7 ms·

I'm not expert on the subject of neo-nazis or the nazi movement, so maybe this seems more complex because of my position of ignorance. But none of the statistic

I'm not expert on the subject of neo-nazis or the nazi movement, so maybe this seems more complex because of my position of ignorance. But none of the statistics seem to imply that nazis are more than simply intellectually repulsive and socially disgusting. Eh. The statistics about nazism is clear: they have killed a few million people over the last 100 years. That is more than about everyone else except maybe the various communist regimes who together are in the tens of millions range IIRC. Almost anyone that argues Hitler was agreat guy and nazism is great and should be ruling today are also arguing for continuing to kill people.

PeanutCurry 9y ago
I don't see how that's a particularly useful view of what the statistics reflect, especially since I clarified in the same post you quoted that I was speaking with regard to nazism in the modern context. Further, it wasn't simply nazis in the abstract that killed those few million people, it was nazi controlled Germany. It seems dishonest to ignore that aspect of the history because you gloss over all of the political maneuvering allowed the nazi party to become the force that it was such as the Reichstag Fire Decree. On top of this you ignore the history of antisemitic racism in early 20th century Europe that allowed the nazi party to gain enough popularity to attain traction as a political party. Your point that anyone supporting the spread of nazism is supporting the actions of the nazi party that existed in Hitler's Germany is valid. However, in America this sort of speech is not as distinctly illegal as it is in much of (all of?) Europe and so from an American perspective a discussion needs to take place about how to approach the topic because for us blanketly outlawing nazi groups because of their beliefs would erode some part of the general freedom of speech that we operate with. Whether that erosion represents the loss of anything of value is debatable, but it would none the less represent a decrease in our overall speech protections. This is where my point about evaluating and qualifying the reach and influence that groups like this actually have becomes relevant, because a rational discussion would be dependent on this sort of information.
- Akujin 9y ago
  A Nazi is way more dangerous than an Al Qaeda member and yet we would have zero problem taking down a terrorist website because it can radicalize people. Radicalization of people is quite literally spread like a disease. The internet has allowed this disease a means of spreading unlike ever before in the history of man. Being tolerant of such communities that call for the violent overthrow of the government, institution of a fascist government, and the genocide of entire populations of people is like allowing a cancer to spread. This train of thought is quite literally a cancer on humanity that needs to be chemo'd out of existence. It's literally worse than Child Porn by many orders of magnitude.
  - adnam 9y ago
    Islamist terrorism is much more prevalent than far-right terrorism http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism-analysis-of-offences-and-attacks-in-the-uk-1998-2015/ http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism...
    - icebraining 9y ago
      ...in the UK.
      - adnam 9y ago
        And elsewhere
        icebraining 9y ago
        Nope; in Portugal we never had an Islamist attack, but skinhead movements have attacked and even killed people.
briandear 9y ago
Communists killed multiple millions more. Yet Fidel Castro had world leaders at his funeral. The anti-Jewish progroms of the Soviet Union happened yet protesters who carry hammer and sickle flags aren’t treated with the same vile contempt as those who carry Nazi flags. Che Guevara’s face is plastered across all manner of pop culture and products yet that face represents communism and for some reason, it’s culturally acceptable?
- jwdunne 9y ago
  Communism as an ideology doesn't have racism as a cornerstone. It's just that it's very easy for people who want to do that to sieze power. Karl Marx never wrote in his manifesto that whole ethnic groups should be eliminated because white Germans are superior. Racism and genocide is at the heart of Nazi ideology. It is steeped in the ideas of racial superiority. This is why their symbols are culturally unacceptable: they literally mean "I am better than the Jews therefore they should die".
  - barsonme 9y ago
    ...which means (or, at least is should mean) absolutely nothing. Both Nazi and Communist regimes have killed staggering amounts of people in horrible and brutal ways. They're both repulsive. Like, who really cares whether your ideology has hate as a cornerstone if you still commit genocide by starvation and throw millions in gulags to die? "Oh man, I'm dead but at least they didn't hate me while they slowly starved me to death!"
    - jwdunne 9y ago
      I think you're mistaken. That's like saying we should attribute blame for Islamist terrorism to Islam itself. They're Muslims right? Wrong. Just because someone does horrible shit in the name of a cause does not mean the cause itself is at fault. Communisms fault is that it's far too utopian in practice and easy for someone like Stalin to hijack the process leading to what you describe. In fact, communism as defined by Marx looks nothing like what the Soviet Union was. I am a democratic socialist. The USSR was a socialist republic. Do I support what the Soviet union did because I'm a socialist? Hell no! Do I support Nazism because they were called the National Socialists? No and I reject any association of that nature. It's flat out wrong. Nazism, on the other hand, is pretty clear. Non-whites are vermin and must be exterminated. It's their ideology and if you fly their flags you support that view. It isn't a case of association because a bad actor was affiliated. It matters because it is rotten to the core. It matters because of intent. Karl Marx never intended for millions to starve in gulags. There is no mention of this and it isn't communist by definition. Genocide was Hitler's intent and it is Nazism by definition.

