lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Ducttape,
I agree with you.
This is the land of the free. We are supposed have a marketplace of ideas. However, there are some things so evil, so repugnant that they are actually destructive to civilization. Similarly, it is destructive to the community of theatergoers when someone yells "Fire!". For those handful of gruesome things, the ethical consequences are clear and so is our expected behaviour.
-Lance
I agree with you.
This is the land of the free. We are supposed have a marketplace of ideas. However, there are some things so evil, so repugnant that they are actually destructive to civilization. Similarly, it is destructive to the community of theatergoers when someone yells "Fire!". For those handful of gruesome things, the ethical consequences are clear and so is our expected behaviour.
-Lance
ducttape said:
N
nwcanonman
Guest
I too am discusted by these hateful groups and wish they would fall off the earth.
BUT, what if 51% of your community voted that camera and photographers were evil and you weren't allowed to take another photo?
Sounds trite compared to the Nazis, but the same rights that allow us to do what we enjoy allows those hate-groups to "TALK" about what they want to do. But the minute they take action to do those things, THEN they can be arrested and put behind bars. Some would like us to stop taking photos of their property or their faces, but until we do something "illegal" with those images, we are NOT doing anything wrong and should be left alone.
Most hate-groups are not very bright, eventually some will TRY something and be put away, others will crawl back under a rock and suck their thumbs.
BUT, what if 51% of your community voted that camera and photographers were evil and you weren't allowed to take another photo?
Sounds trite compared to the Nazis, but the same rights that allow us to do what we enjoy allows those hate-groups to "TALK" about what they want to do. But the minute they take action to do those things, THEN they can be arrested and put behind bars. Some would like us to stop taking photos of their property or their faces, but until we do something "illegal" with those images, we are NOT doing anything wrong and should be left alone.
Most hate-groups are not very bright, eventually some will TRY something and be put away, others will crawl back under a rock and suck their thumbs.
Last edited by a moderator:
akptc
Shoot first, think later
There are few absolute rights and being a moron Nazi sympathizer is one of them, IMHO. Trying to think of a positive side of this, perhaps the one purpose these groups fulfil is to be a reminder of a past that should not be forgotten and an opportunity to explain to one's children some of the most shameful acts in our history. On the other hand, if faced with these people I would probably not be as philosophical, I have family members who lost their lives in WWII.
I've seen neo-Nazi groups in Germany, which was horrifying to witness, especially for a Pole. But in the US, it's just plain pathetic.
I've seen neo-Nazi groups in Germany, which was horrifying to witness, especially for a Pole. But in the US, it's just plain pathetic.
bmattock
Veteran
ducttape said:
1) The courts in the USA have consistantly ruled that they do have a right to demonstrate. In several cases, they've been represented by the ACLU against the state. Freedom is for all, even the most repugnant, or it does not exist.
2) You have no right not to be offended. Neither do I.
Every time I see a Nazi demonstration, I am reminded that freedom still endures here in the USA. As long as the most hated, the most despicable, the most evil-minded among us have the absolute right to spew their filth, then *my* rights are protected. I would never burn a flag - I am very glad that it is not illegal to do so.
Love, enforced with a stick, is not love.
Not true. If there is a fire, you can yell fire, I'm pretty sure.
What was intended was that one cannot put the lives of others in danger to express one's right to free speech. Added to your other misquote (above) - my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins. My right to talk trash does not end where your ears begin.
Then you, sir, are the problem. The Black Panthers said "by any means necessary," invoking the spector of race war in the US if civil rights for minorities were not recognized forthwith. Freedom is freedom for all.
But if not, well, we'll make them. Did you know that there are some countries where they practice female circumcision? Maybe we should invade them and make them stop! Barbaric. And then we can go after the societies that practice male circumcision - on infants who haven't even given their permission.
If the 'cave woman' agrees, then yes. Of course. Kinky bedroom games are just as protected as freedom of speech. I do this one where I dress like a school marm, and then...oh, wait. Nevermind.
Obviously not. And I don't think anyone said that American Nazis should have that right, either. Killing is obviously affecting the rights of those killed. Talking is not. You don't have the right not to be offended.
Who decides what trash is? You? Me? That guy down the street who goes to the 'funny' church and dresses differently?
"Announced: There is a new law in the USA. No spewing trash."
"What's trash?"
"Don't be a jerk, you know what it is."
"No, I don't, what is it?"
"No talking hatred and bigotry."
"Oh. But I hate Nazis."
"Well, that's ok."
"I hate Jews, too."
"You're under arrest."
That's always the problem. I'm Catholic. At various times in US history, political parties have sprung up that felt that *I* did not have a right to exist, to congregate, to speak freely. And you're different how, exactly? Your hatred is better than a Nazi's hatred? In your mind, maybe. Not to me.
According to you. I say you're just like them. Even down to the words you use.
According to you. There are people who feel that fascism is a perfectly legitimate political belief system. Communists, too. Even Democrats. And frankly, I hate COBOL. How can that be wrong?
So stupid people become Nazis and neo-Nazis. I'd go along with that. Bad people. I'd go along with that too. But illegal to believe what they want? Illegal to say what they want?
Maybe we ought to put those people in camps. Yes, we need a solution.
As long as no one says anything to irritate your sense of morals. Then it becomes "by any means necessary," right?
Really? Tsk, tsk. So if I say "I hate Jews," do you then have the right to punch me in the nose? If you say "I hate Irish-Americans," can I hit you? Hatred sucks, my friend. Justifying violence by tying it to hatred against you doesn't work, unless you're prepared to have it both ways. That would mean that the racists who hate you would have the right to punch you in the nose, too, just because you hate them.
