- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The inside-the-law approach that works to some limited extent is public community rejection. Things like large groups showing up and standing with their back to the Nazis.
The method that has historically stopped Nazis like this involves getting some level of police cooperation and beating them up
Let them march. A bigger problem is that a huge number of people seem to think they’re a thing of the past and don’t really exist in any strength. Let them prove otherwise.
You can’t suppress them into defeat anyway, we’ve tried that before.
We can’t suppress them into defeat!? What?? That’s how the German Nazis were defeated! That’s how modern Nazis have been symbolically defeated, worldwide. Repeat after me: “We don’t serve you here.”
Any place, anywhere in the world, if an equal number of people stand up against them and for human equality, they run away with their tails between their legs. They’re fucking Nazis…
There were several laws put in place in postwar Germany that specifically suppressed them. This was broadly effective, though I think the modern-day position of the AfD shows it was not completely so.
In the US, any such legislation would be struck down in court as unconstitutional.
So, it’s just not that simple.
Newsflash: some number of people are absolute shitbags.
If you let them take over and run the show it’s gonna get real bad.
Nazis are absolute shitbags. They will always be around in some number. You need to always suppress them so they don’t fuck up the good shit we have managed to eek out.
eke #boneAppleTea
Well, yes, you definitely don’t want to let them take over. You want to demonstrate your own strength, and how much you outnumber them.
This is not preventing them from marching in some way, though. That is not doable, it would be illegal. It would also be counterproductive in our current climate of most people underestimating the actual danger.
You need to be cautious of the paradox of tolerance.
I’m discussing specifics, details, not vague principles. Should there be Neo Nazis allowed to gather and march through some city with their signs? Yes, they should not be prohibited or physically prevented.
Why? Because it helps give evidence to the fact that racism in the modern day is still an enduring problem, and that extreme racism is still a threat. This counters a standard conservative narrative that remains an effective weapon in their toolbox.
Is this tolerance? No, not necessarily, not if you’re also counterprotesting, contesting their position, demonstrating that they do not have factuality or popularity on their side.
I’m not some young whippersnapper that thinks in simple, straightforward, black and white ways. It’s a messy and complicated world out there, without simple answers to our problems. So, we need to think in complex ways, paying attention to details and specifics instead of thinking some broad application of some sort of simplified principle can fix what a century of progress failed to.
Just to be clear, you are the one advocating for tolerating those promoting intolerance in this situation.
You have laid it out very clearly here.
That is why you are subject to the paradox. Nothing to do with complicated situations or anything. You are saying people who push an ideology of inequality and intolerance.deserve a voice. I do not agree.
Depends how you define tolerance I suppose. If your opponent is going to harm themselves, though, you should let them.
edit: Consider it this way. Do you think a Nazi march improves their position in the slightest? Does it strengthen Nazi ideas in any way, shape or form?
I don’t think it does, personally. People that want to follow that ideology already do, I do not think it would increase their support in any way.
Right, so you start beating the shit out of them until they learn to shut the fuck up and stop showing up. Make them afraid.
Yep.
(#3 sounds less harsh than it is in enforcement. #canadian)
The German Nazis were defeated with overwhelming manpower & firepower, not passive suppression.
They were defeated by actually standing up to them. That’s all I’m suggesting we do now!
Okay, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by suppression. Yes, by all means, stand up to them.
Removed by mod
We didn’t though, we let them fester, just like the Confederates. We should have also, not let them fester.
Actually, Ulysses S Grant clamped down very brutally on groups like the KKK during the Reconstruction Era, essentially continuing the civil war against the south in a sense. He ended up reducing their strength significantly and driving them underground.
Unfortunately, an idea cannot be destroyed with military might, it can only be fought by teaching critical thinking skills and sound information gathering and decision-making methods, so people don’t think so stupidly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Act_of_1870
Note the line that says the law allows the use of the army to enforce it, that’s what Grant ended up doing.