9 ms·

There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

by dilap 9y ago

everdev 9y ago
It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to: If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war. When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  It was much more than just speech which caused all that.
- gaius 9y ago
  If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectual Or 00’s Tripoli with free healthcare and education ...
- threatofrain 9y ago
  If you think people could be so easily corrupted by someone's speech on Twitter, then how can you have faith in democracy? I understand keeping young, impressionable minds from bad influence, but what about voting age people?
- nine_k 9y ago
  It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda alone the role of the fire starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized the absolute power. If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    the cycle continues as follow: politicians ignore the masses pleads, populist start selling untenable dreams, the politician still refuse to aknowledge the existence of the problem of that partcular generation, a reaction shifts the power to populist, populist cannot really realize whatever they sold because the masses have a fractured interpretation of their message, populistvsearch for internal or external enemies to redirect blame and direct the mounting hate, the society fractures, strife follows until the society can reunite under a single ideal or gets repressed, at which point it's either a new longer or shorter cycle of course we somehow manage to always blame the masses or the populists, but they rarely are the ones initiating the cycle
  - musage 9y ago
    Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed. Which doesn't take away from your point, but it's really astonishing how such easy to correct falsehoods about such a deeply important subject just linger on and get repeated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_... The Nazis lied and cheated and murdered their way to power, make no mistake about it. And that was kind of like an onion, too, in that every layer of the Nazi apparatus deceived lower layers. Apart from the intrinsic importance of things like poverty and unemployment simply because they hurt people no matter how people to react to it, what turned some people into sociopaths (and why it didn't others) is useful to know to prevent more coming into existence, and to leave the ones who aren't beyond the point of return a way out -- but it's also a destructive red herring when dealing with those who are beyond the point of return. They are eating chalk and holding up people who delivered themselves as hostages unto them, so you can have empathy they can only feign and use; and the question is, at what point does the tragedy of their hostages outweigh the tragedy of who they and their hostages will trample on, forever, if given half a chance. I know it's cold and kind of heartless, but for many people who turns abuser after having been abused, you will also find those who have been abused even more, but did not turn to abusing others. It's not either person's fault or credit, but I can't cater to the first while ignoring the second. Insofar it's a zero-sum choice (and that's not generally the case, mind you, but it's also not never the case), I made my choice. Sometimes, the wheel that squeaks the loudest shouldn't get the grease, but simply should get replaced by a better or even no wheel.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  These people aren't "nazis" or "fascists". They have beliefs that would have been considered completely normal and moderate in 1940's US. The people that defeated the Nazis would be considered Nazis today. It's obscene how far left the overton window has moved. Opposing immigration is a pretty long way from Nazism.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Accusing the police of trying “to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men” by putting out a tweet in Arabic is not just "opposing immigration".
    - Amezarak 9y ago
      Here's the full context of her comments. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/world/europe/germany-twitter-muslims-hordes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/world/europe/germany-twit... > In a tweet on Sunday, the lawmaker, Beatrix von Storch, questioned the decision by the police in the western city of Cologne to put out a message in Arabic, as part of a multilingual campaign to promote the theme of this year’s New Year’s Eve festivities: “Celebrate — with respect.” The message was also posted in English, French and Persian. The festivities in Cologne, in Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia, draw thousands every year. > “What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is the official page of police in NRW tweeting in Arabic,” Ms. von Storch wrote on Dec. 31. “Are they seeking to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men?” > Her comments were particularly provocative because Cologne was the site of a rampage on New Year’s Eve 2015, in which hundreds of men groped, assaulted, harassed or robbed women. Many of the men were asylum-seekers or other immigrants, and the attacks on women fueled criticism by the Alternative for Germany, which argued that Ms. Merkel should not have opened Germany’s doors to so many foreigners. > Facebook later removed that post, Ms. von Storch told her followers. She vowed not to be silenced by the new law, but to continue to “call out problems by name.” She went on to insist that the young men who had sexually harassed German women were “not Protestant Swedes, not Catholic Poles, not Orthodox Russians, not Jewish Israelis and not Buddhist Thais. The overwhelming majority of them are young Muslim men for whom women and followers of other faiths are second-class citizens.” It seems to me that, in context, this is an inflammatory statement, and somewhat a silly one (why does that mean they shouldn't put it out in Arabic?), but given that she was commenting on a situation that did literally involve rapist hordes of men who happened to be Muslim, I have trouble accepting that a country could justifiably declare that speech illegal. It's even more disturbing to me given that she's apparently a prominent politician and the government is looking into charging her for this statement.
- 0xWilliam 9y ago