Speaking is not doing. Being a Nazi and advocating whatever it is that they advocate is not putting people to death. We still have laws against that. Jews have no more right to change the rules because of what has been done to them than anyone else. Sorry, you're not special. You're not a victim, and even if you were, you have no right to make victims out of others as recompense.
All the time. And of anything I want. Another freedom some would abridge.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PeterL
--
Bill,
Thanks for saying what I felt but didn't have the time yet to say.
I was just having a pizza in a pizzeria with my girlfriend and a drunk walks in, sits down and grabs his cell phone. He asks the waiter for wine, which the waiter refuses to give (in Belgium, serving alcoholic drinks to drunks can get waiters/owners a criminal record). So the drunk starts talking (more like slurring, actually) into his phone about how he was harrassed just a second ago, and if he would have his way, all those immigrants would be dead in a few years' time.
Another customer then started picking a fight with the drunk after he finished his phone call.
Pathetic guy + pathetic reaction = pathetic situation. We paid & walked out, complimenting the owner because the pizza was actually really good.
Acting like a fascist against a fascist is being fascist. If you say you're not, ducttape, and then proceed to say the nazis should be abolished because of what they say (not because of what they do), it's a contradiction. Make up your mind.
Peter.
Thanks for saying what I felt but didn't have the time yet to say.
I was just having a pizza in a pizzeria with my girlfriend and a drunk walks in, sits down and grabs his cell phone. He asks the waiter for wine, which the waiter refuses to give (in Belgium, serving alcoholic drinks to drunks can get waiters/owners a criminal record). So the drunk starts talking (more like slurring, actually) into his phone about how he was harrassed just a second ago, and if he would have his way, all those immigrants would be dead in a few years' time.
Another customer then started picking a fight with the drunk after he finished his phone call.
Pathetic guy + pathetic reaction = pathetic situation. We paid & walked out, complimenting the owner because the pizza was actually really good.
Acting like a fascist against a fascist is being fascist. If you say you're not, ducttape, and then proceed to say the nazis should be abolished because of what they say (not because of what they do), it's a contradiction. Make up your mind.
Peter.
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Bill & Peter,
Bravo, well said x 2.
~ ; - )
Bravo, well said x 2.
~ ; - )
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
I never suggested that we have laws to pre-censor speech, parties, or symbols. There are such laws some Western European countries. What is read in Germany could have been published in Morocco. With our global telecommunications and publications, such laws would be difficult to implement. The laws can be easily circumvented. It is silly to try enforce them. It is even sillier to play a "slippery slope" game.
However, we as a civilization know we need to protect our civilization.
Freedom of speech and freedom of action are not absolute. You can only swing your arm as far as the tip of my nose. Likewise some of speech is restricted. Slander, libel, incitement, and "fire in a theater" are disallowed.
Obviously, this does not eliminate the vile spewed from a handful of hateful groups that stays just below the level of incitement. These groups are as destructive to society as armed insurrection or mass murder. There are things that we can do break or diminish these organizations:
1) Make their activities public. These fungi will shrivel when exposed to light. How did we break the back of the KKK? How did we stop the lynching they provoked or did? We made the members public. We took away the anonymity of the hooded mask. In areas of the United States it is illegal to wear a mask in public. We can expose those who are associated with these hateful groups. Did you know that one half of the leadership of one of our major political parties participate in or are members of the (CCC) Concerned Citizens Council? Would most people vote for them or follow them if they knew that? Expose their membership and involvement.
2) Break the financial back of these groups. The next time the Nazis march in Skokie, charge them for their police protection. Root out those hate groups in Idaho by checking their non-payment of property and and income taxes and seize their compounds. When their words or deeds incite a crime, sue them for damages.
By using these methods, we can stop or impede these groups that are harmful to society.
However, we as a civilization know we need to protect our civilization.
Freedom of speech and freedom of action are not absolute. You can only swing your arm as far as the tip of my nose. Likewise some of speech is restricted. Slander, libel, incitement, and "fire in a theater" are disallowed.
Obviously, this does not eliminate the vile spewed from a handful of hateful groups that stays just below the level of incitement. These groups are as destructive to society as armed insurrection or mass murder. There are things that we can do break or diminish these organizations:
1) Make their activities public. These fungi will shrivel when exposed to light. How did we break the back of the KKK? How did we stop the lynching they provoked or did? We made the members public. We took away the anonymity of the hooded mask. In areas of the United States it is illegal to wear a mask in public. We can expose those who are associated with these hateful groups. Did you know that one half of the leadership of one of our major political parties participate in or are members of the (CCC) Concerned Citizens Council? Would most people vote for them or follow them if they knew that? Expose their membership and involvement.
2) Break the financial back of these groups. The next time the Nazis march in Skokie, charge them for their police protection. Root out those hate groups in Idaho by checking their non-payment of property and and income taxes and seize their compounds. When their words or deeds incite a crime, sue them for damages.
By using these methods, we can stop or impede these groups that are harmful to society.
bmattock
Veteran
lmd91343 said:
I agree.
However, as a civilization, we disagree on how to protect it. To whom shall we listen? Who has the 'right' of it? I would argue that this is an excuse used by every tyrant to ever come down the pike. We'll 'protect society' against the evils posed by the [fill in the blank].
They are, insofar as they do not infringe on the freedoms of another. When the exercise of one liberty infringes on another's liberty, then decisions must be made.
Incitement to riot and yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater are illegal because they pose a clear and present danger to the right of the other present to remain alive and uninjured. Slader and Libel are not, to the best of my knowledge, illegal. Just actionable in a private tort (lawsuit).
