6 ms·

Sigh. We went through this 70 years ago with literal nazis, are we going to have to live through it again, this time from the far left? Didn't they learn this

by Khaine 9y ago

Sigh. We went through this 70 years ago with literal nazis, are we going to have to live through it again, this time from the far left? Didn't they learn this poem in school? "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." To be clear, I don't agree with what nazi's say, but like voltaire I support their right to be able to say it.

c0nducktr 9y ago
Are you kidding me? That poem is literally about the Nazis, and how you have to fight them before they exterminate you.
- leereeves 9y ago
  That poem is indeed literally about the Nazis, but it's a warning about any extremist group that gains power by attacking other extremists, wherever they fall on the political spectrum. The first line, "First they came for the Socialists", is about communists, another despised group who certain politicians in America have targeted to their profit and our lasting shame. The remaining lines are about other groups the Nazis attacked by associating them with communists, in the same way Hollywood was once associated with communists in America. In our hatred for Nazis, let's not forget our basic values the way we once did when McCarthy waved communists in front of us like a matador.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > it's a warning about any extremist group that gains power by attacking other extremists I believe you may have misinterpreted the poem. It's not about preventing "attacks" towards other extremists, it's about _suppressing_ them. It's one thing to argue with someone, fight with them, make your disagreements known, and whatever. That advances the conversation. It's a completely different issue to silence and suppress your enemies. That leads to authoritarianism, whether from the left or the right. In my opinion, it is right of the majority to make their disdain towards the Nazis known. It is right of them to denounce their behavior. I personally don't feel it's right to suppress their ability to express their views, however.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      I have a problem with people who focus on the worst. Advancing the conversation isn't possible when "the conversation" is each side claiming the other is represented by the worst people imaginable. It's the same thing as claiming BLM is represented by cop killers, or Islam is represented by ISIS.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
If only Nazis stuck to talking, I could see your point here. The problem with Nazis however is, they dont respect your right to talk, and (as Richard Spencer of the Alt-right tweeted) they dont want to talk. They want to crush and Oppress. Lets not try and pretend its equivalent.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>To be clear, I don't agree with what nazi's say, but like voltaire I support their right to be able to say it. So, as long as we're talking about Charlottesville, you support their right to say it outside synagogues and black churches, without a municipal demonstration permit, while dressed in fatigues and pointing guns at the building?
- leereeves 9y ago
  Is that about Charlottesville?
ebola1717 9y ago
Wow this is probably the most willfully ignorant post I've seen in a while. "We have to deal with nazis again, except this time the Nazis are actually the people standing up to Nazis"
Delmania 9y ago
> To be clear, I don't agree with what nazi's say, but like voltaire I support their right to be able to say it. Here, read this: https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-case-against-free-speech-for-fascists/?mc_cid=70d578520a&mc_eid=9deaabec7d https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-cas... I do not support the Nazi's right to say what they want. Nazism resulted in the murder of 30 million people. It engulfed much of the Western world in a war that ravaged nations and killed millions. It calls for ethnic cleansing and racial oppression. It is literally the opposite of the liberal democracy the United States is based on. It runs counter to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it does not promote freedom, equality, and justice for all. Much of the same can be lodged against the people who support the Confederacy. I'm for dissent and speaking out. I do think, however, there is speech, which while is not libel and slander, crosses a line that should not be tolerated in a free and just society. Slippery slopes, intolerance, etc. A good litmus test is to ask if your speech calls for the killing or enslavement of those who are different than you. Considering we waged 2 wars over Nazism and the Confederacy, I'd say those ideas fall into that category.
- mrkstu 9y ago
  So I take you to mean you supported Hollywood's blacklisting of suspected Communists? And would support outlawing allowing Noam Chomsky from speaking publicly in the United States? After all, Communism is responsible for more dead people than Nazism...
  - Delmania 9y ago
    That's whataboutism at play.
    - mrkstu 9y ago
      No, its directly on the nose. Either your argument that its different because "Nazism resulted in the murder of 30 million people" is valid or not. Your predicate is what is at question and therefore not whataboutism.

