Ignorance of the accepted truth now a crime


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

KaiserDM wrote:
As far as your drunk driving analogy goes, why don't we just illegalize alcohol completely? Why bother setting a limit?

Because the real world has nuances and is sensitive to situations. A restriction that would be intolerable -- as in, people wouldn't tolerate it, and it would be unenforceable -- can actually be quite reasonable and well-enforced if the restriction itself has limits.

That seems to be another typical weakness of Libertarian thought; the fallacy of the False Dichotomy.

In the case of drunk driving, we have specific actions that are known to be extremely dangerous in certain conditions -- we therefore prohibit taking those actions under those conditions. Those actions are considerably less dangerous in other conditions, and those conditions are less dangerous if one refrains from the actions.

Quote:
Society has placed laws to enforce consequences for bad decisions.

It has indeed. Including laws that enforce consequences to the violator (arrests, fines, jail time) in an effort to discourage further instances of those bad decisions before the other consequences happen. This is why, for example, we authorize the police to stop and punish people for driving drunk, even though there is no "intent to do harm proven beyond a reasonable doubt," which seems to be a key element in your formulation.

Basically, if you make behavior punishable, people will be deterred from that behavior. Not perfectly, of course -- but enough to make the benefits (less damage to society from that behavior) worth the damage caused by the punishment. (And before you ask, society itself makes the judgement of "worth" in this case, through the legislative process.)

Basically, I say you can't drive drunk because it's dangerous to other people, a danger that has been proven. That's not a statement that you can't drive -- while that's dangerous, yes, it's less dangerous. That's not a statement that you can't drink, for the same reason.

Holocaust denial laws are similarly situational. From Wikipedia; "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."

The two highlighted passages are key. You can say what you like in private, and you can say what you like as long as it's not capable of disturbing the public peace. This is why the scholarly articles Aly published were not criminal conduct. And this is what every police officer and every judge is explicitly required to look at in every individual instance of prosecution under this law.

And that, ultimately, is why free-speech absolutism fails. Because rights are inherently situational and come into conflict -- my right to speak freely does not give me the right to put you at risk, but your right not to be at risk does not trump my right to speak freely. There is an inherent tension and an inherent need for compromise; society has decided and will continue to decide where to draw the line at each individual conflict.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quirel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
Which is fallacious in itself, because I've met plenty of racist Democrats.

How does that work, exactly?

"I believe that the govenrment has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens. Except the blacks and the Jews!"

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Actually it goes more like:

"I don't think people of color are smart enough to manage their lives so we should help them. If they vote for us and we'll take care of them."

And to your quote - it did apply to National Socialist:
"I believe that the Government and State has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its German citizens!"

So republicans are racist and democrats are nazis? You'd think they would get along better.


And the French constitutional court decided that laws forbidding denying of genocide (specifically Armenians 1915), are too dangerousfor the state to have. So, I guess they are just wrong then? Stupid libertarian lizard- believing flat earthers who should bow down to your superior legal understanding?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Quirel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I think it falls under " not all republicans are racist but all racists are probably republican" line of thinking. It was mentioned but if you want a "right" most people would find repugnant then it is easier to advocate for all "rights."
Which is fallacious in itself, because I've met plenty of racist Democrats.

How does that work, exactly?

"I believe that the govenrment has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens. Except the blacks and the Jews!"

Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Racism isn't about hate. Racism is about judging people by their skin color and place of birth.

So, there's the Democrat who told me that lax gun laws might work well where I live, but there was a high Latino population in her hometown, "and Latinos get violent pretty quick. Letting them have easy access to guns isn't a good idea."

And then there was my stint in Engineers Without Borders. That boiled down to "Those poor starving people in Africa can't feed or house themselves, so let's go over and teach them how." And yes, they were Democrats; the ensuing conversation about foreign aid steamrolled into a debate about the ACA.

Or there's the Republican blacks who get called "Sell-outs" and "House Negros" . Yeah, nothing makes my TA want to join the Democrat Party like being told he's a traitor to his race.


Or the difference is that
1. Turkey still denies the armenian genocide and put pressure on the french government
2. The french government has a lot more racists in it and
3. The armenian genocide has a much smaller personal onnection to most of the people living in france than the amount of people in germany with a personal relationship to the holocaust.
4. They can have genocide denyers without dramatically damaging their national self-image, unlike in germany. And nationalism is something every government wants, just not every kind of nationalism.

Im certain all four of these play a huge role.


sooo... free speech is only a valuable concept if it doesn't bring any trouble?


For governments, yes. Thats basically what they want out of it, and thats where the limit goes mostly. Of course i dont agree with that, and want socialist incitement of revolution to not be prosecuted.

