Current Events > UN vote to combat glorification of Nazism passes 130-2

(+) Yeah! (+)

AssultTank posted...

Gotta protect the rights of ALL citizens. Not just Nazis. Once you start making exceptions, it gets very easy to justify restricting the rights of other groups.

I have to say, I didnt wake up expecting a mod to start the day off with first they came for the Nazis...

---

https://youtu.be/Lop5cCWaxwE
---

FlameTurtle posted...

I have to say, I didnt wake up expecting a mod to start the day off with first they came for the Nazis...

---

I'd vote against censorship and stifling free speech, too.

---

iPhone_7 posted...

Shame on the U.S. and European countries. Nazism must be condemned wherever possible.

Nazis are free to say what they want, just like we're free to call them idiots and refute their arguments.

---

ReignFury posted...

There is a paradox in preserving total freedoms in that if a society is forced to accept intolerance without limit, it will eventually be seized and destroyed by the intolerant.

[citation needed]

---

Parappa09 posted...

my thoughts exactly

maybe they dont want to play political games?

---

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

[citation needed]

It's literally happening right now.
---

gmanthebest posted...

Nazis are free to say what they want, just like we're free to call them idiots and refute their arguments.

They're also free to subvert your democracy and destroy it, and then fuck up all of the shit even worse, and murder you sometime when it suits them. Freedom baby woohoo.

---

How do you openly vote against this?

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

How do you openly vote against this?

idk it's only been explained like 10 times ITT

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

They're also free to subvert your democracy and destroy it, and then fuck up all of the shit even worse, and murder you sometime when it suits them. Freedom baby woohoo.

Damn, that happened recently? No?

---

Also, how are they defining Nazism? Is it actual real Nazism? Or is it like those people who say that anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi?

---

gmanthebest posted...

Damn, that happened recently? No?

Its happening now, so, woohoo. Freedom!

---

this topic is a trainwreck

---

gmanthebest posted...

Also, how are they defining Nazism? Is it actual real Nazism? Or is it like those people who say that anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi?

Even if it's full blown non disputable Nazism, it's still protected by the Constitution under free speech.

I don't get why people are pretending to be surprised by that.

The US can't go "You have the right to hold any political opinions you want and gather in whatever groups you want without suffering crimminal charges... unless you're a meanie poo poo head with dumb views!"

If free speech only covered non controversial moderate opinions then it wouldn't mean anything.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Its happening now, so, woohoo. Freedom!

Damn, always knew Biden was a Nazi

---

Choco posted...

this topic is a trainwreck

The twitter responses are even crazier. From people in the countries that abstained saying their governments have been too lax on right wing extremists while the people from the countries that voted in favor saying they always knew leftists were the real nazis.

FlameTurtle posted...

I have to say, I didnt wake up expecting a mod to start the day off with first they came for the Nazis...

gamefaqs gold

FlameTurtle posted...

I have to say, I didnt wake up expecting a mod to start the day off with first they came for the Nazis...

Classic CE shit

---

Hippocrates posted...

gamefaqs gold

Gwynevere posted...

Classic CE shit

I mean if you told me a Mod posted something along those lines, that's absolutely who I'd immediately assume lol
---

AssultTank posted...

I don't like Nazis either, but when you start restricting freedoms, it becomes very easy to keep doing it. Look at the Patriot Act...

it's not an issue of "I don't like these people"

it's an issue of "these people follow an ideology that is based on genocide"

by framing it as the former, you are legitimizing genocide as a political option.

---

averagejoel posted...

it's an issue of "these people follow an ideology that is based on genocide"

Do the lives of people murdered under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, etc. matter to you?
---

averagejoel posted...

it's an issue of "these people follow an ideology that is based on genocide"

Don't you call yourself a communist?

---

Ah, the whataboutisms
---

You don't even need to go so far as their tendency towards genocide, ideologically speaking, to find reasons not to consider Nazi ideology valid. Its a disease. You don't let viral diseases run rampant because of the free marketplace of microbes; you treat them and prevent them.

---

Ben_Linus posted...

Do the lives of people murdered under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, etc. matter to you?

I was talking about the ideology. stay on topic please.

---

averagejoel posted...

I was talking about the ideology. stay on topic please.

So is that a no?
---

Socrawheeze posted...

lol are we allowed to say this?

You can get suspended for simply stating things a certain mod has said so I doubt it

---

"Liberal democracy" in conjunction with capitalism dwarfs both Nazism and communism in terms of deaths, so I don't know why liberals think they're making a good point when they bring up communism's death toll when someone correctly assesses the illegitimate nature of Nazism, since its basically a good argument for becoming an extremist at this point. Maybe they should, indeed, stick to ideology.

---

averagejoel posted...

you are legitimizing genocide as a political option.

There's a huge, huge problem with your statement. Free speech does not automatically legitimize the subject being spoken about. Free speech is the guarantee that ideas and views can be held or exchanged without fear of the government punishing an individual who holds views them. This prevents the government from censoring opinions it dislikes.

Right now, sure, it's about Nazism. But who defines Nazism? If we put a blanket ban on "all glorification of Nazis or their ideology," who makes the determination on borderline cases? Who defines exactly which words can't be used? Do you really trust the government to make those choices for us?

Free speech is protection from oppression, even though some of you seem to think it enables oppression. Free speech allows us to be who we are, openly and honestly, and in turn makes it easier for us to pick and choose our friends and associates. Would you rather somebody speak up about their racist ideology so people know they're scum, or would it be better if they kept it hidden until it bubbled over into something more extreme than words?

