University of Florida becomes second institution to deny white supremacist rally a venue - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Most nazis today are probably just poltards who thinks they're right to hate black people and jews because they saw a few infographics that tells them what they want to see, such things are easy to debunk and those people can easily be proven wrong.[/quote] [CITATION VERY FUCKING NEEDED] If you want to just ignore the Nazis you better have some damn good proof that what you say isn't likely, that it isn't 'more than likely', but that it is factual. I mean [I]factual[/I] as in you have the [I]data[/I] to support that claim. I don't mean anecdotes. I don't mean five minutes on google to find a post or two that slides along your opinion. I want statistical analysis of how many people on /pol/ claim to be nazis and how many of those don't actually want to exterminate other races. I want it peer-reviewed by trustworthy groups.

[QUOTE=Joffy;52581957]It takes quite a long time of indoctrination to get to the point where you actually believe this. Most nazis today are probably just poltards who thinks they're right to hate black people and jews because they saw a few infographics that tells them what they want to see, such things are easy to debunk and those people can easily be proven wrong.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't doubt the veracity with which many hold these beliefs. Do you really think people would travel for a day, across a couple of states just for a laugh because they're that dedicated to the "Lulz"? I don't. These people are serious and you need to not downplay them and how they're literally self proclaimed Nazis. I don't believe these people can be ignorant about what the Nazis stood for, and currently stand for. Because I don't think they can be ignorant about this, that leaves me believing they must be malicious. I don't see any flaws with that logic when it concerns Nazis. Nazis are not like a regular group of people because their beliefs are specifically abhorrent. A muslim may believe some wacky shit, but that's not inherent to the belief system by necessity. For Nazis, it is inherit by necessity. [editline]16th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Joffy;52581957] I meant the beer hall putsch.[/QUOTE] Then you might want to go back to history class friendo. He ended up actually taking power via democratic methods.

[quote]I don't believe these people can be ignorant about what the Nazis stood for, and currently stand for. [/quote] Even if they [I]were[/I] that ignorant: Ignorant people can be easily led into doing things they don't understand until they've already been fully indoctrinated. If anything, ignorant people are far more likely to be full-fledged Nazis than unignorant people simply because they're more easily manipulated. If I were a Nazi Recruiter the very first people I'd go after would be the ignorant and the desperate - all I need to get is blood on their hands and get them away from their support network and make them dependent on me and the nazi support network; from that point forward I - and by extension the Nazis - [I]own[/I] them.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52581016]Worth mentioning that U of F was originally going to allow it. Probably not a a free speech issue so much as one of public safety.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TestECull;52581356]News flash, brainiac: Free Speech is only protected from [i]governmental[/i] reprisal. You can preach all the hate your tongue will spew forth and you can't be arrested and charged for it, but you're not guaranteed the right to orally defecate all over a college auditorium. They're well within their right to tell you to sod right the fuck off.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AK'z;52581421]why would you file a legal challenge. a university doesn't want to be involved in this saga and become tainted by a rally.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52581680]Well, depending on how you look at it, unless it's a private university, it's government (state) owned property, and therefore denying speech could be seen as the "government" denying someone's first amendment rights. However, I'm not sure if this will count since they aren't denying him necessarioly space on campus, but denying him use of facilities, which is different.[/QUOTE] In 1972, a far-left group of students wanted to start an organization at a public university to be able to hold meetings and advertise through campus bulletins. The college denied them because other groups of the same organization had a history of violence, and their beliefs were "antithetical to the school's policies" and "would be a disruptive influence at the college". The Supreme Court held that this was illegal, and their right to speech and association trumped the university's desires. [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/169.html"]Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).[/URL] I don't know how you can read that case and not see the similarities. While they're not students, it's a group of an organization historically prone to violence who was denied the ability to use a public university to assemble because their beliefs are "repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for." I'm not rooting for these morons but you can't just whine "but they're [i]nazis!"[/i] and expect them to suddenly be exempt from Constitutional protections. They're humans, like it or not, and this country has a tendency to (on its face) afford them their First Amendment rights pretty broadly. There's a good case for them to make.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52581964][CITATION VERY FUCKING NEEDED] If you want to just ignore the Nazis you better have some damn good proof that what you say isn't likely, that it isn't 'more than likely', but that it is factual. I mean [I]factual[/I] as in you have the [I]data[/I] to support that claim. I don't mean anecdotes. I don't mean five minutes on google to find a post or two that slides along your opinion. I want statistical analysis of how many people on /pol/ claim to be nazis and how many of those don't actually want to exterminate other races. I want it peer-reviewed by trustworthy groups.[/QUOTE] I don't have any sources for that, It's just the way that I think I've seen it. That's why I wrote ''probably''. Please don't think that I believe myself to know everything, I don't. I just feel something very disturbing when normal competent people are talking about ostracizing other people from society for being considered evil or having the wrong opinions, no matter what those opinions are.