Governments dont genuinely care about rights. They care about lining their personal pockets, which in effect means they come to serve the ruling class and only by threat of force will they do anything different. The reason weve been sowell off in sweden isnt because our government is so loving, its because workers movements and unions fought for it, hard, often through physical force and sometimes violence, and the threat of the russian revolution spreading here was so present. So we got it pretty nice in sweden since the government knew if they didnt throw us more scraps we'd get rid of them one way or the other. Skip forward 90 years, and the unions have become self-servig buerocrats who doesnt put up a fight against the ruling class like they were supposed to but instead works as propaganda groups for the govenment, since there is no force against the government they start crapping all over us. And the thing is, neonazkis isnt a threat to the government here since they mostly splinter any working class organization without threatening the national self image so theyre allowed to roam free (or even protected in their attacks on anticapitalists; see GBG2001).

To remain in power, population control is incredibly important, and one of the most powerful methods for that is nationalism. In germany, holocaust denial is something most people would be utterly ashamed of even existing in their country, so they want to get rid of holocaust denial. In turkey, denial of the amenian genocide is stadard, so there they dont want people to call it a genocide since it disturbs the national self image.

Of course, this doesnt make what the government does ""the right thing", but im a pragmatic. If the law helps locking up some nazis Im all for it, I just dont expect the law ever to be used in a manner that risks upsetting the status quo of neoliberalism.

Liberty's Edge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


So republicans are racist and democrats are nazis? You'd think they would get along better.

I *think* that those are being claimed by different people, but who knows, this is the Internet.

Dark Archive

Turkey still has a very strong sense of national pride, something that was beaten out of Germany after loosing two world wars. And I don't begrudge modern Turks who are in denial of the genocide because there has been alot of bad blood between those countries since the genocide took place and admitting you're wrong is tough thing to do. Especially if you don't have to (unless you want into the EU).

----

Getting back to the core issue of free speech vs. hateful/destructive speech issue - I can see two sides to this.
My father was over there during the war (as a civilian) and went back there during reconstruction (US Army). There was a Holocaust - he saw the SS torching people alive in their homes as they moved into the Ukraine. While he was in Germany several years later (late 40's, during reconstruction) he said that there were still Nazi partisan fighters taking pot shots at them (didn't get much press). That being said, if people want to deny reality it's their prerogative. We have plenty of idiotic and dangerous ideas on both sides of the political spectrum and some incredibly stupid speech in the US - some even on these boards (even in this thread!). None of which should be banned even if it's suggestive of violence or disruptive to our society. Destructive and dangerous actions should be punished, not destructive or hateful thoughts (or speech).

I think the Germans are afraid of ideas and ideologies that they feel are dangerous instead of dealing with the root cause of why those ideas would be appealing to their culture and society in the first place. The ideas do not pull triggers, fingers do that.

I am personally against the notion that expressions of any kind of free speech should be banned (not yelling fire, but espousing radical ideologies). On one hand I can see why they are afraid of Holocaust denial speech because of the fears of fanatical fascism rising again (which it is, even with the bans on speech and symbols - not just in Germany but in almost every European country). But on the flip side, if you have a culture that is so weak and so susceptible to dangerous ideas destroying your society, then I have no problem if those ideas end up destroying you and your society. Learn from history or humanity will suffer from the consequences.

Dark Archive

Actually if I'm not mistaken britain also has race hate laws as well as ones against speech used to encite hatred (Hence why a certain church wasent allowed to come here from America.)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't support the bourgeois state's right to legislate historical truth, even against Holocaust deniers.
Oddly enough, that's not what "the bourgeois state" is doing with Holocaust denial laws, any more than the Pure Food and Drug Act legislated recipes.

No? Well, if the government were to pass a law which made denial of a historical event a crime, even if it was the Holocaust, and they asked me what I thought, I'd say, "No.".


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I don't support the bourgeois state's right to legislate historical truth, even against Holocaust deniers.
Oddly enough, that's not what "the bourgeois state" is doing with Holocaust denial laws, any more than the Pure Food and Drug Act legislated recipes.

No? Well, if the government were to pass a law which made denial of a historical event a crime, even if it was the Holocaust, and they asked me what I thought, I'd say, "No.".

Jeez, Doodles, you almost make it sound like you're in favor of voting. :P


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
KaiserDM wrote:


Hey look! I can google random articles too!

And to your logic, here is an article that proves that..."not all Democrats are alcoholics, but all alcoholics are Democrats.

Hah! Nice. But after reading the article, the title is a bit of a tease. I feel safe in saying that Utah, of all places is going to be an outlier in studies like that. And don't let Anklebiter fool you, NH is populated largely by tax-hating, conservative ex-Massachusetts folks. :)

Hmm, let's see, I hate taxes, I'm ex-Massachusetts folk (born in Holyoke, biznitches!), but I'm not conservative. Two out of three ain't bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Jeez, Doodles, you almost make it sound like you're in favor of voting. :P

I'm in favor of the democratic rights of voting, I just think voting for the twin parties of the plutocracy is an activity best left for ninnies.

