Nazi sympathizer profiled by NY Times says he lost his job and — soon — his home

Giz said:
Some on this forum are arguing for normalizing attacking people for thought crime. ( But I don't think that they are modern American conservatives)
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that that has ZERO to do with my comment you were replying to, it is always darkly amusing to see Nazi defenders trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation by yelling "thoughtcrime" as if Nazism was just another political position that any person is perfectly entitled to hold without negative consequence...

Nazism is barbarism of the most inhuman sort. It is built on not just the idea of "racial superiority", but racial supremacy, enforced via the genocide of all who do not measure up to the Nazi ideal. It is, at its very core, one of the purest forms of evil mankind is capable of.

To be a Nazi is by definition to be a monster. To forfeit any claim on being in any sense a decent human being.

And, no, it is not hypocritical to say that, and is in no way whatsoever to be the same as a Nazi. Nazi's judge by irrelevant characteristics of race and health that are outside the control of the individual. Judging a Nazi is judging based on freely chosen and actively held beliefs.
 
Oystein said:
You weren't there. What you describe there totally does not match my experience. You overestimate the average nazi activist. By talking to me for an hour, they totally lost the opportunity to bait anyone during that time. They were genuinly fascinated that someone who understands law and genetics and history would talk to them in a productive way, and they probably learned a bit.
Click to expand...


In my experience, talking with them is a little like talking with outlaw bikers: If they are on their own, one at a time, it's sometimes possible to have an apparently meaningful conversation or even discussion with them. If there is more than one, you run the risk that they need to prove their 'loyalty to the cause' to the others, and that can sometimes be dangerous.

But it is a given that conversions are possible.
This is a success story, and it describes in detail what made it possible:

The White Flight of Derek Black (Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2016)
Interview with Former White Nationalist Derek Black (New York Times, Aug. 22, 2017)
The Complicated Life of Derek Black: Son of a White Supremacist (The Odyssey Online, Oct. 24, 2017)

Could you be more specific about your discussion with the right-wing extremists? What was the claim that you debated? What were your arguments?
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
This is just awful.

Advocating non-violence because one is "afraid" of what Nazis will do is cowardice and essentially collaboration. There may be arguments for non-violence (more likely for limiting violence as much as possible), but this is not it.

Punching a nazi, heck, even shooting one, is nowhere near a legitimization of racial genocide. That kind of thinking is patently insane.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you had read for comprehension rather as a starting point to your rant, you might have noticed that this is not at all what I said. Your post has no relation to mine in any way. Lots of that going around in this thread.

I'm talking about legitimising POLITICAL VIOLENCE, not genocide. If you use political violence to silence people you disagree with, even if you think you have good reasons then you are saying that political violence is ok when you think you have a good reason. And who doesn't think they have good reasons to do what they do?

Do you want to try again?
 
PhantomWolf said:
While I don't agree with those that have threatened violence (violence if only ever a last resort, to be only for self defence or defence of others when all other options have failed,) when you have a country that is fine with people being fired for posting a picture of themselves flipping the bird to the President as their avatar on social media, I have zero sympathy for someone that outed themselves as a Nazi being fired for it.
Click to expand...

Couldn't both of those things be wrong?

And instead of saying "if my people get ********** I don't care if others get **********" ,is it not a possibility that taking a stance against the *********** itself is the better option?
 
Remember the last time people didn't stand against Nazis:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
​
 
sadhatter said:
If intended was replaced with proven I'd have no problem. But morally accepting violence based only on its intent is *********** disgusting. By that logic you shouldn't be fighting nazis because they think they are doing good.
Click to expand...

Who is accepting? It is a comparison. If you feel like it, assume both are identical acts of violence that are properly and justly punished by life imprisonment and in no way acceptable in an ordered society.

Again, by comparison, is the person intending to stop genocide just as bad as the one seeking to facilitate it?
 
Checkmite said:
Tragic I suppose; but nobody who believes NYT was completely out-of-line printing a fluff profile on a Nazi needs to feel bad about this situation.
Click to expand...

I think everyone who wants to help out should spend a penny on him!!! Shower him with Teutonic love - and save some for Trump the Deficient!!!!!!!
 
sadhatter said:
Couldn't both of those things be wrong?

And instead of saying "if my people get ********** I don't care if others get **********" ,is it not a possibility that taking a stance against the *********** itself is the better option?
Click to expand...

Nope, you have to take in consideration who they are flashing the finger at!!!!
Trump truly deserves it and much worse as do his sychophants and diddlers!!!!!
 
Argumemnon said:
Perhaps if you had read for comprehension rather as a starting point to your rant, you might have noticed that this is not at all what I said. Your post has no relation to mine in any way. Lots of that going around in this thread.

