Comment by matttproud
9 years ago
^^^ The parent comment hits the ball out of the park.
The commentary on past posts on HN and elsewhere floors me. It seems one or two things are prevalent:
1. Folks will gladly loan the hangman the rope that he will use to hang you, your family, and your neighbors — all because of "purity of belief" in free speech. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but these illiberal forces are a clear and present danger to this comfortable society you call home.
2. Support for Cryptofascism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-fascism) is rampant. Either folks don't know that they already support it, or they wittingly do and are too afraid to say it out in the open.
Immensely disturbing. As someone who cherishes the rule of law over the rule of man, not aiding and these illiberal parties is the minimum. They are not pluralists; they don't care about the rules of the game. They won't politely tolerate you. Deviants will be chastised, expelled/expatriated, jailed, or killed. Ignoring prudence (preservation of self and the society at-large) is perilous.
I don't have any sympathy for the Daily Stormer.
I just don't see where this is stopping. What else needs to be taken down? /pol/? Who about Breitbart? Or maybe some 2nd WW Nazi propaganda? Or something from the US civil war?
You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. And then you have the nerve to call us who believes that limits of free speech should be set by courts and open process "nazis"?!
>You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows.
To me its strange someone would consider closing down /pol/ a "slippery slope". I am amazed that someone would consider 4chan a moral compass for the type of things their admins should put up with. moot has closed down /pol/ for this very reason in the past with even less "political" awareness than the CEO of cloudflare.
4Chan is "free-speech" not through effort but through negligence & apathy. moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content. It's not the first time it has devolved into nazi-fetishism. While 4chan has the reputation for being a seedy place, moot has taken stands and banned people and conversions from 4chan (for example most recently gamergate on /v/) for reasons that can be boiled down to that he didn't like it (mods of 4chan have done this as well, such as no Naruto on /a/). The current iteration of /pol/ has likely been allowed to live through negligence - moot is no longer involved with 4chan, and the new owner hiroyuki has been as absent as moot during his VC startup days. Simply put 4chan never had any moderator accountability (see Rule 9 of the internet).
In conclusion, the notion that this is a "slippery slope" is nonsense. "Free speech" on the internet never really existed, the current view points that exist only exist because their operators have never bothered to flex their muscles - and the reason they haven't has rarely been because of some moral high ground. At the end of the day there is plenty of "reasonable" content YouTube won't host for you, and that Facebook will kick you for. If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. If none will support you - then self fund. Free Speech doesn't mean the NYT is obligated to print your content, only that the government wont stop circulation of your newspaper. If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.
> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely.
The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY.
So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.
28 replies →
The whole Gamergate shitfest was disallowed on /v/ because it constantly hijacked the board, had tangential relevance in most cases, and the legal implications weren't worth supporting a largely off-topic subject. Having five pages of threads on a single subject would pretty much never be allowed on any board (save /b/), especially if that subject focused on a holy war between two radical elements.
/j/ was temporarily accessible through a bug and IRC chatlogs are widely available. The moderation on 4chan is very much active, it's just not compelled to fast and hard action for anything save child porn or an impending murder. Much of the hooliganism is largely explicitly allowed, at least according to the info currently available to us.
>moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content
Hate to bring /b/ into my hn, but newfriends, who make up the majority of the /pol/lacks don't even know this.
13 replies →
>If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.
"See, we just had a misunderstanding. I thought I lived in the USA, the United States of America, and actually we live in the USA, the United States of Advertising: freedom of expression guaranteed, if you've got the money!"
-Bill Hicks on being censored by CBS
> "Free speech" on the internet never really existed
Long before 4chan repeated everything Usenet had done many years earlier there was plenty of free speech on the Internet.
Not because nobody was in control to prevent it, but because the news admins who were in control believed in free speech enough to facilitate it. Although Usenet is a shadow of its heyday, that still applies even to this day.
CloudFare served DailyStormer for years.
Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis.
Then CloudFare say "no we don't, goodbye".
If DailyStormer hadn't been so stupid, and had never claimed CloudFare was anything other than neutral, then they would still be served?
Stupid own goal DailyStormer.
The censorship and 'line' seems to be not what you say or incite against others, but what you say about CloudFare.
Well, sure.
But if you shit on my living room carpet I'll also show you the door. As I think is my right.
1 reply →
Think of this scenario:
Oppresive government wants cloudflare to stop hosting some dissenters site.
Cloudflare says no
Then such government tries again, this time accusing dissenters of terrorism or something else despicable such as child molestation or hate speech.
Cloudflare still refuses
Then someone in such government impersonates the dissenters and claims cloudflare is on their side.
