- 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
You must log in or register to comment.
In Germany we (meaning other people, not me) usually organize counter-demonstrations.
Isn’t it very illegal to be one in Germany? Shouldn’t the police be arresting them?
There are certain symbols (like the Swastika) that are illegal, but just believing you are a superior race isn’t against the law.
When I hear nazis I just assume they are doing the salute and are using the symbols.
We used to shoot them when your country was them.
Do what punks did to keep them out of the punk scene. Make them feel afraid to show up. You do this by beating the shit out of every single one of them every time they show up or open their mouths.
Shoot most of them and recruit the rest to NASA. Oh wait…
Don’t be absurd. They needed people to run West Germany too.
Is Nazism protected speech?
From the government. Not from the rest of us.
It actively exploits the values of democracy to destroy it.
Yes, unless there’s an immediate call for lawless action (like starting a riot).
Story about the Jewish lawyer who helped the nazis get the right to march:
https://www.newsweek.com/story-jewish-lawyer-who-defended-free-speech-rights-nazis-1771393
Personally, I think it was a mistake but I’m Australian and happy not to have American freedom of speech.
Thanks for showing me this story.
Styrofoam dissolved in gasoline works well
Flying lead keeps Nazis under cover while you douse them in gasoline.
Legally I want the government to do nothing to suppress free speech. I recommend individuals to be a little extra.
Garbage bags stacked on roofs. Empty it on them from above.
Loudly ask why mass shootings happen to decent people instead of these scum. Play videos of the bombing of Dresden and the executions after the Nurnburg trials to remind them about what we do to Nazi fuckheads.
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.
eek
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.
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.
“We don’t serve you here.”
Yep.
- take picture
- post picture near register
- under sign saying “we prefer not to serve nazis”
(#3 sounds less harsh than it is in enforcement. #canadian)
That’s how the German Nazis were defeated!
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.