PeanutCurry 9y ago

I don't see how that's a particularly useful view of what the statistics reflect, especially since I clarified in the same post you quoted that I was speaking with regard to nazism in the modern context. Further, it wasn't simply nazis in the abstract that killed those few million people, it was nazi controlled Germany. It seems dishonest to ignore that aspect of the history because you gloss over all of the political maneuvering allowed the nazi party to become the force that it was such as the Reichstag Fire Decree. On top of this you ignore the history of antisemitic racism in early 20th century Europe that allowed the nazi party to gain enough popularity to attain traction as a political party. Your point that anyone supporting the spread of nazism is supporting the actions of the nazi party that existed in Hitler's Germany is valid. However, in America this sort of speech is not as distinctly illegal as it is in much of (all of?) Europe and so from an American perspective a discussion needs to take place about how to approach the topic because for us blanketly outlawing nazi groups because of their beliefs would erode some part of the general freedom of speech that we operate with. Whether that erosion represents the loss of anything of value is debatable, but it would none the less represent a decrease in our overall speech protections. This is where my point about evaluating and qualifying the reach and influence that groups like this actually have becomes relevant, because a rational discussion would be dependent on this sort of information.

Akujin 9y ago
A Nazi is way more dangerous than an Al Qaeda member and yet we would have zero problem taking down a terrorist website because it can radicalize people. Radicalization of people is quite literally spread like a disease. The internet has allowed this disease a means of spreading unlike ever before in the history of man. Being tolerant of such communities that call for the violent overthrow of the government, institution of a fascist government, and the genocide of entire populations of people is like allowing a cancer to spread. This train of thought is quite literally a cancer on humanity that needs to be chemo'd out of existence. It's literally worse than Child Porn by many orders of magnitude.
- adnam 9y ago
  Islamist terrorism is much more prevalent than far-right terrorism http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism-analysis-of-offences-and-attacks-in-the-uk-1998-2015/ http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    ...in the UK.
    - adnam 9y ago
      And elsewhere
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Nope; in Portugal we never had an Islamist attack, but skinhead movements have attacked and even killed people.

briandear 9y ago

Communists killed multiple millions more. Yet Fidel Castro had world leaders at his funeral. The anti-Jewish progroms of the Soviet Union happened yet protesters who carry hammer and sickle flags aren’t treated with the same vile contempt as those who carry Nazi flags. Che Guevara’s face is plastered across all manner of pop culture and products yet that face represents communism and for some reason, it’s culturally acceptable?

jwdunne 9y ago
Communism as an ideology doesn't have racism as a cornerstone. It's just that it's very easy for people who want to do that to sieze power. Karl Marx never wrote in his manifesto that whole ethnic groups should be eliminated because white Germans are superior. Racism and genocide is at the heart of Nazi ideology. It is steeped in the ideas of racial superiority. This is why their symbols are culturally unacceptable: they literally mean "I am better than the Jews therefore they should die".
- barsonme 9y ago
  ...which means (or, at least is should mean) absolutely nothing. Both Nazi and Communist regimes have killed staggering amounts of people in horrible and brutal ways. They're both repulsive. Like, who really cares whether your ideology has hate as a cornerstone if you still commit genocide by starvation and throw millions in gulags to die? "Oh man, I'm dead but at least they didn't hate me while they slowly starved me to death!"
  - jwdunne 9y ago
    I think you're mistaken. That's like saying we should attribute blame for Islamist terrorism to Islam itself. They're Muslims right? Wrong. Just because someone does horrible shit in the name of a cause does not mean the cause itself is at fault. Communisms fault is that it's far too utopian in practice and easy for someone like Stalin to hijack the process leading to what you describe. In fact, communism as defined by Marx looks nothing like what the Soviet Union was. I am a democratic socialist. The USSR was a socialist republic. Do I support what the Soviet union did because I'm a socialist? Hell no! Do I support Nazism because they were called the National Socialists? No and I reject any association of that nature. It's flat out wrong. Nazism, on the other hand, is pretty clear. Non-whites are vermin and must be exterminated. It's their ideology and if you fly their flags you support that view. It isn't a case of association because a bad actor was affiliated. It matters because it is rotten to the core. It matters because of intent. Karl Marx never intended for millions to starve in gulags. There is no mention of this and it isn't communist by definition. Genocide was Hitler's intent and it is Nazism by definition.