Too late?

[yovargas]

Either go with lethal measures or stick to legal means.

This is an interesting point. We didn't punch Nazis. We killed them. Would the pro-Nazi punching camp also be pro-killing them? Why/why not?

[Nin]

Well, we - we all - be it you (meaning the Americans, I think that's what yovargas wanted to say) or me (who would have been on the Nazi-side at the time of the killing) - we as live now did not do anything. We did not live at this time. Also, being in a war against someone is not exactly the same thing as killing them. Quite a lot of Nazis survived that war... and I do think that the question of this thread is rather how to react to (Neo)-Nazis today.

But maybe to answer your question: Morally speaking WWII was probably the easiest to decide. It was necessary to go to war against the Nazis. It was the right choice. And I say that as a person who has lost two grand-fathers in that war (and several grand-uncles). My aunt has suffered from a life long trauma after the war and was never able to lead a quite normal life.

You can discuss if the way it was done was always the right one. The Americans and all other allies certainly have made questionable choices in that war. For the Americans, I'd talk about the bombings. For the Russians, the mass rape of German women or their treatment of Poland. But, it was absolutely necessary to go to war against Hitler. It is certain that the loss of the war has accelerated the genocide, but it was planned anyway and the Nazi ideology was genocidal from the very beginning. Maybe you were rather asking about the death penalties of the Nuremberg trials. Well, I understand them. Also the death sentence against Eichmann. At that magnitude of crime, I think it was the only choice possible.

But today's Nazis are a different issue: we are not talking about a Nazi regime and state now. If you live in a totalitarian state and are against it, I don't think that you have much options. And if your resistance is peaceful or violent, it is likely to be crushed quickly and completely anyway. But in democratic state, you do have options. And punching is only one of them. Passivity is another - but you can also opt for legal fights, protests, try to make an organisation forbidden...

So, for someone living in Nazi Germany, killing Hitler certainly must have made perfect sense - and I think almost everyone agrees that this would have been a marvelous option. And I applaud and admire the Czechs who killed Heydrich. But that's different from being confronted to a Nazi in a democratic state today where you have a tad more choices.

[Frelga]

I don't think we are at the point where we have to start killing Nazis. But I do think we are past the point where we can complacently believe that they are a marginalized fringe and that democracy will take care of itself.

We are where we have to stand up and say that the Nazi propaganda will not be allowed in our communities. Look at UC Berkeley - the students there exhausted every possible civil option to keep milo yiannopoulos out. It took a riot and a threat of violence (I don't think anyone was actually hurt although property was damaged) to keep him out.

I fervently hope that by standing firm now we can prevent violent deaths in the future.

Nin, yeah, Hitler was so obviously evil, he managed to make even Stalin look like a good guy in comparison. But Germans didn't know that in the 30s. What's our excuse now?

[Nin]

Nin, yeah, Hitler was so obviously evil, he managed to make even Stalin look like a good guy in comparison. But Germans didn't know that in the 30s. What's our excuse now?

Germans could know in the 30ies. Hitler was not exactly shy about his program. And some people realized quite well what would happen if this man got power.

[Frelga]

And they fought back, with words and violence. And they lost. Not in a small part because of those who expected a pivot, a reveal that the rhetoric was just an exaggeration and it really won't be so bad.

Spoiler alert for our friends - it was worse.

[Maria]

When I lived in West Germany in the 80's an elderly neighbor and I got to talking about Hitler and Nazism. Her most memorable comment was an agonized,
"We believed in him, and he betrayed us!"

I can't help but wonder how many of my friends and relatives will be saying this in the not to distant future.

[Nin]

"We believed in him, and he betrayed us!"

I always had and still have a huge problem with this argument: what did they believe in?
Because Hitler said quite clearly what he would do in his speeches. His anti-semitism was out in the open ever since his book was published, he clearly stated that the wanted more "Lebensraum": Hitler said what he would do. And he did it quickly. Books were burnt when the Nazis were not two months in power. The first boycott of jewish shops after less than six months in power. The communist party forbidden and its members arrested in the first month after Hitler coming to power.
So, what did they believe in? Or rather, they did not believe or not really liste to what he said and only pick up the parts which sounded good: jobs, hops, greatness, healing from the lost war and chose to ignore the rest?
Who betrayed them? Was it not their own blindness?

But well, all this does not answer the question on how to deal with Nazis now. There is another saying in German: "Wehret den Anfängen." "Beware of (or fight against) the beginnings."

[axordil]

A different way of framing the question: Tolerance is not a moral precept.