Speaking of France, I've for the past couple of months been amused by the government censorship of black French fascist comedian Dieudonne M'bala M'bala (what's going on with him, Europaizonians--last I heard he was banned from Britain) at the same time that the French government has been rousting and deporting all the gypsies they can find. It's ironies like these that make me go Hee hee!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, I don't think anyone who's posted in this thread is advocating the instatement of such laws here in the US, just recognizing that 1) the law exists in Germany, and 2) First Amendment rights in the US are more nuanced than "I can say whatever I want and nuts to all the legal consequences."

My real issue with this thread is RD's title: The Holocaust is a fact of history, not an accepted truth, and Williamson isn't ignorant about anything, he's speaking with an agenda.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
KaiserDM wrote:
As far as your drunk driving analogy goes, why don't we just illegalize alcohol completely? Why bother setting a limit?

Because the real world has nuances and is sensitive to situations. A restriction that would be intolerable -- as in, people wouldn't tolerate it, and it would be unenforceable -- can actually be quite reasonable and well-enforced if the restriction itself has limits.

That seems to be another typical weakness of Libertarian thought; the fallacy of the False Dichotomy.

In the case of drunk driving, we have specific actions that are known to be extremely dangerous in certain conditions -- we therefore prohibit taking those actions under those conditions. Those actions are considerably less dangerous in other conditions, and those conditions are less dangerous if one refrains from the actions.

Quote:
Society has placed laws to enforce consequences for bad decisions.

It has indeed. Including laws that enforce consequences to the violator (arrests, fines, jail time) in an effort to discourage further instances of those bad decisions before the other consequences happen. This is why, for example, we authorize the police to stop and punish people for driving drunk, even though there is no "intent to do harm proven beyond a reasonable doubt," which seems to be a key element in your formulation.

Basically, if you make behavior punishable, people will be deterred from that behavior. Not perfectly, of course -- but enough to make the benefits (less damage to society from that behavior) worth the damage caused by the punishment. (And before you ask, society itself makes the judgement of "worth" in this case, through the legislative process.)

Basically, I say you can't drive drunk because it's dangerous to other people, a danger that has been proven. That's not a statement that you can't drive -- while that's dangerous, yes, it's less dangerous. That's not a statement that you can't drink, for the same reason.

Holocaust denial...

I'll try this a different way: you don't need to add laws prohibiting speech when and IF there already exists consequences for libel, fraud and the intent to do harm. (sure there are always unique situations that bear scrutiny and careful deliberation. And my first post or two made it clear that I did not believe in unfettered speech to the nth degree.)

Stating this case does not make me a Halocaust Denier. If you find my logic about free speech flawed, that is your perrogative. I'll ask you to quote a post I made that showed any doubt or denial of the Halocaust of the Jews.

You've done everything but outright say I'm stupid, illogical and a hater. Quite honestly, the more of your posts I read, the more I think you are the bigot, intolerant and nasty. You could learn a thing or two about civility and not try to hide under some kind of false flag of self-righteousness. There's people that are 100% right in their beliefs and 100% wrong in how they espouse them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KaiserDM wrote:


I'll try this a different way: you don't need to add laws prohibiting speech when and IF there already exists consequences for libel, fraud and the intent to do harm.

It would be nice if this were true, but it's not. Laws are phrased the way they are for a reason, because the elements of the crime are important.

There's a huge difference, for example, between outlawing conduct "intended to cause harm," conduct "likely to cause harm," and conduct "capable of causing harm." If I decide to set off a bomb because bombs are fun, I am not intending to cause harm, but I'm certainly capable and, depending upon my degree of skill and professionalism, arguably likely.

And this, in turn, is important, because this wording establishes when and how the police can actually intervene. If the anti-arson laws are phrased involving "intent," then the police can't stop me even if they see me walking into a building with a bomb unless they can demonstrate intent and not mere stupidity on my part:

"Excuse me, ma'am, but where are you going with that bomb?"
"Oh, I'm going to drop it off the side of the building and watch it blow up in midair, just below that overhang, so the building itself is outside of the blast radius. The crowd standing below will love it. It will be awesome."
"Won't someone get hurt"?
"Not if all goes as planned. If the timer messes up, maybe. But I don't think that will happen. A microsecond is a thousand milliseconds, right?"
"Oh, well, since you don't intend to hurt anyone,.... carry on, then."

I hope you don't find that acceptable, and I know I don't. Yes, civil law could come in and clean up the mess (probably with a squeegee) and I could be sued for wrongful death after the fact, but that doesn't feed the little ones left behind when my mistimed fuse puts a shrapnel charge in the middle of a crowd.

That's why the German law as phrased (at least in Wikipedia's translation) talks about "capable of" instead of "intent to." I admit I'd prefer the wording as "likely to," but mere "intent" is certainly an inappropriate threshold. It's perfectly legitimate to criminalize negligent or careless conduct as well as intentional conduct when the stakes are sufficiently high.


@Orafamy: a fair and valid point sir.

