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

Argumemnon said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

But so you make them unpersonal, not "I want to kill you" but "Nazis should be killed". Then it becomes fine like his advocation of genocide.

That is the problem, you are ok with advocating genocide but more dirrect death threats are wrong. What is the line between acceptable like a nazi being for genocide and unacceptable like personal death threats?
 
Argumemnon said:
You really do enjoy misrepresenting people, don't you?

I've made clear that death threats are not protected speech, haven't I? Or did you fail to read the very short post you were responding to?
Click to expand...

But you have also treated calls for genocide as protected speech, so what is the line?
 
Argumemnon said:
You didn't fix it, you mucked it up. Ethnic cleansing need not involve death. It's silly and wrong and evil, but it need not involve death threats.
Click to expand...

But what about like the US proved with the Saint Louis that no one wanted those commie jews the nazis were exporting? Clearly just taking everyone you own and sending you to a country that doesn't want you is not something that is rating as a threat.

And what are they supposed to do to accomplish their ethnic cleansing when no one wants to take in the refugees? The world gave a clear answer as to what it thinks the worth of those being cleansed is after all.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's not necessarily a death threat, which is what we were discussing. I shouldn't have to explain the context of the discussion to you in each post.
Click to expand...

Neither is punching someone. Some how this is totally peaceful stipping a goup of everything they have after all.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's not necessarily a death threat, which is what we were discussing. I shouldn't have to explain the context of the discussion to you in each post.
Click to expand...

The context is not just anyone making a call for ethnic cleansing, but specifically a neo-nazi doing so. So even if ethnic cleansing didn't necessarily imply a death threat then it for sure would be if a friggin' nazi was making it, no?
 
ponderingturtle said:
But what about like the US proved with the Saint Louis that no one wanted those commie jews the nazis were exporting? Clearly just taking everyone you own and sending you to a country that doesn't want you is not something that is rating as a threat.

And what are they supposed to do to accomplish their ethnic cleansing when no one wants to take in the refugees? The world gave a clear answer as to what it thinks the worth of those being cleansed is after all.
Click to expand...

This particular point is why the Alt-Right should be debated and called out.

For instance; Richard Spencers' political position is as follows:
-People would be better off divided by ethnicity
-I support ethnic nationalism for everyone.
-we can achieve this non-violently by Cough, cough. look over there; something shiny. Anyway, where was I?
-Oh yeah, then we'll all have our own ethnostate and we can all live as we please.

Getting Spencer et al to own up to their vision of this magical transformations might be a good way to shine a light on their real ideas.
 
I suggest we get the contact information of his family and start emailing them with threats about how we are going to "cleanse their entire kin" from the face of the planet, and as usual show up in person if you're nearby. Political free speech is fun! :)
 
ponderingturtle said:
But what about like the US proved with the Saint Louis that no one wanted those commie jews the nazis were exporting? Clearly just taking everyone you own and sending you to a country that doesn't want you is not something that is rating as a threat.

And what are they supposed to do to accomplish their ethnic cleansing when no one wants to take in the refugees? The world gave a clear answer as to what it thinks the worth of those being cleansed is after all.
Click to expand...

You're very slippery. How about you address what I've actually said?

Neither is punching someone.
Click to expand...

It's still illegal, is it not?

Do you really have so much trouble distinguishing one thing from another?
 
caveman1917 said:
The context is not just anyone making a call for ethnic cleansing, but specifically a neo-nazi doing so. So even if ethnic cleansing didn't necessarily imply a death threat then it for sure would be if a friggin' nazi was making it, no?
Click to expand...

Why would it be different for them? Why would the laws apply differently to different groups?
 
caveman1917 said:
Seriously? You're arguing that if a neo-nazi threatens ethnic cleansing against a group of people that we can not conclude that this constitutes a death threat against those people?
Click to expand...

Can you not read English sentences?

I asked you why Nazis using ethnic cleansing speech should be treated differently from any other group using the same speech. This should be easy for you to understand.

Whose laws?
Click to expand...

Stop taking the piss.
 
