My view is that waving a Nazi flag is not only hate speech, but fighting words.
The Nazis industrially slaughtered over ten million people. When shooting and burying so many people turned out to be burdensome, they developed what could be described as factories of death-- industrial processes to murder all of the people who did not die of starvation or disease in their ghettos. Before the Nazis murdered a lot of them, Nazi "doctors" conducted "experiments" on them. Millions more died in the war of conquest that was unleashed by the Nazis.
All of that is factual. It is not open for discussion. (See, Rule 2.H)
If you wave a Nazi flag or wear a Nazi armband, then you are adopting that ideology. You are saying that you approve of all of the crimes committed by the Nazis. You are saying that, given the chance, you'd do the same.
And so, I maintain that waving a Nazi flag and wearing the swastika is not merely provocative speech or even hate speech. It is uttering fighting words.
Anyone who punches a Nazi or otherwise lays hands on them should be allowed to plead that the violence was justified because the Nazi(s) had it coming under the Toyota Rule:
They asked for it, they got it.
Toyota.
Spanks, But No Spanks
21 minutes ago
17 comments:
Free speech is jut that. It includes things we find ugly.
Having said that, it should not be without consequences. Loss of job, shunning, etc.
But don't go down the slope that some speech is ok to lead to violence.
That was once a thing about gays, remember? 'Twas ok to beat 'em up and all that?
I dislike Nazis as much as you, I assure you. But that is a slope you really don't want to slither down.
It makes you no better than them. And I think you are better than that.
Did B just equate Homosexuals with Nazis? For real?
I don't know what to say to that so I'm going to ignore it for now.
I'm writing to say Sing it Comrade as Nazi is not just an ideology, it is a plan of extermination of anyone considered other. As I'm as other as it gets, I take their existance personal as I do with all people who want to kill me.
Nazis to me are the Daleks and Borg of my here/now. I don't reason with them because they have to recognize my right to exist first. So yes, seeing them in their regalia to me is an invitation to smite them at least once.
Shame on them. Shame. There is no room in this world for that kind of behavior. You want to beat someone up? Why don't you play with your mates instead of annoying the rest of humanity.
By the way, I believe you underestimated exactly what you revealed about your character in your comment B. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell you though as I really don't like you much and today has been a bad day. Suffice it to say that Nazis killed a boat load of people in nasty creative ways. Homosexuals? Not so much.
I find it amusing that anybody can find Nazis and Nazi-punchers to be equivalent. One group wants to exterminate lots of people, or at least expel them, but we know how that whole "expel them" thing ends in a Final Solution. The other group wants to stop the first group from exterminating lots of people.
And they're equivalent.
According to our President.
Wow. What kind of person thinks that evil, and people attempting to stop evil, are the same fucking thing?
I guess we know now.
The big lie of both sides do it has to go. It is being used to obscure the source of the evil. We have been able to put the evil down when it rose up precisely because it was evil, obviously more evil than the everyday evil we deal with in our daily lives. The Confederacy and the Third Reich were not hard judgement calls. Once the evil is out in the light of day, we can put it down again, I have to believe we can. Until it's there, we can't even start.
If there was a hell, Roy Cohn would be there right now, laughing his slimy ass off.
-Doug in Oakland
Grey one: Try reading for comprehension next time.
Well, my recollection of the times is that the gay-bashers, then and now, thought that gay people were subhuman.
The Nazis regard everyone else as subhuman.
The freedom of speech is not the freedom to incite those being addressed to attack and kill others. B., you have shown yourself sadly lacking in comprehension of history, law and morality, IMHO.
Gays went into the gas chambers right along with the gypsies, the jews.
Comrade: So two wrongs make a right? Don't lower yourself to that level. You are better than that.
Your analogy would make sense if homosexuals were for the elimination of certain subgroups back then, as the Nazi's were back then, and as they are now.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper
When did homosexuals preach intolerance?
B., strawmen and whatabouts have become your goto. No answers, just misleading and deliberate questions to draw away from the malfeasance of your fearless leader. My guess, your next response will comment on Obama.
B, it's wrong to bomb cities from the air and immolate civilian populations. That didn't stop us from doing it.
The presence of Nazis is an attack on freedom. Nazis are not offering alternative views. They are not a legitimate political party or movement. I don't believe I need to go further in this paragraph.
Another point: It wasn't the counter-protestors who showed up with rifles in Charlottesville. It was the Nazis.
Not arguing with your points about the Nazis. I'd go so far as to say that they apply to Communists, too.
Watching the Nazis and Communists in street fights has a very Weimar feel, though. I don't think this will end well.
There are no "communists". Damn fool.
What kind of idiot can't tell the difference between anarchists and Communists? Sheesh. Hint: Communists are statists. Anarchists are anti-statists. It's like the difference between libertarians (small l) and fascists on the right -- one doesn't like government, one wants to *be* government.
Wait, I thought the right liked Communists now?
Only if they're reformed and become garden-variety dictators (Putin).
Post a Comment