[quote]I just feel something very disturbing when normal competent people are talking about ostracizing other people from society for being considered evil or having the wrong opinions, no matter what those opinions are.[/quote] Allow me to ask point blank then: If ISIS - or, heck, let's go whole hog and say the specific terrorist group that flew in to the Twin Towers - wanted to form a group to recruit from in the United States and petition for the right to go around the nation asking for support, would you feel bad if they were collectively ostracized from society? It isn't that people consider that they are evil in some sort of knee-jerk reactionary way. It's that people consider the [I]history[/I] of that organization that they have been [I]proven[/I] to be evil and that their opinion is that everyone who is not them [U]must die[/U]. This isn't some 'no, we're totally reformed!' sort of thing. They proudly embrace that they are the same Nazis you've grown to know from World War II and have all the same ideas and opinions.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52581974] Then you might want to go back to history class friendo. He ended up actually taking power via democratic methods.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know that, but he ended up in jail because of the failed putsch, where he should probably have been for the rest of his life, but got out relatively fast because of appeasment. [editline]17th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52582043]Allow me to ask point blank then: If ISIS - or, heck, let's go whole hog and say the specific terrorist group that flew in to the Twin Towers - wanted to form a group to recruit from in the United States and petition for the right to go around the nation asking for support, would you feel bad if they were collectively ostracized from society? It isn't that people consider that they are evil in some sort of knee-jerk reactionary way. It's that people consider the [I]history[/I] of that organization that they have been [I]proven[/I] to be evil and that their opinion is that everyone who is not them [U]must die[/U]. This isn't some 'no, we're totally reformed!' sort of thing. They proudly embrace that they are the same Nazis you've grown to know from World War II and have all the same ideas and opinions.[/QUOTE] I'm not feeling bad for the nazis or ISIS if that's what you think or that I cry everytime someone says they hate them, I don't. I just think that both ISIS sympathizers and neo nazis are growing groups in the world and that no matter how hard you hate them and voice your dislike of them, they're not going away. I think that only through understanding, can such ideas be killed, no matter how Disney that sounds.

[quote]I think that only through understanding, can such ideas be killed, no matter how Disney that sounds.[/quote] Unfortunately, that requires you to be able to get each and every Nazi out into the world to see it, and accomplishing that is even harder than I've put it here. If you want to kill the allure of Nazi ideology: Kill what they prey off of. They feed off desperation and pain and ignorance. They want you to lower education; they want you to increase income equality and cut off government assistance; they want people to be psychologically unstable and have no access to psychological care; they want you to allow them to blame the troubles of this world on other races; they want a platform to recruit from; they want the world to feel unsafe, for food to be unreliable and water undrinkable; they want political power; most of all they want people to suffer in such a way that they can see no way out - that they're desperately searching for a way to stop their pain. Without support, they can't do what they want and if they can't do what they want their harm is significantly reduced - and that support comes from our failing to do right by our fellow man. If the pain and desperation goes away their support collapses - and, accordingly - so too would the Nazis. They're like Vampires - if you really want to kill them, don't bother going for their heart - go for their food supply and starve them out. Good news: Starving Nazis out leads to a better society for all because a less desperate people are a much more cautious and unswayable people versus Nazi ideology.

[QUOTE=Joffy;52582052]I think that only through understanding, can such ideas be killed, no matter how Disney that sounds.[/QUOTE] I used to believe that. Unfortunately, reality has shown that some people truly can not be spoken out of their beliefs, and would rather die fighting for them than give them up. Nazis are the epitome of this group. These are people who have dedicated their lives to the hatred of others. That's not something you can discuss out of someone, as much as I wish it were.

[QUOTE=Flicky;52582146]I used to believe that. Unfortunately, reality has shown that some people truly can not be spoken out of their beliefs, and would rather die fighting for them than give them up. Nazis are the epitome of this group. These are people who have dedicated their lives to the hatred of others. That's not something you can discuss out of someone, as much as I wish it were.[/QUOTE] I'm well aware, but as said it's about the ones who are likely to join or to be convinced to one day believe them, these people are still very likely to be persuaded by logic and reason, but most of the time they end up alienated and can only find their voice heard with other nazis, which in turn makes them nazis.