And one that I can ponder on without scrambling to defend my personal character.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So harmful/hateful words = threat of an actual bomb? Aren't we missing a few steps in the threat/danger process?

Feels like we are discussing the merits of censorship for the protection of the gullible, spineless and witless. Reminds me of the 80's, where the PMRC was going after music or all the crusades against the suicide inducing game call Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. So ban certain words, books, symbols and types of speech because people are too stupid to resist their magical powers that will drive them to kill?

I understand their reflexive action and motivation for doing so - considering their history and the body count, but really - if you have a recurring fascism problem in your country then banning words, speech and symbols actually just makes it more taboo which in turn makes it more attractive to younger people. People who deny the holocaust should be publicly ridiculed, not hidden away like they are revolutionaries fighting the "good fight". Because tbh, within Europe and Latin America their is a strong underground Fascist or WP music counterculture scenes - made stronger by the bans. While bans makes it harder to implement/organize (get shows going) they also serve to legitimize their ideology due to the fact that their ideas are "dangerous" - instead of what they really are; bankrupt and bereft of value.

What Germans should be doing is let people talk about this, and those responsible ones should be morally tasked to rise up and speak against these denier idiots whenever the raise their heads and spew their bilge. Maybe that should be the penitence of the German people; you don't get to hide it from the light of day - you have to argue against it whenever it pops up - forever.


Y'know, thinking about ridiculing nazis, I just went and read an article about stage production of The Producers in Germany. Given that they replaced the swastikas on the posters with pretzels, but kept them in the performance, now I wondering if Williamson would have been fined at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rearranged a few quotations here....

Auxmaulous wrote:
So harmful/hateful words = threat of an actual bomb?

Not equality, no. For one thing, I know of no actual bombs that have killed nearly 6 million people.

Quote:


So ban certain words, books, symbols and types of speech because people are too stupid to resist their magical powers that will drive them to kill?

Well, something drove the Germans to kill in the 1930s and 1940s, and I don't think it was the spätlese. If you want to dismiss it as "magic," just remember that the Germans collectively apparently failed their Will save and six million died.

And, just this week, a man in Kansas apparently failed his Will save and gunned down three people while shouting "Heil Hitler!" One could try to argue -- I'm sure his defense attorney, for one, will try -- that there's no relationship between his Nazi ideology and the fact that he tried to shoot people outside a Jewish center. But based only on what I've read so far, I think that will be a difficult argument to present.

Quote:


Reminds me of the 80's, where the PMRC was going after music or all the crusades against the suicide inducing game call Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

Well, if D&D had killed six million people, or six hundred, for that matter, the crusades would have been well-founded.

Quote:


Aren't we missing a few steps in the threat/danger process?

Are we? What's your explanation of the Kansas shootings?

Quote:
People who deny the holocaust should be publicly ridiculed, not hidden away like they are revolutionaries fighting the "good fight". Because tbh, within Europe and Latin America their is a strong underground Fascist or WP music counterculture scenes - made stronger by the bans. While bans makes it harder to implement/organize (get shows going) they also serve to legitimize their ideology due to the fact that their ideas are "dangerous" - instead of what they really are; bankrupt and bereft of value.

That's a theory, certainly. The fact that there's a strong underground Fascist or WP music countercultural scene in the United States, where Holocaust denial is not illegal, suggests that you may not have your cause and effect right. In fact, the strongest Fascist party in Europe today is probably in Greece, which does not have any of the laws you decry.

Quote:


I understand their reflexive action and motivation for doing so - considering their history and the body count,

I don't think you do.


Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.

He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.


Andrew R wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


Also, dude- not cool. There is one, count 'em, one Holocaust apologist in this thread.

I count three. And, no, i'm not going to name names, as that would probably violate the terms of service agreement.

Okay. Three. Does that include me? Please, think carefully before you answer. Because your post certainly implies it.
You and me both is my bet since we dare stand up for ALL peoples rights even if they are dumb. Not surprising though is that he is not calling for an end to the ACLU that ACTIVELY sues to make certain that nazi, klansmen and the like get to say whay they want where they want. Not the liberal group that goes much farther, just those evil libertarian types he hates...

I've said it multiple times, but you've probably glossed over it, because it doesn't fit your narrative of me...

I don't think we should have a similar law here in the US. I'm willing to protect holocaust denial here in the states, as repugnant as I find it.

In the context of German history though, you have to admit that Nazi propaganda has had an extremely negative effect. You may have heard of it, it's commonly called World War 2. The German people have a right to declare that that was harmful and they want to prevent it.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.
He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.

It's interesting that the laws in people's heads when they hear about something like this are so much stricter and more intrusive than the ones actually on the books. Private criticism. Ignorance. Scholarship. All things that wouldn't be banned, but are what people immediately jump to.

That's in addition to the assumption that such laws start a slippery slope where you soon won't be able to say anything without checking with the government censor.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.

He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.

