this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
96 points (95.3% liked)
New York Times gift articles
543 readers
228 users here now
Share your New York Times gift articles links here.
Rules:
- Only post New York Times gift article links.
Info:
- The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
- “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.
Tip:
- Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
- Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There were several laws put in place in postwar Germany that specifically suppressed them. This was broadly effective, though I think the modern-day position of the AfD shows it was not completely so.
In the US, any such legislation would be struck down in court as unconstitutional.
So, it's just not that simple.
Newsflash: some number of people are absolute shitbags.
If you let them take over and run the show it's gonna get real bad.
Nazis are absolute shitbags. They will always be around in some number. You need to always suppress them so they don't fuck up the good shit we have managed to eek out.
eke #boneAppleTea
Well, yes, you definitely don't want to let them take over. You want to demonstrate your own strength, and how much you outnumber them.
This is not preventing them from marching in some way, though. That is not doable, it would be illegal. It would also be counterproductive in our current climate of most people underestimating the actual danger.
You need to be cautious of the paradox of tolerance.
I'm discussing specifics, details, not vague principles. Should there be Neo Nazis allowed to gather and march through some city with their signs? Yes, they should not be prohibited or physically prevented.
Why? Because it helps give evidence to the fact that racism in the modern day is still an enduring problem, and that extreme racism is still a threat. This counters a standard conservative narrative that remains an effective weapon in their toolbox.
Is this tolerance? No, not necessarily, not if you're also counterprotesting, contesting their position, demonstrating that they do not have factuality or popularity on their side.
I'm not some young whippersnapper that thinks in simple, straightforward, black and white ways. It's a messy and complicated world out there, without simple answers to our problems. So, we need to think in complex ways, paying attention to details and specifics instead of thinking some broad application of some sort of simplified principle can fix what a century of progress failed to.
Just to be clear, you are the one advocating for tolerating those promoting intolerance in this situation.
You have laid it out very clearly here.
That is why you are subject to the paradox. Nothing to do with complicated situations or anything. You are saying people who push an ideology of inequality and intolerance.deserve a voice. I do not agree.
Depends how you define tolerance I suppose. If your opponent is going to harm themselves, though, you should let them.
edit: Consider it this way. Do you think a Nazi march improves their position in the slightest? Does it strengthen Nazi ideas in any way, shape or form?
I don't think it does, personally. People that want to follow that ideology already do, I do not think it would increase their support in any way.
I agree with you; if I started going out to pro-Nazi marches and started killing a few of them out openly in the street, it would create martyrs and bolster their support and make them more resolute to continue their shitty movement, and in fact empower more morons to join them.
Right, so you start beating the shit out of them until they learn to shut the fuck up and stop showing up. Make them afraid.