I have some idea as to what he had in mind, since he actually said it.

:confused: So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil? The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?

I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

Oh, I see. That totally makes sense, and completely justifies doxxing people and advocating for their social and economic persecution!

Look, I can choose not to associate with people who hold views I find execrable. Everyone should make their own choices about who they associate with, how much they are willing to accept that other people hold views they disagree with very strongly.

But that's not what this is. This isn't Joan next door finding out that Greg is a closeted nazi. This is anonymous person on the internet hacking a bunch of people and throwing their information out for everyone to see, with the express intention of ruining their lives and getting them attacked.

I don't approve of that at all, no matter how strongly I disagree with the beliefs of those who are being exposed. I strongly disagree with a *lot* of beliefs expressed here. I rather strongly disagree with the beliefs expressed by posters who advocate for or laud violence against those whose politics don't match their own, or who don't adhere to the same dogmatic partisan tenets that they espouse.

But to intentionally expose their identities and try to get them harmed, that's so much of a social transgression and I'm constantly amazed at how many people think it's just peachy.

There's a difference between being agnostic to another person's views that you strongly disagree with... and actually seeking to see them harmed - socially, economically, and potentially physically.

It's entirely possible for an intelligent and principled person to speak out and argue against fascist beliefs without actually desiring to see the fascist-belief-holder beaten into submission, rendered destitute, and deprived of society.

The advocacy for coercively ruining and threatening those with views you find abhorrent IS fascism.

I just wanted to say that trying to shame people for treating actual nazis like “nazis” actually treat everyone else is a pretty hot take.

Well I totally understand why of all people on the internet Nazis would want to remain anonymous. I don’t necessarily condone hacking people in principle and have mixed feelings on doxing. That said, it happened. I don’t think you can really expect everyone else not to react to finding out someone is a real life nazi. Whether Joan found out on her own or someone else told her it’s what happened. It’s a weird principal stance to expect people to carry on their personal relationships because they found out in an “unfair” way, and doubly so to expect that to be the default stance in my opinion.

But by all means, if you want to be that forgiving that you’d willingly associate with Nazis because they wanted to do it secretly I think that’s your choice to make. I think most people, rightfully, would not.

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/sta...99627761623044

"Rule of so" writ large.

There's a world of difference between social consequences for possessing immutable qualities and the same for wilfully chosen behaviors and actions. Registering domain names and operating websites are not "beliefs," they are actions.

Defending people who foment, support, and contribute to bigotry that brings real harm to others from consequences for doing so is an odd hill to want to die on.

But there you are, at the peak.

Wave your flag proudly, I raise one finger on each hand in salute to your noble stand.

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So.

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So

When it comes to fascists, racists, bigots, white supremacists and other far right scumbags, there is no middle ground, no grey area - you are either against them or you are for them. If you claim to be agnostic regarding these groups, you are lying to yourself and are part of the problem. You become an enabler who helps to make them stronger, more powerful and more widespread. Evil thrives in darkness. It hates the light for fear that it will be exposed. People with your attitude help evil to stay hidden.

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
-John Stuart Mill

I used to be naïve and believed that all viewpoints were valid to express in this country and that free speech was absolute. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." was my general viewpoint. Surely in the marketplace of ideas, the 'right' ideas will win over the 'wrong' ideas?

Real life doesn't work that way, and allowing fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists a public platform to speak and spread their filth only enables them to gain power. And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.

The freedom of speech isn't the only freedom.

Freedom of association also exists.

Agree. I gave up that kind of naive idealism 30+ years ago, after I read Sydney Schanberg's "The Death and Life of Dith Pran"(the names might be familiar to some)

100%.

Appeasers. Often 'centrists' who pick the middle position not because they've come to that position honestly like moderates, but through meta considerations to get them to the 'middle'.

Censorship by GoogleBot. In this case photographs on a GoogleDrive were designated 'terrorist promotion' resulting in the drive being locked and threatened with deletion.


The first video is one of several 'alerts' posted by members of the YouTube armoured vehicle history community. In the course of this the hypocracy of Google 'fighing discrimination' while flagging pictures of tanks in the middle east as 'terrorist promotion'...


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


The second is the 'Thank You' video from the affected person when the situation was resolved in their favour.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLmmNntk94w

You contradict yourself.

And what is the point you want to make?

I have been told that it is only an emotional response that I believe those that want to kill me for no other reason than me being a homosexual i.e. self-identified Nazis are wrong....

It's the position that her boss took when he fired her. That's kinda my point, someone who has already passed judgement and extracted a punishment is not really in a position to mediate any additional "resolution". I tend to agree with mumblethrax that this boss sees this as an opportunity to insert himself into a situation more so than he really merits.

What's the alternative? Absolutely not-a-racist person makes a racially charged remark, then tries to deny it, and then gets fired for it? Really? Well, you might buy that pile of dog feces, but I don't - not for a moment.

I do not believe that a person who tells a black man walking his dog to "to stay in your 'hood", is not a racist., and especially when they do so right in front of a third-party witness!

I think we are well passed the time where such stances could be attributed to naivety. American fascists have repeatedly showed the public who they are and what they hope to achieve, those that are still carrying water for their movement through pretextual mewling about "free speech" or the "marketplace of ideas" are just cowards, enablers, or collaborators.