Argumemnon said:
I asked you why Nazis using ethnic cleansing speech should be treated differently from any other group using the same speech. This should be easy for you to understand.
Click to expand...

I never said they should. Besides, even if another group uses the same speech then I'll posit that they should be considered Nazis anyway even if they say "but we're not Nazis, we merely say exactly the same things".

Anyway, so you support our right to free speech in organizing the "cleanse your entire kin from the face of the planet" campaign above? After all, you can't be absolutely sure that this actually constitutes a death threat, right?
 
caveman1917 said:
I never said they should.
Click to expand...

What's this:

caveman1917 said:
The context is not just anyone making a call for ethnic cleansing, but specifically a neo-nazi doing so. So even if ethnic cleansing didn't necessarily imply a death threat then it for sure would be if a friggin' nazi was making it, no?
Click to expand...

Aren't you arguing that they being Nazis is making the nature of their rhetoric different?

Anyway, so you support our right to free speech in organizing the "cleanse your entire kin from the face of the planet" campaign above?
Click to expand...

Again with the strawman. I said that death threats, amongst others, is not protected speech. What part of that has a hard time getting through your head?
 
Argumemnon said:
Aren't you arguing that they being Nazis is making the nature of their rhetoric different?
Click to expand...

I was mostly ridiculing your assertion that some vague "context" would support your contention that a threat of ethnic cleansing isn't necessarily a death threat. On the basis that the context constitutes specifically a Nazi making said threat, so if anything the context would be arguing against your position.

Again with the strawman. I said that death threats, amongst others, is not protected speech. What part of that has a hard time getting through your head?
Click to expand...

What death threat? I thought threats of (ethnic) cleansing aren't necessarily death threats?
 
caveman1917 said:
I was mostly ridiculing your assertion that some vague "context" would support your contention that a threat of ethnic cleansing isn't necessarily a death threat.
Click to expand...

Even ponderingturtle acknowledged that in post 341. Your ignorance is not my problem.

What death threat? I thought threats of (ethnic) cleansing aren't necessarily death threats?
Click to expand...

They're not necessarily death threats, but when they are, they are not protected speech. <snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many ethnic cleansing attacks have the American “neo-Nazis” carried out again? What was the last bill they got through Congress that implements an ethnic cleansing program?

A rational person can see the silly positions of the “neo-Nazis” for what they are: Empty rhetoric unworthy of serious debate. They are a marginal group with no power and not enough numbers and cohesion to be a threat to anyone. They say things hoping to get media coverage and they get it. We should just ignore them. Maybe the FBI and other related entities can keep an eye on them but I think it’s far past time for the public to ostracize them. Fire them, reject them socially, ridicule their stupidity and give them absolutely no media attention.
 
xjx388 said:
How many ethnic cleansing attacks have the American neo-Nazi ‘s carried out again? What was the last bill they got through Congress that implements an ethnic cleansing program?
Click to expand...

They seem pretty good at terrorism and killing cops but why be concerned about that when you can talk about antifa punching them? That seems to be the position of many on this subject.
 
Argumemnon said:
They're not necessarily death threats, but when they are, they are not protected speech.
Click to expand...

Well then, why are you not supporting the free speech rights of the campaign to threaten his kin with ethnic cleansing? It's not necessarily a death threat, nudge nudge wink wink.

And we get to make up some convoluted definition of "his kin" and stuff. What would you think, let's cleanse his family to the 5th degree or something?
 
xjx388 said:
How many ethnic cleansing attacks have the American “neo-Nazis” carried out again?
Click to expand...

Are you saying a death threat is only a problem after you've killed the target of the threat? Besides, American neo-Nazis make plenty of victims, which you could easily determine if you had bothered to check.
 
I oppose punching Nazis because:

(1) It doesn't accomplish anything positive. I don't believe that acts like this will deter anyone. There is no imminent danger. The hypothetical nazi isn't on their way to commit acts of genocide. (If your hypothetical nazi is en route to commit atrocities, and there's no possibility of law enforcement intervening, that's another story.)

