Banning the swastika = religious discrimination?

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

So what should we do? Silence them? That's what you want? Oh please, stop with this regressive bullshit.

What should we do? let them repress others for the sake of their freedoms? Stop with this regressive bullshit.
See, I can be combative too.
The fact remains that they will be pushed against, and protecting them from harm is a joke. They bring it upon themselves for what they incite against minorities. Their political movement is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Oh please, grow some skin. They're 'repressing' others by having different opinions now? Give me a break.

[Mattopilos]

What should we do? let them repress others for the sake of their freedoms? Stop with this regressive bullshit.
See, I can be combative too.
The fact remains that they will be pushed against, and protecting them from harm is a joke. They bring it upon themselves for what they incite against minorities. Their political movement is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Oh please, grow some skin. They're 'repressing' others by having different opinions now? Give me a break.

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

[Aclion]

This is all a question of one's political beliefs, so arguing this is likely to come to stand-still, TBH. Still, assuming one lives in America, as is the case in the OP, the legal framework of the US. broadly does protect freedom of speech (of course with certain stipulations). Banning hate speech has precedents in America, granted, so perhaps the swastika falls under such purview.

That being said, depriving Hindus of their symbol seems rather drastic. I think it should be plainly obvious whether a swastika is used in a Hindu function, or during a skin-head rally but sadly, America's legal system has become so pedantic and legalistic that the distinction is almost a non-factor.

Of course. I have no issue with the symbol itself, since I know it wasn't originally a symbol of a radical centrist movement. I have an issue with how Nazis use it, and how people, especially liberals, claim we should let them do as they please for the sake of free speech. I find that absurd. Obviously nuance is needed in knowing when it is being used for what and what they are trying to incite.

If they're not harming anyone why shouldn't they be allowed to do as they please? And if they are harming people I sure as fuck am not going to limit myself to throwing rocks.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

Oh please, grow some skin. They're 'repressing' others by having different opinions now? Give me a break.

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

If they start violence? Then yeah, of course, arrest them. Until they do though, we have no right to censor them.

If people on the other side start violence? Arrest them. They have no right to, either.

[Mattopilos]

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

If they start violence? Then yeah, of course, arrest them. Until they do though, we have no right to censor them.

If people on the other side start violence? Arrest them. They have no right to, either.

Ah yes, the police so do love to aid parades for Nazis. You have your views on them, and I have mine. All I can say is, hope you aren't standing on their side, because I won't hold back.
For being reported: Oh come on, really? The think I can say anything is violence now. Ha.

[Aclion]

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

If you initiate violence against them then it is you who are to blame. The only one inciting violence here is you. If you want to confront them do it with ideas.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

If they start violence? Then yeah, of course, arrest them. Until they do though, we have no right to censor them.

If people on the other side start violence? Arrest them. They have no right to, either.

Ah yes, the police so do love to aid parades for Nazis. You have your views on them, and I have mine. All I can say is, hope you aren't standing on their side, because I won't hold back.

I won't hold back? So you're gonna start throwing rocks?

If so, then yes, I will stand on their side. Doesn't matter if they're Nazis, they still have the right to freedom of speech, and you can't infringe on that.

[Mattopilos]

Ah yes, the police so do love to aid parades for Nazis. You have your views on them, and I have mine. All I can say is, hope you aren't standing on their side, because I won't hold back.

I won't hold back? So you're gonna start throwing rocks?

If so, then yes, I will stand on their side. Doesn't matter if they're Nazis, they still have the right to freedom of speech, and you can't infringe on that.

HA! Whatever you say, liberal.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

I won't hold back? So you're gonna start throwing rocks?

If so, then yes, I will stand on their side. Doesn't matter if they're Nazis, they still have the right to freedom of speech, and you can't infringe on that.

HA! Whatever you say, liberal.

The only liberal here is you. A SJW, to be specific.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Oh please, grow some skin. They're 'repressing' others by having different opinions now? Give me a break.

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

In this case would voicing their opinions and beliefs be inciting violence? Perhaps you refer to actually inciting violence.

[Mattopilos]

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

In this case would voicing their opinions and beliefs be inciting violence? Perhaps you refer to actually inciting violence.

