Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Do you think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organisation?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Finishuser4444 said:

I disagree, you should NEVER physically attack anyone, unless they physically attacked you first. But i do agree that it would be good if nazism did go away, but i dont think it should be banned. Because if you ban an ideology, then you are no better than the nazis you claim to oppose. And in a society where people are allowed to form their own opinions, extreme ideologies will never go away, as the red army faction once said, "Revoultion says, I was, I am, I will be".

You do know what Neo-Nazism is, right? And why people are so against the ideology to the point of banning it despite the apparent contradiction with freedom of speech? I don't condone violence, by the way. You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space but that's a topic for another day.

Feminism is not anti-male. LGBT is not anti-hetero. Vegetarianism is not anti-meat. Neo-Nazism is rooted in racism though, and that's the important part to remember. A compromise between white supremacism and equal rights to all races would be something akin to white half-supremacism. Which, given the bias, is still white supremacy? Your insistence that this ideology is equal to others is interpreted as accepting this kind of compromise, which is why people have been upset with your stance despite your disapproval of the ideology itself.

Racism is an act. It's not protected by freedom of speech. Neo-Nazism has to go.

Link to comment
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, I'm going to disagree about Antifa being a terrorist organization.  My reasoning? They don't actually seem to be an organization, they seem to barely exist, many of the acts attributed to them s

Of course not how can being anti fascist be terrorist lol. Were people fighting for the allies in WW2 terrorists? I miss when everyone reasonable was anti fascist! We have actual fascists trying

Antifa is not even a official organization as it just means a shared ideology of being against fascism, which everybody should be against. Whenever people bring up the idea of anti-fascism being terro

9 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

You do know what Neo-Nazism is, right? And why people are so against the ideology to the point of banning it despite the apparent contradiction with freedom of speech? I don't condone violence, by the way. You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space but that's a topic for another day.

Feminism is not anti-male. LGBT is not anti-hetero. Vegetarianism is not anti-meat. Neo-Nazism is rooted in racism though, and that's the important part to remember. A compromise between white supremacism and equal rights to all races would be something akin to white half-supremacism. Which, given the bias, is still white supremacy? Your insistence that this ideology is equal to others is interpreted as accepting this kind of compromise, which is why people have been upset with your stance despite your disapproval of the ideology itself.

Racism is an act. It's not protected by freedom of speech. Neo-Nazism has to go.

I am against Nazism, fascism and all other extreme ideologies. But they should still have the right to express that ideology, aslong as they aren't directly threating someone. The right to express your ideology has not been cheap, tens of millions died fighting for and against it. People died in the fight against Nazi germany for the right to have a diffrent opinion than the Nazi's, And if you ban an ideology, any ideology, then you are no Better than the Nazi's. Banning any ideology will just lead to an authoritarian nation. 

"You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space" This is stupid, so stupid, because with this logic Neo-nazis would be justfied to punch black people for what they see as "Verbal harassment". I Dont think we should necessarily accept every ideology, but we should absolutely allow every ideology. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Finishuser4444 said:

I am against Nazism, fascism and all other extreme ideologies. But they should still have the right to express that ideology, aslong as they aren't directly threating someone. The right to express your ideology has not been cheap, tens of millions died fighting for and against it. People died in the fight against Nazi germany for the right to have a diffrent opinion than the Nazi's, And if you ban an ideology, any ideology, then you are no Better than the Nazi's. Banning any ideology will just lead to an authoritarian nation. 

"You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space" This is stupid, so stupid, because with this logic Neo-nazis would be justfied to punch black people for what they see as "Verbal harassment". I Dont think we should necessarily accept every ideology, but we should absolutely allow every ideology. 

I said that's a topic for another day, but violence against racial minorities for merely existing is not comparable to violent retaliation against racist comments.

Literally nobody here likes Neo-Nazism but you're the only one that suggests there exists non-threatening ones. I think we need examples of what you consider a non-threatening Neo-Nazi to better understand your neutral stance towards it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

I said that's a topic for another day, but violence against racial minorities for merely existing is not comparable to violent retaliation against racist comments.

Literally nobody here likes Neo-Nazism but you're the only one that suggests there exists non-threatening ones. I think we need examples of what you consider a non-threatening Neo-Nazi to better understand your neutral stance towards it.

Im not neutral towards neo-nazi's, i think agree with you that it woudl be good if neo nazism completley disapeeard, but i think that banning them from speaking is not the right way to go.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Finishuser4444 said:

Im not neutral towards neo-nazi's, i think agree with you that it woudl be good if neo nazism completley disapeeard, but i think that banning them from speaking is not the right way to go.