  >When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions. No... But thats pretty bullish of you.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > It happened 70 years ago. Nazism and other German nationalist movements were repressed early on by (generally communist) mob violence and later on by the state. That led directly to the rise of brownshirts (to counter the mob) and the radicalization of the Nazis - when people see that their belief system as being oppressed by the law, some of them conclude that when legitimate paths to power are denied, violence is justified. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J Evans covers the rise of the Nazis in great detail, and it didn't happen because Nazis were going around with hate speech. This has been one of the many justifications for free speech for a long time. In general, I think the "but Nazis!" argument against free speech should be viewed with immense suspicion - it basically boils down to a pretty serious antidemocratic sentiment; you can't let people talk, because then they might convince the plebs to vote for Nazis.
- jwommack 9y ago
  This is more than a bit of revisionism, or possibly he just didn't know much about the German/Austrian interwar period. It's well documented, and covered in most of the histories regarding the rise of Nazism, that a not insignificant part of why the party was able to gain traction was that there was already an environment of political violence and suppression. The SPD, KPD, and Freikorps were fighting in the streets well before the Nazis were relevant (the 20s. The fighting dates back to the end of WW1 and through the Weimar period). There was similar violence in Austria at the time including a small civil war in the mid 30s, probably not what one would call a great and peacful environment for appreciating art and music.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Why on Earth is my comment hidden with +9 points? And the others flagged with +4 and +5? Was anything I said untrue or off topic? This is disgusting HN.
squarefoot 9y ago
It depends on whom they talk to. Adult informed people will easily ignore their nonsense, while youngsters will very often be attracted by the Nazi/Fascist false sense of strength because in their still young minds aggressiveness equals strength. Fascism is coming back in some parts of Europe and we won't get rid of it by simply asking politely to go away.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > because in their still young minds aggressiveness equals strength Checking in from the US, where that mindset transcends age groups and economic status. Even comfortable old folks, for example, can be convinced that aggressiveness is required.
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  Unfortunately its not just "youngsters" who lack the critical thinking skills and/or intelligence to be influenced by "nonsense". What these laws are really about are trying to ensure that easily-influenced people are only influenced by government nonsense, rather than nonsense that the government frowns upon. The bottom line is, that to have and maintain a decent society, you need a population that is (to a large degree) informed, aware, and possessing of critical thinking skills. This is true whether you are talking about criminalizing frowned-upon speech or the "fake news" phenomenon that has been popularized here in the United States as of late. The core problem is that those at the pinnacle of our society (the permanent overclass of the ultrawealthy, oligarchs and intelligentsia that control governments and other levers of power) want to have it both ways. They want a largely ignorant, easily-influenced populace that they can control and influence while at the same time having a populace that is immune to ideas that are frowned-upon (by them). Since this isn't possible, their only alternative is to try to silence the "nonsense" that is frowned upon. We see this in Germany via this hate speech laws (which are largely aimed at stifling dissent over their massive influx of North African/Middle East immigrants and the resulting problems), and in the United States via Russiagate (which is an attempt to paint those who oppose the CIA/DC/NATO narrative as traitors or Russian agents [see the treatment of Jill Stein, Ron Paul, or the WaPo's Propornot article as examples]). https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.ee6577b61c3a https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...
Grollicus 9y ago
Actually you should look at the flip side of the coin: We - Germans - just decided that letting Nazis not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value.
- fd233t343 9y ago
  Exactly like you - Germans - had decided circa 37 that letting Jews and Jew-defenders not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value, right?
- steveeq1 9y ago
  Would you hold that same opinion if the thing said were, say, violent american black rap lyrics?
  - Grollicus 9y ago
    I don't understand your meaning, sorry. Do you mean would I want to see 'violent american black rap lyrics' banned? Depends on what is said I guess? If theres a song about 'kill all the jews' we've had enough of that shit here 70 years ago. Generally german courts are very narrow about what is Volksverhetzung. If you run afoul of it you are very far away from any sensible discussion. The law is basically "don't (1)incite violence (2)against Minorities in a way that is (3)able to disturb the public peace". These three things are impossible to do without generally being a dangerous ass. We don't want people like that.
    - steveeq1 9y ago
      > I don't understand your meaning, sorry. Meaning if there's american rap song about killing people, do germans ban it? These violent lyrics seem to fall under the law as you described. Also, are violent american rap songs banned (in practice) in germany? Do germans have this same negative attitude to american "thugs"?
      - Grollicus 9y ago
        Songs about killing people are generally not banned because of Volksverhetzung. That law is specific about the 3 things I listed in me comment above. (3) is a very strong requirement because it means the song must be theoretically able to disturb the peace in germany, eg. incite riots or something equally drastic. Theres not much that can do that. Songs about killing minorities might be banned, but then it's still about context. Artists generally have a lot of room and when they write stuff like that theres usually satire in play. Which would propably be okay. I don't know about any artists that got hit with Volksverhetzung. On the other hand, I'd expect Songs about killing to get hit by youth protection laws which means they can't be played on the radio, can't be advertised and can't be sold to minors.