Sounds reasonable. But wait. Who are 'these groups' of which you speak? Do we, as reasonable people, agree on who 'these groups' are? What if you are thinking about the Knights of Columbus, of which I am a member? What if I am thinking of B'Nai B'Rith?
We all have our own ideas of what is 'destructive to society.' And no - one cannot wag the finger and say 'You know what I mean.' I do not. Do you mean those horrible abortion doctors? Or do you mean members of Operation Rescue? If I do not agree, am I then also your enemy? Will you unleash your societal protections on me or my family?
Frightening things. Legal, but frightening. You won't find me joining in.
I would have little disagreement with this - depending on the means and methods. Do you intend to make it illegal to belong to a secret group or society? Because I do belong to several organizations which I have no intention of sharing with you or anyone, and I maintain that I have that right. So how do you intend to 'make their membership public'?
Bzzzt. Your agenda is showing. No, I don't know who the CCC is, nor who belongs to it, nor am I interested in the slightest. This is a question designed to entice people to ask "No, what's the CCC?" and then you can flog your agenda. Sorry, not playing.
I have no problem with holding groups that use public services responsible for paying for those services. Make certain that such laws are evenly and equitably applied, and that means across the board. So the "Gay Pride" parade pays for THEIR police protection as well. Or whomever.
But you'd better be prepared to justify every last cent charged - otherwise it sounds like an illegal fee designed to stifle free speech that offends your sensibilities. If you charge one group a fee, charge them all - the same.
Who 'we'? Who are 'those groups'? And one does well to recall - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And frankly - when a group of citizens feels it important to stifle another group's hateful message from getting out, I tend to wonder what they fear about what that group has to say. That's a hard thing to say when we started talking about American Nazis, because in honesty - I don't like 'em and have no use for 'em. I would not be attracted to their hateful message no matter what. But if you'd deny them the right to speak, me the right to hear what they have to say - then I say you're not protecting society, you're destroying freedom. You don't trust your fellow citizens or their intelligence, discernment, or sense of fair play - you feel you must 'save them' from hearing a message you fear. Riiiiight. I fear you a lot more than a buch of idiot Nazis in stupid uniforms.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Lance,
No one is disagreeing that Nazis aren't completely obnoxious, stupid, vile and hateful. It's just the balancing act between freedom and despotism is what like the "Fiddler on the roof", so we have to allow 'what' they say while figureing out how to shut down their illegal opperations.
My own father's B-24 was shot down by German flak in August 1944, luckily he parachuted into Switzerland. There are few who have greater reason to dispise them than I, but I love my American rights enough to allow them enough rope to hang themselves ~ ; - )
No one is disagreeing that Nazis aren't completely obnoxious, stupid, vile and hateful. It's just the balancing act between freedom and despotism is what like the "Fiddler on the roof", so we have to allow 'what' they say while figureing out how to shut down their illegal opperations.
My own father's B-24 was shot down by German flak in August 1944, luckily he parachuted into Switzerland. There are few who have greater reason to dispise them than I, but I love my American rights enough to allow them enough rope to hang themselves ~ ; - )
bmattock
Veteran
ferider said:
Roland, I agree that the term 'fascist' has taken on the emotional toll of a slander, but in truth, 'fascist' is also a political belief system, just as 'communist' and even 'democrat'.
However, there are very few authentic 'fascists' today, and calling someone one is a bit rude.
I understand that it is a crime in Germany to demonstrate or circulate Nazi propaganda, and I guess I understand why, but the USA is not Germany and I am glad it is not. It is also a crime in Germany to deny the Holocaust, as a British writer recently found out. In the USA, it would not be illegal to deny the Holocaust, or to deny anything at all, really. People can make up their own minds.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
Roland - I do not condemn Germany for not having laws like the USA - but as you say, I am a US citizen and I happen to prefer how we do it here. I have no say in how German society operates, so I withold my judgement, other than to say I personally don't care for such laws.
I don't mean to imply that Nazi demonstrations are "OK" - I do not like Nazis. But I grit my teeth and endure it - knowing that as long as they can march around like morons, spewing their filth, we are still free.
And that's the crux of it for me. Others would suggest that we must give up some liberties to protect society - such as silencing Nazis. I say that if we gut liberty to protect society, we have no society worthy of protection anymore. I am reminded of the last words of a great American patriot, who proclaimed "Give me liberty, or give me death!" He did not say "Give me safety, or I'll sue your butt."
It was not just a sound bite, and it means as much now as it did then. Liberty is the defining condition which is as essential to the patriot as the very air we breathe. Liberty is the only thing outside of religion which can be called 'sacred'. Liberty is more important than my inconvenience, my anger, my disgust with hate groups, or my dismay at some of the choices our society is making.
Any time someone says that "[fill in the blank] ought not to be allowed," I ball up my fists. Anytime they follow that by saying "and we should do something about it," I get a firm grip on my wallet.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I don't mean to imply that Nazi demonstrations are "OK" - I do not like Nazis. But I grit my teeth and endure it - knowing that as long as they can march around like morons, spewing their filth, we are still free.
And that's the crux of it for me. Others would suggest that we must give up some liberties to protect society - such as silencing Nazis. I say that if we gut liberty to protect society, we have no society worthy of protection anymore. I am reminded of the last words of a great American patriot, who proclaimed "Give me liberty, or give me death!" He did not say "Give me safety, or I'll sue your butt."
It was not just a sound bite, and it means as much now as it did then. Liberty is the defining condition which is as essential to the patriot as the very air we breathe. Liberty is the only thing outside of religion which can be called 'sacred'. Liberty is more important than my inconvenience, my anger, my disgust with hate groups, or my dismay at some of the choices our society is making.
