Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

[jimbob]

Nobody is this confused.

They are when they are accusing someone of something that isn't a crime.

"I'm calling for Nuremberg trials of people who have supported Trump" would be interpreted as threatening.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

To me, "kangaroo court" implies a travesty of justice. Which Nuremberg certainly wasn't.

I guess that depends on your definitions.
It certainly was a travesty to the Rule of Law.
It was, of course, justified and probably didn't go far enough

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Nobody is this confused.

No. They know exactly what they mean, and they know all their fellow travelers will also understand exactly what they mean, and it works as a legal figleaf that "they only want JUSTICE" when called on it.

 

[dirtywick]

he was just some peace loving guy who wanted a dialogue and nuremberg trials for the people he disagreed with in those free exchanges of ideas

so dishonest lol

 

[TragicMonkey]

Nobody is this confused.

Perhaps it's time to retire this particular catchphrase? You've been misusing it several times recently.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps it's time to retire this particular catchphrase? You've been misusing it several times recently.

Nobody is this confused, either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To minds that find romance in nazism, the Nuremberg Trials are simply an example of
what winners do to losers, and they quite hanker for the experience, partly as payback
and partly for the spectacle and thrill -- and, most erotically, for the executions! They
know perfectly well what the term Nuremberg Trial means, and so do their fans.

This is nothing new. I can recall second-generation nazis, people my own age, born during and right
after WW2, who were vengefully thrilled by talking about Nuremberg Mark II. Then the Jews and
the Reds would learn about justice!

Based on this post, I don't think you know what the Nuremburg Trials actually were.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nuremburg is a dog whistle, used by the extreme right wing in western democracies. We hear it here as well, about doctors and medical scientists, especially after covid, and about politicians the extreme right consider traitors. The implications are that they will be killed.

The implication is that those asking for them believe those doctors and politicians have engaged in crimes against humanity that merit a trial.

Honest to galaxies, the number of people here framing the Nuremburg trials as a bad thing is mind-boggling.

You're perfectly capable of disagreeing with the premise that any of those people has committed any crimes, let alone significant crimes against humanity... but objecting to a call for trials is borderline nuts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

.. because they are “criminals”.

You put that in scare quotes... and the implication of that is that you don't believe that the 12 nazi leaders sentenced to execution for their horrific actions, and the 7 sentenced to prison, were not actually criminals.

FFS, how can youse guys not understand that your entire narrative approach is casting actual for-realsies nazi leadership as victims of an unjust and biased judicial proceeding?????

 

[Emily's Cat]

And unlike the actual Nuremberg trials, the implications are that it's a show trial. Because as @sackett explained, neonazis regard the *actual* Nuremberg trials as show trials.

What sort of magical mind-reading ability has allowed you to glean such insights?

I mean, seriously people.

"Those people should be put on trial for crimes against humanity!"
"OMG, you're an evil bigot who just wants people killed!!!!"

The disconnect here belongs in CT.

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Emily's Cat

The actions of US health insurance companies in refusing treatment, has lead to many deaths especially on the grounds of pre-existing conditions (the infamous example of refusing to pay for skin cancer treatment because of previous acne springs to mind).

If someone said that people who worked in that industry should face Nuremberg trials, that would be a call for violence.

No, it would be a call for a trial for crimes against humanity.

For the umpteenth time. *I* am not. However I'm not calling for Nuremberg trials for doctors who at worst might have made a wrong medical decision from the best of intentions. Those calling for the above are conflating them.

That isn't surprising when the antivax subculture that called for Nuremberg trials for doctors is full of neonazis who think the Nazis did nothing wrong.

At best, Kirk was flirting with that subculture. Why else would he also minimise the Holocaust by saying that abortion was worse?

While I certainly don't agree with Kirk's view, I am capable of understanding that to them, killing an innocent baby because they're inconvenient is worse than killing an adult. My lack of agreement with christian dogma doesn't prevent me from comprehending that unborn babies are incapable of sin, and therefore all completely innocent by the tenets of that belief. Adults and older children, on the other hand, have the capacity for free will with knowledge of their god's commandments are likely to be sinners in some fashion or other. The killing of someone incapable of sin under that belief structure is worse than the killing of someone who is capable of sin.