Somewhat. I would say a lot of their speeches and protests are there to incite violence in the sense that the message is of inferiority in given groups, and that they should be treated as such. You know, the loving 'master race' kinda message you often hear about.

[Mattopilos]

HA! Whatever you say, liberal.

The only liberal here is you. A SJW, to be specific.

Ha. I think you need to look up the meaning of SJW, or stop thinking the buzzword is somehow fixed to one definition. It is a term abused by both sides to uselessness.
Also, the term liberal. That is not what it means.

[Mattopilos]

Yeah... no. They incite violence. Don't act so smug in thinking they should be able to do what the fuck they want to uphold your idealistic free speech. It ain't gonna work. I am not suggesting that banning them would work either, but don't think people will stand by idly while they spread the message they do. Violence is assured on either side, and you want to block the side that confronts them.

If you initiate violence against them then it is you who are to blame. The only one inciting violence here is you. If you want to confront them do it with ideas.

You keep telling yourself that, mate. And confront them with ideas? Yeah, that has been so successful in the past. Could have stopped world war 2 if we just discussed it. Oh please.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

If you initiate violence against them then it is you who are to blame. The only one inciting violence here is you. If you want to confront them do it with ideas.

You keep telling yourself that, mate. And confront them with ideas? Yeah, that has been so successful in the past. Could have stopped world war 2 if we just discussed it. Oh please.

The thing is, WW2 was started by the Nazis, not the other way around. You're implying that we should strike first, which is absurd imo.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

In this case would voicing their opinions and beliefs be inciting violence? Perhaps you refer to actually inciting violence.

Somewhat. I would say a lot of their speeches and protests are there to incite violence in the sense that the message is of inferiority in given groups, and that they should be treated as such. You know, the loving 'master race' kinda message you often hear about.

I'd argue that such a thing could not be considered as such. Firstly, because it is not directly stated to act in violence. Secondly, even if implied, the example you've suggested would require immense looking in-between the lines. This also brings me to Communism, could it not be stopped like Nazism, considered Communists often proclaim that the Prol should rise up in revolution, Revolution would not be easily achieved without violence.

[Mattopilos]

You keep telling yourself that, mate. And confront them with ideas? Yeah, that has been so successful in the past. Could have stopped world war 2 if we just discussed it. Oh please.

The thing is, WW2 was started by the Nazis, not the other way around. You're implying that we should strike first, which is absurd imo.

Yeah no. I am implying that letting them do what they want for "Free speech" is a joke, and apparently that makes me a liberal. I don't think you have an understand of political ideology if that is the case.

[Mattopilos]

Somewhat. I would say a lot of their speeches and protests are there to incite violence in the sense that the message is of inferiority in given groups, and that they should be treated as such. You know, the loving 'master race' kinda message you often hear about.

I'd argue that such a thing could not be considered as such. Firstly, because it is not directly stated to act in violence. Secondly, even if implied, the example you've suggested would require immense looking in-between the lines. This also brings me to Communism, could it not be stopped like Nazism, considered Communists often proclaim that the Prol should rise up in revolution, Revolution would not be easily achieved without violence.

Well, rising up is rarely a peaceful event, no? And in that case, we should just let things run their course and remove all laws regarding hate speech and crimes, and see how it turns out. Might be great, might be horrible. And I doubt it requires that much between-the-line looking. It is not that hard to tell when someone hates someone or sees them as inferior.

[Aclion]

If you initiate violence against them then it is you who are to blame. The only one inciting violence here is you. If you want to confront them do it with ideas.

You keep telling yourself that, mate. And confront them with ideas? Yeah, that has been so successful in the past. Could have stopped world war 2 if we just discussed it. Oh please.

I forgot WW2 was started by you throwing rocks.

But yes. -puts on hindsight glasses- The Treaty of Versailles could have been renegotiated, the war reparations could have been canceled or reduced as had been done with other Central Power nations and the League of Nations could have been more evenhanded with Germany regarding its membership and disputes with other nations.
I don't know if that counts as stopping WW2 but it would have taken the wind out of the NATSOCs sails

Ironically it's your strategy of blocking every nonviolent avenue that gave the Nazi party a platform. The fact the Chamberlain couldn't re-can the worms is a distraction, it never should have been opened in the first place.