(2) It might have negative consequences, e.g. helping with fund raising, providing rhetorical ammo to sympathetic bigots such as Donald Trump, and normalizing political violence.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Aren't you arguing that they being Nazis is making the nature of their rhetoric different?
Click to expand...


A little bit of history you may not be familiar with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Again with the strawman. I said that death threats, amongst others, is not protected speech.
Click to expand...


Apparently it is, but only if it's from Nazis. That's what their "ethnic cleansing" is about; it always has been, and likely always will be. It is a great big glaring death threat against anyone who doesn't fit their definition of the "master race"; which they amply demonstrated to the tune of about 17 million people within living memory.

Genocide is an inherent and integral part, indeed one may call it the defining part, of Nazi ideology, and has been since the days of Mein Kampf. It is fundamentally inseparable from the other tenets of the worldview. Hovater's own writings on his own activist website uphold that call to genocide, albeit through some poorly-veiled and highly transparent circumlocutions. When someone declares that they firmly believe and advocate A=B and B=C, then it's not even the tiniest leap of logic to conclude that they believe and advocate A=C. It takes a whole lot of bizarre logical gyrations and denialism worthy of neo-Nazis themselves to deny that.

This entire thread has been rife with First Amendment absolutists and "useful idiots" defending the side demanding the extermination of anyone who doesn't fit an extremely narrow definition of 'human', against those who are actively resisting the normalization and sanitization of their hateful, murderous rhetoric.

Now, I personally decry the use of death threats targeted at Hovater's family, and threats against his employer; but I fully support his' employer's right to dissociate themselves from Hovater's clearly expressed genocidal philosophy, and I fully support the community's right to peacefully express their displeasure with same.

But, in order to be consistent, one must acknowledge that death threats against individuals and death threats against entire ethnic groups are equivalent. Either both are protected speech, or neither are. There is a very good reason that Nazi ideology is illegal in the nation where it originated and had its greatest impact. To declare it merely "political speech" is to flatly ignore one of the most profound and devastating atrocities in modern world history.
 
varwoche said:
(1) It doesn't accomplish anything positive for me. I don't believe that acts like this will deter anyone. There is no imminent danger for me. The, for me hypothetical, nazi isn't on their way to commit acts of genocide.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
caveman1917 said:
Well then, why are you not supporting the free speech rights of the campaign to threaten his kin with ethnic cleansing? It's not necessarily a death threat, nudge nudge wink wink.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Again, your ignorance is not my problem. I support free speech except in a very small number of cases where said speech puts people in danger. You don't. You think that people you disagree with should be silenced even when they don't post an immediate danger. Fine. That's you.
 
caveman1917 said:
Are you saying a death threat is only a problem after you've killed the target of the threat? Besides, American neo-Nazis make plenty of victims, which you could easily determine if you had bothered to check.
Click to expand...
Yes various white supremacy groups have committed murders. The discussion, however, was centered on neo-Nazis and ethnic cleansing. You can correct me if I missed something but I can find no reports of neo-Nazis carrying out ethnic cleansing attacks or having any success in getting an ethnic cleansing proposal made law.

It appears to me that any talk of ethnic cleansing is all talk; no action. Even then, have there been any public rallies where neo-Nazis openly called for the death of any ethnic group? Where they made a call for all their “brothers” to kill people? If so, I agree that those forms of speech are not protected. But something tells me they aren’t quite stupid enough to do that. As such, I don’t think certain ideologies should be banned from the public sphere but the hammer should come down hard when they break the law.
 
luchog said:
A little bit of history you may not be familiar with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
Click to expand...

<snip>

Tell you what: how about you read what I actually posted in this thread and respond in a way that shows that you understand the argument, rather than showing off how progressive you are?

Apparently it is, but only if it's from Nazis.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
varwoche said:
Actually, I belong to a demographic that's on the Nazi **** list.
Click to expand...