Any time someone says that "[fill in the blank] ought not to be allowed," I ball up my fists. Anytime they follow that by saying "and we should do something about it," I get a firm grip on my wallet.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Luckily there are many of us, most are just not as vocal as Bill and myself - LOL.
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Hi Bill,
I see that you are you who like to discuss political/social things in depth. I hope we can stay away from “tyranny of the majority” and “slippery slope” points. We all covered them in High School civics. I am further glad to see that you believe a free non-sectarian society. In our society, we define what is right and wrong by no-sectarian law. We don’t use morality as defined by religion. Laws may have started by following religious morality, but that is not how they are implemented or altered today.
At this time, our civilization has reached a very difficult spot in that the actions of a single individual, group, or country can have extraordinary deleterious consequences. That is the dynamic brought to us by modern technology. An individual’s, group’s, or country’s action is multiplied manifold. Evil (allow me to use this morality valued based word) is as evil does. No matter how evil the thoughts of a member of the KKK in the 1880’s, he could only destroy a relatively few number of lives. His technology was limited compared to that of Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s. We saw what the evil thoughts and actions of a handful of men did there and then. I am not belittling the lives lost by KKK lynchings, but just illustrating the multiplying effects of technology over the course of two generations. A life lost is like the loss of an entire world. Now two generations have passed since the Germany of the 1940’s.
Our social and political structure was developed in less technologically advanced times. I don’t know how our society and the greater civilization will cope with the bad side of the technological multiplication factor. Hitler was a bright, charismatic, but evil man. Our greater civilization did not have the mechanism to stop him before his heinous acts. Society/civilization is behind the technology curve. Many of today’s leaders of hate groups are bright. Horrible things can and will be done before we can recognize them and act. That is why it is imperative that society must find a new way of dealing with that handful of abhorrent groups. Until that time, if ever, we must use the few tools that we have. Those few tools include daylight/transparency and the restriction of money. To not do so invites disaster magnified even further by technology.
In defining what those are abhorrent groups, we must not play games with what Jefferson called the “tyranny of the majority”. There are a couple of groups that a vast majority would feel the need to be watch very carefully, neo-Nazis and KKK like organizations. Maybe we need to look at the European model for the extremist hate groups.
End of rant J
Bill,
As for the CCC, I assumed the folks involved in this discussion would know of it, because of the nature of the discussion. Also, I did not want to make this a red vs. blue discussion because ALL the political members are of one party. I am not trying to be snobbish or elitist or make any point beyond that of the discussion. The CCC is the child of the White Citizen’s Council and the spiritual, well dressed child of the KKK. Below is a link that describes the group. Here are some of its most notable members from the national scene:
Senator Trent Lott (former majority leader)
Governor Haley Barbour (former Party chairman)
US representative Bob Barr
US Representative Mel Hancock
Party National Committeewoman Alice Algood,
Party National Committeeman Buddy Witherspoon
former Governor Guy Hunt
former Governor Kirk Fordice
There are also many less notable members who are state senators, state representatives, and state supreme court members. There are more members of the US house and Senate, but my memory fails me. There are a couple of more very high level ones that I have heared of, but I would need to double check them before I name them in a public forum.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ccc
http://tinyurl.com/gapk5
I see that you are you who like to discuss political/social things in depth. I hope we can stay away from “tyranny of the majority” and “slippery slope” points. We all covered them in High School civics. I am further glad to see that you believe a free non-sectarian society. In our society, we define what is right and wrong by no-sectarian law. We don’t use morality as defined by religion. Laws may have started by following religious morality, but that is not how they are implemented or altered today.
At this time, our civilization has reached a very difficult spot in that the actions of a single individual, group, or country can have extraordinary deleterious consequences. That is the dynamic brought to us by modern technology. An individual’s, group’s, or country’s action is multiplied manifold. Evil (allow me to use this morality valued based word) is as evil does. No matter how evil the thoughts of a member of the KKK in the 1880’s, he could only destroy a relatively few number of lives. His technology was limited compared to that of Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s. We saw what the evil thoughts and actions of a handful of men did there and then. I am not belittling the lives lost by KKK lynchings, but just illustrating the multiplying effects of technology over the course of two generations. A life lost is like the loss of an entire world. Now two generations have passed since the Germany of the 1940’s.
Our social and political structure was developed in less technologically advanced times. I don’t know how our society and the greater civilization will cope with the bad side of the technological multiplication factor. Hitler was a bright, charismatic, but evil man. Our greater civilization did not have the mechanism to stop him before his heinous acts. Society/civilization is behind the technology curve. Many of today’s leaders of hate groups are bright. Horrible things can and will be done before we can recognize them and act. That is why it is imperative that society must find a new way of dealing with that handful of abhorrent groups. Until that time, if ever, we must use the few tools that we have. Those few tools include daylight/transparency and the restriction of money. To not do so invites disaster magnified even further by technology.
In defining what those are abhorrent groups, we must not play games with what Jefferson called the “tyranny of the majority”. There are a couple of groups that a vast majority would feel the need to be watch very carefully, neo-Nazis and KKK like organizations. Maybe we need to look at the European model for the extremist hate groups.
