4 ms·

Substackers Battle over Banning Nazis

gmerc 3y ago
It’s shocking we even have to talk about this. We figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago and we know it was not a mistake.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    > 74-82% of US soldiers felt the army should be segregated. There's a great scene in "A Welcome to Britain" - 1943 film for US soldiers stationed in the UK - that is clearly trying to sell integration to troops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYSBBE1DFw&t=1519s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYSBBE1DFw&t=1519s
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      As well as soldiers, there's a lot of interesting commentary from early jazz and blues artists touring Europe and reflecting on the difference in treatment they received which many of them had previously not had any external benchmark to compare with.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    The US DoD did see the need to desegregate, and (perhaps conscious of their own hypocrisy?) started to do so in the 1950's, in advance of the rest of the country. 1948: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      The US also attempted† to free the last slaves in December 1941, so a tiny silver lining on a very dark cloud. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591 † a few exceptions persisted in some backwater areas even after the end of the war.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    So you’re saying they were wrong to eject the nazis by force despite sharing some of their ideas (segregation?)?
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    The people from other nations who fought and died might object to you handing all the credit to the segregationist part of America, especially when Hitler and the Nazis were directly inspired by that segregation, helping to create the situation in which they fought and died. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi... > both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      You're right, credit also goes to the Russians that had just finished starving Ukraine into submission (and would go on to implement a system of brutal repression that killed tens of millions and consigned eastern Europe to dictatorships for decades), and the British colonial empire. In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.
      - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
        Wasn't the claim that even those people, at that time, recognized Nazis as bad news? I'll review the thread but I don't recall anyone claiming the soldiers, politicians or civilians were particularly woke by modern standards.
        SenAnder 3y ago
        The claim was that "we figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago", where the "we" that did the handling would be considered modern-day Nazis, and it is to people holding a mild version of their opinions that the modern "handling" is being applied.
hunglee2 3y ago
I think explicit Nazism is banned on SubStack - at least I have not yet seen any example of a literal Hitlerian National Socialist Aryan Ubermensch newsletter on that platform. This issue is the expansion of the term 'Nazism', which seemingly today can be applied to 'the other side' no matter the content of the argument. We have all seen opposite sides in an argument accuse each other of Nazism with both actually seeming to mean it. How do you ban this, who does the banning? Content moderation is a really hard problem, anything other than a legalistic position is over reach
- Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
  George Orwell described that very thing in 1946. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... > The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. ... Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    A big difference between 1946 and now is that we have the internet, so we can see how the Nazis described themselves with only a few clicks, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter Are there any problems with this rough definition? Nazis: right-wing racist nationalists (who thought women should occupy themselves with children and believed in the bullet more than the ballot) Of course, it's possible to attempt to confuse the issue (witness Putin, starting an "anti-fascist" war of choice by invading his neighbour) but that smacks highly of the old lawyer's tactic of kicking up a lot of dust* and then complaining that no one can see. * this is the friendly version; a less friendly one ends "... placing oneself at the mercy of the court as an orphan"
Vektorceraptor 3y ago
Yes, online moderation, literally "deleting people by a single click, for even misunderstood opinions or expressions (overcensorship)" has become a big problem. On the one side it leads some to believe, that you can clean the world simply by sweeping the dirt under the carpet with your mouse. On the other hand, it has caused a lot of suffering and injustice because, of course, most people are not Nazis. But they will defend themselves aggressively, and some may even become one, if you constantly make them feel like they are. Online moderation has become a source of power and abuse, and it leads to fears, conformity and oppression. And the whole thing happens more or less, not because one is so moral and well meaning, but because one wants to run a successful and well-visited platform. Capitalist interest and the idea of growth obscure the psychological reality here.

It’s shocking we even have to talk about this. We figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago and we know it was not a mistake.

SenAnder 3y ago
[flagged]
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  > 74-82% of US soldiers felt the army should be segregated. There's a great scene in "A Welcome to Britain" - 1943 film for US soldiers stationed in the UK - that is clearly trying to sell integration to troops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYSBBE1DFw&t=1519s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYSBBE1DFw&t=1519s
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    As well as soldiers, there's a lot of interesting commentary from early jazz and blues artists touring Europe and reflecting on the difference in treatment they received which many of them had previously not had any external benchmark to compare with.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  The US DoD did see the need to desegregate, and (perhaps conscious of their own hypocrisy?) started to do so in the 1950's, in advance of the rest of the country. 1948: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    The US also attempted† to free the last slaves in December 1941, so a tiny silver lining on a very dark cloud. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591 † a few exceptions persisted in some backwater areas even after the end of the war.
- gmerc 3y ago
  So you’re saying they were wrong to eject the nazis by force despite sharing some of their ideas (segregation?)?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  The people from other nations who fought and died might object to you handing all the credit to the segregationist part of America, especially when Hitler and the Nazis were directly inspired by that segregation, helping to create the situation in which they fought and died. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi... > both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    You're right, credit also goes to the Russians that had just finished starving Ukraine into submission (and would go on to implement a system of brutal repression that killed tens of millions and consigned eastern Europe to dictatorships for decades), and the British colonial empire. In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Wasn't the claim that even those people, at that time, recognized Nazis as bad news? I'll review the thread but I don't recall anyone claiming the soldiers, politicians or civilians were particularly woke by modern standards.
      - SenAnder 3y ago
        The claim was that "we figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago", where the "we" that did the handling would be considered modern-day Nazis, and it is to people holding a mild version of their opinions that the modern "handling" is being applied.

hunglee2 3y ago

I think explicit Nazism is banned on SubStack - at least I have not yet seen any example of a literal Hitlerian National Socialist Aryan Ubermensch newsletter on that platform. This issue is the expansion of the term 'Nazism', which seemingly today can be applied to 'the other side' no matter the content of the argument. We have all seen opposite sides in an argument accuse each other of Nazism with both actually seeming to mean it. How do you ban this, who does the banning? Content moderation is a really hard problem, anything other than a legalistic position is over reach

Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
George Orwell described that very thing in 1946. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... > The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. ... Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  A big difference between 1946 and now is that we have the internet, so we can see how the Nazis described themselves with only a few clicks, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Schlageter Are there any problems with this rough definition? Nazis: right-wing racist nationalists (who thought women should occupy themselves with children and believed in the bullet more than the ballot) Of course, it's possible to attempt to confuse the issue (witness Putin, starting an "anti-fascist" war of choice by invading his neighbour) but that smacks highly of the old lawyer's tactic of kicking up a lot of dust* and then complaining that no one can see. * this is the friendly version; a less friendly one ends "... placing oneself at the mercy of the court as an orphan"

Vektorceraptor 3y ago

Yes, online moderation, literally "deleting people by a single click, for even misunderstood opinions or expressions (overcensorship)" has become a big problem. On the one side it leads some to believe, that you can clean the world simply by sweeping the dirt under the carpet with your mouse. On the other hand, it has caused a lot of suffering and injustice because, of course, most people are not Nazis. But they will defend themselves aggressively, and some may even become one, if you constantly make them feel like they are. Online moderation has become a source of power and abuse, and it leads to fears, conformity and oppression. And the whole thing happens more or less, not because one is so moral and well meaning, but because one wants to run a successful and well-visited platform. Capitalist interest and the idea of growth obscure the psychological reality here.