5 ms·

Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM, and anti

Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM, and antifa" Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) BLM - The belief ( on experiences of some in society ), that Black people are not treated the same in their interactions with the government. Main vehicle, in your face protests. Antifa - an aggressive anti-hate group ( whose tactics, in the view of some, seem to make them a violent group ). The anti-nazis if you will. Really? Do these things seem REMOTELY equal? cue in the nitpicking about my definitions... PS: to be perfectly clear/blunt, since it seems as I suspected people started nitpicking... One group calls for the extermination of HUMAN BEINGS.. the other calls for the extermination of IDEOLOGY... now see the difference? free speech DOES NOT and HAS NEVER given you the right to call for the extermination of others... that is as clear cut case of "not protected by free speech" as there is. and yes.. if you take on the name of "nazi" or "national socialism", well, you don't get to redefine those terms in a "wink wink" manner.

arkona 9y ago
I don’t want to nitpick your definitions, but nazism usually refers to the ideology of the NSDAP, a party that was disbanded at the end of WW2. You probably meant to say “violent racism”, in which case the comparison to antifa, and to a lesser extent blm, seems justified (they are linked by violence).
- celticninja 9y ago
  Nazism calls for the death and extermination of other people, antifa and BLM don't.
  - arkona2 9y ago
    Sure nazism is 1000x worse than blm or antifa, the only problem is that nazism doesn’t exist anymore. The NSDAP was disbanded in 1945. Antifa and blm are still active today > see a “nazi”, punch a “nazi” > pigs in a blanked, fry them like bacon
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    There are people in this thread claiming antifa and BLM are responsible for most violence in the last few years. The arguments being put forth by 'the other side' are not what you claim, and 'these folks' are going to couch their arguments the way they want.
    - Thisisdense 9y ago
      I didn't see anyone spousing the idea that "BLM and antifa are responsible for most violence in the last few years", but can you say with a straight face that no member of these groups ever spurred violent confrontations? While you're at it, can you also say that everyone of the so called nazis did indeed started confrontations?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wccrawford 9y ago
Of course people are going to question your definitions when you've gone overboard in making one absolutely wrong and the others absolutely right. There's bad in both sets, which is why banning 1 group could have an effect on the other 2, eventually.
- rodgerd 9y ago
  Really? You think that Nazis are unfairly characterised? That's the hill you want to die on?
  - JSONwebtoken 9y ago
    If by unfairly characterized you mean every white guy and their jewish grandmother having been called a Nazi in the past year, then I might consider it.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Well to be fair, one is entirely bad, jut to be clear thats the Nazis. There may be some rogue elements in the other groups who perhaps would use violence to further their cause but it is not their fundamental belief. Whereas Nazi ideology specifically calls for the extermination of others, neither of the other 2 groups are anywhere remotely near that position. There are no good Nazis. Sure there were some Nazis in WWII that were Nazis because they were German soldiers and not necessarily because they wanted to exterminate Jews and gypsies, so some of them did good things (not in the name of the Nazis but because they were not entirely evil people) but anyone claiming to be a Nazi today is doing so because they believe in Nazism ideologically and everything that goes into with it.
  - glenstein 9y ago
    This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology. And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to justify a position on free speech. For some reason that's supposedly not a slippery slope toward widening the scope of "free speech" to include things destructive of democracy.
JSONwebtoken 9y ago
What's the point of putting an argument out there and then saying not to nitpick your points? Your entire argument is based around definitions. Of course your definitions are loose and biased, you know that. You're just venting and telling people you don't care if you're wrong.
- uoaei 9y ago
  You're going to have to point out the specific biases you see, because those definitions look quite accurate to me.
LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
LOL at this NONSENSE. BLM is a terrorist organization as any other, it has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining equal treatment; it is an organization fueled by the hatred of white people, a mechanism in which the African-American blames his own deficiencies on some supposed "oppression" that does not actually exist. Racial differences are not pseudoscience, anyway. Median IQ Africa = 70. Median IQ N. Europe = 100+. Let me guess, "b-b-but the environment, b-b-but culture!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsIG1zYHRc&t=0m21s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsIG1zYHRc&t=0m21s Antifa is not even worth wasting my breath on.
parent5446 9y ago
It's not a matter of them being equal. It's whether they are categorized under the new policy and will eventually be banned or not. There's no need to have this false dichotomy where one side must be good and one must be bad. It's possible for both sides to be bad, and it's also possible for one side to be more bad than the other. In the end, my personal opinion is that any form of inciting violence against civilians should be banned, regardless of what your cause is and how much more "in the right" you are than Nazis on a relative scale, which is a pretty low bar.
trgv 9y ago
Definitions aside, you're just listing "groups" or "ideologies" or whatever you want to call them and then acting like you can objectively determine which are acceptable and which are not. That's also what reddit is doing. Look, I think Nazism is wrong, I think cops should stop shooting black people for no reason, and I don't really know what "Antifa" is. But I think all of these groups should be able to have subreddits. I could argue about definition here, and based on your own definitions, "Antifa" might be advocating violence. That aside, the real issue here is that this whole thing seems dishonest to me. Reddit is banning stuff that generates bad PR. They're banning things that aren't mainstream and things that could be portrayed as advocating/glorifying violence. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for advocating war with North Korea/X country. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for encouraging people to beat up Nazis. Reddit can do what they like, but I think it's a bad call.
nitwit005 9y ago
What you're basically saying is "No reasonable person would think this", but the world isn't exactly short on unreasonable people. There's already tension with some social networks where countries want them to censor protest groups, report atheist blasphemers, and so on.
stronglikedan 9y ago
Antifa is certainly not anti-hate. They very much hate anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow-minded worldview, and they condone violence against those they hate. While they are anti-nazi, they are aligned with them in their level of bigotry and violence. Violence is never okay.
justhackedme 9y ago
Nazism has nothing to do with extermination.
tscs37 9y ago
>Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) I would correct that. Nazis didn't wholly think that. Not all races where "worthy of extermination". For example, black people in the Reich were largely ignored as a non-problem and left to their own devices and people from the Middle-East were recruited as part of the armed forces. "Honorary Aryan" is a thing they did too when someone proved to be useful (Japanese have been declared as such). Just a short history FYI. Racism is the more correct term, believing any human inferoir based on their race, and some racists demand extermination. Nazis are a specific subgroup of racists.

