Comment by thinkfurther
9 years ago
> I don't call someone a Nazi unless they are literally a Nazi
What's a "literal Nazi" to you then? A member of the historical NSDAP?
edit: Also, note while you're all talking to each other and patting yourself on the back about how you're so great at discussing ideas, none of you even tried answer my question: what more due process do you require? Do you disagree with the assessment?
This reminds me of a comment on HN I read recently, where someone said they had to insert a delay into a website so customers would think they're doing some really serious data crunching (which they did, but just too quickly for it to "feel" that way -- for people who don't know what's going on, at all).
Since no one answered your question about how much due process is needed, let me take a stab at it. To paraphrase the article, due process requires that the rules be known in advance, and that they be applied non-arbitrarily to each accused violator. I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.
So for example, if an organization was going to censor certain political websites, they should specify precisely what is not allowed: Advocating socialism? The killing of non-combatants? etc.
If the rules are only going to be applied at the whims of the Twitter mob, then that should be posted in advance: "You will be in violation if you advocate for race-based killing AND there are at least 10,000 tweets in a single day condemning you."
> I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.
I didn't say "Yup, hateful ideology", I said "Yup, Nazis."
They run around with torches and swastikas and celebrate murder. What's controversial about that, and what does Twitter have to do with anything? I don't use Twitter. It's very telling how people constantly drag in shit like that to bloat and pad. Face Hannah Arendt, face Sebastian Haffner, face Erich Fromm; but your ignorance and shallowness will not keep me from shaking you and any other comers off.
Pretty much or at least an organisation that adheres to all or the preponderance of the tenets of the ideology.
While I might suspect the Stormfronters would like to do that I don't know that they would, authoritarian fascists, sure, Nazi's not really.
Maybe it's because I like history and I've read a lot about WWII and the factors that led up to it but I'm careful with the world Nazi.
Been a race supremacist doesn't mean Nazi because logically a Black Panther would also be a Nazi then.
Been hard-right doesn't make you a Nazi because then the Republican party would be Nazi's.
Been pro-eugenics doesn't make you a Nazi because then the government of the UK, US and USSR where Nazi (in the early 20th century).
Been pro-nationalism doesn't make you a Nazi because then well half the governments on the planet would be Nazi's.
Been a race supremacist, hard right and pro-eugenics and nationalist just might.
So, essentially there's no definition outside of "participated in the German SS during World War 2" that you will accept? Even if the people called themselves "neo-Nazis" and talked about "the JQ" openly?
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/896860224971128836
The Daily Stormer self-identifies as neo-Nazi.
If they think they're following in Nazi footsteps, does that count for anything in your book?
If not, then what would?
Tell me what "the ideology" is then.
Did you even finish reading his post?
2 replies →