4 ms·

I'm pretty sure to fight for people's rights, you have to fight against nazis. At least that's what all my history books told me we did in world war 2.

UnpossibleJim 9y ago
as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the country's founding.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.
  - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
    I thought we were talking about America, here. I might have been mistaken. Nazi speech, as well as a great number of things are illegal in Germany that aren't in America. We have completely different foinding documents, government policies and laws.
  - e9 9y ago
    We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate how are we better? Have you talked to any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist but punch them with debate.
    - liberte82 9y ago
      Nazis don't have ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me what is the tax policy of a fascist? They have none, save that of whichever system they hijack en route to their only real mission, which is the elimination and persecution of their perceived enemies. We fought the worst war the world has ever seen to stop them because once they got rolling, they had to keep growing to survive. That's the nature of hate. They certainly weren't going to be stopped by debate. From Sartre: "The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has pleased himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side." It seems that America is going to insist on finding out what fascism is really about the hard way.
      - e9 9y ago
        so do you recommend banning all hate movements? As article points out "Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group." Where do you draw the line?
  - smith_winston 9y ago
    This is an ahistorical claim. The censorship laws of the German Federal Republic (1) were first imposed by the Allies during occupation and were only relaxed, in part, after the official end of the war in 1949 (2). Germany was not a fully sovereign state until 1991 (3). Implying that these laws were the result of the population deciding to impose them upon themselves after "learning" a "lesson" is, in fact, the inverse of what actually happened in that they were intended to teach the Germans a lesson as part of their subjugation. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Repu... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Interestingly enough, Germany has a Nazi party and they have a seat in the European parliament.

UnpossibleJim 9y ago

as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the country's founding.

ebola1717 9y ago
Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.
- UnpossibleJim 9y ago
  I thought we were talking about America, here. I might have been mistaken. Nazi speech, as well as a great number of things are illegal in Germany that aren't in America. We have completely different foinding documents, government policies and laws.
- e9 9y ago
  We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to silencing and violence without debate how are we better? Have you talked to any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist but punch them with debate.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    Nazis don't have ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me what is the tax policy of a fascist? They have none, save that of whichever system they hijack en route to their only real mission, which is the elimination and persecution of their perceived enemies. We fought the worst war the world has ever seen to stop them because once they got rolling, they had to keep growing to survive. That's the nature of hate. They certainly weren't going to be stopped by debate. From Sartre: "The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has pleased himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side." It seems that America is going to insist on finding out what fascism is really about the hard way.
    - e9 9y ago
      so do you recommend banning all hate movements? As article points out "Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group." Where do you draw the line?
- smith_winston 9y ago
  This is an ahistorical claim. The censorship laws of the German Federal Republic (1) were first imposed by the Allies during occupation and were only relaxed, in part, after the official end of the war in 1949 (2). Germany was not a fully sovereign state until 1991 (3). Implying that these laws were the result of the population deciding to impose them upon themselves after "learning" a "lesson" is, in fact, the inverse of what actually happened in that they were intended to teach the Germans a lesson as part of their subjugation. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Repu... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
- ameister14 9y ago
  Interestingly enough, Germany has a Nazi party and they have a seat in the European parliament.