The officers issued him an official warning after determining his actions were not racially motivated.

  • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    First they came for the xyz, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a xyz.

    And yes i get the historical context behind that funny how u can apply it to everyone.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.” - Karl Popper

        Banning certain kinds of speech doesn’t prevent the thought behind it. The speech will continue, it just won’t be where you can police it.

        • Quokka@quokk.auOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          And those things are very much not happening. Neo Nazis incidents are increasing in this country, so they’re not being kept in check and rational argument is irrelevant when racism is irrational.

          Also let’s add the rest of your quote in

          But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

            Which is nolonger words and as im sure u would agree with that.

            We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

            That doesnt sound like use it to me that sounds like well let em have their speach but retain the right to supress them via bigger stick deplomacy. What does he mean by supress them? supress the ideology? people are gonna go speach regardless of if the speach is illegal. Or does he mean arrest anyone explicitly calling for violence (thats where i draw the line)? Or does he mean put em all in a train to poland?

        • rainynight65@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Countering fascism by rational argument and keeping it in check by public opinion has been tried. It hasn’t worked.

        • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wait a minute, do you mean to tell me that the guy everyone is always smugly quoting in support of broad censorship might have had more nuanced views? Thanks a lot, you just made the world more complicated and pretty much ruined my entire week.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      But you obviously don’t get the historical context - because most of the people the Nazis came for never came back alive.

      They weren’t handing out slaps on the wrists. When they knocked, they were there to take lives.

      Why on earth you think that we ought to give such people a voice in society is bewildering.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        I beleive very strongly in equality, even for evil fuckers. I also believe its our juty to ignore them and encorage others to do the same.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The problem with engaging Nazis and other hate groups like this is that they never plan on stopping at merely voicing their opinion. Violence against someone else, their target demographic, is their endgame.

          They aren’t like you and me, who want what’s best for society but are guided by different philosophies. If they want power, it is only to abuse against their target group. Otherwise they are far more interested in recruiting people willing to do violence against their target groups.

          We can encourage people to move on all we like, but hate groups are actually quite devious in how they operate. They actually pull a page or two from the cult playbook. One of the first things they train/manipulate their recruits to do is ignore external opinions. That makes pulling them out of the hate group BS almost impossible with words alone.

          Hate groups aren’t honest actors, and shouldn’t be engaged with as though they are.

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            Imo nobody wants whats best for society people only want whats best for themselves thats just natural selection, cooperation comes about as a product of mutual benefit hence we live in a reletivly safe and reasonable society. The more society aligns with interests of the individual the heigher the incentive for the individual to want the beat for society. Thats why democracy is such a good system.

            I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence ship em off to prison or ideally rehabilitation.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence ship em off to prison or ideally rehabilitation.

              The problem there is that by the time violence started actually happening in Nazi Germany, there was no one willing or able to do anything about it.

              If you let a hate movement get big, they’re going to have thousands of people willing to commit these crimes, and they’ll happen every other day.

              Even if you take the extremes of Naziism out of the equation, that’s a family home firebombed, a school shot up or a church massacred before you do anything about one individual.

              If you’re only taking direct action against individuals who directly cause violence after the fact, you put the targeted group in a very desperate position. You’re letting the people who are recruiting often people with mental health issues or challenges to do their violence go scott free to continue recruiting more people to do violence.

              That’s going to add up to a lot of firebombed homes and massacred churches, and a targeted group that frankly does not feel safe in that community. Infact they may turn desperate and in turn towards violence. That’s how, taking an extreme example, groups like Hamas come to be.

              • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                We live in a democracy do u have so little faith in the people of society that u think a majority will support such violence? A government is defined as the power holding a monoply on violence within a region. Either the government will stop the violence since they hold the monoply. Or the government is committing the violence in which case it would be a democratic decision and we fall back to the do u have such little faith in ur fellow human that such a government would be ellected.

                How does banning speach and symbols prevent houses being firebombes schools being shot up churches masacred its not like the people who do such things respect the law about not saying shit, they gonna say it anyways even if it is illegal.

                The USA has plenty of fucked people who go around saying that sort of shit proudly. They dont have the sort of violence u speak of. They got a gun problem not a nazi problem us aussies pretty much solved the gun problem years ago.

            • rainynight65@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence

              The second that happens, it’s too late.

              How do I know? Because that second has already passed.

        • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Ask Europe how well ignoring the Nazis in 1939 worked out for them. If we just leave them alone I’m sure it’ll all work out.

        • rainynight65@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Jesus fucking Christ, this is like the joke about the people voting for the Lepoards eating People’s Faces party, except they’re actually lining up to have their faces eaten.