The Charlottesville people are largely fascists, but they also don’t have that much influence in American politics. Dobbs is not a fascist position. I personally support abortion access- but there is nothing in the Constitution to protect it. As for state laws persecuting trans people I actually have looked that much into what’s passed, I’ve just seen rhetoric. Can you point me to some of the laws that’re chrisofascist?
Chomsky has some great takes on certain topics. He’s phenomenal at linguistics, and his analysis of propaganda systems in the US is paralleled only by Parenti. Unfortunately, he also holds some contradictory viewpoints to what he espouses. You cannot tolerate intolerance. Period. Having a different view is not the same as being a Nazi. It’s not merely a difference of opinion. Your right to free speech stops where my face begins. You don’t have the right to advocate for my murder, as they did in Charlottesville, and accepting that as an opinion would mean inherently abandoning the belief that human rights are universal.
I disagree. You can oppose a murder without murdering them. In the same way, those who oppose certain rights of others must be opposed but not persecuted, not only because they’d become a martyr- but because even though I strongly disagree their beliefs and in my opinion are clearly wrong that doesn’t exactly matter to whether I can talk to them about programming over lunch.
Your right to free speech stops where my face begins.
What does this mean?
and accepting that as an opinion would mean inherently abandoning the belief that human rights are universal.
An opinion can be disgusting and abhorrent and still be an any opinion. Nazism clearly is an opinion- an abhorrent opinion that rejects human life and human rights, yet still an opinion. Just like someone can have an opinion that murdering as many people as possible is good.
Nazism clearly is an opinion- an abhorrent opinion that rejects human life and human rights, yet still an opinion. Just like someone can have an opinion that murdering as many people as possible is good.
If nazis are welcome in a community, no one else is.
They were all fascists, and everything else you said is, at best, so deeply ignorant that I don’t think I’ve got the time or mental energy to point out how dumb and dangerous this refusal to see what should be obvious to everyone is. I strongly encourage you to step down as a moderator of this community and strongly encourage anyone who approved your being made a mod to do the same.
Every single one there? I do not think you could possibly know that.
dumb and dangerous this refusal to see what should be obvious to everyone is.
Ironically what I said in my mod application is:
“I fully accept that people can and do hold opposing opinions to me, yet might be smarter, more informed, or more moral than me. I may still disagree with them but being wrong isn’t evil.”
Do you think I(or anyone) could disagree with you on anything without you automatically assuming they are less informed, stupider, or evil?
Every single one there? I do not think you could possibly know that.
The counterprotesters weren’t. If you’re marching and nazis show up to march with you and you don’t drive them off or leave yourself, you’re ok marching with nazis. The term for someone who is ok marching with nazis is “a nazi.”
After the Nazi electoral breakthrough in the 1930 Reichstag election, the SPD proposed a renewed united front with the KPD against fascism but this was rejected.[25]
In the early 1930s, the KPD cooperated with the Nazis in attacking the social democrats, and both sought to destroy the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic.[26] They also followed an increasingly nationalist course, trying to appeal to nationalist-leaning workers.[4][27]
In 1931, the party reported a membership of 200,000.[28]
The KPD leadership initially first criticised but then supported the 1931 Prussian Landtag referendum, an unsuccessful attempt launched by the far-right Stahlhelm to bring down the social democrat state government of Prussia by means of a plebiscite; the KPD referred to the SA as “working people’s comrades” during this campaign.[29]
In this period, while also opposed to the Nazis, the KPD regarded the Nazi Party as a less sophisticated and thus less dangerous fascist party than the SPD, and KPD leader Ernst Thälmann declared that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest [of social democrats]”.[30] In February 1932, Thälmann argued that “Hitler must come to power first, then the requirements for a revolutionary crisis [will] arrive more quickly”. In November 1932, the KPD and the Nazis worked together in the Berlin transport workers’ strike.
Wow. Neat pro-nazi talking points. Do you think this is a good look for the moderation team?
I’d say the German Communist Party didn’t know any better and learned the hard way what happens when you welcome nazis. It’s interesting how none of your examples are from after 1932. I wonder what could have happened in 1933 that caused the sudden cutoff.
My personal ideology is essentially in opposition to Nazi ideology in every possible matter.
Essentially? Wow, you can’t even pretend to oppose nazis without wormy equivocation.
Not what I asked. You said marching with Nazis automatically makes you a Nazi, regardless of if they kill you later or not. So were they Nazis or not.
In this day and age it is. Certainly in the context of the unite the right nazi rally it is, which is what we were talking about. I can’t fault fools who didn’t know any better. Everyone knows they’re the baddies now. Everyone at that rally knew exactly what they were about.
Interesting how you didn’t answer, were they Nazis?
The nazis didn’t seem to think so, since they built Dachau to kill them. But yeah, have your stupid little gotcha. You’re so clever.
I think he more likely believed there were some non-nazis in the group seeing as he in the same quote said I condemn neo-nazis and white supremacists dozens of times
I mean, none of us can speak to what someone else believes. I don’t think Trump puts that much thought into what he says to intentionally not say something to avoid alienating voters.
The constitution itself protects it. It’s called penumbral reasoning.
The idea that we set up a limited government that could also come into people’s homes and legislate family planning decisions is absurd to the point of stupidity.