Typically those driven to murder are those who feel they've no other choice: A desperation that's typically built from pain or fear. There are lots of people who're greatly suffering or fearful in America right now and are desperate, overworked, severely in debt, and/or frustrated. Simply put: If they didn't feel desperate, overworked, or frustrated what would be the reason to join the Nazis except out of the most pure racism? All the problems of the world the Nazis promise to solve we can solve too - peaceably - and I think most folk would rather solve things peacefully than through violence. It's typically only when people see no other choice that they begin to consider violent alternatives and only when we refuse to solve the same problems Nazis promise to that they gain power.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52581680]Well, depending on how you look at it, unless it's a private university, it's government (state) owned property, and therefore denying speech could be seen as the "government" denying someone's first amendment rights. However, I'm not sure if this will count since they aren't denying him necessarioly space on campus, but denying him use of facilities, which is different.[/QUOTE]No, a university is not obliged to provide you with a platform to express your opinion. They are not denying your freedom of speech; they are not locking you up if you express your opinion, but they don't want to give you their facilities to use. Are you okay with a radical Muslim coming to your local universities and radicalizing the moderate Muslim students? If the university denies him a platform, do you believe they are infringing on his freedom of speech rights or are they protecting their students from radicalization? I personally believe it is the latter. I don't know where people get this idea that universities are obliged to give just about anyone a platform to speak. A university should be a respected place of education and intellectualism; therefore, it should demand high standards form the people it enables. A university is not your town's square where anyone can say whatever they want. They are not denying you your right to free speech; you can stand in the street and voice your opinions no matter how horrible they are and the government won't lock you up, but not in a university.

[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;52582238]No, a university is not obliged to provide you with a platform to express your opinion. They are not denying your freedom of speech; they are not locking you up if you express your opinion, but they don't want to give you their facilities to use.[/QUOTE] A public university may be so obligated. [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/169.html"]Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).[/URL] [QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;52582238]Are you okay with a radical Muslim coming to your local universities and radicalizing the moderate Muslim students? If the university denies him a platform, do you believe they are infringing on his freedom of speech rights or are they protecting their students from radicalization? I personally believe it is the latter.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court disagrees: [QUOTE]We note, in so holding, that the wide latitude accorded by the Constitution to the freedoms of expression and association is not without its costs in terms of the risk to the maintenance of civility and an ordered society. Indeed, this latitude often has resulted, on the campus and elsewhere, in the infringement of the rights of others. Though we deplore the tendency of some to abuse the very constitutional privileges they invoke, and although the infringement of rights of others certainly should not be tolerated, we reaffirm this Court's dedication to the principles of the Bill of Rights upon which our vigorous and free society is founded.[/QUOTE] Healy, 408 U.S. at 194. [QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;52582238]I don't know where people get this idea that universities are obliged to give just about anyone a platform to speak. Even if you are coming to about a scientific topic, the university can still deny you a platform. A university should have standards for the kind of people it gives a platform to. They are not denying you your right to free speech; you can stand in the street and voice your opinions no matter how horrible they are and the government won't lock you up. A university, on the other hand, should be a respected place of knowledge, and it should therefore demand high standards for the people it enables. A university is not your town's square where anyone can say whatever they want.[/QUOTE] They get the idea from Supreme Court precedent. Please feel free to read the case I linked. It outlines a very sane and reasonable set of standards for when this sort of denial is allowed. It stems from a case in which a group of left-wing students wanted to use campus facilities and advertise on campus, and they were rejected because the campus administration found their rhetoric abhorrent and pointed out that similar groups under the same name have caused violence in the past. This sounds very similar to the incident at hand, in my mind. Again, to be clear, the Supreme Court said this is an insufficient reason under the First Amendment for a public university to deny them a "platform", as you put it. I will tell you right now that if I was assigned to this case, I would be violating more than a few ethical codes in my piss-poor representation, but the precedent is there.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52581557]yeah there's legislation saying that you can technically say whatever you want and the government won't come after you, but we're also supposed to have a cultural norm that says you shouldn't really suppress stuff through private channels either, and certainly not by forming mobs to harass people, get them fired, attack their families, etc it's the culture of free speech - the entire point of having a culture of free speech is to protect the minority from the majority if you don't have a culture of free speech, then why even bother having the first amendment?[/QUOTE] We do have a culture of free speech, but preventing someone's boss from firing him for spewing violent hatred is restricting him from being able to employ who he wants. No one is getting fired for being the opposite political party of their boss, but I think no one can really complain when Nazis get fired. Also, you know it's kind of a lame argument tactic to bring up harassment and assaulting people's families. Those are already illegal, and in a completely different realm from nongovernmental consequences that are within the law such as people dissociating themselves from you and businesses severing ties with you. [editline]16th August 2017[/editline] So if I ask to make a speech at the University of Florida and they don't schedule me a date, my free speech is being restricted, correct?

