Comment by Spivak

9 years ago

Right, the distinction is that neo-Nazi's are bad -- hateful, intolerant, divisive, problematic or however you want to put it. I'm uncomfortable saying that it's okay to do these things to the bad guys, even when it's obvious, because in an alternate universe it might be obvious that gays marrying is hateful toward Christians and intolerant of their sacred rituals.

8 comments

Spivak

Reply
im_down_w_otp  9 years ago

Nobody fought and won war---to the conclusion of unconditional surrender---against an army and ideology of the LGBT community.

Nazism didn't go through some kind of Martin Luther style academic and cultural reformation in the last 80 years. Neo-Nazis are the same as the original Nazis. They have the same ideology & the same ambitions. They're literally incompatible with Western liberalism & enlightenment.

Neo-Nazis are just late-stage Third Reich acolytes, sympathizers, and insurrectionists. They're still trying to fight a war that they lost to terms of unconditional surrender. It's frankly shocking that they're given the deference of being just yet another political voice in the diverse landscape of voices. They are not. Very, very few modern political movements were defeated explicitly at the tip of a spear instead of the stroke of a pen. Nazism is in scarce company in that regard.

There's no point at all to engage any of it as though Nazism is the same as normal political speech. Allowing for ideological recidivism and re-litigating WWII sort of defeats the purpose of having fought that war and conquered them to begin with.

It would make way, way more sense to consider them enemies of the state and deal with them as such.

  • howlgram  9 years ago

    On point, they are akin to ISIS, perhaps people confuse them for 'just another ideology' just because they are too afraid to act on it right now, but given the opportunity they will, and recruiting people IS their opportunity.

vaishaksuresh  9 years ago

No. The distinction is that neo-nazis chose to follow a hateful ideology. Gay people did not choose to be gay. I’m not supporting denial of service, in fact I think nobody should be denied service. I’m just pointing out that the equivalence is not right.

  • wyager  9 years ago

    So if someone chooses to follow evil red anti-American socialist beliefs, it's presumably OK to censor and deplatform them, right? Normalizing political censorship is how you get McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Normalizing political violence is how you get pogroms. It does not matter who the first victims are; you cannot control how the tides will turn in the future.

    • dashundchen  9 years ago

      Were socialists calling for the eradication of a class of people based on race or born characteristics? No. These neonazis were, and it breaches the barrier of free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, light years tamer, also is.

      Western society, including the Supreme Court, has decided free speech ends where harm to others begins.