I'm talking about legitimising POLITICAL VIOLENCE, not genocide. If you use political violence to silence people you disagree with, even if you think you have good reasons then you are saying that political violence is ok when you think you have a good reason. And who doesn't think they have good reasons to do what they do?

Do you want to try again?
Click to expand...

Sure. Violence motivated by politics is often necessary and morally justified, and your "who is to say" type position is at best nonsensical.

All political behavior is violence. It is all force, either real or threatened. Declaring certain behavior as criminal and punishing same is an act of political violence. It is just one that is usually seen as morally justified because of social norms.

Nazi activity should be hounded by the criminal authorities as least as aggressively as they do the mafia or a child porn ring or any other continuing criminal enterprise. It isn't because people buy into the nonsense position that nazi ideology is about politics rather than crime.

Sure, punching a guy for merely advocating criminal behavior without in any way facilitating any crime probably has to illegal because of free speech concerns, but it is pretty far down the list of crimes I'm going to care all that much about. Sort of like possession of marijuana.
 
Suddenly said:
Who is accepting? It is a comparison. If you feel like it, assume both are identical acts of violence that are properly and justly punished by life imprisonment and in no way acceptable in an ordered society.

Again, by comparison, is the person intending to stop genocide just as bad as the one seeking to facilitate it?
Click to expand...

I stick with my statement.

If one is not 100%positive that they are stopping active violence, I do not condone violence based on intent. They are both using violence (which is a useful and important tool) for inappropriate reasons. Both are equally guilty.
 
fuelair said:
Nope, you have to take in consideration who they are flashing the finger at!!!!
Trump truly deserves it and much worse as do his sychophants and diddlers!!!!!
Click to expand...

That is morally bankrupt.

It's very easy to advocate for the ability to be offensive for people youlike, that's just being tribal. Enlightenment is realizing those same rights apply to others.
 
sadhatter said:
That is morally bankrupt.

It's very easy to advocate for the ability to be offensive for people youlike, that's just being tribal. Enlightenment is realizing those same rights apply to others.
Click to expand...
It's not particularly morally enlightened to literally equate Nazism with Democracy, say, either.
 
The Norseman said:
It's not particularly morally enlightened to literally equate Nazism with Democracy, say, either.
Click to expand...

I'm not, I'm equating the ability to express those ideas with democracy. Once ideas turn to illegal action then we can step in. You know, one of the founding principles of a *********** democracy. To enforce the rule of law and not arbitrarily silence people regardless of how much we like them.
 
sadhatter said:
I'm not, I'm equating the ability to express those ideas with democracy. Once ideas turn to illegal action then we can step in. You know, one of the founding principles of a *********** democracy. To enforce the rule of law and not arbitrarily silence people regardless of how much we like them.
Click to expand...
Limiting the expression of Nazism is certainly not arbitrary and many people have already posted why. Not all ideas and ideals are *********** equal.
 
Darat said:
Remember the last time people didn't stand against Nazis:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
​
Click to expand...

But whatever you do, don't fire them from their jobs!
:boggled:
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Aside from the fact that that has ZERO to do with my comment you were replying to, it is always darkly amusing to see Nazi defenders trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation by yelling "thoughtcrime" as if Nazism was just another political position that any person is perfectly entitled to hold without negative consequence...
Click to expand...

Feel free to come up with a new version of the Bill of Rights with an exception for Nazis.
 
sadhatter said:
But you are restricting tolerance, by your logic I have a moral obligation to violently oppose you and the nazis now.

Personally I say neither group should have violence used against them in the exception of cases where illegal violence is being actively committed.
Click to expand...

Bad choice of words on my part. Instead of "those who would restrict tolerance" read "the intolerant".
 
Giz said:
Some on this forum are arguing for normalizing attacking people for thought crime. ( But I don't think that they are modern American conservatives)
Click to expand...

Being a Nazi isn't a thought crime. Nobody knows you're a Nazi if you only think it. The thing about Nazis is that they tend not to think that much, but scream and fight quite a lot. Thus, no thought crime.
 
sadhatter said:
To enforce the rule of law and not arbitrarily silence people regardless of how much we like them.
Click to expand...

You probably know that like/don't like isn't really the distinction that anybody has used in this discussion to tell Nazis apart from everybody else, don't you?
 
Emily's Cat said:
You are wronger than wrong.

I did NOT compare being a Republican to being a Nazi. The amount of wrong in your approach is staggering.

I draw a parallel between FIRING SOMEONE FOR THEIR BELIEF and FIRING SOMEONE FOR THEIR BELIEF.
Click to expand...

How one is required to treat Nazis.

1. Give them free Platforms to adress larger groups of people.
2. Give them Jobs no matter what. Firing people for criticising the president that is great, firing people for being a Nazi that is rightout.
 