That was a typo, actually. I meant to write "fined at all" (as in found guilty), but dropped the D, so I guess it's all my fault if the thread gets entirely incomprehensible. :P


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.
He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.
It's interesting that the laws in people's heads when they hear about something like this are so much stricter and more intrusive than the ones actually on the books. Private criticism. Ignorance. Scholarship. All things that wouldn't be banned, but are what people immediately jump to.

Yup. "Thoughtcrime" is a much easier soundbite. If all you have in your head are slogans, the idea that there might be nuances that don't fit on a bumper sticker is a challenging concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.

He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.

That was a typo, actually. I meant to write "fined at all" (as in found guilty), but dropped the D, so I guess it's all my fault if the thread gets entirely incomprehensible. :P

Let me rephrase, then. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law. If Williamson had expressed his opinions privately and in confidence, he would not have been in violation of the law.

At least in theory. We can't exclude the possibility of a corrupt/incompetent prosecutor and a corrupt/incompetent judge producing an ill-founded charge and completely ignoring the letter of the law as well as the intent. But, oddly enough, this isn't a problem that free speech absolutists can deal with, either. When the judge decides to ignore the law, it doesn't matter that you have written into the law that "the judge cannot ignore the law."

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts. Bigoted/racist comments and personal attacks are not OK here. Take a moment to revisit the messageboard rules. We're keeping an eye on this thread, as it seems there's a lot here set to induce grar, so if these comments can't be kept out of the discussion, the thread will be locked.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Bigoted/racist comments and personal attacks are not OK here. Take a moment to revisit the messageboard rules. We're keeping an eye on this thread, as it seems there's a lot here set to induce grar, so if these comments can't be kept out of the discussion, the thread will be locked.

Ha! I got to read it before you deleted it this time. Too slow today, Chris.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.

I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.

That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.

I'm not going to follow the rest of this thread, so this may have already been brought up and if that's the case, I apologize.

I'm not familiar with YellowDingo, or anyone involved in this debate, so I don't know the background. What I can say I've observed, though, is that Orfamay Quest, you are an extremely condescending and insulting jackass to YD, and at least to this point YD has not responded to the bile you've been raining down on him. I'm not saying I agree with his views, at all, but you, in this thread at least, continually mix fairly strong attacks on YD's character, mental state, and who knows what else with your otherwise rational and logical counter-arguments to his position.

As I said, I don't know your history with this guy, but frankly, you could have been Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and I would have shifted my support from you simply based on the perception that you're an offensive a-hole. I thought the forums were supposed to be free of this type of rancor. If you want to disagree with the guy, by all means, go ahead, but is it really necessary to call him names while you do it?

Grow up.

UPDATE - Obviously some of the Moderators were on top of things and got involved long before I ever got here.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
scrmwrtr42 wrote:
I'm not familiar with YellowDingo...

That much was obvious by the fact that you think he needs defending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
scrmwrtr42 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Yeah, it's worse than that. He's saying that when governments do anything unexpected -- not just unpopular -- they become tyrannical. A natural disaster strikes, against the expectations of the many, and only a "tyrannical" government is allowed even to notice and respond, because otherwise it's doing something the masses didn't expect.

I don't know. I expect the government to respond to natural disasters. I think many other people do as well.

That's because you're not yellowdingo, and therefore are presumptively not crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid.

I'm not going to follow the rest of this thread, so this may have already been brought up and if that's the case, I apologize.

I'm not familiar with YellowDingo, or anyone involved in this debate, so I don't know the background. What I can say I've observed, though, is that Orfamay Quest, you are an extremely condescending and insulting jackass to YD, and at least to this point YD has not responded to the bile you've been raining down on him. I'm not saying I agree with his views, at all, but you, in this thread at least, continually mix fairly strong attacks on YD's character, mental state, and who knows what else with your otherwise rational and logical counter-arguments to his position.

As I said, I don't know your history with this guy, but frankly, you could have been Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and I would have shifted my support from you simply based on the perception that you're an offensive a-hole. I thought the forums were supposed to be free of this type of rancor. If you want to disagree with the guy, by all means, go ahead, but is it really necessary to call him names while you do it?

Grow up.

As TOZ says, you obviously haven't been following yellowdingo. Go read a bunch of his petitions and get back to us.

That said, I took Orfamy to task a bit earlier in the thread for lashing out at YD. Mostly for reacting to him as if YD's petitions and posts should be taken seriously as some kind of evil coherent political philosophy. I don't know YD beyond what he's posted here and the petitions he's linked, but "crazier than a rhinocerous on bad acid" isn't a bad description of the ideas he presents. Personally, I assume he's doing it mostly for amusement value so that doesn't mean he's crazy, but that's definitely how he's presenting himself.

Mind you, I like the persona. The ideas are amusing and some of them provoke interesting debate. Even if most of them require breaking basic economics or the laws of physics.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, something drove the Germans to kill in the 1930s and 1940s, and I don't think it was the spätlese. If you want to dismiss it as "magic," just remember that the Germans collectively apparently failed their Will save and six million died.