You're taking someone's word for it on this part, since she doesn't say it on video.

I believe she probably said it, although I certainly wouldn't take Joseph's word for it given his history.

Sometimes cancel culture is insufficiently aggressive so you have to cancel yourself.

https://news.yahoo.com/fedex-fires-d...205944592.html

I've seen social justice advocates make up fake quotes often enough that I don't have much credulity left when there isn't decent corroboration.

I don't expect people to carry on their personal relationships.

I do expect that nefarious and intentionally harmful actions don't get multiplied by people who do NOT have a personal relationship with their target. I also expect that people who are uninvolved don't laud and support the nefarious actions in the first place.

There's a clear downside to this behavior. Honestly, I'm baffled that it's not obvious to all of you. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore it when it suits your needs.

First off, the definition of what I'll loosely call "heresy" is fluid and highly subjective. Today it's "nazi" and that all seems well and good. But "actual nazis" these aren't. Already, they're not members of the actual nazi party, so there's an immediate fail. So we have to redefine that to "nazi-like" and rely on their beliefs - or at least what we infer their beliefs to be. So far, I can get behind that based on the names of the domains. We infer that this person holds antisemitic beliefs. And perhaps enough of us today view that to be socially unacceptable. But you should know from observation that many, many people aren't so narrow in their definition. Many, many people have expanded their applied definition of nazi to mean nothing more than right-wing, or even simply conservative.

So now, you're giving license to see anyone who is labeled as "right wing" or "conservative" to be doxed, harassed, and fired because of their beliefs. And THAT is not reasonable or appropriate behavior - that is exactly the behavior of fascist authoritarians and religious zealots.

Second, you're relying on a naïve assumptions that the only targets of such action would be what I'll loosely call "enemies". People who are in opposition to your own social values and objectives. You assume that the actors behind such nefarious actions will always hold the same view as you. But that's a sophomoric assumptions, as should be clearly obvious by even a brief skimming of history. There's no reason to think that in another few years, in a decade, in some relatively short period of time, the "orthodox" view will shift, and you'll find yourself the one labeled as the heretical "enemy" subject to doxxing, harassing, and firing on the basis of your beliefs.

Ahh... I see we've now blown right past the persecution of actual fascists, and are now fully on board with the persecution of people who don't support the persecution of fascists.

It's not longer just nazis at the end of that pitchfork, it's anyone who isn't willing to pick up a pitchfork and attack nazis with you.

This is absolutely authoritarian fascism and zealotry. Torquemada would be proud.

Notorious right wing troll and serial stalker is floundering after Epik hack, lashing out at mainstream and independent journalists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-hack-fallout/

Some of the worst cockroaches on the planet are scrambling after the lights were suddenly thrown on. Sucks to suck.

Ah yes, the fierce persecution of being criticized.

But really how can you write a whole paragraph about how unfair I’m using nazi after you wrote this:

OK, so tell me more about how people wanting a realtor that doesn’t run Holocaust denial sites are the real fascists and going on Twitter to tell ****** people they are ****** is basically the inquisition.

Did you forget there was a witness?

Pretextual mewling about "free speech" and the "marketplace of ideas". As I said earlier, if you are not against them, then you are enabling them, you are helping them to stay out of sight to grow and thrive. That makes you part of the problem.

You also seem to be confusing "nazi" with "fascist"

Do you not understand what tactics are?

Well there's "not supporting" and then there's "actively defending."

But what's important in this discussion is that you are the victim in all of this.

Are you taking their word for it?

The real victims are the holocaust deniers who lose their anonymity and are held socially accountable for their voluntary words and actions. To non-violently confront ideas you disagree with using words on social media is really the tactics used by authoritarians and fascists.

Is there a valid reason not to?

Do you have evidence that the witness lied?

:confused:

I'm annoyed but I'm certainly not a victim. But whatever. Keep on ad homing.

Says the person comparing others to nazis.

On a bit more of a "wtf" note...

Apparently NYP is out to cancel a mentally ill homeless person.

This hate-filled NYC homeless man is bane of the neighborhood

I didn't compare anyone to nazis. Read more better.

What they gonna do, get him fired?

More likely to get him harassed, verbally and physically abused, and potentially killed.

Learn English grammar

If the potential consequences are someone losing their job, I'd practice a bit more skepticism than trusting an unidentified rando answering a leading question in a 30-second video clip. :rolleyes:

He needn't've lied to be incorrect.

So, that will be no then

So, that will also be no then

I'm sure the cancel culture pundits will be along any time now to condemn these racist and censorious groups going around trying to mass purge books from public schools:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-ri...luther-king-jr

What a load of garbage. There are plenty of people out there in the UK and the USA that self-identify as Nazis, that want to carry on the policies that the Nazis have always promulgated.

Don't be unfair, let's hear what the gentleman wearing a "Right Wing Death Squad" patch on his combat gear while menacing people in the public square has to say before we judge.

Let's wait for Bari Weiss to have this cancelled academic on her substack.

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/...demic-freedom/

Oh my God are we seriously having the "It's totally unreasonable (and not... TRUE SKEPTIC(TM)) to assume that just because someone says they are a Nazi that they are actually a Nazi" argument YET ******* AGAIN.