Cloudflare immediately kicks dissenters out of their network.
Free speech is hard.
I think it was probably a tongue in cheek statement (since a lot of people would have accused them of being secret Nazis over this eventually) that Cloudflare took seriously, or at least saw as a good excuse to shut them down to appease some people while positioning themselves as strong supporters of free speech on the internet at the same time.
1 reply →
> Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis.
According to CloudFare... Can't seem to find exactly where they say this. Their platforms on which to say things seem to be dropping like flies here.
Not saying they didn't claim that, but that's one of the problems with taking away someone's speech entirely - your only "source" for knowing what they have actually said is the claims of the people who just shut them down.
1 reply →
Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized.
Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech.
> slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized
The targets of the 234,341 criminal insult investigations conducted by German police last year[1] might argue otherwise. A few thousand of those were elementary school kids. Sixteen were preschoolers.
> courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech
Bless your heart. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your personal experience is untainted by exposure to actual courts. Prosecutors in the United States are not exactly known for rigorous exercise of discretion, and defending yourself in court can be ruinously expensive even if you prevail.
---
[1] https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLageb...
5 replies →
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized.
Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...
And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-de...
But otherwise, sure, unqualified success. Great example.
18 replies →
Daily stormer, pol, and breitbart are all free to find another web host/CDN or start their own. There is no slippery slope with one business refusing to do business with another one. The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, because they have no requirement to host the daily stormer in the first place.
So a baker could refuse to make a cake for homosexuals then ?
50 replies →
business is accountable via money to its owners and creditors. which ultimately means its accountable to the market.
I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation?
It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, and it seems that businesses that did in fact offer services to e.g. the Nazi party are now tarnished morally because of that.
>I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation?
How about the possible historical situation where a business owners doesn't offer services to the irish, jews, gays, blacks, etc?
Because those things have also happened -- and when you say it's ok to refuse those services to a group, you open a window for refusing those services to other groups too.
Just because consensus or power today is with the "good groups" (as far as you're concerned) doesn't change that fact.
It's even worse when what's right and wrong is even more muddy. E.g. someone criticizing their own country (like the Vietnam war protests) or in favor of a regime change etc.
31 replies →
A more realistic historical example than yours (which assumes hindsight): what about the McCarthyism? "If these guys are communist let's not give them jobs, particularly in the medias where they could spread their ideas".
The US liberals kept a pretty sour memory of McCarthyism. But fundamentally it is no different.
7 replies →
> It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously,
No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?
Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?
The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.
24 replies →
People sitting on the fences talking about slippery slopes are only ceding space to people pushing the conversation down.
I'm sorry but The space to sit idly and think about it is gone. All of society is on the slope because America didn't realize that some points are raised not to discuss, but to tie down discourse and keep logic at bay.
Leaving the field open for emotion and lazy logic to defeat whoever remains.
There's rules to how this is done, and they have little to do with facts but everything to do with owning the communication channel.
Congratulations, you've just employed the Sex With Ducks argument. Remember before employing slippery slope arguments to explain why we haven't already fallen down the slope when we banned terrorist websites.
And taking down The Daily Stormer was speech. If you want to regulate that kind of speech, it's your right to say so. But don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment when you do so.
Don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment - a restriction on governments making laws against press freedom - when you use it to compel companies to assist in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda against their will.
It's not a defence of political freedoms to compel people - rhetorically or otherwise - to disseminate messages that appall them; it's a grotesque imposition upon their political freedom.
That is indeed a tough question. And to Cloudflare's credit, they discuss it at some length. I'm quite impressed.
But in any case, it's Cloudflare's business, and so it's Cloudflare's decision to make. What concerns me more are censorship mechanisms involving DNS and BGP games. Which the US has been quite fond of using, to take down what it considers to be illegal content. That's a vulnerability of the Internet itself, reflecting continuing US dominance.
So hey, we have Tor and other overlay networks.
Edit: And just to be clear, I'm a communitarian anarchist. I'm not at all sympathetic to fascists. But I do oppose all censorship.
Maybe you should be the one who chooses what a private company can and can't do?
As for the slippery slope arguments, come on.
Feel free to feel outraged when someone you do have sympathy for gets taken down then.
Until that time comes, good riddance to Daily Stormer, you lot of motherfucking nazis.
>What else needs to be taken down?
It would be interesting to see how much of this applies to sub sects of Islam, namely the sub sects that promote violence or which promote child marriage.
My big issue here isn't the logic itself, but the selective application of it. For a similar related topic, whose statues should we have up? What is the objective criteria by which we should decide if a statue is allowed (on public property/at a memorial) and will it be applied to all statues?