Do you have suggestions to make them go? This could be its own topic, given that this topic's question has been answered already. Note that banning them is just one step, not the whole plan. It's like putting a fence on a bridge to prevent jumping. The next step is to offer counseling to help recover from the mindset to a more stable one.

Do you really not have an example of a non-threatening Neo-Nazi? It's really important to understand your point of view. You can't really call yourself neutral without providing a reason to be neutral. "Banning Nazis makes you no better than a Nazi" isn't a reason, it's a logical fallacy.

1 hour ago, Lisk said:

Cute ^^

How do I respond to thiiis

Link to comment
20 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

You do know what Neo-Nazism is, right? And why people are so against the ideology to the point of banning it despite the apparent contradiction with freedom of speech? I don't condone violence, by the way. You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space but that's a topic for another day.

Feminism is not anti-male. LGBT is not anti-hetero. Vegetarianism is not anti-meat. Neo-Nazism is rooted in racism though, and that's the important part to remember. A compromise between white supremacism and equal rights to all races would be something akin to white half-supremacism. Which, given the bias, is still white supremacy? Your insistence that this ideology is equal to others is interpreted as accepting this kind of compromise, which is why people have been upset with your stance despite your disapproval of the ideology itself.

Racism is an act. It's not protected by freedom of speech. Neo-Nazism has to go.

So what you are saying is to ban them because of what they believe, right? Even if they are not actually hurting anybody or telling other people to hurt somebody? 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Finishuser4444 said:

I am against Nazism, fascism and all other extreme ideologies. But they should still have the right to express that ideology, aslong as they aren't directly threating someone. The right to express your ideology has not been cheap, tens of millions died fighting for and against it. People died in the fight against Nazi germany for the right to have a diffrent opinion than the Nazi's, And if you ban an ideology, any ideology, then you are no Better than the Nazi's. Banning any ideology will just lead to an authoritarian nation. 

"You may argue punching somebody in response to verbal harassment is justifiable given that their voice physically enters your personal space" This is stupid, so stupid, because with this logic Neo-nazis would be justfied to punch black people for what they see as "Verbal harassment". I Dont think we should necessarily accept every ideology, but we should absolutely allow every ideology. 

I would say that banning Nazis is quite a fair bit better than what the Nazis actually wanted to do.

People weren't fighting Nazis so they could "have a different opinion than them", people were fighting Nazis because they were evil. They slaughtered millions of men, women, children, the young, the old, it didn't matter. Had they won the war, they had plans to move on to actively persecuting the non-religious and even Christians, by the end Nazism was becoming the religion of those in power.

Fascism is an ideology, Nazism is a political extermination cult. We as people do not have to accept every ideology, that's why we don't have feudalism anymore. Nearly all of our modern political opinions stem from liberal Enlightenment ideals, the old ideologies died out, so can those of the present day.

By your logic of banning ideologies, the United States is no better than the Nazis, due to their banning of Communist and other left-wing parties. Keep in mind, the American left is centre-right at best.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Subaru said:

So what you are saying is to ban them because of what they believe, right? Even if they are not actually hurting anybody or telling other people to hurt somebody? 

I'm saying you ban the act, not the belief, of racism. Can you give me an example of a non-threatening Neo-Nazi? If you can give me a reason to tolerate them, then I will apologize for the drastic suggestions and tolerate them as I would tolerate anybody whose opinions differ from mine.

As part of a fetish community, I hope you understand tolerance is important for all of us. The intolerance towards Neo-Nazism is justified and I can probably help illustrate why if you can help me figure out what a non-threatening Neo-Nazi even is.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

I'm saying you ban the act, not the belief, of racism. Can you give me an example of a non-threatening Neo-Nazi? If you can give me a reason to tolerate them, then I will apologize for the drastic suggestions and tolerate them as I would tolerate anybody whose opinions differ from mine.

As part of a fetish community, I hope you understand tolerance is important for all of us. The intolerance towards Neo-Nazism is justified and I can probably help illustrate why if you can help me figure out what a non-threatening Neo-Nazi even is.