I make no claim to extreme intelligence or insight... but I'm frequently taken aback by the complete lack of understanding of one's opponents views.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Nuernberg trials were by definition a Kangaroo Court in that it made up offenses that hadn't existed prior to the trials, and assumed legal powers over the leadership of defeated Germany it didn't have. No Jurisdiction, no code of laws prior to the offense.
Doesn't mean it was wrong.

We probably should have a whole lot more of them.
So it's weird that people think the ICC is a bad thing when it is the direct successor of the Nuernberg Courts.

Who thinks the ICC is a bad thing?

ETA: who thinks it's a bad thing in the context of this thread and the participants here? I'm sure there are some people out there who think it's a bad thing... but there are also people out there who think the nazis were great, and who think Mao was the the bee's knees, and all sorts of other idiotic things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it just makes us feel better about ourselves to prove that we aren't aligning ourselves with neonazis lol.

I agree though, this thread has gone nowhere but admittedly it's always fun to see the "I'm totally not a right-winger" people go ten toes in on defending neonazi propaganda and terminology. The mask is off.

It's such fun to just make ◊◊◊◊ up about other posters, impugn them, and pat yourself on the back about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it isn't the opposite. Calling for a trial implies a desire for punishment, which could go as far as being put to death. There is also an explicit threat of violence by the state against the victim if they don't comply, including the possibility of being arrested and jailed - which is itself a kind of violence. Finally there is the emotional trauma from being accused of something which could go to trial, another form of violence. When the person calling for a trial has the means to effect it the threat becomes real. Donald Trump has openly called for people to be put to death for their 'crimes', and he would do it too if he got the chance.


Forcing someone to do something is a form of violence.

I cannot wrap my head around the twisted reasoning that leads you to conclude that calling for the trial of someone you believe to be a criminal is a bad thing.

I mean, there's been a tendency to cast criminals as victims for a while, but this goes so far beyond DARVO I don't even know what to call it.

 

[sackett]

Based on this post, I don't think you know what the Nuremburg Trials actually were.

Well, Em, since I'm 84 years old and have lived all that time in the shade of WW2, and have made the study
of that ghastly epoch my constant practice, I'll assure you that I know a bellyfull about the Nuremberg
Trials and their background. I would remind you of the Saint James's Declaration (1942), the Moscow Declaration (1943), and of course Yalta (1945) telling the nazis unequivocally that they would be tried for their monstrosities
when they were caught. The fascists knew what they were doing and knew what would happen to them.

I've also read about Goering's supposed defense that the Allies had no jurisdiction to try him. He only succeeded
in venting hot air. Or hot something. Try not to take after him.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They are when they are accusing someone of something that isn't a crime.

Do you actually understand why the Nuremberg trials occurred in the first place? There were no laws in Germany against killing a ton of jewish people and gypsies. Most of what the nazis did during WW2 weren't crimes at the time they occurred - but they were so obviously immoral and unethical that the international community created laws as a result. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the international community has very limited ability to take action against countries for what they do within their own borders.

While the very general concept of "war crimes" existed for several centuries, they were generally violations of custom as it pertains to rules of engagement. They weren't really codified in a meaningful way until after WW2, as a direct result of things the nazis did.

There are a lot of laws on our collective western books that are a result of someone(s) doing something that had previously been unthinkably horrific, so much so that we didn't think we needed a law against something that we never imagined anyone would ever do. You know, like rounding up people of a specific ancestry and cooking them in ovens. Or performing harmful experiments on people without consent. Or forced sterilization.

"I'm calling for Nuremberg trials of people who have supported Trump" would be interpreted as threatening.

Yes, it certainly would be interpreted as threatening by people who supported Trump. To some of the posters here, who seem to believe that not hating Trump sufficiently makes someone on-par with Mengele and Himmler, they might think it's an entirely appropriate thing to view as a crime against humanity.

The entire concept of a trial, however, is that a jury of one's peers may very well find in the defendant's favor.

 

[jimbob]

What sort of magical mind-reading ability has allowed you to glean such insights?

I mean, seriously people.

"Those people should be put on trial for crimes against humanity!"
"OMG, you're an evil bigot who just wants people killed!!!!"

The disconnect here belongs in CT.

Because I have seen the social media posts by the Nazis and antivaxers (a Venn diagram with a massive overlap). And they equate those promoting vaccination with the most sadistic Nazi criminals (which simultaneously pushes their fake victimhood narrative and minimises the crimes of the actual Nazis) and they show pictures of gibbets, which makes their intent very clear.

They are not being cryptic. They are explicitly calling for the murder of doctors, dressed up in a show trial to find them guilty. BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE ACTUAL NAZIS AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE NUREMBERG TRIALS WERE JUSTIFIED so they just think it's an excuse.

 

[jimbob]

Do you actually understand why the Nuremberg trials occurred in the first place? There were no laws in Germany against killing a ton of jewish people and gypsies. Most of what the nazis did during WW2 weren't crimes at the time they occurred - but they were so obviously immoral and unethical that the international community created laws as a result. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the international community has very limited ability to take action against countries for what they do within their own borders.

While the very general concept of "war crimes" existed for several centuries, they were generally violations of custom as it pertains to rules of engagement. They weren't really codified in a meaningful way until after WW2, as a direct result of things the nazis did.

There are a lot of laws on our collective western books that are a result of someone(s) doing something that had previously been unthinkably horrific, so much so that we didn't think we needed a law against something that we never imagined anyone would ever do. You know, like rounding up people of a specific ancestry and cooking them in ovens. Or performing harmful experiments on people without consent. Or forced sterilization.

Yes, it certainly would be interpreted as threatening by people who supported Trump. To some of the posters here, who seem to believe that not hating Trump sufficiently makes someone on-par with Mengele and Himmler, they might think it's an entirely appropriate thing to view as a crime against humanity.

The entire concept of a trial, however, is that a jury of one's peers may very well find in the defendant's favor.

See what @sackett said. The Nazis were warned.

I can't believe I have to spell it out that whatever one thinks about either vaccination or medical treatment of trans people, neither are intended to harm and the medics concerned are trying to do the best for their patients. Which is so far from a crime against humanity that to equate the two is obscene.

 

[jimbob]

The implication is that those asking for them believe those doctors and politicians have engaged in crimes against humanity that merit a trial.

If you have been living under a rock and have not seen the context from antivaxers, showing that they are not interested in anything other than a show trial and sentence of death (which, of course is completely different from the actual Nuremberg trials, where great care was taken to ensure justice was done). Theyl antivaxers make it very clear in their social media posts. And Kirk was in that subculture, so he knew that.

Honest to galaxies, the number of people here framing the Nuremburg trials as a bad thing is mind-boggling.

You're perfectly capable of disagreeing with the premise that any of those people has committed any crimes, let alone significant crimes against humanity... but objecting to a call for trials is borderline nuts.

For the umpteenth time, the Nuremberg trials were justified and necessary. It is obscene to equate well intentioned medical treatment with the crimes of the Nazis. Which is also part of the reason why many antivaxers push it, because THEY want to normalise the crimes of the Nazis, because many antivaxers are Nazis (I see and report twitter accounts with two lighting flashes, bios about pure bloods, and crossed out syringes all together in the same bios). Usually their posts are very clearly Nazis.

 

[jimbob]

You're perfectly capable of disagreeing with the premise that any of those people has committed any crimes, let alone significant crimes against humanity... but objecting to a call for trials is borderline nuts.

Nope - it is obscene to equate vaccination with crimes against humanity. It is obscene to equate medics trying their best to help trans people with crimes against humanity.

At worst one might disagree with their medical decisions but one cannot seriously claim that the intent behind the decisions wasn't to do the best for the patient.

And the dog whistle is for kangaroo courts with no due process, unlike Nuremberg.