If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions in the open between known Nazis or people who are advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate and delete these things then yea they actually should be shut down. We would not tolerate this from Al Qaeda or with child porn so I really don't understand the problem. Nazism has caused orders of magnitude more suffering in the history of man than either of the previous things I mentioned.
Well communism caused even more suffering, so should we shut down every communist site as well?
9 replies →
> They won't politely tolerate you. Deviants will be chastised, expelled/expatriated, jailed, or killed.
If they have the power to? Yeah, in a heartbeat. But they're not the only ones, or the most powerful ones, just the most ostentatiously intolerant.
> 1. Folks will gladly loan the hangman the rope that he will use to hang you, your family, and your neighbors — all because of "purity of belief" in free speech.
If both Nazis and (as an example) Communists have free speech, then I can be supremely confident that I have free speech, and that I can use it without being expelled, jailed, or killed. (Chastisement, well, as long as you mean the verbal kind, I'll just have to cope.) I sure as Hell don't defend their rights because I like them.
Have you never actually felt your ability to speak out meaningfully threatened by the society around you?
A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence, then you are simply wrong.
The evidence is fresh. You will have free speech - as long as you only go to the right places, say the right things, wear the right clothes, have the right colour skin.
Over time, supremacist movements reduce that free space in greater and greater amounts. This is what the evidence of history tells us, very clearly. We can see it happening now.
If despite the hard evidence that these groups are opposed to free speech and willing to kill those exercising it, you still defend their right to try and subjugate or kill people merely because of their DNA, you are not defending free speech. What you're really doing is celebrating your own virtue - you're defending their rights because you like yourself. You are taking a calculated risk with other people's lives to do so. Even if they're not even trying to speak at all, but just walking down the street while being the wrong race/gender/religion/etc.
Fundamentalist free speech advocates make an implicit assumption: that a race of billions of social animals can completely avoid situations where one group makes another even feeling uncomfortable. It's purist nonsense. Occasionally feeling you aren't entirely free to speak is part of being a social animal.
Part of living is learning when keeping your trap shut means you're being oppressed or censored, and when you are just being respectful to someone else's house, or a workplace, or suffering beyond your experience.
You can't use a civilised person's inevitable experience of "well, I didn't want to cause offense" to justify Nazis.
And this is why in Germany you can't protest with any guns, military swat gear, masks, or other weapons. Doing so is illegal because a large group of people with weapons can intimidate another group into not being able to exercise their free speech.
17 replies →
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence, then you are simply wrong.
The GP said no such thing. He talked about speech, and you changed the subject to violence.
If the white supremacists limited themselves to speech, then yes... their free speech should be protected. And, it serves as an indicator that we truly have free speech.
The whole point of free speech is to give freedom to views you disagree with. The alternative is the Soviet Union / North Korea bullshit of "everyone has free speach, but only one viewpoint is allowed".
15 replies →
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting.
Well, yeah, there's been an awful lot of death and injury at protests of late. Charlottesville is easily the worst, but isn't where it started, and it's not where it's going to finish. There were thugs at UC Berkeley smashing property, lighting bonfires, and putting pepper spray in protestors' faces.
Now, I wouldn't want to bring that up first thing like I'm some sort of spineless "both sides!!" equivocator (coughdonaldtrump) after some fucking Nazi runs people down, because it's obviously materially worse than any previous incident to date. But hey, if you we want to articulate a policy of ad-hoc censorship of speech because it reduces the free space to express opinions, let's go there! Why aren't you calling for content providers to root and and destroy all the publications telling us that "speech is violence" and should be met with violence? Where's the pressure for Reddit to drop /r/antifa? Can I get a statement condemning the shenanigans at Evergreen State College, where a professor got death threats for saying he was uncomfortable with a proposed "Day of Absence" which would see him excluded from the campus on account of the colour of his skin? Can we see Huffington Post's cloud service suspended for defending the student protestors who did so?
I can't say I like Berkeley's leftist thugs much more than I like Charlottesville's Nazis, but I'm damn uncomfortable with censorship that targets either. (And yes, it's censorship, even if it's not government censorship.)
But yea, you're right about one thing, it's a sucky time all around if you care about free speech.
> You can't use a civilised person's inevitable experience of "well, I didn't want to cause offense" to justify Nazis.
Well no, you don't justify Nazis period. You use them as the legal equivalent of a meat shield.
> Fundamentalist free speech advocates make an implicit assumption: that a race of billions of social animals can completely avoid situations where one group makes another even feeling uncomfortable.
"Completely avoiding situations where one group makes another feel uncomfortable" sounds more like a conservative caricature of political correctness than any component of fundamentalist free speech advocacy.