The act of calling people to harm others is already banned though. I believe they call it incitement. A non-threatening neo nazi would be one who does not promote violence towards others. They would probably say that their race is better than all others or something along those lines, but would not call for violence, even if their opinion was that all other groups should be killed. Let me give you some context here. There is a difference, say for example I was to say "PC users are the master race, anybody who uses mobile or console devices are beneath us and should die out", that would be 100% legal. But if I was to say "We need to go out and kill everyone who doesn't use a PC" (and if I meant it, which I don't) that would be 100% illegal. The difference is that in the first one, nobody in their right mind would think that I'm asking for all of the non-pc users to be killed by anybody, just that they should die out on their own, not illegal. In the second one I'm calling people to act upon my words, which is illegal. 

Of course tolerance is very important to me, even towards neo-nazis provided they aren't calling people to violence. That being said, I 100% disagree with their beliefs.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Subaru said:

A non-threatening neo nazi would be one who does not promote violence towards others. They would probably say that their race is better than all others or something along those lines, but would not call for violence, even if their opinion was that all other groups should be killed.

Now I understand where the confusion comes from. A Neo-Nazi that does not promote violence is like a vegetarian that eats meat: it's a complete misuse of the term. What you're describing is a racist person who nonetheless tolerates other races. Tolerance is not part of the ideology of white supremacy. That's why people do not tolerate it in return.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

Now I understand where the confusion comes from. A Neo-Nazi that does not promote violence is like a vegetarian that eats meat: it's a complete misuse of the term. What you're describing is a racist person who nonetheless tolerates other races. Tolerance is not part of the ideology of white supremacy. That's why people do not tolerate it in return.

Did you know that the Almost all neo-nazi organisations in sweden condemned both the Malexander Murders and the Nacka Carbombing? Even tho police officers are widely hated by swedish neo nazis.

In fact, a black neo nazi was actually responsible for the Malexander Murders

Link to comment
5 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

Now I understand where the confusion comes from. A Neo-Nazi that does not promote violence is like a vegetarian that eats meat: it's a complete misuse of the term. What you're describing is a racist person who nonetheless tolerates other races. Tolerance is not part of the ideology of white supremacy. That's why people do not tolerate it in return.

Ah, then I think most of us agree then. I am still confused though, why are you saying that we should ban it? The type of speech that incites people to cause violence is already banned and not protected under the first amendment. 

Link to comment
Guest Narwiny
3 hours ago, Finishuser4444 said:

Did you know that the Almost all neo-nazi organisations in sweden condemned both the Malexander Murders and the Nacka Carbombing? Even tho police officers are widely hated by swedish neo nazis.

In fact, a black neo nazi was actually responsible for the Malexander Murders

Sure, but they can SAY whatever they want. They also use the word "socialist" to describe themselves (National Socialist) despite not having anything to do with socialism. And you even just stated they condemned them, but it was executed by one of them. (Throwing in the fact that he was black seems completely irrelevant, at best of intentions.)

Link to comment
On 2/17/2022 at 11:59 PM, Narwiny said:

Sure, but they can SAY whatever they want. They also use the word "socialist" to describe themselves (National Socialist) despite not having anything to do with socialism. And you even just stated they condemned them, but it was executed by one of them. (Throwing in the fact that he was black seems completely irrelevant, at best of intentions.)

The fact that he was black isnt the important part, its that he was a black neo-nazi.

Link to comment
On 2/20/2022 at 2:04 PM, Finishuser4444 said:

The fact that he was black isnt the important part, its that he was a black neo-nazi.

Jackie Arklöv suffered an identity crisis when he was young, possibly due to bullying. He scrubbed his skin to make it appear white. He was fascinated by the fascist organization Ustasha's extreme violence and enjoyed killing Muslims during his time as a mercenary. He also no longer identifies as Neo-Nazi, and even approached the anti-Nazi organization Exit to help with rehabilitation. It would be nice to learn what this argument is supposed to demonstrate. Neo-Nazism isn't racist because black Neo-Nazis exist?

By the way, the controversy behind the Nacka car bombing among Swedish Neo-Nazi organizations is because some wanted to blame Anti-Fascist Action (Swedish Antifa; this is actually where Antifa got the name) for being a violent organization while others wanted to use this as a warning to left-wing journalists not to expose them. The car bombing notably failed to actually kill the journalist involved. It would also be nice to learn what the fact that certain organizations in one country calling out two events is supposed to demonstrate.

On 2/17/2022 at 5:58 PM, Subaru said:

Ah, then I think most of us agree then. I am still confused though, why are you saying that we should ban it? The type of speech that incites people to cause violence is already banned and not protected under the first amendment. 