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52581575]This is the first time I've ever heard of "the spirit of free speech". You do know that part of the 1st Amendment was written in the 18th century by men who didn't want to allow a tyrant to suppress their criticism of government, right?[/QUOTE] well if you don't think free speech can exist outside of legislation idk what really to say the point I keep coming back to (which is why the comic posted earlier is stupid) is that free speech isn't solely "the government can't ban you from speaking" if its impossible within a society to express a viewpoint at all because private actors (those outside of the government) make it impossible to do so, that society really doesn't have free speech at all - no matter how much wrangling people do by claiming its "legal" as though this is the end-all and be-all argument [editline]17th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52581933]Hitler took over via democratic methods. Please go learn history.[/QUOTE] no he didn't, why do people keep promoting this crap? he was directly appointed into power, he didn't win enough votes to allow him to take over the government democratically

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52582814]well if you don't think free speech can exist outside of legislation idk what really to say the point I keep coming back to (which is why the comic posted earlier is stupid) is that free speech isn't solely "the government can't ban you from speaking" if its impossible within a society to express a viewpoint at all because private actors (those outside of the government) make it impossible to do so, that society really doesn't have free speech at all - no matter how much wrangling people do by claiming its "legal" as though this is the end-all and be-all argument [/QUOTE] the reason people keep bringing it back to the government is because the right of free speech is steeped in the context of government repression, and it makes little to no sense when applied to private enterprises - if you think freedom of speech requires the ability to express a viewpoint in all private locations then you have a definition that does not match the definition of any nation at this time these rights make sense when applied to the context of a greater country, but make no sense when you're talking about being in a shop, or a private institution, because it is understood that when you enter a private location, you forfeit rights that you have in the public domain - because you are on the grounds of a private entity that has preferences, and likely good cause to prevent speech that would drive away other individuals the reason that these private entities can deny you these rights is understood in the greater context that you are able to leave. if, in your example, private actors prevent you from expressing a viewpoint at all then you're talking about some dystopian corporate-capitalist society, not a coherent example that has relevance in a discussion of a university denying white supremacists a venue