Apart from debating free speech as a concept, there's another problem here.

Some people are far, far too susceptible to propaganda. Snappy headlines. Self-granted titles. The act of naming one's self, or one's proposal, in a certain way, does not actually ensure that the name or title is accurate.

I see it all the time around here: "If you dislike antifa, then you must be a facist." This is patently untrue, in a variety of ways.

Do you think North Korea, or the "DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)" is actually democratic? Do you think it belongs to the people?

Just because a proposal is titled in a way that makes it seem like its purpose is to combat Nazism, that doesn't mean that's what it's actually for. The devil is in the details. Don't vote just for the titles, or judge a story based on its headlines. What ever happened to the classic adage, "don't judge a book by its cover?" It doesn't just apply to good books with bad covers. It applies to bad ones with good covers, too.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

"Liberal democracy" in conjunction with capitalism dwarfs both Nazism and communism in terms of deaths, so I don't know why liberals think they're making a good point when they bring up communism's death toll when someone correctly assesses the illegitimate nature of Nazism, since its basically a good argument for becoming an extremist at this point. Maybe they should, indeed, stick to ideology.

Ive never seen liberals whatabout to communism when nazis are brought up

---

Phynaster posted...

Ive never seen liberals whatabout to communism when nazis are brought up

I'm using "liberals" in the classical sense, which includes sincere free speech warriors, and I've seen it enough myself.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Some people are far, far too susceptible to propaganda. Snappy headlines. Self-granted titles. The act of naming one's self, or one's proposal, in a certain way, does not actually ensure that the name or title is accurate.

I see it all the time around here: "If you dislike antifa, then you must be a facist." This is patently untrue, in a variety of ways.

Do you think North Korea, or the "DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)" is actually democratic? Do you think it belongs to the people?

Just because a proposal is titled in a way that makes it seem like its purpose is to combat Nazism, that doesn't mean that's what it's actually for. The devil is in the details. Don't vote just for the titles, or judge a story based on its headlines. What ever happened to the classic adage, "don't judge a book by its cover?" It doesn't just apply to good books with bad covers. It applies to bad ones with good covers, too.

are you aware of the irony in you saying this while straight-up ignoring 3/4 of the contents of my post?

---

coh posted...

UN continues to be useless

UnfairRepresent posted...

On paper it sounds like a violation of freedom of speech so the US is duty bound to vote against it

These. Sure it sounds nice for the UN members to be all "We hate Nazis" but this was never going to accomplish anything anyway. Dickbags will be dickbags and it's up to the individual countries to deal with them, so pretty much things will stay as they are

:/

pres_madagascar posted...

Of course the US voted against it. Of course.

---

averagejoel posted...

are you aware of the irony in you saying this while straight-up ignoring 3/4 of the contents of my post?

Objecting to free speech, as it currently exists, is misguided. Your specific reason for objecting is irrelevant.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Objecting to free speech, as it currently exists, is misguided. Your specific reason for objecting is irrelevant.

a simple "no" would have been enough

---

averagejoel posted...

a simple "no" would have been enough

I didn't say no. I rejected the very foundations of your argument because your point was irrelevant. There's a difference.

---

I'm pretty sure the guy whatabouting to communism ITT is SMaL

---

cymbaline posted...

I'm pretty sure the guy whatabouting to communism ITT is SMaL

Well one of them is yes
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I didn't say no. I rejected the very foundations of your argument because your point was irrelevant. There's a difference.

why did you have to ignore 3/4 of my original post and take the remaining 1/4 completely out of context to do so?

---

averagejoel posted...

why did you have to ignore 3/4 of my original post and take the remaining 1/4 completely out of context to do so?

Because your argument was wrong. Your error was that you tried to lend significance to your own reasoning. In truth, it doesn't matter if your reason for trying to suppress free speech is "I don't like them," or if it's "they believe in genocide."

In both cases, you're arguing against the existence of free speech based on your personal disagreement with their political views. The distinction is irrelevant.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Because your argument was wrong. Your error was that you tried to lend significance to your own reasoning. In truth, it doesn't matter if your reason for trying to suppress free speech is "I don't like them," or if it's "they believe in genocide."

In both cases, you're arguing against the existence of free speech based on your personal disagreement with their political views. The distinction is irrelevant.

but it's not from a personal disagreement

---

averagejoel posted...

but it's not from a personal disagreement

It is. You disagree with their views. The views are radical, reprehensible, and in the extreme minority, but they're allowed to hold those views so long as they're not making direct threats or committing actual crimes.

The point of free speech is to let people debate and discuss with each other, instead of completely stifling one group or another based on a disagreement with their opinions.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It is. You disagree with their views. The views are radical, reprehensible, and in the extreme minority, but they're allowed to hold those views so long as they're not making direct threats or committing actual crimes.

the ideology is inherently a threat to anyone who would be marginalized under fascism

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It is. You disagree with their views. The views are radical, reprehensible, and in the extreme minority, but they're allowed to hold those views so long as they're not making direct threats or committing actual crimes.

The point of free speech is to let people debate and discuss with each other, instead of completely stifling one group or another based on a disagreement with their opinions.

This is the most laughable attempt at handwaving away the fundamental nature of Nazism I've ever seen in my life
---

I'm not defending Nazism. It's dumb. It's detestable.

But it's a set of opinions, like any other set of bad opinions. They're protected by the first amendment.

---