arkona 9y ago

I don’t want to nitpick your definitions, but nazism usually refers to the ideology of the NSDAP, a party that was disbanded at the end of WW2. You probably meant to say “violent racism”, in which case the comparison to antifa, and to a lesser extent blm, seems justified (they are linked by violence).

celticninja 9y ago
Nazism calls for the death and extermination of other people, antifa and BLM don't.
- arkona2 9y ago
  Sure nazism is 1000x worse than blm or antifa, the only problem is that nazism doesn’t exist anymore. The NSDAP was disbanded in 1945. Antifa and blm are still active today > see a “nazi”, punch a “nazi” > pigs in a blanked, fry them like bacon
- libertyEQ 9y ago
  There are people in this thread claiming antifa and BLM are responsible for most violence in the last few years. The arguments being put forth by 'the other side' are not what you claim, and 'these folks' are going to couch their arguments the way they want.
  - Thisisdense 9y ago
    I didn't see anyone spousing the idea that "BLM and antifa are responsible for most violence in the last few years", but can you say with a straight face that no member of these groups ever spurred violent confrontations? While you're at it, can you also say that everyone of the so called nazis did indeed started confrontations?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

wccrawford 9y ago

Of course people are going to question your definitions when you've gone overboard in making one absolutely wrong and the others absolutely right. There's bad in both sets, which is why banning 1 group could have an effect on the other 2, eventually.