by Khaine 9y ago

c0nducktr 9y ago

Are you kidding me? That poem is literally about the Nazis, and how you have to fight them before they exterminate you.

leereeves 9y ago
That poem is indeed literally about the Nazis, but it's a warning about any extremist group that gains power by attacking other extremists, wherever they fall on the political spectrum. The first line, "First they came for the Socialists", is about communists, another despised group who certain politicians in America have targeted to their profit and our lasting shame. The remaining lines are about other groups the Nazis attacked by associating them with communists, in the same way Hollywood was once associated with communists in America. In our hatred for Nazis, let's not forget our basic values the way we once did when McCarthy waved communists in front of us like a matador.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > it's a warning about any extremist group that gains power by attacking other extremists I believe you may have misinterpreted the poem. It's not about preventing "attacks" towards other extremists, it's about _suppressing_ them. It's one thing to argue with someone, fight with them, make your disagreements known, and whatever. That advances the conversation. It's a completely different issue to silence and suppress your enemies. That leads to authoritarianism, whether from the left or the right. In my opinion, it is right of the majority to make their disdain towards the Nazis known. It is right of them to denounce their behavior. I personally don't feel it's right to suppress their ability to express their views, however.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    I have a problem with people who focus on the worst. Advancing the conversation isn't possible when "the conversation" is each side claiming the other is represented by the worst people imaginable. It's the same thing as claiming BLM is represented by cop killers, or Islam is represented by ISIS.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

If only Nazis stuck to talking, I could see your point here. The problem with Nazis however is, they dont respect your right to talk, and (as Richard Spencer of the Alt-right tweeted) they dont want to talk. They want to crush and Oppress. Lets not try and pretend its equivalent.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>To be clear, I don't agree with what nazi's say, but like voltaire I support their right to be able to say it. So, as long as we're talking about Charlottesville, you support their right to say it outside synagogues and black churches, without a municipal demonstration permit, while dressed in fatigues and pointing guns at the building?

leereeves 9y ago
Is that about Charlottesville?

ebola1717 9y ago

Wow this is probably the most willfully ignorant post I've seen in a while. "We have to deal with nazis again, except this time the Nazis are actually the people standing up to Nazis"

Delmania 9y ago

> To be clear, I don't agree with what nazi's say, but like voltaire I support their right to be able to say it. Here, read this: https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-case-against-free-speech-for-fascists/?mc_cid=70d578520a&mc_eid=9deaabec7d https://qz.com/1053957/charlottesville-neo-nazis-and-the-cas... I do not support the Nazi's right to say what they want. Nazism resulted in the murder of 30 million people. It engulfed much of the Western world in a war that ravaged nations and killed millions. It calls for ethnic cleansing and racial oppression. It is literally the opposite of the liberal democracy the United States is based on. It runs counter to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it does not promote freedom, equality, and justice for all. Much of the same can be lodged against the people who support the Confederacy. I'm for dissent and speaking out. I do think, however, there is speech, which while is not libel and slander, crosses a line that should not be tolerated in a free and just society. Slippery slopes, intolerance, etc. A good litmus test is to ask if your speech calls for the killing or enslavement of those who are different than you. Considering we waged 2 wars over Nazism and the Confederacy, I'd say those ideas fall into that category.

mrkstu 9y ago
So I take you to mean you supported Hollywood's blacklisting of suspected Communists? And would support outlawing allowing Noam Chomsky from speaking publicly in the United States? After all, Communism is responsible for more dead people than Nazism...
- Delmania 9y ago
  That's whataboutism at play.
  - mrkstu 9y ago
    No, its directly on the nose. Either your argument that its different because "Nazism resulted in the murder of 30 million people" is valid or not. Your predicate is what is at question and therefore not whataboutism.