3 ms·
Because banning undesirable communities works. It works well. It doesn't drive them underground, it destroys their ability to easily congregate and damages them
by s2g 8y ago
Because banning undesirable communities works. It works well. It doesn't drive them underground, it destroys their ability to easily congregate and damages them. It hurts their ability to casually attract new members. It causes them to lose members who don't know how to get back.
It's disruptive.
- ShabbosGoy 8y agoThe Nazi Party and SA were banned organizations in Weimar Germany.
- vkou 8y agoThe Nazi party was banned in 1923, and the ban was lifted in 1925. So, not really.
- remarkEon 8y ago...and you don’t think that those two events are related?
- vkou 8y agoIt was a time-gated, 2 year ban. It wasn't lifted 'just because.' During the period that they were banned, they formed a shell party, the National Socialist Freedom Movement, which won a stunning 6%, followed by 3% of the vote (In the two 1924 elections). After the ban was lifted, the next election was in 1928, where they won 2.8% of the vote. Much good that ban did them, eh? I'm not sure how your point follows from the facts.
- remarkEon 8y agoPoint taken. The meta point still seems to stand though, which is that bans are ineffective.
- walshemj 8y agoBy a compliant judge as was the trial of the putschists Hitler was allowed to use the trial as propaganda and got a very soft sentence.
- vkou 8y agoI suppose the moral of the story is that if you have enough of the judiciary in your pocket, then being a banned terrorist organization does not preclude you from eventually winning a minority government, and staging a coup?
- AmericanChopper 8y agoAside from the fact that you’re wrong (censoring people doesn’t surpress views, it only emboldens the people the hold them, and generates sympathy from others who don’t), the idea that you think you can identify ‘undesirable communities’, and that you think they should be banned is entirely tyrannical.