

WengerOutIn wrote: »

Can Justin Trudeeeaauuuuu be de-platformed please? His pontificating is destroying the atmosphere quicker than a Brazilian farmer.

The fact he's getting such an easy pass shows how fake all this finger pointing is.

It's not about racism or sexism or anti-trans or whatever nonsense they keep shouting about - it's about power, and they want their side to have power.

WengerOutIn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.

Totally agree with you. Once someone adopts a view contrary to someone else, you get branded 'fascist', 'nazi', 'racist' etc. What is laughable is that nazis are an extreme form of socialism.

WengerOutIn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The fact he's getting such an easy pass shows how fake all this finger pointing is.

It's not about racism or sexism or anti-trans or whatever nonsense they keep shouting about - it's about power, and they want their side to have power.

Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
Fundamentally it is all about power.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This trend of calling people with right wing views fascists and white supremacists needs to stop.

By participating in this you're just buying into the divide and conquer crap that's happening at the moment.

WengerOutIn wrote: »

Totally agree with you. Once someone adopts a view contrary to someone else, you get branded 'fascist', 'nazi', 'racist' etc. What is laughable is that nazis are an extreme form of socialism.

WengerOutIn wrote: »

Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
Fundamentally it is all about power.

Classic.

OMM 0000

WengerOutIn wrote: »

Our good mascot Justin is just a fancy fascist who made the cover of rolling stone I think?
Fundamentally it is all about power.

He who virtue signals the loudest hath the largest guilty conscience, and oh boy has Justin virtue signalled very loudly indeed.

Personally I think people need to accept times were different back then, and donning black face wasn't seen in a particularly bad way at all.

In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

These friendless, angry losers who spend their lives trying to give out to people for slipping up need to be ignored. They were ignored before the internet and they should be ignored now.

WengerOutIn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

He who virtue signals the loudest hath the largest guilty conscience, and oh boy has Justin virtue signalled very loudly indeed.

Personally I think people need to accept times were different back then, and donning black face wasn't seen in a particularly bad way at all.

In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

These friendless, angry losers who spend their lives trying to give out to people for slipping up need to be ignored. They were ignored before the internet and they should be ignored now.

Don't worry Justin, people-kind will forgive you.
It would actually be laughable but for the sheep that think he is actually a decent guy.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think the definition that I wrote pretty much covers it. Sure there are people and organizations that meet some, but not all, of those criteria, but those people aren't fascists. They mightn't be very nice people, but fascist they ain't.

Agreed. All fascists are fascists all racists racists. Some of us may disagree. Some try to shut criticism down.

RandomName2 wrote: »

]What is hate? If you say that it is the defining aspect of legislation which you advocate, don't you think it is important that it can be universally defined? Can you think of any crime, where anybody deliberately attacks someone else (verbally, physically, or financially) that doesn't involve hatred?

Obviously we'll all differ on what constitutes hate

Hate based on the speech of others, hate speech if you will. Personal reasons would differ but someone beating up a minority because they've bought into hate speech is a different matter.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not much, but that's a slippery slope. There's plenty of people I don't think add much to society, but that wouldn't necessarily justify censoring them.

Denigrating other groups in society and spreading hate would, for me any way. I might have some sympathy if there were some altruistic social goal other than Facebook likes.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And who decides that, and using what criteria? That's a pretty big deal. Most totalitarian regimes have said they have been looking out for the best interests of society, and used that line to justify pretty brutal behavior.

Society and further, laws that society creates.
Every kind of society deems what is and isn't acceptable. These days privileged people see the historically less privileged gaining equality and some are fearful of change or racist or sexist and don't like it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Granted that the term 'left' and 'right' tends towards being meaningless, in this case its use was so obtuse that most people would have missed it. What part of her being against the selling of bottled water do you think made her right wing? The appeal to authority? I mean one of the things that is meant to be right wing is opposition to state interference in private enterprise. You could argue the woman was being left wing...

She could have been a communist. Racism would be a trait of the right IMO. I believe she was 'triggered' by the skin colour not the selling of water. Now she might be a poor communist who is racist but I'd put my money on her being conservative.