There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

by dilap 9y ago

There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

everdev 9y ago

It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to: If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war. When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
It was much more than just speech which caused all that.
gaius 9y ago
If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectual Or 00’s Tripoli with free healthcare and education ...
threatofrain 9y ago
If you think people could be so easily corrupted by someone's speech on Twitter, then how can you have faith in democracy? I understand keeping young, impressionable minds from bad influence, but what about voting age people?
nine_k 9y ago
It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda alone the role of the fire starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized the absolute power. If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  the cycle continues as follow: politicians ignore the masses pleads, populist start selling untenable dreams, the politician still refuse to aknowledge the existence of the problem of that partcular generation, a reaction shifts the power to populist, populist cannot really realize whatever they sold because the masses have a fractured interpretation of their message, populistvsearch for internal or external enemies to redirect blame and direct the mounting hate, the society fractures, strife follows until the society can reunite under a single ideal or gets repressed, at which point it's either a new longer or shorter cycle of course we somehow manage to always blame the masses or the populists, but they rarely are the ones initiating the cycle
- musage 9y ago
  Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed. Which doesn't take away from your point, but it's really astonishing how such easy to correct falsehoods about such a deeply important subject just linger on and get repeated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_... The Nazis lied and cheated and murdered their way to power, make no mistake about it. And that was kind of like an onion, too, in that every layer of the Nazi apparatus deceived lower layers. Apart from the intrinsic importance of things like poverty and unemployment simply because they hurt people no matter how people to react to it, what turned some people into sociopaths (and why it didn't others) is useful to know to prevent more coming into existence, and to leave the ones who aren't beyond the point of return a way out -- but it's also a destructive red herring when dealing with those who are beyond the point of return. They are eating chalk and holding up people who delivered themselves as hostages unto them, so you can have empathy they can only feign and use; and the question is, at what point does the tragedy of their hostages outweigh the tragedy of who they and their hostages will trample on, forever, if given half a chance. I know it's cold and kind of heartless, but for many people who turns abuser after having been abused, you will also find those who have been abused even more, but did not turn to abusing others. It's not either person's fault or credit, but I can't cater to the first while ignoring the second. Insofar it's a zero-sum choice (and that's not generally the case, mind you, but it's also not never the case), I made my choice. Sometimes, the wheel that squeaks the loudest shouldn't get the grease, but simply should get replaced by a better or even no wheel.
Houshalter 9y ago
These people aren't "nazis" or "fascists". They have beliefs that would have been considered completely normal and moderate in 1940's US. The people that defeated the Nazis would be considered Nazis today. It's obscene how far left the overton window has moved. Opposing immigration is a pretty long way from Nazism.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Accusing the police of trying “to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men” by putting out a tweet in Arabic is not just "opposing immigration".