[Mattopilos]

You keep telling yourself that, mate. And confront them with ideas? Yeah, that has been so successful in the past. Could have stopped world war 2 if we just discussed it. Oh please.

I forgot WW2 was started by you throwing rocks.

But yes. -puts on hindsight glasses- The Treaty of Versailles could have been renegotiated, the war reparations could have been canceled or reduced as had been done with other Central Power nations and the League of Nations could have been more evenhanded with Germany regarding its membership and disputes with other nations.
I don't know if that counts as stopping WW2 but it would have taken the wind out of the NATSOCs sails

Ah yes, I love using unrelated crap to hurl an insult at me.
And no, I doubt that would occur. That is a super-idealistic view of what could have occurred, and one with little to no chance of ever occurring.

[Aclion]

Ah yes, I love using unrelated crap to hurl an insult at me.
And no, I doubt that would occur. That is a super-idealistic view of what could have occurred, and one with little to no chance of ever occurring.

Hence hindsight

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I'd argue that such a thing could not be considered as such. Firstly, because it is not directly stated to act in violence. Secondly, even if implied, the example you've suggested would require immense looking in-between the lines. This also brings me to Communism, could it not be stopped like Nazism, considered Communists often proclaim that the Prol should rise up in revolution, Revolution would not be easily achieved without violence.

Well, rising up is rarely a peaceful event, no? And in that case, we should just let things run their course and remove all laws regarding hate speech and crimes, and see how it turns out. Might be great, might be horrible. And I doubt it requires that much between-the-line looking. It is not that hard to tell when someone hates someone or sees them as inferior.

My point being, stopping Nazi's from voicing their opinions and the such should extend to communists considering that they both have messages that could be interperated as inciting violence, the Master Race and the Revolution being the examples, this is of course if we were to read in-between the lines as we would have to in order to declare the message of the "Master Race" as inciting violence.

[Nachocuntree]

Sorta wondering how banning neo-nazis from having the same rights to freedom of speech as everyone else fits in with moral nihilism. Am I allowed to ask or is that against some rule here?

[Mattopilos]

Ah yes, I love using unrelated crap to hurl an insult at me.
And no, I doubt that would occur. That is a super-idealistic view of what could have occurred, and one with little to no chance of ever occurring.

Hence hindsight

Hence lacks common sense and the knowledge that Nazis weren't exactly rational nor was every nation at the time.

[Mattopilos]

Well, rising up is rarely a peaceful event, no? And in that case, we should just let things run their course and remove all laws regarding hate speech and crimes, and see how it turns out. Might be great, might be horrible. And I doubt it requires that much between-the-line looking. It is not that hard to tell when someone hates someone or sees them as inferior.

My point being, stopping Nazi's from voicing their opinions and the such should extend to communists considering that they both have messages that could be interperated as inciting violence, the Master Race and the Revolution being the examples, this is of course if we were to read in-between the lines as we would have to in order to declare the message of the "Master Race" as inciting violence.

I guess so, if one views it as such. depends on one's personal views really - one who is pro-establishment and upper-class would easily hate the idea of a movement that wants workers to rise up against them and demand more. A person who is against the idea of treating a group of humans as inferior and is not a fan of a system with a large state and no real political say would be against the Nazis. It is subjective in that regard.
Also, And correct me if I said it above and I will note I do change my mind sometimes, I wouldn't go so far as to ban Nazis altogether (that wouldn't work, at all. Ever.), so much as I am stating it should be understandable that, well, people will see a reason to retaliate with the message, which can incite some pretty nasty and disconcerting views. To state that one has an inherent right to say them in my views, is absurd. I adhere to the idea that "The paradox of tolerance" is at play here, and that anything that tries to claim tolerance of intolerance will be pushed against. Society will generally tend in that direction, and in this situation I see the protesting Nazis with Swastikas as the intolerant.
all views can be pushed against. I am stating some views are more likely to be pushed against than others.

[Mattopilos]

Sorta wondering how banning neo-nazis from having the same rights to freedom of speech as everyone else fits in with moral nihilism. Am I allowed to ask or is that against some rule here?

Not advocating ban, but rather retaliation as being rational.

And it doesn't, really. I would say it is rational to me since it is in my best interest to retaliate against them. In that sense, it is less moral and more about rationale.