Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:37 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 03:45 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
Quote:And you'd have no argument, because you will have already agreed that the government can decide what is and is not appropriate political expression.

No. I agreed that glorifying and promoting fascism should be illegal. But it matters not as even if would be proponent of freest speech imaginable gov wouldn't care about my arguments. 

That's the problem. Once you grant the government the power to determine what is and is not acceptable speech, you have no power to control what they do with that power. 

Glorifying democracy, and free speech, were both prosecuted under Article 58 in the old USSR, because said ideas were "counter-revolutionary", or "anti-Soviet." Controlling the expression of ideas is vital to the existence of any authoritarian government, which is why seizing telecommunications is usually the first act of any revolution.

I've granted government nothing nor I have any power to control it.

I can't say that I am overly concerned with what forms of expression were censured in USSR. That's the past and it have little to no bearing on the present. Also while controlling the expression of ideas may be vital to authoritarian gov, preventing the fascist from spreading hatred should be vital to any gov that does not wish to become authoritarian.

Quote:I agree that we're at the point of simply restating our views, and so I'll leave off posting for now unless another angle comes up. I think we've wrung all the juice out of this lime.

Indeed. Neither of us can convince other which is hardly surprising considering the depth of difference.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:38 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 03:56 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 06:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: My point was that without popular sentiment at hand, all the laws in the world are useless. It is therefore better to work at changing minds, in my view.

My point is that I prefer gov doing something about fascists instead of lounging about and leaving the dirty job of opposing totalitarian thought solely to citizens.

Quote:As for how these laws might effectively be enforced in the absence of popular support, I think we're going to see Tiananmen Square moments there. Because when the politicians promulgate laws that lack popular support, over time, I think what we see is further disrespect for law as a means for social control. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, but collapse it did. The people saw that the Constitutions of that state were largely window-dressing, still felt the hammer, and decided to be done with it. "L'etat, c'est moi" holds little weight with people going cold, or hungry, or dare I say persecuted for thinking outside the legal box. East Germany was the wealthiest Iron-Curtain state, per-capita, yet they pulled down the wall.

While fascists certainly don't like laws that targets them (and other people promoting totalitarianism) it's not like Poland populace have any inclination to violently rise in the defense of fascists. 

Quote:I don't see Germany as authoritarian, but I do disagree with the idea that laws forbidding NaZi expression have been all that successful, considering the late success of AfD. Those laws certainly kept NaZi thinking out of the public discourse, sure, but drove them underground, only to see them resurface lately.

Deesse23 who have greater knowledge on the subject of Germany than I begs to differ - http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid156969
Please let me restate, for the sake of clarity:

#1 Fascism is not prohibited in Germany. Being a fascist is not forbidden in Germany. Voicing your fascist views is not prohibited in Germany*
#2 Glorifying fascism is prohibited in Germany
#3 Displaying historic fascist signs and symbols other than for historic purposes is prohibited in Germany
#4 Parties are under observation and will be prohibited if they are unconstitutional or are promoting unconstitutional programs ("kill all jews" would be such a program)

*as i posted (in the meanwhile in Germany thread?) just recently: A court determined it is not slander to call the leader of "the wing" of the Afd, Björn Höcke a fascist, because there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt, from his own books and speeches that he is, in fact, a fascist. He is still campaigning as of today, and it is very likely that he and his "wing" will take over the AfD and make it into a new NSDAP. As long as he wont be caught in glorifying fascism, displaying nazi symbols or promoting unconstitutional ideas he will be able to continue to promote fascim on completely legal grounds.

The Afd as  whole is not fascist or nazi. Its authoritatrian, exclsive, xenophobic, populistic, has ideas such as "Volksgemeinschaft", is anti immigration, but only a fringe group is actually near fascism. The "wing" under Björn Höcke. All this while other countries like Hungary or poland are far beyond that point in having goverments ruled by those groups who are either fascist/authoritarian themselves or are glorifying/promoiting such. Look at france and Le Pen etc.. Germany has the smallest problem of all EU countries i wold say. So i would like to turn around what Thump originally said and ask: "How is it that fascism and authoritarianism is so much lower in Germany than in other (european) countries?"

As fas as nazi thinking goes and them being underground: Until the emergence of the AfD, the number of votes for any fascist/nazi party (it was the NPD, before it got banned for being unconstitutional) was never above 5%, even after the war when all the original Nazis and their assorted groups were around. The number of members in any extremist nazi organisation is even lower. According to "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz":
Quote:By the end of 2015, right-wing extremist groups had a membership of approx. 22,600 in total, multiple memberships being deducted. So after years of decline, the right-wing extremist scene had again seen an increase in the number of followers.

What is right wing extremism?:
Quote:In terms of ideology, right-wing extremism in Germany is not a homogeneous movement but appears in various forms incorporating nationalist, racist and anti-Semitic ideology elements to different degrees and pursuing correspondingly different objectives. It is governed by the idea that belonging to a specific ethnic group, nation, or race determines a human being’s value. This right-wing extremist notion is fundamentally inconsistent with the Basic Law, where human dignity is the central value.