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52582814]well if you don't think free speech can exist outside of legislation idk what really to say the point I keep coming back to (which is why the comic posted earlier is stupid) is that free speech isn't solely "the government can't ban you from speaking" if its impossible within a society to express a viewpoint at all because private actors (those outside of the government) make it impossible to do so, that society really doesn't have free speech at all - no matter how much wrangling people do by claiming its "legal" as though this is the end-all and be-all argument[/QUOTE] So how would you remedy that? How can you enforce this "spirit" of free speech without obstructing other's rights to free speech? Let's imagine I'm a small business owner. I'm interviewing a potential employee who's got an excellent work record. But he mentions at the end of the interview that he's a Nazi. I don't want to employ a Nazi. I'd worry about my other employees being harassed, and it would look terrible in the eyes of my consumers if word got out. Turns out most of the other businesses in the area do the same thing, and the Nazi realizes he'll never get a job unless he stops telling people he's a Nazi. So how do you prevent that situation from happening without limiting the free speech of me and the other business owners?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52581518]free speech isn't just "government can't make it illegal to say stuff" there's the spirit of it as well (which this comic forgets). sure it could be technically legal to say XYZ within a society, but if you will get fired from your job for it, expelled from school, you get sent death threats, etc then i don't really know if that society has free speech the government is not the only factor to take into consideration with free speech - it ignores that influence of the wider society. if its impossible to express an opinion at all within a society (even if technically legal) then does it have free speech?[/QUOTE] No [I]society[/I] - I am explicitly not talking about laws or governments - on the planet ever harboured any kind of universal free speech culture. This recent misunderstanding of the American constitutional right of free speech is a very artificial and recent anomaly. Through most of the history in most places of the planet, if you slandered somebody and it's been proven you're being wrongful, the community would ostracise and shun you, or worse. Nobody ever had the odd bile to imply that you can spout lies just because that's somehow the right thing to allow. Slander is only the most obvious example, because of how common and clearly defined it is, but all the way through history, most if not all cultures had Things That Are Not Okay To Say. Another pretty obvious example, if a less morally defensible one is blasphemy which could very often literally get you killed. Don't like your king/emperor/sultan/chief? Like to run your mouth about it? Well, better watch out because in most places in human history, your head might suffer a sudden, unfortunate case of the detachments. And finally, even in the most leisurely governed, socially advanced places, being an asshole publicly would usually get you quite simply beat and/or thrown out of community. I think there's absolutely room for discussing what free speech rules [I]should look like[/I], but regardless of what my stance of how it should be, in the west world, people's speech is the [I]freest[/I] it's ever [I]beanst[/I] and people who invoke "hey, my rights are being violated when I am not allowed to voice what I want in front of public I choose" are not only entitled, they are historically wrong.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52581999]In 1972, a far-left group of students wanted to start an organization at a public university to be able to hold meetings and advertise through campus bulletins. The college denied them because other groups of the same organization had a history of violence, and their beliefs were "antithetical to the school's policies" and "would be a disruptive influence at the college". The Supreme Court held that this was illegal, and their right to speech and association trumped the university's desires. [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/169.html"]Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).[/URL] I don't know how you can read that case and not see the similarities. While they're not students, it's a group of an organization historically prone to violence who was denied the ability to use a public university to assemble because their beliefs are "repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for." I'm not rooting for these morons but you can't just whine "but they're [i]nazis!"[/i] and expect them to suddenly be exempt from Constitutional protections. They're humans, like it or not, and this country has a tendency to (on its face) afford them their First Amendment rights pretty broadly. There's a good case for them to make.[/QUOTE] Yeah. I know they can't stop you from using public property on campus, but I wasn't sure about things like the auditoriums and such that have an overhead cost for the university if used.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;52581524]Comic alt text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that its' not literally illegal to express.[/QUOTE] The corollary is that defending a suppression of speech by citing the 1st Amendment is the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling reason you have to prevent someone from speaking is that it's not literally illegal to do so. I have no problem with universities refusing to give hate speech a platform, but this whole 'it's only against free speech if the government does it' thing is fundamentally wrong (see snowmew's example on the last page) and needs to stop. The 4th Amendment only applies to government too, but I don't think anyone here would accept someone hiding cameras in their house on the grounds that 'it's only a violation of privacy if the government does it'. The 1st Amendment doesn't define free speech and what is or is not a violation of free speech, it only states that the government cannot interfere with free speech. Everything beyond that is up for discussion.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52582899]the reason people keep bringing it back to the government is because the right of free speech is steeped in the context of government repression, and it makes little to no sense when applied to private enterprises - if you think freedom of speech requires the ability to express a viewpoint in all private locations then you have a definition that does not match the definition of any nation at this time[/QUOTE] the point isn't that you can express it at all times in all locations (something I never said). the point is that free speech isn't exclusively restricted to just the government saying what you can and can't do there are many organisations, institutions, etc which have significant power and in many instances can actually act like them (google being a very obvious example of something that has a lot of power). the problem is that when you have dipshits like the guy who writes XKCD going "free speech refers only to government" it ignores that fact and if people end up believing in it fully, they aren't going to give a shit if google or facebook goes around deliberately manipulating search engine results and that because well, they're a private organisation. and yes the thread is about Nazis, but if you have the precedent then it'll be perfectly legal for any private organisations to suppress stuff they don't like and whenever somebody criticises them you only have to shout at them "are you a Nazi sympathizer?" or "hey we're not suppressing free speech, we're a company, not the government"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52583312]the point isn't that you can express it at all times in all locations (something I never said). the point is that free speech isn't exclusively restricted to just the government saying what you can and can't do there are many organisations, institutions, etc which have significant power and in many instances can actually act like them (google being a very obvious example of something that has a lot of power). the problem is that when you have dipshits like the guy who writes XKCD going "free speech refers only to government" it ignores that fact and if people end up believing in it fully, they aren't going to give a shit if google or facebook goes around deliberately manipulating search engine results and that because well, they're a private organisation. and yes the thread is about Nazis, but if you have the precedent then it'll be perfectly legal for any private organisations to suppress stuff they don't like and whenever somebody criticises them you only have to shout at them "are you a Nazi sympathizer?" or "hey we're not suppressing free speech, we're a company, not the government"[/QUOTE] your last paragraph is hyperbole there's no "if" with the precedent you're describing, it already exists - private entities very frequently suppress stuff that they don't like, [B]but they only do it within the bounds that defines that entity - if that isn't the case, then we have a problem[/B] a contract of employment can be seen as various violations of rights that you would have otherwise - that doesn't mean the country somehow lacks free speech, it means that private entities put restrictions on you when you operate within their bounds according to their preferences. that's basically part of the definition of private enterprise - and a shit ton of private entities impose a terms of service upon you taking them up your slippery slope problem only occurs in the event that private enterprise grows to basically make speech outside of those entities impossible, which you haven't supported the reason that free speech is a governmental right is because you don't have a choice when you are born in a country - there's no "door" in that scenario, so your right to speech has to be guaranteed to be a fair system but with private enterprise, as long as there is a door, that right isn't necessary because you always have the ultimate right of the "door" you definitely have rights as a consumer, but that's why the law distinguishes between human rights/rights as a citizen vs your rights as a consumer

