5 ms·

Because child pornography is better defined than Nazism. Sexually explicit images of under age persons is child pornography, full stop. But is "White Nation

by dolson 9y ago

Because child pornography is better defined than Nazism. Sexually explicit images of under age persons is child pornography, full stop. But is "White Nationalism" Nazism? How about Holocaust deniers? KKK? Unless a site explicitly labels itself as pro-Nazi, who's to say it's a Nazi site?

rainbowmverse 9y ago
The line between Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK members has always been pretty thin. All the Nazis did was apply white supremacist ideas that were in vogue at the time. I still see the occasional person arguing for eugenics, and not all of them are fringe goofballs.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  All you have to do is to take the stance of protecting individual human rights. So much for the Supremacists, KKK members, and Nazis, for all of those ideologies crap on individual human rights. So much for eugenics, which does the same. Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights. In WWII and all through the 20th century forces on the extreme right and the extreme left crapped on individual human rights. Some bad actors acting on behalf of all of the major countries did the same. The cast changes, but the story is the same. Non-violent vs. violent. Good vs. evil. Freedom vs. authoritarianism. Rational intellectualism vs. silencing and baseless accusation. If you would speak truth to power, look at who is exercising power. Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Look at who resorts to appeals to emotion in spite of logic and facts. If you would speak truth to power, speak to those actors.
  - angersock 9y ago
    > Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Not a good look for progressives and antifi, it would seem. (Nor genuine Nazi skinheads, but they're in the minority.)
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    > "Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights." Erm, then why did we hand over Poland and other Eastern European states to the USSR? Why did we let France re-establish their colonies in French-Indochina and elsewhere? You're dramatically oversimplifying things in order to make this some kind of cosmic fight between good and evil. Stop forcing a narrative by cutting out all the bits that get in the way.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Erm, then why did we hand over Poland and other Eastern European states to the USSR? Why did we let France re-establish their colonies in French-Indochina and elsewhere? Those are clearly failures of human rights. In the current international legal framework, the United States holds sovereign power and grants human rights to its citizens. The United States can grant human rights to persons within its borders. It cannot do more than play international politics on behalf of people outside of it. You're dramatically oversimplifying things in order to make this some kind of cosmic fight between good and evil. Stop forcing a narrative by cutting out all the bits that get in the way. Sorry, but you're the one who is "forcing a narrative" here. You have defined the sides, such that all "sides" have crapped on human rights. It is possible that you want to define sides this way because you know that your "side" is morally compromised and has crapped on human rights. (And if you are a member of the far extreme left, there is a good chance that your "side" is morally compromised and of authoritarian bent.) You can instead define your sides to be the non-violent against the violent, or individual human rights against authoritarianism. I suggest you do this. The USA is certainly not perfect. No sovereign nation that has ever existed has been perfect. This is why Free Speech is important, so that criticism can be levied against those in charge. This is why democracy is important, so that the voices of people can be heard and things can change, without further unnecessary violence. This is why genuine public discourse is vital, and why tactics of namecalling, shame, and intimidation are harmful -- it puts society in a position where "good" can only be accomplished by the commission of evil. Let us instead work towards a world where violence is no longer necessary.
      - guildwriter 9y ago
Top19 9y ago
Child Porn is a tough definition too. Good example is during the 80's in the heyday of "Satanic Ritual Abuse", which had its ow acronym btw (SRA), and "repressed memories", you had lots of people being hauled off to jail from K-Mart photo labs after developing pictures of their kids taking a path with their mother and stuff like that.
- PopePompous 9y ago
  Yes, there were many witchhunts. But they concerned (almost always false) accusations of child abuse, not child pornography. If you posted a picture that was purported to depict child abuse, but which was in no way sexual, I don't think that would be considered child pornography.

by dolson 9y ago

rainbowmverse 9y ago

The line between Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK members has always been pretty thin. All the Nazis did was apply white supremacist ideas that were in vogue at the time. I still see the occasional person arguing for eugenics, and not all of them are fringe goofballs.

stcredzero 9y ago
All you have to do is to take the stance of protecting individual human rights. So much for the Supremacists, KKK members, and Nazis, for all of those ideologies crap on individual human rights. So much for eugenics, which does the same. Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights. In WWII and all through the 20th century forces on the extreme right and the extreme left crapped on individual human rights. Some bad actors acting on behalf of all of the major countries did the same. The cast changes, but the story is the same. Non-violent vs. violent. Good vs. evil. Freedom vs. authoritarianism. Rational intellectualism vs. silencing and baseless accusation. If you would speak truth to power, look at who is exercising power. Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Look at who resorts to appeals to emotion in spite of logic and facts. If you would speak truth to power, speak to those actors.
- angersock 9y ago
  > Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Not a good look for progressives and antifi, it would seem. (Nor genuine Nazi skinheads, but they're in the minority.)
- guildwriter 9y ago
  > "Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights." Erm, then why did we hand over Poland and other Eastern European states to the USSR? Why did we let France re-establish their colonies in French-Indochina and elsewhere? You're dramatically oversimplifying things in order to make this some kind of cosmic fight between good and evil. Stop forcing a narrative by cutting out all the bits that get in the way.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Erm, then why did we hand over Poland and other Eastern European states to the USSR? Why did we let France re-establish their colonies in French-Indochina and elsewhere? Those are clearly failures of human rights. In the current international legal framework, the United States holds sovereign power and grants human rights to its citizens. The United States can grant human rights to persons within its borders. It cannot do more than play international politics on behalf of people outside of it. You're dramatically oversimplifying things in order to make this some kind of cosmic fight between good and evil. Stop forcing a narrative by cutting out all the bits that get in the way. Sorry, but you're the one who is "forcing a narrative" here. You have defined the sides, such that all "sides" have crapped on human rights. It is possible that you want to define sides this way because you know that your "side" is morally compromised and has crapped on human rights. (And if you are a member of the far extreme left, there is a good chance that your "side" is morally compromised and of authoritarian bent.) You can instead define your sides to be the non-violent against the violent, or individual human rights against authoritarianism. I suggest you do this. The USA is certainly not perfect. No sovereign nation that has ever existed has been perfect. This is why Free Speech is important, so that criticism can be levied against those in charge. This is why democracy is important, so that the voices of people can be heard and things can change, without further unnecessary violence. This is why genuine public discourse is vital, and why tactics of namecalling, shame, and intimidation are harmful -- it puts society in a position where "good" can only be accomplished by the commission of evil. Let us instead work towards a world where violence is no longer necessary.
    - guildwriter 9y ago

Top19 9y ago

Child Porn is a tough definition too. Good example is during the 80's in the heyday of "Satanic Ritual Abuse", which had its ow acronym btw (SRA), and "repressed memories", you had lots of people being hauled off to jail from K-Mart photo labs after developing pictures of their kids taking a path with their mother and stuff like that.

PopePompous 9y ago
Yes, there were many witchhunts. But they concerned (almost always false) accusations of child abuse, not child pornography. If you posted a picture that was purported to depict child abuse, but which was in no way sexual, I don't think that would be considered child pornography.