1 reply →
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting.
> these groups are opposed to free speech and willing to kill those exercising it
This is a false equivalence. His group was not calling for violence, let alone murder. You're using the same logic that the right-wing all over the world uses against Islam.
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence, then you are simply wrong.
Let's ban Christian websites then. Christians have killed lots of people over political and moral issues. Of course not those specific Christians, but who ares.
That is whould shold be careful about how ware ou go with cenrsorship.
>A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting
This person will be prosecuted and very likely jailed for his crimes. The ACLU is not rushing to defend this.
> The evidence is fresh. You will have free speech - as long as you only go to the right places, say the right things, wear the right clothes, have the right colour skin.
Applies to recent Google memo leak pretty well. Or other left-leaning cases. This is a problem with people who can't have a civil discussion and tolerate different point of views. Rather than left or right issue.
I'm sorry, was the government preventing Daily Stormer from starting a hosting company or CDN? I'm pretty sure it wasn't so they have the same free speech that everyone else does.
CloudFare has free speech rights too. They are excersizing those rights by saying they don't want Daily Stormer on their network.
All it takes is a few key fascists in government positions to tear all of this down. All it takes is one false flag terrorist attack to justify the systematic persecution of a group of people. This is what happened in Germany. Recently in Turkey. And it can happen here just as easily.
If you know your history, you know that liberal democracies have more enemies than fascists (particularly of the hick nazi variety).
>If both Nazis and (as an example) Communists have free speech
That's where the argument become null, communists ideas have been banned from the US political landscape for a long time and even mild socialists propositions are a call for arms for many USians.
They aren't banned in any sense whatsoever - there's a communist party in USA, they're free to publish their views, do rallies, advocate their position, run for elections, and they're "banned" only in the sense that almost noone votes for them or supports their views.
That's the exact treatment that Nazis, ISIS, North American Man/Boy Love Association and all kinds of other disgusting groups should get - they should be free to associate and state their views publicly, so that the public can hear them, be disgusted, and vote against them. If some of them do violent acts or incite violence, then those particular people can and should be charged appropriately, but not the rest of the group.
2 replies →
>Folks will gladly loan the hangman the rope that he will use to hang you, your family, and your neighbors — all because of "purity of belief" in free speech. Sorry, hate to break it to you, but these illiberal forces are a clear and present danger to this comfortable society you call home.
Replace like 3 words in your comment, and I could make it into a rant advocating persecution of Communists. Which has happened before in the US. But it's ok now because it's against your political enemies?
Second, no they are not. They are a tiny tiny percentage of the population. They have been losing power and numbers for decades. They get little representation in the mainstream and in the media. When they speak up with their beliefs or attend a protest unmasked, they often lose their jobs. They are not even remotely a serious threat. Just like communists during the Red Scare.
>Replace like 3 words in your comment, and I could make it into a rant advocating persecution of Communists. Which has happened before in the US. But it's ok now because it's against your political enemies?
If by "it's against your political enemies" means "it's against people who want to overthrow your society and replace it with a repressive one" then the two cases are exactly the same in principle and only differ in details.
So yeah, I'd say that they're both OK, under the exact same logic.
You are aware that opinions on what constitutes 'repressive' and not varies?
1 reply →
I recommending watching 'The People vs. Larry Flynt' for a (much-needed) lesson in what Freedom of Speech means in the United States. I am certain Larry Flynt had a hard time finding print houses willing to publish Hustler but the fact he was being arrested and prosecuted – by the government – for distributing Hustler is when/where the line was crossed.
I have doubts that SCOTUS will ever consider 'The Nazis vs. Cloudflare'.
I always wondered why we didn't see the term crypto-fascism come up more in the last few years. Perhaps because it is too honest and gives room for manoeuvre (although equally it is going to be hard to disprove). Hence people shouting 'Nazi' - which reminds me of kids calling the cops in the UK 'The Feds' - both of which sound idiotic. We had the terms we needed (Neo-Nazi and Crypto-Fascist) and they both meant something.
I would say we also need to introduce a counterpart. e.g. crypto-stalinist or crypto-communist. As it is an equally plausible accusation to make that some people with hidden beliefs on that side of the spectrum could take them to those dark places.
This has already has a name, and the eminent Karl Popper describes its precepts better than I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance.
I've got to agree. I was quite shocked by some of the comments on earlier threads about this topic.
For example, someone suggested that the German Nazi party was advocating mild socialist reforms very similar to modern social democrats, entirely ignoring "minor details" like that the SA actively beat up people on the streets and spread terror wherever they showed up, that the nazis attempted a Coup d'Etat, and that socialists and communists later went to prison and concentration camps for their political views. Not to speak of killing 5-6 million Jews and being responsible for the death of about 25 million soldiers and 55 million civilians in WW2...
