• Neo-nazis marches through Stockholm, tiny riot occur
    113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Soleeedus;44531919]The original Nazis (not the pathetic excuses for ones today) wanted order and prosperity that surpassed their own ambition for the greater good of all -- fascism had an appeal because it was a solution in rebellion to the incompetent bodies of governing power, who couldn't adapt to the draconic Treaty of Versailles. Italy, on the other hand, was an absolute mess until Mussolini stepped in.[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.worldphoto.org/_assets/images/First-Films-of-the-Holocaust-Soviet-Cinema-and-the-Genocide-of-the-Jews,-1938-46-by-Jeremy-Hicks-(4).jpg[/t] [t]http://www.familyholiday.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/World-War-2-Holocaust-Memorial-Day-_60.jpg[/t] [t]http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/p/7/buchenwald5.jpg[/t] [t]http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/images/library/holocaust00_1.jpg[/t] Yep, the [i]greater good[/i]
Shit like this always happens in Sweden. The real problem is that the far left always go out to counter them for some reason, trying to take away their freedom of speech, which is stupid as fuck. Neo-nazis are generally despicable but so are the Communists and the Social Democrats. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;44531975]and that's one of the reasons i'll never really be able to give a shit when nazi's get fucked over, anyone that idolizes those scum and wants to bring about a regime like that again is a maniac or a moron that deserves whatever they get [editline]13th April 2014[/editline] idiot.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't be allowed to deny anyones right to free speech. Even if they're very extremist.
[QUOTE=Allah;44533935]What say you about the muslim Bosnian Nazis and other Balkanic Nazis? Also the Arabs? Hitler and the Arabs were bros back then.[/QUOTE] The Nazis collaborated with them but didn't necessarily like them. They just wanted someone else to do their dirty work.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;44534672] You shouldn't be allowed to deny anyones right to free speech. Even if they're very extremist.[/QUOTE] Exactly. You have the freedom of speech, but you also have the freedom to deal with the repercussions of what you say.
[QUOTE=Allah;44533935]What say you about the muslim Bosnian Nazis and other Balkanic Nazis? Also the Arabs? Hitler and the Arabs were bros back then.[/QUOTE] iirc hitler didn't want an "all-white" world he wanted all races to stay "where they belong" that's why he still respected the japanese, he was fine with other races as long as they share his sense of "homeland"
[QUOTE=bdd458;44534833]Exactly. You have the freedom of speech, but you also have the freedom to deal with the repercussions of what you say.[/QUOTE] That doesn't give someone the right to physically hurt you.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;44536353]That doesn't give someone the right to physically hurt you.[/QUOTE] Dont worry they are swedish.
I think at some point, the extreme left will have to realize that violent protesting doesn't work. It pisses me off seeing as anti-racist groups work really really hard to promote the idea that everybody is equal, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because some left-wing extremists decided to throw bottles at a couple of nazis handing out leaflets, lending them the credibility they need to link those humanistic ideals with extremism. I understand it's out of desperation, with racism becoming more prominent within our society for every passing day, but it's counter-productive. The extreme right and racist movements would grow way slower if people stopped with the violence and actively started working towards a community through peaceful activities which bring ethnic Swedes and people of a different culture closer.