"Volksgemeinschaft"

Quote:Apart from such fragments of ideology, one feature common to almost all right-wing extremists is their concept of an authoritarian state, in which the state and the people – in their view an ethnically homogeneous group – merge into a unified whole within a supposedly natural order. According to this ideology of a Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), a National Socialist term for a community based on shared racial characteristics, the state leaders are supposed to intuitively act in accordance with the alleged unanimous will of the people. Starting from this premise, right-wing extremists believe that a state based on the right-wing extremist ideology can do without the essential control elements of the free democratic basic order, such as the people’s right to exercise state authority through elections, or the right to form and practise a parliamentary opposition.

As you can see, the german society, courts and legislative are well aware of the issues with free speech, where is starts and where it should end, based on the ideas of human rights and a society with as much freedom as possible, but also considering the experiences we made 1st hand with the implications of promoting hurtful ideas and hate through fascism.

When Israel designed their first homemeade post WWII battle tanks, everyone was paying attention and wondering why they went for a heavily armored vehicle, while the warsaw pact went for smaller mouch more nimble and less well armored tanks that "drove like Porsches". The answer to that is: The Israelis had the best and most recent first hand experience with modern tank warfare due to their "issues" with the arab world in the 50s and 60s.

Well, Germany had some first hand experience with rising fascism in the late 20s and 30s. Maybe, just maybe its worthwhile looking at what consequences it drew from this.

This post show why I think that effectively enforced law is a good way to stop fascism.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I've granted government nothing nor I have any power to control it.

I'm using "you" in the generic sense, not you specifically. Replace it with "society" and you'll get the point.

(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I can't say that I am overly concerned with what forms of expression were censured in USSR. That's the past and it have little to no bearing on the present. Also while controlling the expression of ideas may be vital to authoritarian gov, preventing the fascist from spreading hatred should be vital to any gov that does not wish to become authoritarian.

What's the point of studying history if you don't learn from it?
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I've granted government nothing nor I have any power to control it.

I'm using "you" in the generic sense, not you specifically. Replace it with "society" and you'll get the point.

Point is still contentious as while society was involved in fall of PRL it wasn't exactly in position to give much. Power went from one set of hands to other and now Poland reaps what has been sown. 

(11-14-2019, 04:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I can't say that I am overly concerned with what forms of expression were censured in USSR. That's the past and it have little to no bearing on the present. Also while controlling the expression of ideas may be vital to authoritarian gov, preventing the fascist from spreading hatred should be vital to any gov that does not wish to become authoritarian.

What's the point of studying history if you don't learn from it?

I do learn from it, it's just that lessons I learn are different from yours. That's why I want to have laws against fascism.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:25 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:18 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 03:45 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Both task are Herculean and neither can be accomplished by me.

[Image: read-morbius-the-living-vampire-comics-online-002.jpg]

I have to agree with you on one thing though.  Changing minds is a task that cannot be accomplished by you.

Coming from someone not being failure of a human being it might have sting somewhat. Coming from person which said:

Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely it is just laughable.

What makes you think that post was meant to persuade you? Morons like you, Rainy, and Drich are beyond persuasion. I post solely so that others can get the joke.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 06:58 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:25 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:18 PM)Dānu Wrote: [Image: read-morbius-the-living-vampire-comics-online-002.jpg]

I have to agree with you on one thing though.  Changing minds is a task that cannot be accomplished by you.

Coming from someone not being failure of a human being it might have sting somewhat. Coming from person which said:

Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely it is just laughable.

What makes you think that post was meant to persuade you?  Morons like you, Rainy, and Drich are beyond persuasion.  I post solely so that others can get the joke.

Moron? I guess nothing else but crude insults could be expected from fascist enabler toward someone who opposes fascism. Also only joke here is your sense of decency. But again, one can't expect too much from fascist enabler, certainly not much in a way of being moral.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 07:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 06:58 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:25 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Coming from someone not being failure of a human being it might have sting somewhat. Coming from person which said:

Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely it is just laughable.

What makes you think that post was meant to persuade you?  Morons like you, Rainy, and Drich are beyond persuasion.  I post solely so that others can get the joke.

Moron? I guess nothing else but crude insults could be expected from fascist enabler toward someone who opposes fascism. Also only joke here is your sense of decency. But again, one can't expect too much from fascist enabler, certainly not much in a way of being moral.

*yawn*
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 07:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 07:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 06:58 PM)Dānu Wrote: What makes you think that post was meant to persuade you?  Morons like you, Rainy, and Drich are beyond persuasion.  I post solely so that others can get the joke.

Moron? I guess nothing else but crude insults could be expected from fascist enabler toward someone who opposes fascism. Also only joke here is your sense of decency. But again, one can't expect too much from fascist enabler, certainly not much in a way of being moral.

*yawn*

You heard truth so often that it makes you bored? It seems that you must be really thick-headed to not reevaluate your stance after having your idiocy highlighted so many times.

ETA: It does not look like you have anything of worth to say so consider yourself ignored.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 07:17 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 07:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 07:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Moron? I guess nothing else but crude insults could be expected from fascist enabler toward someone who opposes fascism. Also only joke here is your sense of decency. But again, one can't expect too much from fascist enabler, certainly not much in a way of being moral.