rodgerd 9y ago
Really? You think that Nazis are unfairly characterised? That's the hill you want to die on?
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  If by unfairly characterized you mean every white guy and their jewish grandmother having been called a Nazi in the past year, then I might consider it.
celticninja 9y ago
Well to be fair, one is entirely bad, jut to be clear thats the Nazis. There may be some rogue elements in the other groups who perhaps would use violence to further their cause but it is not their fundamental belief. Whereas Nazi ideology specifically calls for the extermination of others, neither of the other 2 groups are anywhere remotely near that position. There are no good Nazis. Sure there were some Nazis in WWII that were Nazis because they were German soldiers and not necessarily because they wanted to exterminate Jews and gypsies, so some of them did good things (not in the name of the Nazis but because they were not entirely evil people) but anyone claiming to be a Nazi today is doing so because they believe in Nazism ideologically and everything that goes into with it.
- glenstein 9y ago
  This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology. And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to justify a position on free speech. For some reason that's supposedly not a slippery slope toward widening the scope of "free speech" to include things destructive of democracy.

JSONwebtoken 9y ago

What's the point of putting an argument out there and then saying not to nitpick your points? Your entire argument is based around definitions. Of course your definitions are loose and biased, you know that. You're just venting and telling people you don't care if you're wrong.

uoaei 9y ago
You're going to have to point out the specific biases you see, because those definitions look quite accurate to me.

LARGEGALAXY 9y ago

LOL at this NONSENSE. BLM is a terrorist organization as any other, it has absolutely nothing to do with obtaining equal treatment; it is an organization fueled by the hatred of white people, a mechanism in which the African-American blames his own deficiencies on some supposed "oppression" that does not actually exist. Racial differences are not pseudoscience, anyway. Median IQ Africa = 70. Median IQ N. Europe = 100+. Let me guess, "b-b-but the environment, b-b-but culture!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsIG1zYHRc&t=0m21s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsIG1zYHRc&t=0m21s Antifa is not even worth wasting my breath on.

parent5446 9y ago

It's not a matter of them being equal. It's whether they are categorized under the new policy and will eventually be banned or not. There's no need to have this false dichotomy where one side must be good and one must be bad. It's possible for both sides to be bad, and it's also possible for one side to be more bad than the other. In the end, my personal opinion is that any form of inciting violence against civilians should be banned, regardless of what your cause is and how much more "in the right" you are than Nazis on a relative scale, which is a pretty low bar.

trgv 9y ago

Definitions aside, you're just listing "groups" or "ideologies" or whatever you want to call them and then acting like you can objectively determine which are acceptable and which are not. That's also what reddit is doing. Look, I think Nazism is wrong, I think cops should stop shooting black people for no reason, and I don't really know what "Antifa" is. But I think all of these groups should be able to have subreddits. I could argue about definition here, and based on your own definitions, "Antifa" might be advocating violence. That aside, the real issue here is that this whole thing seems dishonest to me. Reddit is banning stuff that generates bad PR. They're banning things that aren't mainstream and things that could be portrayed as advocating/glorifying violence. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for advocating war with North Korea/X country. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for encouraging people to beat up Nazis. Reddit can do what they like, but I think it's a bad call.

nitwit005 9y ago

What you're basically saying is "No reasonable person would think this", but the world isn't exactly short on unreasonable people. There's already tension with some social networks where countries want them to censor protest groups, report atheist blasphemers, and so on.

stronglikedan 9y ago

Antifa is certainly not anti-hate. They very much hate anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow-minded worldview, and they condone violence against those they hate. While they are anti-nazi, they are aligned with them in their level of bigotry and violence. Violence is never okay.

justhackedme 9y ago

Nazism has nothing to do with extermination.

tscs37 9y ago

>Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) I would correct that. Nazis didn't wholly think that. Not all races where "worthy of extermination". For example, black people in the Reich were largely ignored as a non-problem and left to their own devices and people from the Middle-East were recruited as part of the armed forces. "Honorary Aryan" is a thing they did too when someone proved to be useful (Japanese have been declared as such). Just a short history FYI. Racism is the more correct term, believing any human inferoir based on their race, and some racists demand extermination. Nazis are a specific subgroup of racists.