Free will and determination to do so? And collectively they and their victims paid the price.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
And, just this week, a man in Kansas apparently failed his Will save and gunned down three people while shouting "Heil Hitler!" One could try to argue -- I'm sure his defense attorney, for one, will try -- that there's no relationship between his Nazi ideology and the fact that he tried to shoot people outside a Jewish center. But based only on what I've read so far, I think that will be a difficult argument to present.

So what you are saying is that the words/ideology manipulated his mind so much that he is not personally accountable? Got it.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, if D&D had killed six million people, or six hundred, for that matter, the crusades would have been well-founded.

An ideology alone did not kill 6 million people - it was the Germans, allies and sponsor states that did. These people were not suddenly "transformed" into murdering monsters and then once they shed the party and after the war they "transformed" back, i.e. gained a conscious. Absurd and simplistic view on the matter. Hatred of European Jews was vogue and in style prior to the war - this wasn't one man or magic words that did it - there were people behind those actions. Willing people.

This mindset that Nazism killed 6 million people is a form of displacement, as if the responsibility of German people lies in a corrupt ideology, as if they were possessed by mass hypnosis and hold no accountability for their actions. It was the Nazis, it wasn’t us – it was that ideology – we’re not to blame, we were lulled by the propaganda. Excuse central: We were just following orders.
Nazism was a manifestation of their hatred, it was a vehicle - it was not the cause. Stop making excuses.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Are we? What's your explanation of the Kansas shootings?

An ignorant and rage filled moron taking it out on society?

Do you think that if that clown did not have the KKK in his life that he would have turned out as a stellar, upright and productive citizen? You are making excuses for peoples actions - Nazism, Satanism, video games made me do it, Judas Priest and Slayer desensitized me to murder, blah, blah - the bleating of sheep.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's a theory, certainly. The fact that there's a strong underground Fascist or WP music countercultural scene in the United States, where Holocaust denial is not illegal, suggests that you may not have your cause and effect right. In fact, the strongest Fascist party in Europe today is probably in Greece, which does not have any of the laws you decry.

There was the US in the 90’s, it's just a shadow of its former self...right now.

Europe, South America and Russia are where it’s at if we are talking WP music scene.
And I never said that there was a cause = effect, that’s your argument. I was talking about keeping it in the shadows as not being an effective tool for eliminating it. In the US there is a strong social stigma against it - a taboo subject –sporting that symbolism is also a great way to get tagged by law enforcement and the Feds, so again you get that rebel draw.

And I am very familiar with the Golden Dawn in Greece – maybe the people there need to study their history and the history of their region a little better – otherwise they deserve whatever they get.

I am not decrying their laws – it’s their country and their choice and I even explained their motivation for having those laws. My view on the matter is that it doesn’t help and in fact just adds more power to that belief system – that it’s revolutionary and needs to be banned because the current regime and society are terrified of it and it’s dangerous.

It should be brought out into the light of day and exposed, over and over again.

I do not explicitly believe that symbols and ideas = cause, what I did say was that it was a draw, an attraction. What I also said (and you dodged and keep dodging) is that Europe has a fascism/fanaticism problem - which you failed to address. They are afraid that their sheep will be drawn in by the call to arms - if your society is that gullible than you have bigger problems than trying to control speech to prevent that from happening.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I understand their reflexive action and motivation for doing so - considering their history and the body count,
I don't think you do.

Better than you can imagine and better than you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
And, just this week, a man in Kansas apparently failed his Will save and gunned down three people while shouting "Heil Hitler!" One could try to argue -- I'm sure his defense attorney, for one, will try -- that there's no relationship between his Nazi ideology and the fact that he tried to shoot people outside a Jewish center. But based only on what I've read so far, I think that will be a difficult argument to present.
So what you are saying is that the words/ideology manipulated his mind so much that he is not personally accountable? Got it.

I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.

No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.

It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.

No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.

It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things? This wasn't a 12 year old kid being told to kill for the Klan, this was a 73 year old, grown-ass man. He owns it and he owns it all alone. Just like the inner city kid who joins a gang - own it. There are several kids in those communities who don't join (somehow) - yet we are supposed to provide cover for the people who fall sway to bad influences? Blaming the gun for being fired, the drug for being ingested or the cash for being stolen.

A clown sitting on his porch spouting racist beliefs is just that, a clown. If you listen to that clown then the world will hand you (with full force) whatever you have coming to you. You can't (nor should you) ban the clowns - the exist to serve as a reminder as an example of how "not to" live your life.

Instead of trying to ban the influences (Racism, hate groups, gangs, drugs, crime) and a cabal of sekret conspirators - why not address the issue as to why this garbage isn't ignored in the first place?

Stop running cover for people who make bad choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are more than a few steps in between hate speech and harmful actions. I'd rather a government intervene then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:


I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.
When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

Is responsibility an all-or-nothing thing? The law says not, which is why "comparative fault" exists.

