5 ms·

Germany learned the lesson that to prevent fascist sentiments growing in the population, you have to 1) make sure the common person does not face undue hardship

Germany learned the lesson that to prevent fascist sentiments growing in the population, you have to 1) make sure the common person does not face undue hardship, which could let reactionary sentiments fester, and 2) come down hard on the symbolism and rhetoric of fascism. Lately over the last couple of decades, there has unfortunately been a new rise in fascism in Germany, due to financial crises and austerity policies. Further, the embers of fascist sympathies especially in the police and military have not been snuffed out like they should have been.

JasonFruit 6y ago
Germany did those things, but even your description of the situation suggests it was not the right choice. Doesn't the resurgence of fascism from "embers of fascist sympathies" suggest to you that shutting down fascist speech didn't do the job it was meant to do, i.e. extinguish fascism? The speech is a symptom; the ideas are the disease. To combat the disease, you need to supply better ideas, not shut down the speech.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  You can't completely extinguish reactionary ideas, there will always be people hungry for power, angry at other people and susceptible to lies and misinformation. As in many other contexts, you cannot completely kill an idea, you cannot purge thoughts from people's heads. Keeping those ideas from hurting a society requires vigilance and effort, especially in history education and education of why reactionary ideas are morally and ethically reprehensible. Germany didn't try to hide away what happened or cover it up. There has always been a focus on education and telling the story of what happened, with historical references. What was/is actually banned was the uncritical dissemination of reactionary and fascist symbols, ideas and beliefs. That's why you're not allowed to simply hang a swastika flag from your balcony, but you are very much allowed to hang it in a museum in a historical context that explains what it is, who used it and what it stood for. That's why id Software was not allowed to distribute Wolfenstein 3-D in Germany with the original textures, because it was entertainment and not in a factual historical context. Besides, if the best argument you have for saying something is "I have the right to say it" and not the actual content of what you're saying, maybe that says something about what you're trying to say. Ideas, not speech.

JasonFruit 6y ago

Germany did those things, but even your description of the situation suggests it was not the right choice. Doesn't the resurgence of fascism from "embers of fascist sympathies" suggest to you that shutting down fascist speech didn't do the job it was meant to do, i.e. extinguish fascism? The speech is a symptom; the ideas are the disease. To combat the disease, you need to supply better ideas, not shut down the speech.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
You can't completely extinguish reactionary ideas, there will always be people hungry for power, angry at other people and susceptible to lies and misinformation. As in many other contexts, you cannot completely kill an idea, you cannot purge thoughts from people's heads. Keeping those ideas from hurting a society requires vigilance and effort, especially in history education and education of why reactionary ideas are morally and ethically reprehensible. Germany didn't try to hide away what happened or cover it up. There has always been a focus on education and telling the story of what happened, with historical references. What was/is actually banned was the uncritical dissemination of reactionary and fascist symbols, ideas and beliefs. That's why you're not allowed to simply hang a swastika flag from your balcony, but you are very much allowed to hang it in a museum in a historical context that explains what it is, who used it and what it stood for. That's why id Software was not allowed to distribute Wolfenstein 3-D in Germany with the original textures, because it was entertainment and not in a factual historical context. Besides, if the best argument you have for saying something is "I have the right to say it" and not the actual content of what you're saying, maybe that says something about what you're trying to say. Ideas, not speech.