not taking sides here but can someone explain to me the narrative that national socialists = wanting to murder jews and minorities?

[QUOTE=Egevened;52583348]not taking sides here but can someone explain to me the narrative that national socialists = wanting to murder jews and minorities?[/QUOTE] a central tenet of national socialism also known as Nazism is that the aryan race is the supreme race on earth the association is possibly less blunt than what you've described but it's definitely no less objectionable, nor no less present - a definite conclusion of nazism is the supremacy and destruction of the races that are seen to obstruct the supreme race also should be worth mentioning that women don't exactly get off lightly under nazism

[QUOTE=Egevened;52583348]not taking sides here but can someone explain to me the narrative that national socialists = wanting to murder jews and minorities?[/QUOTE]are you serious right now? one of the main cornerstones for the whole ideology is the conspiracy theory that evil jews run everything and that the aryan master race ("pure" germans, or whatever happens to fit the narrative of a "pure" white race at the time) must rise up and destroy the subhuman jews, negroes, gypsies, slavs and anything else that doesn't fit the invented and rather vague definition of "aryan" or "white". ever heard of Mein Kampf, the book a certain Adolf wrote while doing time for attempting a coup in Germany, the written work that then became basically the holy scripture equivalent for nazism? all that stuff is in there, and all of it ravings of a paranoid and bitter man out to destroy the world in the name of "racial purity", meaning "[I]kill everyone that isn't us[/I]". why do you think they executed eastern front prisoners and dumped them into mass graves? why do you think they set up the extermination camps? it was all business, all part of their great ideology, and the whole time they were so immersed in the big lie that was Hitler's national socialism that they thought they were doing good work for the benefit of humanity while quite literally pulling the trigger on defenceless men, women, children and elderly, killing millions for the sin of being born. nazism is extermination, the perceived right of the "strong" to kill the "weak" for having the "wrong" physical traits or following the "wrong" political movement. all out of paranoia, insecurity and hatred.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52583312]the point isn't that you can express it at all times in all locations (something I never said). the point is that free speech isn't exclusively restricted to just the government saying what you can and can't do there are many organisations, institutions, etc which have significant power and in many instances can actually act like them (google being a very obvious example of something that has a lot of power). the problem is that when you have dipshits like the guy who writes XKCD going "free speech refers only to government" it ignores that fact and if people end up believing in it fully, they aren't going to give a shit if google or facebook goes around deliberately manipulating search engine results and that because well, they're a private organisation. and yes the thread is about Nazis, but if you have the precedent then it'll be perfectly legal for any private organisations to suppress stuff they don't like and whenever somebody criticises them you only have to shout at them "are you a Nazi sympathizer?" or "hey we're not suppressing free speech, we're a company, not the government"[/QUOTE] Implying Google's search results should be specifically guided by principles of free speech is absolute nonsense. You might as well argue that even the basic pagerank Google calculates on grounds generally accepted as "the shit you want" - paging search results on basis of how popular they are, goes against free speech, because the most popular voice will be the one presented the most. Search engines sort and filter information by design. They aren't a platform for "speech". Google can absolutely do some really vile shit by manipulating the results, but if they for instance preferentially present results pointing towards their services over more popular but competing services, that should be scrutinized under the principles of fair competition, not free speech (and in a way, forcing google to stop doing that is a "violation" of Google's non-existent right to free speech). [editline]17th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;52583260]The corollary is that defending a suppression of speech by citing the 1st Amendment is the ultimate concession: you're saying that the most compelling reason you have to prevent someone from speaking is that it's not literally illegal to do so. I have no problem with universities refusing to give hate speech a platform, but this whole 'it's only against free speech if the government does it' thing is fundamentally wrong (see snowmew's example on the last page) and needs to stop. The 4th Amendment only applies to government too, but I don't think anyone here would accept someone hiding cameras in their house on the grounds that 'it's only a violation of privacy if the government does it'. The 1st Amendment doesn't define free speech and what is or is not a violation of free speech, it only states that the government cannot interfere with free speech. Everything beyond that is up for discussion.[/QUOTE] What fucking inside out argument this is? XKCD's point: "Stop misinterpreting what your legal rights mean" Your point: "Stop telling people to stop misinterpreting what legal rights mean because they should have the rights anyway for a different reason even though it's not related to your point whatsoever!" If the university is legally obliged to lend them a platform on basis of it's status is whole another matter, but "You can't tell me I can't use a stupid argument because I may or may not have other unrelated arguments" is a rather bizarre logic somersault you made there [editline]17th August 2017[/editline] There's fuckton of people on the internet who respond to other people going "shut the fuck up" with "you're violating the first Amendment", which is objectively stupid. What the hell is the non-argument you're trying to make?

