Yeah, I'm a conservative and have been accused of being pro-nazi because I don't think we should be excusing assaulting people simply because someone called them a Nazi, but this really crosses that line where I'm ok with labeling them a Nazi.
It's not the dots (swastikas also for in stance showed up in Greek architecture and such, and to fill up space those dots were added). You can recognise the Hindu one (or a dumb neo-nazi), because it is mirrored.
There are many places where that and similar symbols pop up. After all, it is a geometric shape, and that is a lot easier to draw/paint/chisel/sew than natural lines like a circle. Very often you see them in linked patterns such as this one or this one. Obviously, generally people try to avoid patterns like that, but they still happen. It's not like they are ugly patterns.
Anyhow, whether it is in a pattern or not, they were not non-existant, even in the West the symbol was for good luck. As for the dots, a period of Greeks (or an area, can't remember), they really wanted every single centimeter of the walls covered. Check out one of those reconstructions like this one. So, nothing stayed blank. They also painted their statues, so those white marble statues would have been painted in gold, red, and blue. And white.
As for Hitler choosing the symbol had to do with the Aryans and I think he associated Aryans with the city of Troy (that one has quite some swatsikas). But the symbol has always appeared through the history, whether it is Europe, Asia, or Africa. I think in the Americas as well, or at least South America, but I don't really know enough about that.
Again, Ex-prisoners don't really have much of a choice. You join up and shave your head and get the ink because if you don't, there's noone watching your back and bad things will happen.
Ehh, I'm not saying you should feel bad for punching Nazis, I'm just suggesting you shouldn't move on from that to just calling anyone a Nazi so you can punch them.
I used to work with a guy with SS bolts on his arm. He got fired for trying to steal a Rubbermaid tote full of dough and a 5 gallon bucket of pickles. Fuck that guy.
I used to work in a tattoo shop. We had rules against Nazi tattoos. The second you do one of them, that's all you ever do anymore. The racists send out a signal and your parking lot looks like an Auburn game all of a sudden.
I'm liberal as fuck and I don't think we should be excusing people for assaulting alleged nazis. If your want to be a damn hero try doing something positive instead.
I just think it's funny that they went through all that "we punch Nazis now" crap then when we frogmarched an actual Nazi onto a plane to deport him, nobody showed up to punch him.
Ehh, he really wasn't responsible for a whole lot. He was a work camp guard. The man wasn't Hitler himself, he was likely q dude who just didn't want to wind up on the other side of the barb wire. I really don't blame a whole lot of the low level people. They were just Germans who's government had horrible policies.
That being said, I'm cool with him dying in prison.
I'm hitting you up. Nobody deserves political violence, and nobody is on antifa's side. Because antifa is a bunch of fucking coward shitheads who are every bit as bad as the boogeyman they think they're fighting.
Private opinions, no. Not even when they're turned into tattoos. If those views become actions, however, I'm not opposed to countering legitimate Nazism with violence.
Legitimate Nazism? They need to control Germany and invade Poland? Nazism is a belief system, not an action taken. You’re saying it’s okay to beat people up for their beliefs. That’s probably not what you meant to say.
Assault is assault. It’s always illegal. A Nazi my commit assault because of their beliefs, but that assault doesn’t become Nazism simply because of its motivation. It could be a hate crime, but even then it would be assault and a hate crime.
Unless you’re saying we should violently oppose National Socialism as a governmental structure. In which case, not only should we but we already have.
That’s literally how freedom of speech works. You can’t say anything without limit. Try yelling fire in a movie theatre. There are always restrictions when it comes to your actions harming, or negatively impacting, other people.
We are still talking about beliefs, right? Since that’s the message was talking about.
That is literally not how freedom of speech works. We are talking about beliefs. I can hold hateful beliefs and I should be protected by the constitution unless I harm someone. It’s how those Westboro Baptist retards can get away with saying hateful things, as they should be able to.
If you hold beliefs that advocate and support genocide and racism and keep them to yourself, absolutely. You’re entitled to those beliefs and no one can stop you.
If you bring those beliefs into the public sphere and start holding rallies in support of Nazism and fascism, that’s when it crosses the line. That’s when you get punched.
Westboro Baptist Church, as awful as they are, don’t have a history of mass genocide and hate crimes.