[Túrin Turambar]

We are where we have to stand up and say that the Nazi propaganda will not be allowed in our communities. Look at UC Berkeley - the students there exhausted every possible civil option to keep milo yiannopoulos out. It took a riot and a threat of violence (I don't think anyone was actually hurt although property was damaged) to keep him out.

Even if you accept that Yiannopolous is a Nazi (which I don't) and that his speeches are Nazi propaganda (which I don't either) I don't see how rioting to prevent him from speaking at UC Berekely is a win for his enemies. He doesn't need a speech at a single university for his platform - his speeches are all over Youtube. All the students did was confirm the impression that he he his trying to promote - the idea that he is so dangerous to established ideas and authority that he can't be debated against and must be silenced with violence. This is why I think using violence to suppress political speech is as much as a practical failure as a moral one, particularly in today's world of mass communication through the internet. You hand publicity to and generate sympathy for the very people you're trying to silence.

A different way of framing the question: Tolerance is not a moral precept.

But ultimately, you still need a moral precept to determine who is allowed to speak and who is to be silenced with violence. It could be "we'll silence those with violence who try to do the same to us", but many of the people discussed in this thread are not, to my knowledge, trying to violently shut down the free speech of the left.

[Frelga]

But ultimately, you still need a moral precept to determine who is allowed to speak and who is to be silenced with violence. It could be "we'll silence those with violence who try to do the same to us", but many of the people discussed in this thread are not, to my knowledge, trying to violently shut down the free speech of the left.

The charge brought against Yiannopoulos, Spencer and others is not that they are trying to shut down free speech. It's that they are inciting hatred and violence against racial, religious, and sexual minorities, both as groups and in Yiannopoulos's case specific individuals. Put that way, the moral precept is quite clear cut.

Free speech has no intersection with this issue, if only because, as you say, the Internet enables distribution of any content to any location. You can't stop people who want to listen from accessing it, but you can try to keep your community from being complicit by inviting it in. In that sense, the Berkeley incident was a victory. It was also a victory in demonstrating that hate speech is not as consequence-free in the real world as it is online. For its perpetrators, I mean. For its targets, it has always had painful consequences.

But Berkeley also demonstrated that progressives have no political power left in the US. Again, there was a long list of steps taken by a long list of people in the attempt to keep Yiannopoulos out. Nope. Free speech. A brief time later, a video that has been available for months finally attracted attention of enough conservatives with content that even they could not fail to find offensive. Within two days, Yiannopoulos lost not only his speaking engagement, but his book contract and his job.

And since free speech turned out not to be a sufficiently sacred principle to protect every sort of vileness, one has to ask why the other sort of vileness was being protected. Well, no, one doesn't have to ask, one can see quite plainly, especially since Yiannopoulos's boss is the chief strategist in the current administration.

[Túrin Turambar]

But Berkeley also demonstrated that progressives have no political power left in the US. Again, there was a long list of steps taken by a long list of people in the attempt to keep Yiannopoulos out. Nope. Free speech. A brief time later, a video that has been available for months finally attracted attention of enough conservatives with content that even they could not fail to find offensive. Within two days, Yiannopoulos lost not only his speaking engagement, but his book contract and his job.

Which certainly was a victory for Yiannopolous' enemies, although it was not achieved with violence or the threat of violence. Which goes to show, in my view, trying to silence people by punching them just doesn't work.

[Faramond]

I think it is encouraging when violence and the threat of violence fail to silence a speaker. And I am dismayed when posters defend violence as a way to settle political disputes.

It makes me think of the increasing radicalization going on in the US. Some days it seems like we're headed for civil war.

[Frelga]

What do you propose instead?

[Frelga]

Meanwhile in New York.

"White supremacist accused of killing black man in Midtown says he came to NYC to slaughter African-Americans"

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man ... -1.3005263

By all means, let's focus on the freedom of speech for those who inspired this murder.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I think that if you actually honestly want to punch a Nazi, it isn't a fair fight. Any remaining Nazis are at least 90 now.

[Frelga]

You were saying?

Charlottville20170812.jpg (191.67 KiB) Viewed 11489 times

[Sunsilver]

Dear god...

[Sunsilver]

Just came across this on The Nib. Angela Merkel gave the U.S. a carefully worded warning after Trump was elected:

https://thenib.com/doomed-to-repeat-it

[Frelga]

"David Duke today in #Charlottesville talking how how the hate rally "fulfills the promises of Donald Trump." https://t.co/nvldJpykvA"

[Cerin]

I don't think it's a good idea to remove Civil War memorials; it seems wrong, somehow, and I can understand it being a lightning rod for protest. I think the Civil War, at the individual level, was more complicated than good vs. bad, and it is part of our national identity. I think it should be memorialized.