I agree there an many unenumerated rights, but I understand the argument that there is nothing indicating that the is any more protected than bodily autonomy when it comes to drugs, or how you raise your children, etc. But, I am of the belief that drug use and abortion could definitely be considered protected rights. I just understand the perspective of those who disagree.
“They’re not christofascists, they’re Christian moralists” ^^1 is a disturbingly far right position post Charlottesville, Dobbs, and all the state laws persecuting trans people that have been passed recently.
I will say, I haven’t seen a moderation level action yet that seems horribly wrong, but I feel like that’s only going to be a matter of time
^^1 Paraphrased, not a direct quote
e; I apparently can’t figure out superscript text
The Charlottesville people are largely fascists, but they also don’t have that much influence in American politics. Dobbs is not a fascist position. I personally support abortion access- but there is nothing in the Constitution to protect it. As for state laws persecuting trans people I actually have looked that much into what’s passed, I’ve just seen rhetoric. Can you point me to some of the laws that’re chrisofascist?
If you have a table of 10 people, and a Nazi sits down and joins them without them kicking him out, you now have a table with 11 Nazis at it.
Removed by mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE
Chomsky has some great takes on certain topics. He’s phenomenal at linguistics, and his analysis of propaganda systems in the US is paralleled only by Parenti. Unfortunately, he also holds some contradictory viewpoints to what he espouses. You cannot tolerate intolerance. Period. Having a different view is not the same as being a Nazi. It’s not merely a difference of opinion. Your right to free speech stops where my face begins. You don’t have the right to advocate for my murder, as they did in Charlottesville, and accepting that as an opinion would mean inherently abandoning the belief that human rights are universal.
I disagree. You can oppose a murder without murdering them. In the same way, those who oppose certain rights of others must be opposed but not persecuted, not only because they’d become a martyr- but because even though I strongly disagree their beliefs and in my opinion are clearly wrong that doesn’t exactly matter to whether I can talk to them about programming over lunch.
What does this mean?
An opinion can be disgusting and abhorrent and still be an any opinion. Nazism clearly is an opinion- an abhorrent opinion that rejects human life and human rights, yet still an opinion. Just like someone can have an opinion that murdering as many people as possible is good.
If nazis are welcome in a community, no one else is.
What should be done to a nazi if they’re living in your city/area/country?
It should be made perfectly clear to nazis that they are not welcome.
What should happen to a nazi if they post on this community?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=4-oV42OMQoE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
They were all fascists, and everything else you said is, at best, so deeply ignorant that I don’t think I’ve got the time or mental energy to point out how dumb and dangerous this refusal to see what should be obvious to everyone is. I strongly encourage you to step down as a moderator of this community and strongly encourage anyone who approved your being made a mod to do the same.
Every single one there? I do not think you could possibly know that.
Ironically what I said in my mod application is:
“I fully accept that people can and do hold opposing opinions to me, yet might be smarter, more informed, or more moral than me. I may still disagree with them but being wrong isn’t evil.”
Do you think I(or anyone) could disagree with you on anything without you automatically assuming they are less informed, stupider, or evil?
The counterprotesters weren’t. If you’re marching and nazis show up to march with you and you don’t drive them off or leave yourself, you’re ok marching with nazis. The term for someone who is ok marching with nazis is “a nazi.”
So the German Communist Party were Nazis?
Wow. Neat pro-nazi talking points. Do you think this is a good look for the moderation team?
I’d say the German Communist Party didn’t know any better and learned the hard way what happens when you welcome nazis. It’s interesting how none of your examples are from after 1932. I wonder what could have happened in 1933 that caused the sudden cutoff.
How is that pro-nazi? My personal ideology is essentially in opposition to Nazi ideology in every possible matter.
Not what I asked. You said marching with Nazis automatically makes you a Nazi, regardless of if they kill you later or not. So were they Nazis or not.
Interesting how you didn’t answer, were they Nazis?
Essentially? Wow, you can’t even pretend to oppose nazis without wormy equivocation.
In this day and age it is. Certainly in the context of the unite the right nazi rally it is, which is what we were talking about. I can’t fault fools who didn’t know any better. Everyone knows they’re the baddies now. Everyone at that rally knew exactly what they were about.
The nazis didn’t seem to think so, since they built Dachau to kill them. But yeah, have your stupid little gotcha. You’re so clever.
headpats.
How is he ignorant
The president at the time called them “very fine people” because he was scared of alienating them.
I think he more likely believed there were some non-nazis in the group seeing as he in the same quote said I condemn neo-nazis and white supremacists dozens of times
In case anyone needed to know where c/politics’ moderation team is coming from.
I mean, none of us can speak to what someone else believes. I don’t think Trump puts that much thought into what he says to intentionally not say something to avoid alienating voters.
The constitution itself protects it. It’s called penumbral reasoning.
The idea that we set up a limited government that could also come into people’s homes and legislate family planning decisions is absurd to the point of stupidity.
I agree there an many unenumerated rights, but I understand the argument that there is nothing indicating that the is any more protected than bodily autonomy when it comes to drugs, or how you raise your children, etc. But, I am of the belief that drug use and abortion could definitely be considered protected rights. I just understand the perspective of those who disagree.