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    Here's the full context of her comments. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/world/europe/germany-twitter-muslims-hordes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/world/europe/germany-twit... > In a tweet on Sunday, the lawmaker, Beatrix von Storch, questioned the decision by the police in the western city of Cologne to put out a message in Arabic, as part of a multilingual campaign to promote the theme of this year’s New Year’s Eve festivities: “Celebrate — with respect.” The message was also posted in English, French and Persian. The festivities in Cologne, in Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia, draw thousands every year. > “What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is the official page of police in NRW tweeting in Arabic,” Ms. von Storch wrote on Dec. 31. “Are they seeking to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men?” > Her comments were particularly provocative because Cologne was the site of a rampage on New Year’s Eve 2015, in which hundreds of men groped, assaulted, harassed or robbed women. Many of the men were asylum-seekers or other immigrants, and the attacks on women fueled criticism by the Alternative for Germany, which argued that Ms. Merkel should not have opened Germany’s doors to so many foreigners. > Facebook later removed that post, Ms. von Storch told her followers. She vowed not to be silenced by the new law, but to continue to “call out problems by name.” She went on to insist that the young men who had sexually harassed German women were “not Protestant Swedes, not Catholic Poles, not Orthodox Russians, not Jewish Israelis and not Buddhist Thais. The overwhelming majority of them are young Muslim men for whom women and followers of other faiths are second-class citizens.” It seems to me that, in context, this is an inflammatory statement, and somewhat a silly one (why does that mean they shouldn't put it out in Arabic?), but given that she was commenting on a situation that did literally involve rapist hordes of men who happened to be Muslim, I have trouble accepting that a country could justifiably declare that speech illegal. It's even more disturbing to me given that she's apparently a prominent politician and the government is looking into charging her for this statement.
0xWilliam 9y ago
>When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions. No... But thats pretty bullish of you.
Amezarak 9y ago
> It happened 70 years ago. Nazism and other German nationalist movements were repressed early on by (generally communist) mob violence and later on by the state. That led directly to the rise of brownshirts (to counter the mob) and the radicalization of the Nazis - when people see that their belief system as being oppressed by the law, some of them conclude that when legitimate paths to power are denied, violence is justified. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J Evans covers the rise of the Nazis in great detail, and it didn't happen because Nazis were going around with hate speech. This has been one of the many justifications for free speech for a long time. In general, I think the "but Nazis!" argument against free speech should be viewed with immense suspicion - it basically boils down to a pretty serious antidemocratic sentiment; you can't let people talk, because then they might convince the plebs to vote for Nazis.
jwommack 9y ago
This is more than a bit of revisionism, or possibly he just didn't know much about the German/Austrian interwar period. It's well documented, and covered in most of the histories regarding the rise of Nazism, that a not insignificant part of why the party was able to gain traction was that there was already an environment of political violence and suppression. The SPD, KPD, and Freikorps were fighting in the streets well before the Nazis were relevant (the 20s. The fighting dates back to the end of WW1 and through the Weimar period). There was similar violence in Austria at the time including a small civil war in the mid 30s, probably not what one would call a great and peacful environment for appreciating art and music.
Houshalter 9y ago
Why on Earth is my comment hidden with +9 points? And the others flagged with +4 and +5? Was anything I said untrue or off topic? This is disgusting HN.

squarefoot 9y ago

It depends on whom they talk to. Adult informed people will easily ignore their nonsense, while youngsters will very often be attracted by the Nazi/Fascist false sense of strength because in their still young minds aggressiveness equals strength. Fascism is coming back in some parts of Europe and we won't get rid of it by simply asking politely to go away.

craftyguy 9y ago
> because in their still young minds aggressiveness equals strength Checking in from the US, where that mindset transcends age groups and economic status. Even comfortable old folks, for example, can be convinced that aggressiveness is required.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Unfortunately its not just "youngsters" who lack the critical thinking skills and/or intelligence to be influenced by "nonsense". What these laws are really about are trying to ensure that easily-influenced people are only influenced by government nonsense, rather than nonsense that the government frowns upon. The bottom line is, that to have and maintain a decent society, you need a population that is (to a large degree) informed, aware, and possessing of critical thinking skills. This is true whether you are talking about criminalizing frowned-upon speech or the "fake news" phenomenon that has been popularized here in the United States as of late. The core problem is that those at the pinnacle of our society (the permanent overclass of the ultrawealthy, oligarchs and intelligentsia that control governments and other levers of power) want to have it both ways. They want a largely ignorant, easily-influenced populace that they can control and influence while at the same time having a populace that is immune to ideas that are frowned-upon (by them). Since this isn't possible, their only alternative is to try to silence the "nonsense" that is frowned upon. We see this in Germany via this hate speech laws (which are largely aimed at stifling dissent over their massive influx of North African/Middle East immigrants and the resulting problems), and in the United States via Russiagate (which is an attempt to paint those who oppose the CIA/DC/NATO narrative as traitors or Russian agents [see the treatment of Jill Stein, Ron Paul, or the WaPo's Propornot article as examples]). https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.ee6577b61c3a https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-prop...

Grollicus 9y ago

Actually you should look at the flip side of the coin: We - Germans - just decided that letting Nazis not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value.

fd233t343 9y ago
Exactly like you - Germans - had decided circa 37 that letting Jews and Jew-defenders not speak their hurtful lies harms nothing of value, right?
steveeq1 9y ago
Would you hold that same opinion if the thing said were, say, violent american black rap lyrics?
- Grollicus 9y ago
  I don't understand your meaning, sorry. Do you mean would I want to see 'violent american black rap lyrics' banned? Depends on what is said I guess? If theres a song about 'kill all the jews' we've had enough of that shit here 70 years ago. Generally german courts are very narrow about what is Volksverhetzung. If you run afoul of it you are very far away from any sensible discussion. The law is basically "don't (1)incite violence (2)against Minorities in a way that is (3)able to disturb the public peace". These three things are impossible to do without generally being a dangerous ass. We don't want people like that.
  - steveeq1 9y ago
    > I don't understand your meaning, sorry. Meaning if there's american rap song about killing people, do germans ban it? These violent lyrics seem to fall under the law as you described. Also, are violent american rap songs banned (in practice) in germany? Do germans have this same negative attitude to american "thugs"?
    - Grollicus 9y ago
      Songs about killing people are generally not banned because of Volksverhetzung. That law is specific about the 3 things I listed in me comment above. (3) is a very strong requirement because it means the song must be theoretically able to disturb the peace in germany, eg. incite riots or something equally drastic. Theres not much that can do that. Songs about killing minorities might be banned, but then it's still about context. Artists generally have a lot of room and when they write stuff like that theres usually satire in play. Which would propably be okay. I don't know about any artists that got hit with Volksverhetzung. On the other hand, I'd expect Songs about killing to get hit by youth protection laws which means they can't be played on the radio, can't be advertised and can't be sold to minors.