Then you're probably either far enough down the list or live in a rich enough neighbourhood to not have the problem. But neo-nazi violence is real, they regularly do assault and even kill people on their list. And punching them (especially when they're out on demonstrations) does decrease instances of that, so yes it has positive outcome. The absolute worst thing you can do is let them demonstrate unopposed.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Then you're probably either far enough down the list or live in a rich enough neighbourhood to not have the problem. But neo-nazi violence is real, they regularly do assault and even kill people on their list.
Click to expand...

Exactly so we can pretend it doesn't happen. Therefor it doesn't happen to anyone who matters.
 
Argumemnon said:
Even if you weren't, caveman's response it a fallacy, as if you need to be on the list in order to understand and agree with him.
Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy, it's an explanation for why someone would believe that "acts like that wouldn't deter anyone" when they observably do.
 
xjx388 on why Nazis aren’t so bad…
xjx388 said:
How many ethnic cleansing attacks have the American “neo-Nazis” carried out again? What was the last bill they got through Congress that implements an ethnic cleansing program?

A rational person can see the silly positions of the “neo-Nazis” for what they are: Empty rhetoric unworthy of serious debate. They are a marginal group with no power and not enough numbers and cohesion to be a threat to anyone.
Click to expand...


But Antifa totally is:
xjx388 said:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Why do I think the crackpot left, antifa, communists, etc. are more dangerous than the crackpot right, white supremacist, nationalists, etc? There are a couple of reasons. The first is that in recent history in the US, the former have resorted to violence much more often and have acted out against free speech with all of the university stuff, the stuff at trump rallies, and even some previous white supremacist/nationalist rallies that would likely have been peaceful had they not arrived. So, yeah, armed thugs beating those that disagree = bad.
Click to expand...
That. But more fundamentally, antifa et. al. are more dangerous because, as this thread demonstrates, they are perceived as the "good guys" by too many people on the left just because they share certain political views. We dasn't call out the bad actors on the left because that means we support Nazis! It would be laughable if it wasn't so scary.
Click to expand...


It’s these kind of ridiculous double standards and rationalizations that give one the appearance of being a Nazi sympathizer.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But you have also treated calls for genocide as protected speech, so what is the line?
Click to expand...

As a matter of constitutional law the line is very clear. It is legal to say, "Kill all the Jews!" It is illegal to say, "Kill that Jew!"

And I would tend to guess that most neo-Nazis aren't advocating genocide these days. That strikes me as a pretty hard sell. Richard Spencer talks about peaceful ethnic cleansing; it's still repulsive and ridiculous to even consider, but it does fall short of genocide. So now even your stated reason for not allowing his free speech is out the window.
 
johnny karate said:
xjx388 on why Nazis aren’t so bad…







But Antifa totally is:







It’s these kind of ridiculous double standards and rationalizations that give one the appearance of being a Nazi sympathizer.
Click to expand...



Where exactly is the double standard? I do not defend violent action on either side. I do not sympathize with antifa and I do not sympathize with neo-Nazis. The only thing I do support is the right of both sides to express their ideas as long as they don’t threaten or commit violence.

My point there was very specific: violence from antifa gets support from people on this forum whereas I see no instance of support for violence from neo -Nazis. Too many people think of antifa as “the good guys,” so their violence is “justified.” No. Violence is never justified unless it is to stop an imminent threat. The “punch a Nazi” defenders seem to support violence when they think it’s right but condemn it when they think it’s wrong. I just flat out condemn it.
 
Brainster said:
As a matter of constitutional law the line is very clear. It is legal to say, "Kill all the Jews!" It is illegal to say, "Kill that Jew!"

And I would tend to guess that most neo-Nazis aren't advocating genocide these days. That strikes me as a pretty hard sell. Richard Spencer talks about peaceful ethnic cleansing; it's still repulsive and ridiculous to even consider, but it does fall short of genocide. So now even your stated reason for not allowing his free speech is out the window.
Click to expand...

When did they ever talk about genocide? First it was all about resettling the jews elsewhere, then mass sterilization then a "final solution" to the "jewish Problem". See nothing violent or talking about genocide.

All those supposedly violent nazis involved in things like krystalnacht don't count anymore than nazis driving cars into protestors et ala count now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom