4 ms·

It was run by literal neo-Nazis, I think. Pretty sure the literal Nazis were either put to death, sent to prison, died of old age, or ended up hiding in Argenti

It was run by literal neo-Nazis, I think. Pretty sure the literal Nazis were either put to death, sent to prison, died of old age, or ended up hiding in Argentina somewhere never to be heard from again.

joshuamorton 9y ago
This is a distinction without a difference. Neo Nazis are people who are working to revive Nazi ideology. They're Nazis.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Actually, in some cases it is a distinction with a difference. US Immigration law still prohibits members of the actual Nazi party from obtaining permanent residency, and people looking to live here still have to sign statements under penalty of perjury that they are not members of said party. That and the parent said "literal".
stcredzero 9y ago
As soon as those neo-Nazis commit a crime, they should be put away and the figurative "book" should be thrown at them. But the moment our society makes it a practice of punishing people for throughtcrime and for what they might do or have yet to do, then we've become a literal dystopia from Science Fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? There's a whole host of laws around "thoughtcrime" (minority report and dystopias like it deal with "precrime" which is distinct). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
  - Zuider 9y ago
    There is a line to be drawn distinguishing between a toxic ideology, and an active conspiracy to commit a definite crime. They are at least notionally distinct.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? So, would Antifa making specific plans to get away with breaking the law apply? Would calling for the overthrow of the US government or the nullification of the US constitution apply? I think yes. I'm all for the prosecution of criminal conspiracy. However, we need to keep a clear distinction between politics and criminality. Flaunting the rule of law is criminality. Making specific plans to break the law is criminality. Operate within the law, and you should be fine. If the extra-legal persecution of Nazis is a good idea because they were such vile people who committed crimes against humanity, then why not the extra-legal persecution of Marxists and Anarchists? Those ideologies have been responsible for the sparking of world wars and the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century. People in the Gulag system weren't gassed in mock showers then burned in ovens. However, they were worked to death while freezing to death then blindfolded and bound and loaded on carts while still alive, to be dumped into pits to be buried alive. Not because the masters of the camps were cruel, but rather because it was found to be more efficient to move people around while they were still alive -- and because in the Dialectic Materialist ideology of Marxism, what did a moment of suffocation and horror matter if all flesh is bound to turn back into soil anyhow? Postmodernism is just a cut-and-paste homomorphism to "good old" Marxism. And that stuff isn't about benefiting the people. It's about undoing the current social order and systems of value so you can seize power. Both Nazism and Postmodernist Social Construction explicitly say these things! Just read what the thought leaders say! All attempts to push collectivism to the level of sovereign power have historically resulted in mayhem, millions of deaths, and totalitarianism. (Collectivism on the small scale is fine, when it doesn't try to take over the monopoly on violence, because then it can be held in balance through human relationships. Pure collectivism always fails when there are more than about 350 individuals, though such grouping can be affiliated in a larger bureaucratic framework. But such frameworks can't manage something as large and complex as a national economy. Just look at history. It always fails!)
- Pharylon 9y ago
  Planning to kill someone is a "thoughtcrime" and illegal. More to the point, you're engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. Being a Nazi and espousing the ideology is actually a crime in Germany, and they haven't descended into some dystopian dictatorship.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Planning to kill someone is a "thoughtcrime and illegal.* Criminal conspiracy is illegal. If you can make such a case against neo-Nazis, then by all means, do so! They would be vile people guilty of a vile thing. More to the point, you're engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. It's been shown historically not to be a fallacy. The Nazis didn't have to change the constitution of the Weimar Republic very much to put totalitarianism in place. Every law that was the basis of human rights in the Weimar Republic had an "out" clause, in case of the greater good or in case of other laws being passed. When it comes to law, the formulation of a meaningful law cannot allow for ill defined exceptions. When it comes to human rights, it's not a question of slippery slope. It's a matter of a well formulated law. There is no slope. It's a bit-flip. An abused exception is an exploit, and governments, especially the judicial system, are precisely the actors who have power that can be abused. Either your code has an exploit in a given function, or it doesn't. Either your legal code has an exploit in a given section, or it doesn't. No slope!

joshuamorton 9y ago

This is a distinction without a difference. Neo Nazis are people who are working to revive Nazi ideology. They're Nazis.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Actually, in some cases it is a distinction with a difference. US Immigration law still prohibits members of the actual Nazi party from obtaining permanent residency, and people looking to live here still have to sign statements under penalty of perjury that they are not members of said party. That and the parent said "literal".

stcredzero 9y ago

As soon as those neo-Nazis commit a crime, they should be put away and the figurative "book" should be thrown at them. But the moment our society makes it a practice of punishing people for throughtcrime and for what they might do or have yet to do, then we've become a literal dystopia from Science Fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? There's a whole host of laws around "thoughtcrime" (minority report and dystopias like it deal with "precrime" which is distinct). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
- Zuider 9y ago
  There is a line to be drawn distinguishing between a toxic ideology, and an active conspiracy to commit a definite crime. They are at least notionally distinct.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? So, would Antifa making specific plans to get away with breaking the law apply? Would calling for the overthrow of the US government or the nullification of the US constitution apply? I think yes. I'm all for the prosecution of criminal conspiracy. However, we need to keep a clear distinction between politics and criminality. Flaunting the rule of law is criminality. Making specific plans to break the law is criminality. Operate within the law, and you should be fine. If the extra-legal persecution of Nazis is a good idea because they were such vile people who committed crimes against humanity, then why not the extra-legal persecution of Marxists and Anarchists? Those ideologies have been responsible for the sparking of world wars and the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century. People in the Gulag system weren't gassed in mock showers then burned in ovens. However, they were worked to death while freezing to death then blindfolded and bound and loaded on carts while still alive, to be dumped into pits to be buried alive. Not because the masters of the camps were cruel, but rather because it was found to be more efficient to move people around while they were still alive -- and because in the Dialectic Materialist ideology of Marxism, what did a moment of suffocation and horror matter if all flesh is bound to turn back into soil anyhow? Postmodernism is just a cut-and-paste homomorphism to "good old" Marxism. And that stuff isn't about benefiting the people. It's about undoing the current social order and systems of value so you can seize power. Both Nazism and Postmodernist Social Construction explicitly say these things! Just read what the thought leaders say! All attempts to push collectivism to the level of sovereign power have historically resulted in mayhem, millions of deaths, and totalitarianism. (Collectivism on the small scale is fine, when it doesn't try to take over the monopoly on violence, because then it can be held in balance through human relationships. Pure collectivism always fails when there are more than about 350 individuals, though such grouping can be affiliated in a larger bureaucratic framework. But such frameworks can't manage something as large and complex as a national economy. Just look at history. It always fails!)
Pharylon 9y ago
Planning to kill someone is a "thoughtcrime" and illegal. More to the point, you're engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. Being a Nazi and espousing the ideology is actually a crime in Germany, and they haven't descended into some dystopian dictatorship.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Planning to kill someone is a "thoughtcrime and illegal.* Criminal conspiracy is illegal. If you can make such a case against neo-Nazis, then by all means, do so! They would be vile people guilty of a vile thing. More to the point, you're engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. It's been shown historically not to be a fallacy. The Nazis didn't have to change the constitution of the Weimar Republic very much to put totalitarianism in place. Every law that was the basis of human rights in the Weimar Republic had an "out" clause, in case of the greater good or in case of other laws being passed. When it comes to law, the formulation of a meaningful law cannot allow for ill defined exceptions. When it comes to human rights, it's not a question of slippery slope. It's a matter of a well formulated law. There is no slope. It's a bit-flip. An abused exception is an exploit, and governments, especially the judicial system, are precisely the actors who have power that can be abused. Either your code has an exploit in a given function, or it doesn't. Either your legal code has an exploit in a given section, or it doesn't. No slope!