[QUOTE=Joazzz;52583377]are you serious right now? one of the main cornerstones for the whole ideology is the conspiracy theory that evil jews run everything and that the aryan master race ("pure" germans, or whatever happens to fit the narrative of a "pure" white race at the time) must rise up and destroy the subhuman jews, negroes, gypsies, slavs and anything else that doesn't fit the invented and rather vague definition of "aryan" or "white". ever heard of Mein Kampf, the book a certain Adolf wrote while doing time for attempting a coup in Germany, the written work that then became basically the holy scripture equivalent for nazism? all that stuff is in there, and all of it ravings of a paranoid and bitter man out to destroy the world in the name of "racial purity", meaning "[I]kill everyone that isn't us[/I]". why do you think they executed eastern front prisoners and dumped them into mass graves? why do you think they set up the extermination camps? it was all business, all part of their great ideology, and the whole time they were so immersed in the big lie that was Hitler's national socialism that they thought they were doing good work for the benefit of humanity while quite literally pulling the trigger on defenceless men, women, children and elderly, killing millions for the sin of being born. nazism is extermination, the perceived right of the "strong" to kill the "weak" for having the "wrong" physical traits or following the "wrong" political movement. all out of paranoia, insecurity and hatred.[/QUOTE] I've read mein kampf (I've also read the manifesto, the holy bible, and I want to read the quran eventually) and you're absolutely correct on it being the ravings of a racist madman - but the ideology of national socialism extends beyond exterminating lesser races. it's not hitler who came up with the thing, but many people of different opinions and standings on the matter. its' core is not founded in the paranoia of people of different ethnicities, or religions - it's founded on an us vs them mentality (which makes it unsurprising that it would rear its' head in the united states of all places, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen earlier) - it's a reactionary politic of the time against the vast ussr and it's form of communism. the economic tenets of national socialism are not inherently stupid - after their rise to power in germany, the economy boomed, the industrial scene was revitalized, there was national healthcare in the fucking 30s. the problem was that in a post-depression germany, they needed to achieve two things - get into power in the first place (which was achieved through fear-mongering not unlike what trump did) and they had to rely on the military complex which had died out and made thousands upon thousands of people lose jobs after the first world war keeled over. it's way more complex than "national socialism means extermination of jews and blacks". if you take away the things that are only in there for the regime to come into power (fear of jews, racism, military complex) and essentially force their government on the people, it's not necessarily a bad way to run a country - that's what my train of thought was anyways when I asked where this narrative came from. national socialism is only associated with mass murder because the only time it came into actual power (I'm taking things like italy under the same roof here, as it was mostly instituted there by germany and it wasn't true to the german version either, I guess you can cross that one out) there was mass murder - the economic solutions it offers and the central belief being that the country is first is not necessarily awful. there's two reasons why it could not work in america. one, the country is too big - it specifically goes against the reason why it could work until you add the stupid cult of personality hitler things. second, I doubt that the very same nazis that are walking the streets in the US think the same things I do, and you're probably right to assume they are following that exact same cult of personality rabid racist ideology. I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm merely confused at the binary way people view nazism. over the past few days I've read countless posts saying that it's inherently this and inherently that, when that's not really applicable to any political view, ever.