Imagine flipping the bird to every racial and ethnic minority you meet in such a way that nobody else can see it. Now imagine doing so with no conscious effort. That's how it feels to wave a Nazi flag. It's kinda hard as a racial majority to relate to the fear of living in societies where Neo-Nazism exists as an ideology equal to every other ideology. If public nudity isn't allowed for being sexually inciting, then Nazi symbolism shouldn't be allowed for being violence-inciting.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

Jackie Arklöv suffered an identity crisis when he was young, possibly due to bullying. He scrubbed his skin to make it appear white. He was fascinated by the fascist organization Ustasha's extreme violence and enjoyed killing Muslims during his time as a mercenary. He also no longer identifies as Neo-Nazi, and even approached the anti-Nazi organization Exit to help with rehabilitation. It would be nice to learn what this argument is supposed to demonstrate. Neo-Nazism isn't racist because black Neo-Nazis exist?

By the way, the controversy behind the Nacka car bombing among Swedish Neo-Nazi organizations is because some wanted to blame Anti-Fascist Action (Swedish Antifa; this is actually where Antifa got the name) for being a violent organization while others wanted to use this as a warning to left-wing journalists not to expose them. The car bombing notably failed to actually kill the journalist involved. It would also be nice to learn what the fact that certain organizations in one country calling out two events is supposed to demonstrate.

Imagine flipping the bird to every racial and ethnic minority you meet in such a way that nobody else can see it. Now imagine doing so with no conscious effort. That's how it feels to wave a Nazi flag. It's kinda hard as a racial majority to relate to the fear of living in societies where Neo-Nazism exists as an ideology equal to every other ideology. If public nudity isn't allowed for being sexually inciting, then Nazi symbolism shouldn't be allowed for being violence-inciting.

Why do you think I'm a racial majority? Everybody seems to think I'm white or something whenever I weigh in on this type of discussion. Anyways thats besides the point. Neo-Nazism is not equal as an ideology to all others, but the people who practice it have the right to do so so long as they do it PEACEFULLY. If they do not practice it PEACEFULLY then they lose the right to practice it. A symbol in and of itself is not violence inciting. Now I could understand where you were coming from if the symbol specifically stated that it was calling people to violence, but a nazi flag is just that. A flag

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Subaru said:

Why do you think I'm a racial majority? Everybody seems to think I'm white or something whenever I weigh in on this type of discussion. Anyways thats besides the point. Neo-Nazism is not equal as an ideology to all others, but the people who practice it have the right to do so so long as they do it PEACEFULLY. If they do not practice it PEACEFULLY then they lose the right to practice it. A symbol in and of itself is not violence inciting. Now I could understand where you were coming from if the symbol specifically stated that it was calling people to violence, but a nazi flag is just that. A flag

I'm sorry for making it sound like I've called you a racial majority. I was describing my experience as a racial majority trying to understand this situation.

You're already forgetting peaceful Neo-Nazis are akin to meat-eating vegetarians: the term is misused. There's no such thing. You're thinking about racist people who nonetheless keep their insults to themselves. That's troubling but fine. Neo-Nazism is not. Neo-Nazis who question their ideology and don't participate in racism stop being Neo-Nazis.

You do not need words to incite violence. The fact that you do not see the flag as calling to violence is simply because you do not agree with what it stands for. There's such a thing as an inchoate offense; an act deemed criminal without harm being done because the law is trying to prevent the harm that would have occurred. Waving a Nazi flag is often accompanied by an intention to provoke or cause harm and allowing it defeats the whole purpose of racial equality. That's why people want to ban Neo-Nazism.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, TomatoNLettuce said:

I'm sorry for making it sound like I've called you a racial majority. I was describing my experience as a racial majority trying to understand this situation.

You're already forgetting peaceful Neo-Nazis are akin to meat-eating vegetarians: the term is misused. There's no such thing. You're thinking about racist people who nonetheless keep their insults to themselves. That's troubling but fine. Neo-Nazism is not. Neo-Nazis who question their ideology and don't participate in racism stop being Neo-Nazis.

You do not need words to incite violence. The fact that you do not see the flag as calling to violence is simply because you do not agree with what it stands for. There's such a thing as an inchoate offense; an act deemed criminal without harm being done because the law is trying to prevent the harm that would have occurred. Waving a Nazi flag is often accompanied by an intention to provoke or cause harm and allowing it defeats the whole purpose of racial equality. That's why people want to ban Neo-Nazism.

No need to apologize. 

You're missing my point. The point is that if you literally call people to violence (something you say that all neo nazis do) then that is not considered free speech...

Waving a flag may often be accompanied by such intentions, but I am of the opinion if ALL you are doing is waving a flag, then there is no issue

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...