The largest cognitive dissonance is with those people who suggest that jihadist propaganda should be interrupted but Nazi propaganda should be allowed to thrive unconditionally. That sounds very crazy to anyone who knows a little bit about history and can compare orders of magnitudes.
> As someone who cherishes the rule of law over the rule of man, not aiding and these illiberal parties is the minimum.
That's good. But the rule of law should apply over "not aiding" those people.
In the private sector, there have been a number of cases where companies (a) don't apply their ToS to people they agree with, and (b) over-apply their ToS to people they disagree with.
See Vidcon && Sargon for the most recent example.
i.e. When given the choice, the groups that value "inclusiveness" and "tolerance" and "due process" violate all of that...
Safe spaces and diversity are diametrical to due process and tolerance. You're assumed guilty and treated as lesser if "privileged", which means white, male or both.
Do you find my statement idiotic, badly reasoned, unproductive or just "wrong"? I'd love to know, seriously.
An atmosphere of free speech that allows for satire and conversation are the best weapons against extremist ideology.
> They won't politely tolerate you. Deviants will be chastised, expelled/expatriated, jailed, or killed. Ignoring prudence (preservation of self and the society at-large) is perilous.
Except I never really seen a 'neonazi' saying "punch a communist" I never seen mass media encourage such behavior either.
Do you not realize that this is cyclic reinforcement of behavior? (Antifa says punch nazis, nazis punch back, antifa ups their game with HIV needles and guns, nazis up their game etc)
Both sides are disgusting, but the fact that the media covers up for the leftist violence makes me stand on the side of the so called "right wing extremists".
Just calling yourself a Nazi or doing the chants or whatever carries with it an implicit provocation and threat of violence toward minority groups.
Responding with actual violence in turn is not the right approach, but when we see large armed mobs forming and declaring themselves pro-genocide, it's absurd to call the people protesting them the 'real problem'.
why do you need to "take sides"? life is not binary. If you don't like antifa that's fine, but you don't then need to support nazis for that ...
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. - Desmond Tutu
We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. - Elie Wiesel
2 replies →
Get out of here with the crying wolf.
Sorry, hate to break it to you, but these illiberal forces are a clear and present danger to this comfortable society you call home.
No, it's the last gasps of a dying breed of racists, empowered by the Internet and that look a lot more popular than they are due to media focus. Nazis are lame, but you leave them alone and there's nothing to fuel the fire. You send out counterprotesters, get in fights with them, act like these people are on the verge of starting a civil war and in their minds you've proved them right (delusional though they may be), and they get energized and then you have a real problem.
Kicking nazis off the Internet is one thing, but yours (and the grandparent) is the language that causes the slippery slope arguments. That people can't even discuss the issue of free speech without being assumed to be nazi sympathizers or "cryptofascists" or whatever we want to label people we don't agree with isn't ok.
Someone having a debate about the right of nazis to use modern services is not by extension a nazi.
"No, it's the last gasps of a dying breed of racists, empowered by the Internet and that look a lot more popular than they are due to media focus."
Really? Because yesterday the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES defended white nationalists and neo-nazis on national TV.
This discussion also shouldn't have much to do with free speech. If private companies do not want to allow pro-nazi websites to use their servers, they should be allowed to refuse them.
The only slippery slope here is the idea that Nazis are dying and there is no need to take them seriously. People in Germany did not take them seriously when Hitler started his rise to power, then the country fell into disarray and Hitler had simple answers to hard questions. After everything that has happened over the past year, it is time to stop thinking that something like Hitler's rise to power could never happen again. We are in uncharted waters.
> Because yesterday the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES defended white nationalists and neo-nazis on national TV
No, he reiterated his condemnation of them multiple times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5Mp2Ge3Wg&feature=youtu.be...
2 replies →
There are more dangerous things in life than nazis, like bad drivers, and well-meaning but ignorant people with power. You are more likely to have been killed by Islamic terrorism than nazism in the US over the last couple decades (going back to OKC at least).
Trump is unscrupulous, he'd defend anyone who would be his friend (and there aren't many of those these days, so he's left with the dregs). He's not a slick political maneuverer who is going to overturn the federal government. He'll be gone in a few years. The displays like this last weekend are hundreds or a couple thousand people. They aren't parades of uniformed militia (like Hitler's rise saw).
These people want attention. They're getting it especially when we exaggerate the threat they pose, which only fuels their grandiosity and recruitment.
2 replies →