4 ms·

> What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenien

> What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis There are always going to be people who are fearful and ignorant and looking for a convenient external something to blame their problems on. There are also the people who are raised with those views and others who feel excluded and find a place to belong with a group of "outsiders". I don't think we can ever get rid of racist ideologies. We've evolved to be tribal and distrustful of outsiders and some will struggle with those feelings more than others. We're always going to struggle with racism and that's going to include Nazis. That doesn't mean we're powerless against them, but censorship and oppression certainly isn't the solution. > And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay Germany is not okay. Personally, I think Germany takes things way too far and that state censorship really is dangerous, but I also recognize that they've been in a very difficult position since the end of the war. I can't really fault them for over-correcting, but I do feel for the German people who have to live under unjust laws. To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38495456 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly desire freedom. It's worth noting that even in Germany and other EU counties that gave up basic freedoms in an effort to oppose racism there are still racists. Innocent people get hurt by oppressive laws and racists gain a talking point for recruiting that resonates with a lot of people. It's a lot easier to feed into a person's victim complex when they're actually being oppressed.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
Pretty much sums it up. Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. The only thing preventing that isn't a law, it is the overall political culture. But with polarization rising, it can quickly become more serious. Most of these laws stems from a time where monarchy wanted to suppress unsanctioned speech. The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into power.
- indigo945 3y ago
  > Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms > of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you > could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. Germany has no laws against "anything that could threaten the public order". This is just unsubstantiated nonsense. There are laws against hate speech: "Volksverhetzung", a more direct translation: "incitement of the people", i.e. hate speech with the intent of causing mob violence or the persecution of minorities. There are also laws against disrupting the public order: "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses", so "causing public offence", but those don't really target speech, they're more about taking your pants off in public and peeing on the sidewalk. Also, neither of those laws are from the time of the monarchy. > The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and > censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for > suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into > power. The Nazis also made a lot of political capital because people didn't ban them for democratic and free-speech reasons. As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said: > Wir gehen in den Reichstag hinein, um uns im Waffenarsenal der Demokratie mit > deren eigenen Waffen zu versorgen. Wir werden Reichstagsabgeordnete, um die > Weimarer Gesinnung mit ihrer eigenen Unterstützung lahmzulegen. Wenn die > Demokratie so dumm ist, uns für diesen Bärendienst Freifahrkarten und Diäten zu > geben, so ist das ihre eigene Sache. Translation: > We enter the Reichstag [Weimar Republic parliament] to stock ourselves with > weapons from democracy's own arsenal. We become assemblymen of the Reichstag to > take down the spirit of Weimar with its own support. If democracy is so stupid > to supply us with hall passes and diets for this disservice we do to it, then > that is its own problem. Your entire comment is a great example of the bullshit asymmetry principle.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    There are also laws against "gross mischief". While the legal definition is more precise than the term might imply, you can be certain that such laws exist. I picked the example because it can collide with freedom of speech as you can imagine. If you demonstrating something and your placard is seen as insulting, the police can force you to take it down. Laws against speech like "Volksverhetzung" were already in place in the late 19th century. The monarchy was ended in 1918. There is a constant with laws restricting speech and it is mostly those in power just wanting to do so. That was mostly the case in Germany. > As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said Perhaps he said that so people start to destroy democracy themselves. He had a knack for propaganda and fooling people.
indigo945 3y ago
> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly > desire freedom. Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing as book bans under German law, as there is no censorship - article 5 of the Basic Law explicitly says so. The state can make it illegal to sell and advertise media to minors if it is considered dangerous, and Mein Kampf is and always was on that list. The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (for convoluted reasons), and Bavaria just never reprinted it, nor gave license to reprint it. Therefore, any copying of the book was piracy and was prosecuted under piracy laws. Because German copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author, this no longer applies, and the book can be printed and distributed again. Note that public distribution of the book for nazi propaganda purposes is still banned under German hate speech laws ("Volksverhetzung") - not because it is this particular book, but because all nazi propaganda in public is blanket banned. This is why the now-released official Bavarian-government-approved copy of Mein Kampf contains additional commentary by historians to situate Hitler's remarks in historic context.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria ( Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.
  - indigo945 3y ago
    This was of course intentional, but you incorrectly claimed that > To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, > they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf This just never happened. No ban was ever lifted. This does not show some change in the German mindset towards being more tolerant of Nazi speech, as you insinuate. The copyright expired - that is all.
watwut 3y ago
Mein Kampf was not banned, it was an intellectual property like any other. It became public domain, because copyright expired.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