[QUOTE=mchapra;44533751]*If you were white, had blue eyes and blonde[/QUOTE] *Except Hitler
[QUOTE=demoguy08;44533812]Haha, "these facists have a right to express themselves" lmao I'd be more concerned about democratic principles being sidestepped if their entire ideology wasn't built upon taking away the rights of others[/QUOTE] So you, too, should be silenced because your ideology includes taking the rights away from others.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44536321]iirc hitler didn't want an "all-white" world he wanted all races to stay "where they belong" that's why he still respected the japanese, he was fine with other races as long as they share his sense of "homeland"[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)[/url] They still talked about an eventual "showdown" with the Asian people.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;44530259]are you seriously taking up the position of being an apologist for neo-nazis[/QUOTE] So it's okay to take away a group's freedom of speech/expression as long as you disagree with them? I am not surprised at all, but what worries me is that you (and the 8 people who agreed with you) don't seem to understand how childish that is. [editline]13th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=demoguy08;44533812]Haha, "these facists have a right to express themselves" lmao I'd be more concerned about democratic principles being sidestepped if their entire ideology wasn't built upon taking away the rights of others[/QUOTE] holy shit
[QUOTE=Soleeedus;44531919]The original Nazis (not the pathetic excuses for ones today) wanted order and prosperity that surpassed their own ambition for the greater good of all -- fascism had an appeal because it was a solution in rebellion to the incompetent bodies of governing power, who couldn't adapt to the draconic Treaty of Versailles. Italy, on the other hand, was an absolute mess until Mussolini stepped in.[/QUOTE] I hope someone you love gets cancer you fucking sack of shit [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Uncalled for" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=be;44536931] holy shit[/QUOTE] Cry some more. If you represent a morally abhorrent ideology that is completely incompatible with a civilized society, prepare to have your friendly march through town ruined.
[QUOTE=be;44536931]So it's okay to take away a group's freedom of speech/expression as long as you disagree with them? I am not surprised at all, but what worries me is that you (and the 8 people who agreed with you) don't seem to understand how childish that is.[/QUOTE] i don't have a free-for-all point of view on freedom of speech. there's no real reason to defend hate speech: it should be used as an example of how not to act or what to enforce [QUOTE=Allah;44533250]Feel free to move to North Korea if you don't like freedom of thought and democracy.[/QUOTE] north korean godwin's law in action
It's a shame they're tainting the Tiwaz with their fascism. It better not go the way of the swastika. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44530117]Yeah, I was watching it last night and it was such an odd episode. "Odin's belt, was a fucking exoskeleton! And his crows? They were predator drones!" [/QUOTE] My professor was somewhat tricked into appearing on this show (They told him it was a documentary about Scan Mythology). If you read some of the actual Norse mythology, you'll see how bat-shit insane their Ancient Astronaut Theorists are. It was quite a blast to watch through it in class with him though.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;44536682][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)[/URL] They still talked about an eventual "showdown" with the Asian people.[/QUOTE] reading through this you kinda realize that hitler was historys largest "ideas guy"
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44536321]iirc hitler didn't want an "all-white" world he wanted all races to stay "where they belong" that's why he still respected the japanese, he was fine with other races as long as they share his sense of "homeland"[/QUOTE] He wanted to repopulate the Baltics, Ukraine, and Western Russia with Ethnic Germans. Of course that meant killing all the Slavs who lives in those parts (Slavs were considered sub-humans to the Nazis).
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;44529971]I never understood why some ordinary people would want to create organized group with a goal of giving up their own rights and freedoms and have a dictator rule over them, are they misinformed 'bad boys' or are they just insane?[/QUOTE] Well, it helps if the dictator is seen as one of your own. You'll notice that these kinds of leaders target the disenfranchised MAJORITY, not minorities. For instance, a white fascist leader will target white people who aren't making it(ie disenfranchised) and build his support from there. He will NOT target all disenfranchised, since this means bringing in people different than himself. Now that he has the attention of people like himself he can say "I'm one of you, I know what you're going through. I have a plan to deal with this..." and there you go. Since these followers deep down feel like losers(this is why they're followers), he's their hero. He's who they wish they could be, and since they can't they're happy to follow him as the next best thing. He's one of them so they feel they have nothing to fear from him. edit: In this context 'target' means recruiting not attacking.
[QUOTE=Kentz;44538423]reading through this you kinda realize that hitler was historys largest "ideas guy"[/QUOTE] He was a sociopathic dreamer, more or less.
[QUOTE=Kentz;44538423]reading through this you kinda realize that hitler was historys largest "ideas guy"[/QUOTE] He actually was, he was always butting in and changing orders from his Generals and other staff. Germany needs a fast mass produced Medium Tank? Introducing the Panther, lightweight, sloped armour, good gun, and high speed. Then Hitler came in and said "Bigger guns, more armour!" and by the time it was done, the new Panther was now much more expensive, and only 3km/h faster than the Panzer IV. And he wasn't even done there, he wanted a Panther II with even more armour on it, but the war ended too soon and only one hull was ever made. He also ordered the Maus to be created, something that his Generals thought would be no help to them at all. By the time one and a half were completed, the Soviets reached the factory and the Germans evacuated. The Maus broke down on its way out and the crew detonated explosives in the hull to destroy it (the turret in-tact and was put on the other Maus hull and shipped to a museum in Russia). :v:
There are an absurd number of people in this thread who do not understand the simple concept of freedom of expression. I'll break it down for those of you who are having trouble: WHAT IS OKAY: Passing out pamphlets, even if you're a nazi. You're not hurting anyone, and nobody is going to take you seriously anyway, but it's okay. WHAT IS NOT OKAY: Assault. It is not an acceptable way to demonstrate disapproval. Throwing things at somebody because they wrote words on a piece of paper isn't in "good democratic fashion" or anything else. REMEMBER: Hands are for helping, not hurting.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;44538961]There are an absurd number of people in this thread who do not understand the simple concept of freedom of expression. I'll break it down for those of you who are having trouble: WHAT IS OKAY: Passing out pamphlets, even if you're a nazi. You're not hurting anyone, and nobody is going to take you seriously anyway, but it's okay. WHAT IS NOT OKAY: Assault. It is not an acceptable way to demonstrate disapproval. Throwing things at somebody because they wrote words on a piece of paper isn't in "good democratic fashion" or anything else. REMEMBER: Hands are for helping, not hurting.[/QUOTE] A lot of people don't care about free speech at all. They don't want there to be dissenting opinions at all and they're serious about it. The amount of people, on this forum and in my personal life, who would be OK with silencing unpopular opinions is staggering and disturbing. And at the same time, all or almost all of these people clamor on about how they love free speech and how the selective, proscribing form of speech that they support is still free speech somehow. If you truly don't think all opinions should be allowed to be expressed, then STOP SAYING YOU LIKE FREE SPEECH. It's not free speech. You could argue that free speech isn't good and that it shouldn't be allowed, and that's completely OK. Maybe some other form of allowed speech is actually better than free speech, and you can make that argument. But stop saying that you support free speech when you actually don't.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539040]A lot of people don't care about free speech at all. They don't want there to be dissenting opinions at all and they're serious about it. The amount of people, on this forum and in my personal life, who would be OK with silencing unpopular opinions is staggering and disturbing. And at the same time, all or almost all of these people clamor on about how they love free speech and how the selective, proscribing form of speech that they support is still free speech somehow. If you truly don't think all opinions should be allowed to be expressed, then STOP SAYING YOU LIKE FREE SPEECH. It's not free speech. You could argue that free speech isn't good and that it shouldn't be allowed, and that's completely OK. Maybe some other form of allowed speech is actually better than free speech, and you can make that argument. But stop saying that you support free speech when you actually don't.[/QUOTE] this is a libertarian perspective on freedom of speech - it assumes way too optmistcally about people without understandable limits. there's a reason why stuff like 'penn and teller's bullshit' shouldn't always be used as a cited source for an argument
[QUOTE=Ownederd;44539117]this is a libertarian perspective on freedom of speech - the same reason why stuff like 'penn and teller's bullshit' shouldn't always be used as a cited source for an argument[/QUOTE] Lol here we go again. Free speech doesn't have a "perspective." It's a concept that's independent of some sort of political philosophy. You're doing exactly what I was talking about. By saying that it's just some "perspective" of the concept then you can come up with something completely contradictory to free speech and then just say that it's some different "perspective" on it. Is banning political dissent and not allowing anyone to criticize the national leader just the "fascist perspective" on free speech? No, it flies in the face of the concept itself, just like limiting peoples' right to protest under certain ideologies does. Also, it's hardly libertarian. Noam Chompsky said "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." If you think Chompsky is a libertarian, then you don't know anything.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539159]Lol here we go again. Free speech doesn't have a "perspective." It's a concept that's independent of some sort of political philosophy. You're doing exactly what I was talking about. By saying that it's just some "perspective" of the concept then you can come up with something completely contradictory to free speech and then just say that it's some different "perspective" on it. Is banning political dissent and not allowing anyone to criticize the national leader just the "fascist perspective" on free speech? No, it flies in the face of the concept itself, just like limiting peoples' right to protest under certain ideologies does.[/QUOTE] why do you think you don't cry out 'bomb!' or 'fire!' in a movie theater, run up to someone and call them racial slurs, or say 'ughapoopugh kill all homos and trannies and gooks' at the grocery store [QUOTE=Explosions;44539159]If you think Chompsky is a libertarian, then you don't know anything.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky[/URL] i have no idea this dude really is but this article says otherwise, footnotes and all
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44530219][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Flag_of_Germany_(state).svg/800px-Flag_of_Germany_(state).svg.png[/IMG] ?[/QUOTE] I etched that eagle onto a glass beer stein, but I'm always reluctant to show people because they might think it's a Nazi thing.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;44539200]why do you think you don't cry out 'bomb!' or 'fire!' in a movie theater, run up to someone and call them racial slurs, or say 'ugha kill all homos and trannies and gooks' at the grocery store[/quote] I don't do the tired, played out example of yelling fire in a theater because that has direct, physical consequences that lead to the harm of others. Just like inciting a riot or making slanderous comments about someone in order to purposely harm their reputation. [quote][URL]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky[/URL] i have no idea this dude really is but this article says otherwise, footnotes and all[/quote] Right, but I think you're thinking that he's a libertarian in the completely opposite sense of what he actually is. The page you linked (A RationalWiki page, which is a bit dubious despite its humorousness) correctly labels him as a libertarian socialist, a completely separate concept from the type of Tea Party libertarianism that's most associated with the term today.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44539246]Right, but I think you're thinking that he's a libertarian in the completely opposite sense of what he actually is. The page you linked (A RationalWiki page, which is a bit dubious despite its humorousness) correctly labels him as a libertarian socialist, a completely separate concept from the type of [B]Tea Party libertarianism that's most associated with the term today.[/B][/QUOTE] i made no specific reference to this.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;44539200]why do you think you don't cry out 'bomb!' or 'fire!' in a movie theater, run up to someone and call them racial slurs, or say 'ughapoopugh kill all homos and trannies and gooks' at the grocery store[/QUOTE]See, though, I see yelling out a false alarm as an entirely different crime, under the same umbrella as fraud. You're not expressing a belief so much as actively trying to hurt people which is not okay in a free, civilized society. Somebody could be hurt or killed because they're fleeing from something you made up, a fire or a bomb or something, and you're probably going to cause property damage as well. While one could argue passing out pamphlets saying "KILL ALL THE MEXICANS THEY EAT BABIES" may provoke violence against Latino people, anyone committing that violence is doing it on their own accord. "I read it on a thing somebody gave me" is not a valid defense in a murder trial. Any prosecutor would laugh and point out that the murderer made the choice of their own free will, regardless of what they read. So that's not really the same thing as going "ZOMG A BAMB IN THE HERE" and expecting to go unpunished. Also, I have absolutely no problems with [i]anyone[/i] running up to people and saying crazy shit, that's just being weird and shouldn't be a crime. Criminalizing eccentricity, even frothing at the mouth and vomiting racial slurs all over the place, isn't really a good thing to do. Not many people would take that sort of behavior seriously, thinking, "yes, that clearly sane and rational person has a point and I'm going to kill Asian people right now."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.