Quote:


People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things?

Instantly. But at the same time, it's also the responsibility of the people exposing them to these things to stop what they are doing.

And from a practical standpoint, it can be a lot easier to stop something at the source than at the sink. It's more efficient and more effective to stop one person from selling than it is to stop 100 separate people from buying.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
When do you start to hold people accountable?

Once you have determined the fault lies with them? That sounds like a good time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:


Also, dude- not cool. There is one, count 'em, one Holocaust apologist in this thread.

I count three. And, no, i'm not going to name names, as that would probably violate the terms of service agreement.

Okay. Three. Does that include me? Please, think carefully before you answer. Because your post certainly implies it.
You and me both is my bet since we dare stand up for ALL peoples rights even if they are dumb. Not surprising though is that he is not calling for an end to the ACLU that ACTIVELY sues to make certain that nazi, klansmen and the like get to say whay they want where they want. Not the liberal group that goes much farther, just those evil libertarian types he hates...

I've said it multiple times, but you've probably glossed over it, because it doesn't fit your narrative of me...

I don't think we should have a similar law here in the US. I'm willing to protect holocaust denial here in the states, as repugnant as I find it.

In the context of German history though, you have to admit that Nazi propaganda has had an extremely negative effect. You may have heard of it, it's commonly called World War 2. The German people have a right to declare that that was harmful and they want to prevent it.

Why not instate such a ban? After all, the government would be able to handle it responsibly, as has been repeated ad nauseam in this very thread.

As for the idea that you want to prevent World War II, I WOULD say it is a teensy bit late for that. Some eighty years late. And that is the problem with drastic solutions that are designed to prevent a reoccurrence of something. They only work to prevent THAT SPECIFIC instance. For example, the Maginot line. It would have worked perfectly if the Germans would have been kind enough to do things the exact way they did in WWI. By the same token, the ban on holocaust denial misses the point: Crushing poverty was what drove the Germans to Hitler. The propaganda worked because it played on already existing emotions. Preventing Hitler's rise to power by historical proxy is not going to work since time machines don't exist. It could make you miss some other dangerous politician who wants to be the strong man for a country because he never talked about jews or Holocausts. Pol Pot, for example, made quite a big splash in the murder department without talking about jews.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I wondering if Williamson would have been fine at all if he had been speaking privately rather than doing an interview for public broadcast.
He would have. Public performance is a necessary element under the German law, at least as Wikipedia translated it.
It's interesting that the laws in people's heads when they hear about something like this are so much stricter and more intrusive than the ones actually on the books. Private criticism. Ignorance. Scholarship. All things that wouldn't be banned, but are what people immediately jump to.

Yup. "Thoughtcrime" is a much easier soundbite. If all you have in your head are slogans, the idea that there might be nuances that don't fit on a bumper sticker is a challenging concept.

After reading page up and page down of you quoting liberal soundbites, slogans and slurs on everyone who doesn't share your views, I have to say this:

You ought to know, Orfamay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.

No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.

It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things? This wasn't a 12 year old kid being told to kill for the Klan, this was a 73 year old, grown-ass man. He owns it and he owns it all alone. Just like the inner city kid who joins a gang - own it. There are several kids in those communities who don't join (somehow) - yet we are supposed to provide cover for the people who fall sway to bad influences? Blaming the gun for being fired, the drug for being ingested or the cash for being stolen.

A clown sitting on his porch spouting racist beliefs is just that, a clown. If you listen to that clown then the world will hand you (with full force) whatever you have coming to you. You can't (nor should you) ban the clowns - the exist to serve as a reminder as an example of how "not to" live your...

Thank you for providing such a good demonstration.

How is it "running cover"? Throw the book at him. I'm all for it. Same with the inner city gang kid. Punish him for his crimes.

Of course it's their responsibility to reject those things. I never said otherwise. I never said "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies."

But don't ignore the influences. Try to shut down those preaching hate and violence, not just those acting on them. Try to help the inner city kids make different choices, give them opportunities and better influences.

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?
Is responsibility an all-or-nothing thing? The law says not, which is why "comparative fault" exists.

Conspiracy or associated charges exist to charge degrees of involvement in a crime - If someone gives a guy the idea that he should kill his wife in passing conversation he is not a conspirator - he's just a bad friend/idiot. It's the buddy who helps plan out or assist after the fact that gets charge with the conspiracy wrap.

Short of a few targets, talking about a crime is not conspiracy to commit.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things?
Instantly. But at the same time, it's also the responsibility of the people exposing them to these things to stop what they are doing.

No, it isn't. Those people have no responsibility - that's why they do what they do. Going after a person who is committing crimes and influencing (leading people) to do so is one thing; going after someone who is writing or preaching the hate/promoting crime is another altogether (re: not a crime). One should be in jail and the other should just be ignored/laughed at.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
And from a practical standpoint, it can be a lot easier to stop something at the source than at the sink. It's more efficient and more effective to stop one person from selling than it is to stop 100 separate people from buying.

