A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Because if you don't see the nazis, then it's OK that they're nazis
Question for everyone supporting this: do you think saying women can't think for themselves should be classified as hate speech?
Asking for a friend.
I think it should be legal to do exactly one free punch on anyone who does a nazi salute.
I say two
I don't think this behavior should be socially tolerated; however, I don't think it's a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.
well put. i still thoroughly disagree with you, mind, but this comment clicked my understanding of this argument.
[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]
Would you mind outlining why?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.
Oh it absolutely is.
If you don't think it should be socially tolerated, then great, regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn't just "I don't like you, please stop, but also I won't do anything to you if you keep doing it."
Furthermore, and this is something you'll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don't tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn't come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.
Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.
(This mini comic explains the paradox well, as well.)
Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective? I'm not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons with non-violent offenders.
Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.
Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.
I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It's quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1]^, which I personally espouse.
References
[…] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
I would like to reiterate that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors.
Saying we shouldn't police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones. You say you don't want to tolerate them socially, but when it comes to any actual legal intervention, suddenly, they should be tolerated. If saying they shouldn't be stopped using the force of law isn't tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don't know what is.
It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism [1], which I personally espouse.
Then you should reconsider your ideology. If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don't believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views.
If you don't think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. If you don't do that, then you inherently are tolerating them to an extent.
[…] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]
I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.
[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]
This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by "being Nazis".
Generally speaking, espousing/engaging in the support of many harmful beliefs traditionally held by Nazis, and generally fascists more broadly since Nazism is just a branch of fascism, such as:
Practically speaking, I think it would probably make the most sense to judge whether somebody is a "Nazi" legally, by requiring at least a few of these tenets to be met before any trial could take place to prevent false imprisonment and the like, but as these views are objectively harmful to society, I don't believe they should be allowed to flourish, full stop.
If you don't support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people's land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.
[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]
Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:
Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.
[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]
I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like "I wont allow you into my place of business". I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that's damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.
I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like “I wont allow you into my place of business”
Ah yes, not letting Nazis buy from a business, at the business's will, dependent on every single individual place of employment all knowing they're a Nazi and actively choosing to deny them business and employment, as opposed to... just locking them up so they don't have a chance of their views being spread in the world. Truly, the "more forceful alternative."
[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”
I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:
I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.
My thoughts exactly. I have absolutely no sympathy for Nazis, or anyone else who thinks mass murder and genocide were good policy. But one of the things that makes a free society different from Nazi Germany, is free expression. If we limit free expression to only things the people in charge want expressed, no matter how noble the intent that starts us down a very dark path very quickly.
The way we fight Nazis and racism is not by beating them up or jailing them. It's by teaching each other and our children why they are wrong, by learning and understanding what it is like to have racism directed against you. And thus, we defeat racism not with force but with empathy.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the sort of policy that would make Hitler proud. It's the sort of policy that would be enacted in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.
Maybe Musk should take one of his Boeing Cyberplanes to Australia
Slippery slope
Redefining the freedom of speech can be a slippery slope. It will depend upon who is in power and their personal views. Hate speech is something that can be targetted. There would need to be statutory limitations to prevent misuse of the legislative principles. If the Germans can do it right, so can we, wherever we live.
I can't see this actually happening since people who continue to commit crime, are re-released on bail.
Any good tech companies in Australia? How hard are the citizenship requirements if you avoid all the Mel Gibsons?