End of rant J
Bill,
As for the CCC, I assumed the folks involved in this discussion would know of it, because of the nature of the discussion. Also, I did not want to make this a red vs. blue discussion because ALL the political members are of one party. I am not trying to be snobbish or elitist or make any point beyond that of the discussion. The CCC is the child of the White Citizen’s Council and the spiritual, well dressed child of the KKK. Below is a link that describes the group. Here are some of its most notable members from the national scene:
Senator Trent Lott (former majority leader)
Governor Haley Barbour (former Party chairman)
US representative Bob Barr
US Representative Mel Hancock
Party National Committeewoman Alice Algood,
Party National Committeeman Buddy Witherspoon
former Governor Guy Hunt
former Governor Kirk Fordice
There are also many less notable members who are state senators, state representatives, and state supreme court members. There are more members of the US house and Senate, but my memory fails me. There are a couple of more very high level ones that I have heared of, but I would need to double check them before I name them in a public forum.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ccc
http://tinyurl.com/gapk5
bmattock
Veteran
One cannot dismiss what one likes because it was covered in high school. We covered math and spelling - both are still relevant. However...
Not true, but for purposes of our discussion, we can behave as though it were.
This is the argument of modernity. Today is the 'modern' time, and the 'danger' (whatever we define that to be) is more than it ever has been. We must therefore use extraordinary means to deal with extraordinary times.
But you begin with the assumption that there is a crisis. That without intervention, latter-day neo-Nazis will home-grow their own Hitler, who will somehow rise to power and capture the hearts and minds of everyday citizens, and thus we will have a repeat of the past. Tell me who this person is.
These times are no different than any other times. Oh, your statement is sound enough - modern technology would enable a madman to be heard by more people. And this trend can only continue.
Therefore, by extrapolation, we may deduce that tomorrow's threat will be greater than today's, and next year's greater than this year's, and so on. Will each require ever-more repressive methods to keep the undesirables from expressing their loathesome points of view?
The fact is that there is no crisis. The airwaves are filled with wackjobs on radio, TV, and the Internet, all vying and contending with each other to give us their message of nonsense. And it is not working. Oh yes, we have Jonestown. And we have the purple jump-suit people and this and that cult hiding out in Idaho. Marginalized, bereft of power, they seem at this point to harm pretty much themselves if anyone. Nor would I suggest that society should just let them run amok, but rather treat them like any other citizen, expecting the same behavior, observance of the same laws, and so on.
I could not disagree more. You airly dismissed the slippery slope argument - it's all been done in High School, you said. Yes, just like learning that gravity exists. That is seems all too common does not make it less true.
Today you (and I do mean you, because I do NOT agree that the neo-Nazis represent the threat you think they do) go after them. And let's say you get them. Presuming that they are not dead or incarcerated, they are still out there. And they form another group, don't they? Angered and more careful because now their paranoia that someone is out to get them has been made painfully clear, they are more careful, more dangerous, more underground. And you go after them again.
And all the groups that look like them. And while we're at it - that politician who helped pass the laws that let you do your vigilante justice - he's got a pet group he'd like whacked. And you owe him one. And so on.
Slippery slope? Sure, you bet. And on what do I base this? Well, I'm an ex-smoker, for one thing. I'm glad I quit, but I have watched and learned.
More and more restricted smoking. Higher and higher taxes - to 'encourage' people to quit, but oh, incidentally to raise those revenues. And more and more and ever more and yet again more restrictions - to the point where it will very soon be illegal to smoke anywhere in the USA. Tell me that's not true. Tell me that's not happening.
When a group of 'concerned citizens' goes after a group they hate, they never stop where they say they will. Never.
I will never support you in this. I do not agree that neo-Nazis are a problem that needs to be dealt with - either by restricting their rights as citizens, or by filing annoyance lawsuits until they are bankrupted. These are despicable acts, the acts of cowardice. Freedom means standing up for the rights of the despised just as much as for the rights of the oppressed, the humble, the righteous, and so on. To do less means that there is no freedom. And no ominous rumblings about a new Hitler arising from these mouth-breathers will ever convince me otherwise.
I could take your entire argument verbatim, change the descriptives, and argue that gays should be rounded up and interned for the good of society, due to the AIDS they spread and the children they recruit and so on. I could use your same words to advance the theory that Catholics need to be rounded up as potential child molestors. It does not pass the sniff test.
Please understand I hold you in the highest regard. At least you know how to debate, and your intelligence is obvious. But I deleted your 'gotta-get-it-in-anyway' addendum about some super sekrit society of marble-heads and awful-baddies in high places - it's twaddle of the highest order and pure aluminum-foil-on-head silly business. I have zero interest in it.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Bill,
In my previous message, I gave a general response and tried to more clearly make my point. Here I will go through and respond to your responses.
Legal or proper as decided in a criminal court or civil court is not what my point is about. My point is about hamstringing "bad" groups. The point about speech is just to show that all freedoms are not absolute in speech or action. No one has the right to incite violence against me or to kill me. You are taking this down a side track.
This is about hamstringing the Nazis and the KKK. If the Knights of Columbus engaged in the killing of thousands or millions of people, I would add them to the list. I always thought they were a public service organization with funny hats
. If the KoC engaged in the subjugation and killing on a large scale, I would do everything in my power to make their names public. The removal of anonymity greatly reduced the murderous rage of the KKK. As far as I know, The anti-mask laws are still on the books. Those groups that claim to be the descendants of those two murdurous groups know exactly what they are doing. If you espouse the philosophy of the KKK or the Nazis you deserve to have your name made public.
I am not playing a game. I assumed the folks involved in this discussion would know of it, because of the nature of the discussion. Also, I did not want to make this a red vs. blue discussion because ALL the political members are of one party. I am not trying to be snobbish or elitist or make any point beyond that of the discussion of two hate groups. The CCC is the child of the White Citizen’s Council and the spiritual, well dressed child of the KKK.The CCC has been profiled in our major national papers several time over the last half a dozen years. It has also been discussed in congress.
Check out this link:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ccc
http://tinyurl.com/gapk5
Groups that cause the expenditure of public resources should reimburse the public. If the Gay Pride folks have a parade around Bob Jones university, they should pay for the protection they might require. Just the same, the Nazis marching in Skokie should also have to pay for their protection. This is not about stifling free speech! In every post I have made in this thread I have not recommended it at all! Why do you keep going there?
I am trying very hard not to be insulted by your comments here. I don't know if these comments are just considered part of the "funin'" here or if you are testing a newcomer. Since I am new, I'll try to take them in that light.
I never said I wanted to stifle ANYONE'S speech. Again you go there! In fact as long as the Nazis and KKK speak out we know what they stand for. If driven underground they become a bigger threat.
I said we should concentrate on doing two things to hamstring the actions of the KKK and Nazis. These two groups have a very recent history of spreading death and destruction.
The first, make the membership public. If you do something as part of a group that has a notorious history (KKK, Nazis), there should be daylight. Secondly, hamstring the groups financially when they make a mistake.
The leadership of these groups are not a bunch of idiots. Look at their past. If they had the resources they could use greater technology to cause greater death than their predecessors. We must be vigilant. They have killed by the thousands and millions.
Respectfully,
Lance Dennis
In my previous message, I gave a general response and tried to more clearly make my point. Here I will go through and respond to your responses.
I've only talked about two groups that have a recent history of killing many human beings, the KKK and Nazis. This is not about imposing a "tyranny of the majority".bmattock said:
bmattock said:
Legal or proper as decided in a criminal court or civil court is not what my point is about. My point is about hamstringing "bad" groups. The point about speech is just to show that all freedoms are not absolute in speech or action. No one has the right to incite violence against me or to kill me. You are taking this down a side track.
bmattock said:
This is about hamstringing the Nazis and the KKK. If the Knights of Columbus engaged in the killing of thousands or millions of people, I would add them to the list. I always thought they were a public service organization with funny hats
. If the KoC engaged in the subjugation and killing on a large scale, I would do everything in my power to make their names public. The removal of anonymity greatly reduced the murderous rage of the KKK. As far as I know, The anti-mask laws are still on the books. Those groups that claim to be the descendants of those two murdurous groups know exactly what they are doing. If you espouse the philosophy of the KKK or the Nazis you deserve to have your name made public. bmattock said:
I am not playing a game. I assumed the folks involved in this discussion would know of it, because of the nature of the discussion. Also, I did not want to make this a red vs. blue discussion because ALL the political members are of one party. I am not trying to be snobbish or elitist or make any point beyond that of the discussion of two hate groups. The CCC is the child of the White Citizen’s Council and the spiritual, well dressed child of the KKK.The CCC has been profiled in our major national papers several time over the last half a dozen years. It has also been discussed in congress.
Check out this link:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ccc
http://tinyurl.com/gapk5
bmattock said:
Groups that cause the expenditure of public resources should reimburse the public. If the Gay Pride folks have a parade around Bob Jones university, they should pay for the protection they might require. Just the same, the Nazis marching in Skokie should also have to pay for their protection. This is not about stifling free speech! In every post I have made in this thread I have not recommended it at all! Why do you keep going there?
bmattock said:
I am trying very hard not to be insulted by your comments here. I don't know if these comments are just considered part of the "funin'" here or if you are testing a newcomer. Since I am new, I'll try to take them in that light.
I never said I wanted to stifle ANYONE'S speech. Again you go there! In fact as long as the Nazis and KKK speak out we know what they stand for. If driven underground they become a bigger threat.
I said we should concentrate on doing two things to hamstring the actions of the KKK and Nazis. These two groups have a very recent history of spreading death and destruction.
The first, make the membership public. If you do something as part of a group that has a notorious history (KKK, Nazis), there should be daylight. Secondly, hamstring the groups financially when they make a mistake.
The leadership of these groups are not a bunch of idiots. Look at their past. If they had the resources they could use greater technology to cause greater death than their predecessors. We must be vigilant. They have killed by the thousands and millions.
Respectfully,
Lance Dennis
bmattock
Veteran
lmd91343 said:
Yes, only two groups. And another guy down the block wants to suppress two other groups. And another guy hates two other groups, feels they are dangerous, and wants them suppressed.
I take your point. Your point is wrong - and evil in itself. I don't agree with you about what groups are bad enough to deserve to be 'hamstrung'. Simple. And you're not the only one out there beating a drum to 'hamstring' this group or that group. You're all cut from the same cloth - and it ain't Captain America's cape.
Not at all. You're right, no one has a right to incite violence against you or to kill you. And we have laws against that sort of thing. And I believe we should enforce them. You're still talking about Nazi's having a rally in Skokie - not the same at all.
No, it is not. It is about hamstringing a pair of groups that YOU feel pose a threat. I don't agree, but even if I did, my neighbor down the street hates blacks and I know another guy who thinks gays are to blame for all society's woes. They talk about 'hamstringing' THOSE groups. Again - you're all the same - suppressors of liberty.
But the modern-day KKK and neo-Nazis don't engage in killing thousands or millions of people. They may advocate it. They may print literature about it and shout it. But they don't do it. You don't seem able to see the difference.
And yes, there are groups who DO think the KofC is a secret organization that uses their ceremonial swords to cut off Protestant's heads - and that we should be 'hamstrung'. Suppressors of liberty are all exactly the same. Your flags change, is all.
I always thought they were a public service organization with funny hats
And if you decide, through the power of your aluminum foil hat, that we do? And yes, there are those who do. Well, those people are not reasonable like us. They're them. We're us. We're reasonable. Right.
Sez you. I don't agree. I belong to several secret organizations. I don't want my name made public. I don't think you or anyone else has the right to make it public. Oh, you say I'm safe because I don't kill people or even advocate it. Well, what about when your tin-foil hat buddy down the street decides that I do? No. Non servium.
You keep cut-n-pasting that CCC nonsense, I'm going to have to revise my opinion that you have a basically good head on your shoulders. It won't work, your 'assumption' is wrong, and please stop posting it.
No. I dislike propaganda.
Why do you think it is ok to use laws designed to recover reasonable costs of providing extra services to citizens to 'hamstring' them as a weapon instead? Yes, it is about stifling free speech. You said it yourself - hamstring them. By suing them, by outing them, by urging high taxes and services fees be levied upon them to 'break' them financially. DID YOU NOT SAY THAT?
I intended no insult. But if you act like a moron, I'll say hey - you're a moron. If you continue that tin-foil hat CCC stuff, I'm gonna call you on it. Tin-foiil hat brigade, that's all it is. I pull no punches.
You said again and again you wanted exactly that. To prevent them from marching. To prevent them from assembling. To prevent them from existing by a variety of legal-but-harrasing means as I just mentioned.
Do they? Are the pimple-faced pinheads who make up today's US neo-Nazi movement the same Nazi party that supported Hitler, or do they just have the same name and similar goals? The KKK? They're nearly extinct - and a lot of that due to their own actions - illegal actions for which they should be punished. A lot of that is also due to the fact that people just aren't interested in their crap anymore.
I disagree with you premise. I don't think those groups are the same groups they were. Even if they were, you are precisely advocating denying them freedom of speech, by a variety of means you keep bringing up.
No, you said hamstring them BEFORE they make a mistake. Marching in public is not making a mistake - other than being dumb in daylight, but no law against that.
And how do you propose to make their membership public? A court order? I told you, I'm a member of several secret organizations, I don't want some pathetic loser deciding that my group poses a threat and trying to get a court order to make my name public. What next, call my employer and try to get me fired? Stake out my house and picket day and night? Bang tambourines and circulate petitions in my neighborhood to get me to move away? Oh, you would not do such things? But some of your pals would. You're just one step in a long line.
Lance, you're losing me. As you become more shrill, you end up appearing to be even more the freedom suppressor - even as you insist you're not - you keep advocating those very methods. All to stop the two groups YOU dislike. You keep assuming that we'll all naturally agree that THESE two groups, and ONLY these two groups, will be the targets for your revenge. But they won't. There are too many Lance's out there - and all with a personal axe to grind - all with a reasonable argument to make why the UAW or the Street Cleaners Union or the Fraternal Order of Badgers should be followed around, outed, sued, and so on - to keep them from spouting their filth.
I don't buy it. I won't. It is anti-freedom, and that just ain't me.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PeterL
--
ferider said:
Hi Roland,
I realise that now, though I don't regret it. This forum is predominantly US citizens, and I tend to think in those terms when I'm posting on the Internet, even though I'm Belgian myself. I know that using the same word in Europe will get an even stronger emotional reaction, because fascism and nazism happened in two countries in Europe. I reacted in contradiction to my own point, which was that an agressive reaction only invites more agression. Thanks for pointing that out.
Actually, Belgium is rather a good case study as far as extreme right is concerned. I'm Flemish, which is the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (yes, as tiny a country as Belgium is federalised). There is a history of language oppression, and the history of Dutch being recognised as an official language goes until the 1960s. The result is that the so-called Flemish Movement is traditionally strong and expands all the way into the extreme right, with collaborators during World War 2 etc.
In the 1980s, this extreme right wing, having accomplished all its language goals, turned on the immigrants, restructured and they seemed to have hired a couple of good marketing guys, because all of a sudden they came out looking like real politicians instead of the fight-picking rabble they were before. (There's pictures of one of the head guys stirring up the crowds in the '70s during an attack on a student cultural center that had a left-wing exhibit, for example).
It worked. That party now has over 1/3 of the votes in parts of Flanders and something like 15-20% on average in the region. Part of the reason why it worked was that all the other parties decided to isolate the extreme right, and it became politically incorrect to talk about the issues they were pointing out (integration, low unemployment with immigrant children, ...). The result of that attitude was that the situation got worse, the problems got worse, more people suffered and started voting on the party that seemed to be the only one aware of the problems. I took politics 10 years to realise there was a problem at all, and another 5 years before some decently capable people started running at least part of the show. Part of the distraction politics (TV stars that become politicians overnight just to get more votes) are still present.
Even worse, in the past years there were a few legal cases against the extreme right party's funding system, but of course, when the party lost, they converted everything into new companies and a new political party with all the members present, but a less extreme image. The sheep skin is now nearly convincing.
So, is Flanders a xenophobic place ? No. And the incident with the drunk I described yesterday was the first of that sort I've seen. Come to Belgium with no fear, go to a pub in the evening, have a good discussion about plenty of topics, including politics, and you'll find it's as cool a place to hang out as many others. Sometimes I wonder where all those right votes come from. Maybe I hang out in the right bars.
Peter.
PeterL
--
lmd91343 said:
I disagree with this. Modern information technology has the same effect as the printing press: it allows many different, and sometimes contradicting, opinions to be spread much quicker than before. So while it's true on the one hand that, as you say, any extremist group can reach a far wider audience much quicker than any time before in history, this is offset by the fact that any other group can do exactly the same.
The US is the best example here. There's more wacko groups in the US than there's citizens, I'm sure. Lots of them are plain crazy (yes, Elvis landed in Arizona desert and gave a concert), others are naive (sure, revolution is about to happen worldwide real soon) and others are dangerous. But there's so many of them, that the incredible amount of voices turned into people shouting at top of their voices to be heard between all the others, which then became just background noise.
I don't believe that in the current situation in North America or Europe, extremism has that much of a chance to convince the masses. There's so many groups that, when any one poses a threat to the general freedom, another one will step in and sue them, expose them or by other means drag them down. Comparing this to the 1930s is not a good comparison, because back then, there were only a few extremist left groups fighting against a fairly right world, which reacted by founding a couple of extremist right groups in reaction. News papers and radio were the only media. Since then, TV and Internet have come up. During the fall of the eastern European communist regimes, the main fight was about media. Hitler was possibly a pioneer in this area. But these days, there's so much media in the western world that it'll be very hard to conquer all of them and indoctrinate the masses in the same way as in the 1930s, or in Eastern Europe where the only state-owned TV channel could be taken over and forced to broadcast a new agenda.
Peter.
ducttape
Established
So I'm reading and reading and thinking, what point did I not get across?
Sorry guys, if you don't see the difference between the Knights of Columbus and the nazis, the B'nai Brith and the nazis, if you don't see how female circumcision isn't the same as the nazis, (but think Judaic male circumcision is) well, maybe I'm reading the wrong board.
I agree with the ALCU. Honestly, I understand their right to legally defend a nazi. (I contribute to the ALCU.) THAT is the same as my right to stop them by whatever means possible. Nazis guys, nazis. Ovens. Poles, gypsie, Jews, French, Slovacs, Russians. Anyone who wasn't arian was, well, toast or a lampshade.
Grow a set of balls and see that these people are wrong and don't be so liberal. Don't tell me the the political party responisble for the most deaths since the I don't know when has a right to come in my (or any) neighborhood and recruit little nazis to do more of the same. And for sure don't tell me you lost a relative, be them a civilian or a soldier in the army, and tell me nazis still can demonstrate.
Sorry, liberalism and reality do not agree with me some times. And I do not mean I am conservative. I mean follow some thoughts to their logical conclusions and realize half answers are usually no answer at all.
Now obviously, my pre-coffee words aren't going to change anyone's mind here. And yes, thank G-d that is one of the perqs of living here in a free society. You say what you want, I say what I want. However, go ahead and say nazis can do what they want (or incite by merely saying what they want). That same law gives me the freedom to think you are a complete fool, playing with fire, and that come any means I see I WILL attempt to stop your misfound sense of 'political correctness'. And THAT is a right guaranteed me by the constituition.
Now, off to work, where I can read the rest of these posts from the peace and quite of my desk, and probably get all frenzied up again!
I had to edit this after reading. To clarrify, of course I agree anyone has a constituitional right, under the LAW, to demonstrate. What I mean is, in a civilized, free society (and no, this next comment does not make this an oximoron) all citizens have an OBLIGATION to prevent nazis from exercising those rights.
Sorry guys, if you don't see the difference between the Knights of Columbus and the nazis, the B'nai Brith and the nazis, if you don't see how female circumcision isn't the same as the nazis, (but think Judaic male circumcision is) well, maybe I'm reading the wrong board.
I agree with the ALCU. Honestly, I understand their right to legally defend a nazi. (I contribute to the ALCU.) THAT is the same as my right to stop them by whatever means possible. Nazis guys, nazis. Ovens. Poles, gypsie, Jews, French, Slovacs, Russians. Anyone who wasn't arian was, well, toast or a lampshade.
Grow a set of balls and see that these people are wrong and don't be so liberal. Don't tell me the the political party responisble for the most deaths since the I don't know when has a right to come in my (or any) neighborhood and recruit little nazis to do more of the same. And for sure don't tell me you lost a relative, be them a civilian or a soldier in the army, and tell me nazis still can demonstrate.
Sorry, liberalism and reality do not agree with me some times. And I do not mean I am conservative. I mean follow some thoughts to their logical conclusions and realize half answers are usually no answer at all.
Now obviously, my pre-coffee words aren't going to change anyone's mind here. And yes, thank G-d that is one of the perqs of living here in a free society. You say what you want, I say what I want. However, go ahead and say nazis can do what they want (or incite by merely saying what they want). That same law gives me the freedom to think you are a complete fool, playing with fire, and that come any means I see I WILL attempt to stop your misfound sense of 'political correctness'. And THAT is a right guaranteed me by the constituition.
Now, off to work, where I can read the rest of these posts from the peace and quite of my desk, and probably get all frenzied up again!
I had to edit this after reading. To clarrify, of course I agree anyone has a constituitional right, under the LAW, to demonstrate. What I mean is, in a civilized, free society (and no, this next comment does not make this an oximoron) all citizens have an OBLIGATION to prevent nazis from exercising those rights.
Last edited:
PeterL
--
ducttape said:
I think you are confusing a couple of youngsters waving flags and generally making a fool of themselves with people they've never know but who they happen to think are heroes.
See, there's about 0.1% chance that these guys in the US ever had any contact with the people you're so afraid of. So rounding these guys up isn't going to help either. Sorry.
I don't think they will be able to do more of the same, because of what I outlined above about the media. The general dislike of agression plays a big part in it, too. I was as shocked yesterday to hear the drunk talk into his phone the way he did, as I was by the other guy nearly pushing him over. We don't live in the 1930s anymore, everybody has something to lose: a house, work, spending money, a lifestyle. Even our extreme right realises that.
Don't worry, I lost all confidence in trying to convince people of how I see the world. We're stubborn and can't be taught. Neither can I
Peter.