[QUOTE=Egevened;52583618]I've read mein kampf (I've also read the manifesto, the holy bible, and I want to read the quran eventually) and you're absolutely correct on it being the ravings of a racist madman - but the ideology of national socialism extends beyond exterminating lesser races. it's not hitler who came up with the thing, but many people of different opinions and standings on the matter. its' core is not founded in the paranoia of people of different ethnicities, or religions - it's founded on an us vs them mentality (which makes it unsurprising that it would rear its' head in the united states of all places, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen earlier) - it's a reactionary politic of the time against the vast ussr and it's form of communism. the economic tenets of national socialism are not inherently stupid - after their rise to power in germany, the economy boomed, the industrial scene was revitalized, there was national healthcare in the fucking 30s. the problem was that in a post-depression germany, they needed to achieve two things - get into power in the first place (which was achieved through fear-mongering not unlike what trump did) and they had to rely on the military complex which had died out and made thousands upon thousands of people lose jobs after the first world war keeled over. it's way more complex than "national socialism means extermination of jews and blacks". if you take away the things that are only in there for the regime to come into power (fear of jews, racism, military complex) and essentially force their government on the people, it's not necessarily a bad way to run a country - that's what my train of thought was anyways when I asked where this narrative came from. national socialism is only associated with mass murder because the only time it came into actual power (I'm taking things like italy under the same roof here, as it was mostly instituted there by germany and it wasn't true to the german version either, I guess you can cross that one out) there was mass murder - the economic solutions it offers and the central belief being that the country is first is not necessarily awful. there's two reasons why it could not work in america. one, the country is too big - it specifically goes against the reason why it could work until you add the stupid cult of personality hitler things. second, I doubt that the very same nazis that are walking the streets in the US think the same things I do, and you're probably right to assume they are following that exact same cult of personality rabid racist ideology. I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm merely confused at the binary way people view nazism. over the past few days I've read countless posts saying that it's inherently this and inherently that, when that's not really applicable to any political view, ever.[/QUOTE] I get what you're saying; you're talking about the "running a country" political end of national socialism. But if they were trying to align themselves more with the "national socialism" political end and not the "Nazi" racist end, they wouldn't be flying the same flag that was over concentration camps.

Good god, this is rich. A Nazi and a fascist crying about his free speech.

[QUOTE=Egevened;52583618]I've read mein kampf (I've also read the manifesto, the holy bible, and I want to read the quran eventually) and you're absolutely correct on it being the ravings of a racist madman - but the ideology of national socialism extends beyond exterminating lesser races. it's not hitler who came up with the thing, but many people of different opinions and standings on the matter. its' core is not founded in the paranoia of people of different ethnicities, or religions - it's founded on an us vs them mentality (which makes it unsurprising that it would rear its' head in the united states of all places, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen earlier) - it's a reactionary politic of the time against the vast ussr and it's form of communism. the economic tenets of national socialism are not inherently stupid - after their rise to power in germany, the economy boomed, the industrial scene was revitalized, there was national healthcare in the fucking 30s. the problem was that in a post-depression germany, they needed to achieve two things - get into power in the first place (which was achieved through fear-mongering not unlike what trump did) and they had to rely on the military complex which had died out and made thousands upon thousands of people lose jobs after the first world war keeled over. it's way more complex than "national socialism means extermination of jews and blacks". if you take away the things that are only in there for the regime to come into power (fear of jews, racism, military complex) and essentially force their government on the people, it's not necessarily a bad way to run a country - that's what my train of thought was anyways when I asked where this narrative came from. national socialism is only associated with mass murder because the only time it came into actual power (I'm taking things like italy under the same roof here, as it was mostly instituted there by germany and it wasn't true to the german version either, I guess you can cross that one out) there was mass murder - the economic solutions it offers and the central belief being that the country is first is not necessarily awful. there's two reasons why it could not work in america. one, the country is too big - it specifically goes against the reason why it could work until you add the stupid cult of personality hitler things. second, I doubt that the very same nazis that are walking the streets in the US think the same things I do, and you're probably right to assume they are following that exact same cult of personality rabid racist ideology. I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm merely confused at the binary way people view nazism. over the past few days I've read countless posts saying that it's inherently this and inherently that, when that's not really applicable to any political view, ever.[/QUOTE] The thing is, the label "Nazi" is so radioactive, no sensible person would call themselves one unless they actually agreed with what Hitler was doing. If someone believed in the political and economic aspects of Germany at the time, they'd probably find something else to call themselves other than Nazi.