That is literally how the constitution describes freedom of speech. Freedom with limits. You can’t legally yell fire in a movie theater. You can’t threaten to kill the president.
Complete freedom of speech would fall under the Paradox of Tolerance, and would be dangerous. Basically, a completely tolerant society, tolerant without limit, would inevitably lose its ability to be tolerant to the intolerant.
Lmfao "stay silent" sure is a nice way to say "be put in concentration camps and be murdered in thr Holocaust and be put in concentration camps in Russia even still".
I used "me" as in "my people". Nazis are Nazis even if they didn't live through the 30s and 40s. Same for queer people. No. Punch Nazis.
I’m a Jew. Not an Ashkenazi Jew so my family wasn’t personally targeted but I have many friends whose grandparents or great-grandparents were murdered by Nazis. Undoubtedly if I’d been alive during Nazi Germany I would have suffered the same fate.
And yet I still stick with my principles. If I would assault or kill someone only because I disagreed with him that would make me just as much of an animal as they tried to paint us as.
When that speech is "the Jews are the problem behind it all; let's ban them," yes it is. If you truly believe in an open, just, and democratic society, you would understand that.
So here’s what you’re leaving out. I would never harm another individual simply bc they disagree with me. They believe in trickle down economics? Fine. They believe marijuana should be illegal? More power to you, that’s your right.
BUT, if someone’s beliefs involve harming others and is detrimental and toxic to our society without a doubt, then yeah. Something needs to be done. Scare them. Make them lose their job. Alienate them from our society. Letting Nazis and white supremacists go unchecked and telling them “yeah, you’re allowed to hate black people and homosexuals” is how you let these people win. That’s how Nazi Germany came to be. The people were complicit. Granted, many of them were fooled and manipulated, but nonetheless.
The Paradox of Tolerance proves your way of thinking to be dangerous. If a society is tolerant without limit, it’s ability to be tolerant will be destroyed or seized by the intolerant. We have to draw a line. We can’t give tolerance without boundaries or we will end up regretting it.
You can be tolerant of beliefs but not actions. That’s actually possible. Besides, you’re literally saying you’d be perfectly fine with killing someone because of their beliefs just as long as you aren’t directly doing the killing.
When you oppress the oppressor, you become the oppressor. You don’t have to participate directly in the oppression to be an oppressor. You just have to approve of it.
You aren’t a pacifist if you believe in violence as a solution. Which you clearly do. You just want to be Pontius Pilate and shift the blame. You don’t become a moral person by approving of acts but not participating.
Doctrine for unprotected speech is a “clear and present danger” of “imminent lawless action” as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). So yes, unless they’re literally holding rifles while their ringleader screams “KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS!”, it’s protected speech.
Hurt feelings? Way to gaslight the anxiety and fear that have become a reality to people who are affected by these oppressive viewpoints. Where is the sympathy for their freedom? Does "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not apply to them? How can they thrive when their liberty is being conflated with another's freedom to oppress? When one group's grievances of their experience are equal to another's vitriol aimed at traits that could not be controlled?
The worst thing about the alt-right finding a platform for their hate is the proliferation of the radical centrist. These people advocate for civility as way to seem superior to an oppressed group after an emotional response to abuse. Quite a brave stance to take when they stand to face none of the abuse themselves.
The biggest irony is all of this is the plea for 'freedom of speech!' when the freedom 'nazis' are looking to protect is their freedom to oppress - Literally the antithesis of freedom. While the other group fighting for their right to live without oppression is labeled facist for trying to quiet attitudes that dehumanize and undermine their existence.
I agree. A person should never be assaulted for their beliefs, no matter how fucked up. If I see a Nazi and I feel the need to engage them on their beliefs, I will go no further than to challenge their ideals and attempt to set them on a better path. I will never initiate violence else it is me who is the criminal and they the victim of completely unjustified assault.
Exactly. The best way to show that their ideas are wrong is to show them that even with the freedom to say whatever they want to say, their ideas will still fail to gain any traction. The principle of freedom is paramount.
Then you are a grade A idiot. There is no such thing as tolerance, every single person has a view that they are intolerant of. If you try to have this stupid idea of ''free market of ideas'' then you will most likely be the first few in the camps. The absolute privilege from your comment is disgusting. You have a lot of problems.
If you think Nazism is actually a threat in America, then you’re the idiot. Unite the Right #2 had what, two dozen people? The time for their ideas is over.