Emily's Cat said:
He is being threatened and persecuted. Not just him - his family. And nothing is being done about the threats... because he holds "wrong" beliefs. Furthermore, people who I would have expected to be defenders of civil liberties have been lauding the threats against him and suggesting that threats aren't enough.

So technically, no, he hasn't *yet* been denied his rights. But he has lost his job on the basis of his belief. He is being threatened because of his belief. And those threats are being supported and violence against him is being suggested as appropriate and acceptable because of his beliefs.
Click to expand...

Exactly punching a nazi is worse than a nazi driving a car into a crowd.

Being pro genocide and pro terrorism is not a big deal.
 
Shalamar said:
I'm all for free speech. Even for NAZIs. It allows us to identify them.

Threats however are unwarranted. There should not be threats against their lives, or their employers, if for no other reason that it makes you just like them.
Feel free to point and laugh at them though.
Click to expand...

But threats are just free speech like his calling for the murder of all jews and the like. If calling for people to be murdered is wrong and something that should be punished you really need to include nazis in the groups getting punished.
 
See we have a distinction between protected political speech and threats.

Protected political speech is a rally outside an abortion clinic calling for the deaths of everyone involved in abortion. This is good and totally acceptable and not a big deal

Threats are calling the clinic itself with the same position. This is hugely problematic.


It is really easy to see the difference.

What they should have done is hold death to nazi rallies outside his place of work and fine the employer for choosing to fire him. That would be perfect apparently.
 
Suddenly said:
Sure. Violence motivated by politics is often necessary and morally justified, and your "who is to say" type position is at best nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Nonsensical? That position is at least consistent. If violence of that sort is "often" justified, who decides when it is? The individual? If you espouse a political philosophy that I loathe and consider a threat to my way of life, who can tell me that beating you to a bloody pulp is not the right thing to do? You're not advocating for the rule of law, but for anarchy, where everyone gets to follow their own code. My position is not nonsensical: we have the police to handle criminals and threats to our society. We don't need the Suddenlys and Uke2ses and Zimmermans of the world for that.

All political behavior is violence. It is all force, either real or threatened.
Click to expand...

Starship Troopers was political satire. You're not supposed to make it the foundation of your understanding of politics.

Declaring certain behavior as criminal and punishing same is an act of political violence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but consistently and through neutral parties, not allowing citizens to enact justice themselves.
 
sadhatter said:
I stick with my statement.

If one is not 100%positive that they are stopping active violence, I do not condone violence based on intent. They are both using violence (which is a useful and important tool) for inappropriate reasons. Both are equally guilty.
Click to expand...


The guy who punches the nazi in the face because he is a nazi is the moral equal of the guy that punches a black man in the face because he is black? Am I getting this right?
 
John Jones said:
Do you ever NOT post straw man arguments?
Click to expand...

That is the position of the Nazi defenders. There is nothing threatening about genocide. Otherwise nazi calls for genocide would be more problematic and not as easily covered under free speech. As this is about people making such demands not facing any consequences why is that not an accurate characterization?
 
Suddenly said:
The guy who punches the nazi in the face because he is a nazi is the moral equal of the guy that punches a black man in the face because he is black? Am I getting this right?
Click to expand...


Is it really so difficult to see the similarity, Suddenly?
The black man can't help being black, the same way the Nazi can't help wanting to exterminate all inferior races!
It's how he was born! Isn't it obvious!? :)
 
ponderingturtle said:
Except for how many of the are cops. But hey nazi cops are not your problem.
Click to expand...


I wrote it in answer to this:

ChristianProgressive said:
Even more dangerous is the normalization of elements of Nazi ideals such as Social Darwinism, which is the heart of modern American conservative thought.
Click to expand...


And I guess that there are probably more Social Darwinist cops than Nazi cops, so, yes, I still agree with ChristianProgressive on this.
 
Brainster said:
Feel free to come up with a new version of the Bill of Rights with an exception for Nazis.
Click to expand...

Not necessary. The bill of rights does not protect illegal behavior. Threatening to kill the president is illegal, for example. Something like this could take several forms, like making it illegal to threaten group violence based on race/gender/etc. This wouldn't cover all nazi speech, but it would cover a whole lot of it.
 
dann said:
I wrote it in answer to this:




And I guess that there are probably more Social Darwinist cops than Nazi cops, so, yes, I still agree with ChristianProgressive on this.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of nazi cops. And clearly they need to keep their jobs, they can't be fired just for being a nazi after all.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That is the position of the Nazi defenders. There is nothing threatening about genocide. Otherwise nazi calls for genocide would be more problematic and not as easily covered under free speech. As this is about people making such demands not facing any consequences why is that not an accurate characterization?
Click to expand...

You made a strawman argument when you implied that a poster thought that "calls for ethnic cleansing are ok":
ponderingturtle said:
But calls for ethnic cleansing are ok, because that doesn't count as violence.
Click to expand...

The poster didn't write or imply that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom