Sfdebris.net

So, do ya'll remember when the New York Times ran that profile showing how nazis were people too, because this likeable, polite Nazi buys groceries and watches game of thrones just like everyone else?

Well, it turns out some people aren't so sympathetic, despite that glowing review.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/908317001

The Nazi got fired from his job, as did his wife, and now they are moving out and concerned about their safety.

Serves him right, despite everything there is still no place for Nazi's in polite society. I've always though the whole "group that does terrible things are people too" defense is a terrible one. Of course they are people, that's why they are judged so harshly. If they were animals or machines they would rightly avoid judgement until they posed a clear and present danger to those around them, but as people they are moral actors who must answer for their choices.

While I am no friend of Nazism, I don't think this is exactly good news. As a 'polite society', as another poster so put it, we should not support or justify putting people on the street just because we disagree with their opinions. This guy is still a human being, and should still be treated with respect. If he starts to actively threaten people or become a legitimate danger, then I could understand taking action. But this 'vigilante justice' shouldn't be encouraged.

I just read the NYT article this is based upon, and I really don't see the real basis for the claims that the NYT are pro-Nazi or something. But regardless, the "They are people too" argument is pretty weak. Of course Nazis are people, that doesn't make them morally righteous. This reminds me of an NPR story a few months back, where they tried to defend Antifa by claiming it's followers were just normal people 95% of the time. Either way, that argument doesn't justify any ideology.

No room for polite Nazi's in polite society
Good to know thought crimes are, in fact, real.

This man did not hurt anyone. He was not going to hurt anyone. (if you think words are violence then there is no helping you), but him, his family, and any place he is associated with gets to be dragged through the mud and potentially have real violence acted upon them.

On the other side, I remember the response to AntiFa, or the lack of. AntiFa members have started fires, destroyed property, and injured people, but the only people trying to uncover their identities are the "Nazi's" on 4chan. No news org would give a damn about the "communist next door". They could post about how the Kulaks deserved to die and any capitalist standing in their way will find themselves in front of a shallow ditch and not a one would give a shit.

Anyone find it ironic that the term Nazi is used to dehumanize people?

Antiboyscout wrote:No room for polite Nazi's in polite society
Good to know thought crimes are, in fact, real.

If he will judge me for the color of my skin, I will judge him for the content of his character.

Antiboyscout wrote: This man did not hurt anyone. He was not going to hurt anyone.

He has not hurt anyone, but he would gladly see millions killed and work toward that goal. He would likely never hold a gun or pull a switch, but that would not absolve him.

Antiboyscout wrote: (if you think words are violence then there is no helping you), but him, his family, and any place he is associated with gets to be dragged through the mud and potentially have real violence acted upon them.

As you say words are not violence, he and his have not had violence acted against them. If potential for violence is enough, then a man from an ideology that killed over 20 million people, and views ethnic cleansings as desirable is inherently suspect.

PlasmaHam wrote:While I am no friend of Nazism, I don't think this is exactly good news. As a 'polite society', as another poster so put it, we should not support or justify putting people on the street just because we disagree with their opinions. This guy is still a human being, and should still be treated with respect. If he starts to actively threaten people or become a legitimate danger, then I could understand taking action. But this 'vigilante justice' shouldn't be encouraged.

His predicament has nothing to do with vigilante justice and everything to do with the free market. Trump may be president but association with Nazis is still bad for business.

PlasmaHam wrote:While I am no friend of Nazism, I don't think this is exactly good news. As a 'polite society', as another poster so put it, we should not support or justify putting people on the street just because we disagree with their opinions. This guy is still a human being, and should still be treated with respect. If he starts to actively threaten people or become a legitimate danger, then I could understand taking action. But this 'vigilante justice' shouldn't be encouraged.

I just read the NYT article this is based upon, and I really don't see the real basis for the claims that the NYT are pro-Nazi or something. But regardless, the "They are people too" argument is pretty weak. Of course Nazis are people, that doesn't make them morally righteous. This reminds me of an NPR story a few months back, where they tried to defend Antifa by claiming it's followers were just normal people 95% of the time. Either way, that argument doesn't justify any ideology.

Being a Nazi IS an active threat. He wants to kill all the black people, the jewish people, and queers like me.

"That's just my opinion!" falls short here. It's not an "opinion" to say that me, my jewish-hispanic leaseholder, my sister's muslim tutor, and my somali refugee neighbors deserve to die so that white aryans can have a continent-wide safe space.

He lost his job because, guess what, a lot of companies have codes of conduct that exclude violent ideologies like "Kill all the jews". That's free market for you. He's fleeing because suddenly he realizes his black, brown, non-christian, non-straight neighbors know that he wants to kill them.


This is the topsy-turvy world of modern American "politeness". Calling somebody a racist is worse than holding racist ideas. Calling somebody homophobic is worse than being homophobic. If somebody honestly believes that I need to die, because I'm a faggot participating in "white genocide" by not impregnating pure aryan women, then that's "just their opinion", but if I percieve them as a threat because they want me and my Jewish stepdad dead, then THAT is the REAL bigotry.

PlasmaHam wrote:While I am no friend of Nazism

You are when you say "being pro-genocide is just his opinion and we have to respect that."

Seriously, has nobody on this forum ever even heard the legal definition of "fighting words"?

Draco Dracul wrote:

Antiboyscout wrote: (if you think words are violence then there is no helping you), but him, his family, and any place he is associated with gets to be dragged through the mud and potentially have real violence acted upon them.

As you say words are not violence, he and his have not had violence acted against them. If potential for violence is enough, then a man from an ideology that killed over 20 million people, and views ethnic cleansings as desirable is inherently suspect.

You seem to be operating on the basis of predictive justice, that possessing a possibly dangerous ideology warrants actions against you. There is a reason that developed nations don't used predictive justice; its ineffective, discriminatory, and infringes on many basic rights. This is basically 1984 stuff, silencing people that have differing ideologies, under the banner of protecting others.

But let's go on that for a second. You, from what I am getting, believe that if someone ascribes to an ideology that has supported horrific acts, then that person has enough "potential for violence" to warrant action against them. What about Muslims then? Studies and polls have indicated that over 50% of Western Muslims support an establishment of Sharia Law, which has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout history. Is that enough "potential for violence" to warrant action? What about hardcore, Stalin-loving communists, who want to topple our democracy and replace it with a communist state? Should we be going around kicking them into the streets as well?

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:

PlasmaHam wrote:While I am no friend of Nazism

You are when you say "being pro-genocide is just his opinion and we have to respect that."

Seriously, has nobody on this forum ever even heard the legal definition of "fighting words"?

I'm 1/4 ethnically Jew, my Jewish great-grandparents fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s to escape persecution, so I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I am sympathetic towards Nazism.

Yes, I am aware of the definition of "fighting words" as to US legal law. Would you mind explaining to me how that is relevant here?

PlasmaHam wrote:

Draco Dracul wrote:

Antiboyscout wrote: (if you think words are violence then there is no helping you), but him, his family, and any place he is associated with gets to be dragged through the mud and potentially have real violence acted upon them.

As you say words are not violence, he and his have not had violence acted against them. If potential for violence is enough, then a man from an ideology that killed over 20 million people, and views ethnic cleansings as desirable is inherently suspect.

You seem to be operating on the basis of predictive justice, that possessing a possibly dangerous ideology warrants actions against you. There is a reason that developed nations don't used predictive justice; its ineffective, discriminatory, and infringes on many basic rights. This is basically 1984 stuff, silencing people that have differing ideologies, under the banner of protecting others.

But let's go on that for a second. You, from what I am getting, believe that if someone ascribes to an ideology that has supported horrific acts, then that person has enough "potential for violence" to warrant action against them. What about Muslims then? Studies and polls have indicated that over 50% of Western Muslims support an establishment of Sharia Law, which has been used to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide throughout history. Is that enough "potential for violence" to warrant action? What about hardcore, Stalin-loving communists, who want to topple our democracy and replace it with a communist state? Should we be going around kicking them into the streets as well?

Well for one, unlike Nazism, Islam and Communism don't have mass murder as an end unto itself. For another black balling people because they are communists and/or communist sympathizers is a proud American tradition.

I'd be willing to give him a hair of doubt, and not a long one. If it weren't for the seeming rise of the far-right in recent years, I'd probably pity them. Being so consumed with hate... It's pitiable when it has no power.