Facebook bans far right groups

Darat said:
I would say someone who claims to be a Stalinist or supports Stalinism is of course someone who is for killing fellow citizens just like someone who claims to be a Nazi does, and I have no issue with them not being allowed to advocate the killing of their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...


The few self-proclaimed Stalinists I've met weren't "for killing fellow citizens", but they were deluded about what constitutes Stalinism.
 
dann said:
The few self-proclaimed Stalinists I've met weren't "for killing fellow citizens", but they were deluded about what constitutes Stalinism.
Click to expand...
As I've now said quite a few times, being stupid isn't usually a way to avoid being guilty of breaking the law.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Yeah, definitely.

When was the last time someone in your country tried to kill someone in the name of 'The Revolution', though?
Click to expand...

If Germany had won the war, after they completed their final solution, and all the dissenters had been rounded up things would have settled down to become relatively peaceful there too.
 
Using Nazism as an excuse to defend the broad concept of "Freedom Of Speech" (even ignoring how many times it's been explained that that concept doesn't apply here) is the same thing as when people want to piss on vaccines by going "Oh but they technically do have risks."

Yeah they do. Technically. But the risks are so small and the benefits so great if you're picking vaccines as your example, it is literally impossible to do without an ulterior motive. You're arguing risk/reward by using vaccines, you're against vaccines not for risk/reward.

Same thing with Nazis. Even if you just have to do some Bob-esque show of blind adherence to the pure ideological consistency of "Free Speech" as a concept above all else, homing in on Nazi as your example shows your hand.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
If Germany had won the war, after they completed their final solution, and all the dissenters had been rounded up things would have settled down to become relatively peaceful there too.
Click to expand...

Why would you say such an absolutely crazy thing? I don't get it.
 
He's saying that after the fact "peace" can be achieved through horrible means, and we should be careful of using "Well it's all peaceful now" as an arguing point.

If the barbarian horde kills everyone capable of fighting back or dissenting, you've technically achieved peace.
 
JoeMorgue said:
He's saying that after the fact "peace" can be achieved through horrible means, and we should be careful of using "Well it's all peaceful now" as an arguing point.

If the barbarian horde kills everyone capable of fighting back or dissenting, you've technically achieved peace.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks.
 
Darat said:
Does anyone think that Nazism is not inherently violent and it doesn't call for the killing of vast numbers of us (us meaning fellow citizens)?
Click to expand...
The Nazism of the first half of the 20th century? I'd agree with you. The modern form I am not familiar with enough to know what they want. I'm not even sure what constitutes as being one. Not being in 100% agreement with someone is enough to be labelled a Nazi. I don't know that I would say those people are inherently violent or calling for the killing of citizens as a number of those people end up being moderate conservatives or even far left leaning progressives. I have never met someone who identifies as a Nazi and would imagine their true numbers, the ones who actually act on their inherently violence beliefs, to be quite small.
 
Bouncing Bettys said:
The Nazism of the first half of the 20th century? I'd agree with you. The modern form I am not familiar with enough to know what they want. I'm not even sure what constitutes as being one. Not being in 100% agreement with someone is enough to be labelled a Nazi. I don't know that I would say those people are inherently violent or calling for the killing of citizens as a number of those people end up being moderate conservatives or even far left leaning progressives. I have never met someone who identifies as a Nazi and would imagine their true numbers, the ones who actually act on their inherently violence beliefs, to be quite small.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. That's like telling everyone you identify as a rapist but putting on a bunch of self righteous bluster and pearl clutching when people assume you're gonna rape people.

Words mean thing.

Seriously the fact that we have now been reduced to "But what if you throw out the good Nazi babies with the Nazi bathwater" hand wringing is absurd.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh come on. That's like telling everyone you identify as a rapist but putting on a bunch of self righteous bluster and pearl clutching when people assume you're gonna rape people.

Words mean thing.

Seriously the fact that we have now been reduced to "But what if you throw out the good Nazi babies with the Nazi bathwater" hand wringing is absurd.
Click to expand...

Words indeed mean thing, thus my point. We are so quick to label people we disagree with as Nazis when they really aren't at all. The very definition of the word can change under this practice. The meaning of words are always changing.
 
Last edited:
Bouncing Bettys said:
Words indeed mean thing, thus my point. We are so quick to label people we disagree with as Nazis when they really aren't at all.
Click to expand...

And the loop just starts again.

"But people use the word Nazi wrong!" is not a retort to "Nazis aren't good."

Can this conversation please get and stay out of that loop please?

We are not talking about people who other people call Nazis. We're talking about people who claim the title of Nazis themselves.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Seriously the fact that we have now been reduced to "But what if you throw out the good Nazi babies with the Nazi bathwater" hand wringing is absurd.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are no "good Nazi babies" (in the metaphorical sense, literal babies don't have ideologies even if born to Nazi parents). But that applies to Communists too.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And the loop just starts again.

"But people use the word Nazi wrong!" is not a retort to "Nazis aren't good."
Click to expand...

It is, however, a valid retort to "it's OK to do this stuff to Nazis".

We are not talking about people who other people call Nazis.
Click to expand...

Yes we are. Note that the thread title isn't even "Facebook bans Nazi groups". The categorization of other people as Nazis has been at the heart of this discussion from the start.
 
Ziggurat said:
The categorization of other people as Nazis has been at the heart of this discussion from the start.
Click to expand...

The soapboxes owner gets to make the decision. Your view that it magically becomes different when the soapbox gets too big not withstanding.

I'll can handwring over your idea that private entities stop having rights when they get too big a lot longer than you can hangwring over "OMG who gets to decide who's a Nazi."
 
ServiceSoon said:
Declaring "we don't serve your kind here" is discriminatory and oppressive regardless of the source.
Click to expand...

Yep you are obligated to give Nazi free airtime and an audience, otherwise it is discriminatory. Why look at how outrageous it would be to not be seated in a restaurant just because you are wearing a full SS uniform! It is a dress uniform so of course it counts for being properly attired.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The soapboxes owner gets to make the decision. Your view that it magically becomes different when the soapbox gets too big not withstanding.

I'll can handwring over your idea that private entities stop having rights when they get too big a lot longer than you can hangwring over "OMG who gets to decide who's a Nazi."
Click to expand...

As a matter of law, large companies are very frequently deprived of rights that individual people maintain, including many rights of association.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom