Being intolerant with neo nazi

[Cacheperl]

Yes, the alt right is fairly heterogenous. I'm sure they manage to cover all of these aspects, even if not on an individual basis. I do not agree that the term is commonly used to refer to not-extreme-left, in everyday use or by the media.

And I still do not see the relevance to this thread.

 

[Damian]

Yes, the alt right is fairly heterogenous. I'm sure they manage to cover all of these aspects, even if not on an individual basis. I do not agree that the term is commonly used to refer to not-extreme-left, in everyday use or by the media.

And I still do not see the relevance to this thread.

Then you are blind to it. Sargon of Akkad and Timpool are famous examples of liberals who are referred to as alt right.

 

[Cacheperl]

... which would be relevant because ...

Whatever.

 

[daveyd]

Then you are blind to it. Sargon of Akkad and Timpool are famous examples of liberals who are referred to as alt right.

I don't watch Sargon but I here about from time to time in other youtuber's videos… If I'm not mistaken he's one of those who would self-identify as "Classical liberal", which would basically align him with the American "Libertarian" party, who may be liberal on some social issues, but are extremely conservative on economic issues (and gun rights). So quite different from what people usually mean when they simply refer to someone as a "liberal".

Anyway, I will grant you that Nazi is a label which people are often (too) quick to throw around on the internet. The one term I can think of that is more overused than Nazi online is "SJW"; because many people have an extremely broad definition of that term, i.e., right-wing people seem to think it simply means anyone to the left of them.

 

[Damian]

That's true. I dont like SJWs as a catch all term either. And I dont condone violence on anyone.

 

[Cacheperl]

Anyway, I will grant you that Nazi is a label which people are often (too) quick to throw around on the internet. The one term I can think of that is more overused than Nazi online is "SJW"; because many people have an extremely broad definition of that term, i.e., right-wing people seem to think it simply means anyone to the left of them.

I could agree to that.

 

[ChatMiauleur]

The thing is this guy is an European. He is not Chinese, from Zimbabwe or USA.
For him, Nazi is a not something theoretic, it is something his family had experienced and had to suffer from. We are talking grand-parent level here, not ancestors. It is something every European over 30 years had a family talk about, either by words or through a deafening silence. Every country of Europe had death and destruction in a scale never seen before (even Spain who did not participate to WWII had a its Fascist war with more than 5% of its population killed). It has impacted every family directly or indirectly.
Maybe in the US doing Nazi jokes or tattoos is a matter of Free Speech but here in Europe it would be in the scale of spending your days joking or posting pictures about raping women or killing babies. You may talk about jokes, but that makes you a creep and not someone you want to be associated with. In any case someone you would be wary of. And yeah, declared and open Nazi people are watched by governments in most European countries.
So no, this guy with this kind of background in Europe is not an innocent but displaying bad taste joker or a History buff, he is a creep who totally knows what he is doing and how people around him feel about it.

 

[Winterfart]

Every countries or continents have topics that are no laughing matters.
In europe, nazism and neo-nazism are that topic.

If you're an American and you don't understand what I mean, just think about gun control discussions/debate/shitstorm in your country, or discussions about slavery… It will give you an idea…

 

[Copper Coin]

In fact, the swatsikas he had on his two profiles are illegal in Germany.

 

[Capt. Huggy Face]

The title of this thread cracks me up.

 

[TomRon]

I think we have some really different opinions on the word Neo-Nazi. To me it means someone that supports the idea of another holocaust and would gladly see all people different from themselves exterminated or at least subjugated.

If someone uses THAT word simply to describe someone with a political view that's different from their own, say someone who's (only) pro-gun legislation or want more controlled immigration, then they are using the word in a very weird way. I don't agree politically with the alt. right movement for example, and I could probably call many of them idiots and perhaps other non flattering terms. I would not dream of calling them Nazis. Unless some started to wear the swastika and openly stated they want to kill off half of their neighbours for having the wrong genes. THAT'S a Nazi. And no, they should never, ever, be tolerated. They might need some serious hugging though.

 

[lostforever]

What is a Nazi?

Is it someone who believes in supremacy of white people AND act upon those believes? If yes, then I am happy to call for the death of such people.

But if Nazi is someone who simply believes in supremacy of white people then no, its wrong to call for the death of such people. I think @purpleblob; means it in this regards....

 

[Winterfart]

But if Nazi is someone who simply believes in supremacy of white people then no, its wrong to call for the death of such people. I think @purpleblob; means it in this regards….

Calling for their death is definitively wrong, but merely being happy about it is not (it's not very sane, I admit, but nobody's perfect).

 

[Copper Coin]

I don't take pleasure in anyone's death, but nazis would take pleasure in mine.

 

[purpleblob]

Its a bit complicated and difficult to explain but let me try anyway.

I don't agree with neo nazism, or any other extreme racisms. In saying that, they are entitled to have their own belief, as long as they don't deliberately/intentionally harm others both physically and verbally.

If someone say, they fully agree with Nazi thinking, Germany should have won WW2, and continue to exterminate others - in my opinion they are horrible people that I don't want to ever deal with but as long as they don't act on it, I wouldn't call for death of these people.

However, if they do act on it, then the world will be better without them.

I also don't agree with "kill off all (those I consider) Nazi" opinion either, because, to me, it doesn't sound much different to Nazis (exterminate all those who don't agree type of deal).

 

[Ripper]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because I don't believe in death to anybody. I think when we say that that people shouldn't be killed for their beliefs, that sounds absolutely right, but I think we have to consider what those beliefs actually are. For example, if we know that someone's "belief" is that our families are evil and must be exterminated, we might be justified in striking first.

As I say, I'm not suggesting anyone deserves death, but that having hostility towards someone whose beliefs include the necessity of your destruction, might be quite rational.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I see this place has devolved into more and more of an echo chamber. A user is advocating violence upon people he thinks are crypto neo-nazis and says "if they are dead it is fine" and he isn't reprimanded and the discussion is allowed to continue. Are you out of your mind???

Would you like it if someone took this post and tried to send it to your employer? I would never want this to happen, but can you see why Internet mob rule is not a good idea?

 

[Ripper]

There's certainly an echo in here today...

 

[Corwin]

I have not closed this down because I feel it is better for people to have an open and dare I say honest discussion about highly sensitive issues, than to feel frustrated and go out and ACT on those frustrations. We're using the word Nazi here, which as some have pointed out means different things to different people depending primarily on where you live. This discussion could just as easily be about Muslim Jihadists who want to behead everyone who disagrees with them; it's the underlying principle which needs to be addressed in a rational manner!!

 

[Ripper]

I have not closed this down because I feel it is better for people to have an open and dare I say honest discussion about highly sensitive issues, than to feel frustrated and go out and ACT on those frustrations. We're using the word Nazi here, which as some have pointed out means different things to different people depending primarily on where you live. This discussion could just as easily be about Muslim Jihadists who want to behead everyone who disagrees with them; it's the underlying principle which needs to be addressed in a rational manner!!

Well the comparison to jihadists is interesting, but it's not quite a parallel to what I was talking about. My point is the very specific case where you might be hostile because someone's belief specifically includes your destruction. The jihadis themselves wouldn't qualify, as they aren't primarily hostile in self-defense.

But, the other way round, I think the logic does apply; would I be justified in being hostile to jahidis who are calling for my destruction? Yes, I think I would, and I think we should act against them. I'd have anyone involved in promoting and recruiting for such things given a compulsory life sentence. That's pretty hostile.