*yawn*

You heard truth so often that it makes you bored? It seems that you must be really thick-headed to not reevaluate your stance after having your idiocy highlighted so many times.

ETA: It does not look like you have anything of worth to say so consider yourself ignored.

Oh no! Not ignore!

*yawn*

If you really believed that I was a fascist enabler and that fascist enablement should be forbidden and that doing so was the best approach to such problems, you'd be trying to get me banned from the forum. That you are not doing so is all one needs to know about you and your nonsense.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I do learn from it, it's just that lessons I learn are different from yours. That's why I want to have laws against fascism.

It's why I want citizens protected against government approval, or rejection, of speech. It's a larger lesson than one's political preferences and their enforcement or suppression.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 04:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I've granted government nothing nor I have any power to control it.

I'm using "you" in the generic sense, not you specifically. Replace it with "society" and you'll get the point.

(11-14-2019, 04:43 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I can't say that I am overly concerned with what forms of expression were censured in USSR. That's the past and it have little to no bearing on the present. Also while controlling the expression of ideas may be vital to authoritarian gov, preventing the fascist from spreading hatred should be vital to any gov that does not wish to become authoritarian.

What's the point of studying history if you don't learn from it?

Indeed.

--and if  we fail to learn from history, we repeat it.

We didn't learn from the first World War. 

From the Holocaust, we learned only a new word ;'genocide' .We didn't learn enough to  make the word redundant. 
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(10-25-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote: So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.

So you're a nazi enabler, Min?

You're right, it does seem simple and the path you have chosen is no less fraught with danger than mine. Far more mired in naivety and faith in lofty principles though.

It's not that naive for a straight cisgender white men. If intolerance, bogotry and hatred raises it's head in political and religious discourse, you can fight back with reason, tolerance and kindness. In the end, you will triumph and during the struggle, you are safe. For minorities though, it's a different story. They will be victimised and will suffer so that the hateful bigots can speak and the straight cisgender white men can feel reassured, that no matter what, he will have freedom of speech, minorities are simply "acceptable casualties" for the assurance of his continued untheatenned freedom. Freedom of speach should not serve as a shield to oppress others.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-14-2019, 09:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I do learn from it, it's just that lessons I learn are different from yours. That's why I want to have laws against fascism.

It's why I want citizens protected against government approval, or rejection, of speech. It's a larger lesson than one's political preferences and their enforcement or suppression.

It's why I wan't fascist alleged "right" to spread hatred to be suppressed. Nothing good comes from leaving fascists to their own devices and state abdicating it's responsibility for well being of it's citizens.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-15-2019, 02:42 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Minimalist Wrote: So you do not believe in the principle of free speech, Szu.  See?  Simple.

But it is a dangerous path you have chosen.

So you're a nazi enabler, Min?

You're right, it does seem simple and the path you have chosen is no less fraught with danger than mine. Far more mired in naivety and faith in lofty principles though.

It's not that naive for a straight cisgender white men. If intolerance, bogotry and hatred raises it's head in political and religious discourse, you can fight back with reason, tolerance and kindness. In the end, you will triumph and during the struggle, you are safe. For minorities though, it's a different story. They will be victimised and will suffer so that the hateful bigots can speak and the straight cisgender white men can feel reassured, that no matter what, he will have freedom of speech, minorities are simply "acceptable casualties" for the assurance of his continued untheatenned freedom. Freedom of speach should not serve as a shield to oppress others.

I would argue that it is - fascism turn even of it's own as Night of the Long Knives shown, so while majority may feel safer than minorities it does not take much to be targeted. Consider nazi "euthanasia" program and it's unwilling victims. Take note of attacks against communists targeted despite being straight cisgender white men. Even said man is at risk.

Other than that I agree, especially with the last sentence.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-15-2019, 04:05 AM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 09:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 05:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote: I do learn from it, it's just that lessons I learn are different from yours. That's why I want to have laws against fascism.

It's why I want citizens protected against government approval, or rejection, of speech. It's a larger lesson than one's political preferences and their enforcement or suppression.

It's why I wan't fascist alleged "right" to spread hatred to be suppressed. Nothing good comes from leaving fascists to their own devices and state abdicating it's responsibility for well being of it's citizens.

This post is really unclear to me.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
(11-15-2019, 04:24 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(11-15-2019, 04:05 AM)Szuchow Wrote:
(11-14-2019, 09:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It's why I want citizens protected against government approval, or rejection, of speech. It's a larger lesson than one's political preferences and their enforcement or suppression.

It's why I wan't fascist alleged "right" to spread hatred to be suppressed. Nothing good comes from leaving fascists to their own devices and state abdicating it's responsibility for well being of it's citizens.

This post is really unclear to me.

Nothing unclear here - lessons you drew from history makes you want citizens protected against gov approval. Lessons I drew make me think that fascists should be suppressed. There isn't much more to add.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Deesse23
Reply

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?
[Image: 3gjwx0.jpg]
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)