Pretty much sums it up. Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. The only thing preventing that isn't a law, it is the overall political culture. But with polarization rising, it can quickly become more serious. Most of these laws stems from a time where monarchy wanted to suppress unsanctioned speech. The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into power.

indigo945 3y ago
> Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms > of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you > could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. Germany has no laws against "anything that could threaten the public order". This is just unsubstantiated nonsense. There are laws against hate speech: "Volksverhetzung", a more direct translation: "incitement of the people", i.e. hate speech with the intent of causing mob violence or the persecution of minorities. There are also laws against disrupting the public order: "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses", so "causing public offence", but those don't really target speech, they're more about taking your pants off in public and peeing on the sidewalk. Also, neither of those laws are from the time of the monarchy. > The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and > censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for > suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into > power. The Nazis also made a lot of political capital because people didn't ban them for democratic and free-speech reasons. As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said: > Wir gehen in den Reichstag hinein, um uns im Waffenarsenal der Demokratie mit > deren eigenen Waffen zu versorgen. Wir werden Reichstagsabgeordnete, um die > Weimarer Gesinnung mit ihrer eigenen Unterstützung lahmzulegen. Wenn die > Demokratie so dumm ist, uns für diesen Bärendienst Freifahrkarten und Diäten zu > geben, so ist das ihre eigene Sache. Translation: > We enter the Reichstag [Weimar Republic parliament] to stock ourselves with > weapons from democracy's own arsenal. We become assemblymen of the Reichstag to > take down the spirit of Weimar with its own support. If democracy is so stupid > to supply us with hall passes and diets for this disservice we do to it, then > that is its own problem. Your entire comment is a great example of the bullshit asymmetry principle.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  There are also laws against "gross mischief". While the legal definition is more precise than the term might imply, you can be certain that such laws exist. I picked the example because it can collide with freedom of speech as you can imagine. If you demonstrating something and your placard is seen as insulting, the police can force you to take it down. Laws against speech like "Volksverhetzung" were already in place in the late 19th century. The monarchy was ended in 1918. There is a constant with laws restricting speech and it is mostly those in power just wanting to do so. That was mostly the case in Germany. > As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said Perhaps he said that so people start to destroy democracy themselves. He had a knack for propaganda and fooling people.

indigo945 3y ago

> To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly > desire freedom. Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing as book bans under German law, as there is no censorship - article 5 of the Basic Law explicitly says so. The state can make it illegal to sell and advertise media to minors if it is considered dangerous, and Mein Kampf is and always was on that list. The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (for convoluted reasons), and Bavaria just never reprinted it, nor gave license to reprint it. Therefore, any copying of the book was piracy and was prosecuted under piracy laws. Because German copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author, this no longer applies, and the book can be printed and distributed again. Note that public distribution of the book for nazi propaganda purposes is still banned under German hate speech laws ("Volksverhetzung") - not because it is this particular book, but because all nazi propaganda in public is blanket banned. This is why the now-released official Bavarian-government-approved copy of Mein Kampf contains additional commentary by historians to situate Hitler's remarks in historic context.

autoexec 3y ago
> The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria ( Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.
- indigo945 3y ago
  This was of course intentional, but you incorrectly claimed that > To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, > they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf This just never happened. No ban was ever lifted. This does not show some change in the German mindset towards being more tolerant of Nazi speech, as you insinuate. The copyright expired - that is all.

watwut 3y ago

Mein Kampf was not banned, it was an intellectual property like any other. It became public domain, because copyright expired.