And Law Enforcement goes this route with the Drug War - not effective.

I agree about stopping something at the source vs. the sink - we just disagree about the source. You say the drug dealer - I say education - have the kids not buy. If people want drugs or hate speech they are going to seek those things out, better route would try to socially influence and educate people to do otherwise.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
But don't ignore the influences. Try to shut down those preaching hate and violence, not just those acting on them.

I agree from a social aspect - I think the issue that some people have is when the government is tasked to manage/ban reprehensible and destructive speech when in fact it’s a social issue.

So I don't ignore influence - but I don't think influence should be criminally punished (if that influence is just that: speech not action). Not talking coercion here or criminal conspiracy (Manson telling his followers to kill), but more idiot A on internet says "do something stupid" and idiot D on internet follows. I put it ALL on idiot D. Idiot A should become a social pariah, but beyond being labeled an idiot there should be no enforcement action taken. Otherwise most people would be in Jail.
So this is where we part on the issue - the States involvement in managing bad behavior/influence.

Not sure what you are advocating when you say "shut down" those preaching hate and violence.
Having the government come in a shut down sites/groups is a tremendous amount of power that can/and has been abused. People can instead boycott the isp, or even just educate people to the dangers and let individuals decide if that's what they want in their life. Look at WBC - they are a joke in most people’s eyes, we don't need the govn't to come in an shut them down, their own repellant public actions do a better job.

Gov't should not (IMO) act as the agent of protection from dangerous speech - people have to learn how to act responsibly and to manage their freedom responsibly (adults, not kids).

thejeff wrote:
Try to help the inner city kids make different choices, give them opportunities and better influences.

No argument on this one.

This would be the best weapon against poverty and young people falling into traps (drugs, gangs, teenage pregnancy). The only issue here would be who and how? Does this fall on gov't only; is there a cultural responsibility to correct existing problems?


Would be interesting if someone had a rally outside Auxmaulous house claiming he should be killed in the name of JZ or what have you, hundreds of people showing up in support, and the local authorities just "nope, until someone kills him there's no crime, we can't arrest people for just preaching the hate, Aux, you should laugh at him, not worry!".

Dark Archive

Ilja wrote:
Would be interesting if someone had a rally outside Auxmaulous house claiming he should be killed in the name of JZ or what have you, hundreds of people showing up in support, and the local authorities just "nope, until someone kills him there's no crime, we can't arrest people for just preaching the hate, Aux, you should laugh at him, not worry!".

Personal gun/rifle ownership is a great thing and breaks up crowds really quick - even Jay-Z cultists, or did you reflexively spasm to JZ with the intent of GZ – George Zimmerman? LOL.

Right to self-preservation if my life or someone in my family is in danger is always going to trump your freedom of speech.

All kidding aside - in the US people need to get permits to protest, noise ordinances, etc, limits on use of public space, but yeah - it happens. A killer or child molester is moved into the neighborhood and then a mob forms outside. Cops have to decide which threats are credible and which ones are not.

That's a byproduct of freedom, a-holes are going to abuse it and not respect others rights and so on. I’m ok with that.

Just let me know when the protest at my place is going to start, I would like to know in advance so I could put a cow-plow on the front end of my car before I go up the driveway when I get home.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I love this argument: It's always either/or. Either the individual is completely wholly responsible and no influences matter at all or only the influence is to blame and the individual is completely innocent.

No chance of it being more complicated than that. No understanding that sometimes the manipulators and instigators are to blame as well as the one who does the deed. Obviously this guy is personally accountable. But so are those that fed him the line of bull over the years that taught him to hate Jews and revere Hitler. So is the ideology.

It's the same issue that comes up with urban crime, gangs and the like. Any time you start to talk about root causes and patterns, people jump up saying "You're just making excuses. You're saying those thugs aren't responsible." When that's not the point at all.

I love this middle of the road, gray ambiguous argument: "I'm not certain to the degree of where the responsibility lies" mentality.

When do you start to hold people accountable? At what point are people responsible for their actions vs. conspiratorial "manipulators and instigators"?

People are exposed to crime, drugs, gangs, racism and violent ideologies every day - at what point does it become their responsibility to reject those things? This wasn't a 12 year old kid being told to kill for the Klan, this was a 73 year old, grown-ass man. He owns it and he owns it all alone. Just like the inner city kid who joins a gang - own it. There are several kids in those communities who don't join (somehow) - yet we are supposed to provide cover for the people who fall sway to bad influences? Blaming the gun for being fired, the drug for being ingested or the cash for being stolen.

A clown sitting on his porch spouting racist beliefs is just that, a clown. If you listen to that clown then the world will hand you (with full force) whatever you have coming to you. You can't (nor should you) ban the clowns - the exist to serve as a reminder as an

...

So you would support a ban on rap music to help save inner city kids?

301 to 350 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ignorance of the accepted truth now a crime All Messageboards