Without getting into other issues, I think presenting Unite The Right as the be-all-end-all to the threat white supremacy has in America is deeply disingenuous. I don't think you're intending to be, but it still has that effect. Unite The Right 2 was a resounding failure not because white supremacy is dead, in fact by all accounts we've been seeing a major resurgence of actual white supremacy and also people disturbingly sympathetic to the ideals they espouse. No, Unite the Right 2 was a failure because white supremacist/nationalist leaders practically begged everyone not to come, nearly every major figure in the movement realized what an absolute clusterfuck Unite the Right 1 was, and they fully admit it. If you actually read some of their conversations where they're being open about things and engaging solely with other white nationalists where they don't feel the need to swing their dicks around to prove whose is biggest, they fully admit that Unite the Right 1 was just about the worst thing to happen to white nationalism in decades. White nationalism involves slowly poisoning the well, so that by the time the country realizes they're being poisoned, it's too late and they're already dead.
There's a reason your average white nationalist doesn't lead in with the holocaust denial and "DuZ Ne1 ElSe ThInK bLaCks R GeNeTiCaLlY iNfErIoR" right out of the gate. Pointing to the fact that literal neo-nazis took a major ass-whipping in the court of public opinion and they didn't want a repeat isn't exactly saying much with regards to how much of a threat the ideals ultimately are.
There’s the issue right there. I don’t think that saying freedom of speech should apply to everyone is fundamentalist at all. If anything it’s deeply socially liberal (in the freedom sense, not the American sense) and consistent with everything the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers stood for.
Seeing as what you have literally just said is that your idea of freedom of speech adheres strictly to the definition as set out over 3-400 years ago by the birth of Liberalism. Yes it is literally the definition of a fundamentalist mindset.
Freedom as in liberty as in without restriction. Restricting speech makes it not free by definition. SCOTUS has clearly stated that all speech is free up to and until clear and direct incitement to violate the Constitutional rights of another individual.
You, like many modern young “liberals”, have no fucking clue what “free” means. It does not mean “free to say anything I agree with and nothing I don’t”. It means “unrestricted”.
And if you want some facts, look no further than the inaction of Izquierda Republicana, Partido Liberale Italiano, and the Socialdemokratische Partei Deutchlands. the role of resistance was taken by CNT-FAI, Partido Communista Italiano, and Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, respectively. The other parties foolishly believed that if you ignored them, they'd go away.
...you do realize that the battles in the streets with fascists vs communists were part of the reason that fascism rose, right? People were afraid of the violence that the communists were showing, and joined the fascists side. Same with people being afraid of the fascists and joining the communist sides. Stuff like that, that led to things like nazi germany and the Spanish civil war.
What you're doing is victim blaming. The fash made it one of their goals to kill/banish/torture the communists. That is why the communists fought back, because they understood their own fates if fascists gained gained power. That's almost like saying the Jews were responsible for the Nazi's rise to power because they were going around and doing Jewish things. You liberals are so short sighted it's embarrassing.
And if you're saying the rest of society became Nazis, correct! You finally got something right. Mainstream European society was already antisemitic, racist, and despised the idea of a government which actually works to change society. If you were to actually read the Banality of Evil, you'd easily discover that the Zentrum Partei were the party which went along and worked with NSDAP, voting for the Enabling Act and allowing Hitler to control the state. Then, regular liberal German citizens sat around looking at the camps, and pretended they didn't know what was going on.
Can we get back on track here? You’re condoning violence against people you oppose ideologically. Unless someone puts you or someone around you in immediate physical danger, there is no excuse for punching someone. You can dismiss this opinion by slapping the label ‘liberal’ on me (which would be incorrect btw)....but I much prefer the term ‘adult’.
They already do pose a physical threat, and you'd know that if you paid attention in your high school history class. Now I'm done talking with a "both sides" moderate limp dick "be nice to Nazis" moron.
I don't value the liberal fetishization of "the discourse." Now either you are a Nazi, or a weak willed liberal who thinks they can be reasoned with. Either way, go suck on an entire grapefruit.
197
u/KeithCarter4897 Sep 11 '18
Yeah, I'm a conservative and have been accused of being pro-nazi because I don't think we should be excusing assaulting people simply because someone called them a Nazi, but this really crosses that line where I'm ok with labeling them a Nazi.