YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[-Ocelot-]

If a country deems that nazi imagery should be banned, why should videogames in particular be an exception? Why is it so important for you play as a swastika-wearing soldier in a game's multiplayer mode?

A country should never deem that imagery should be banned.

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A country should never deem that imagery should be banned.

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

Disagree. I'd wager that IdPol becoming the norm is what really gave rise to the alt-right. When everything becomes about X minority group and their needs and desires it was only a matter of time until white people started thinking about things in a collective manner about what's best for them too.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A country should never deem that imagery should be banned.

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

It's the live and let live approach that the Nazis oppose most. To abandon it would be sacrificing the primary thing which differentiates us from the Nazis.

[Nakena]

If a country deems that nazi imagery should be banned, why should videogames in particular be an exception? Why is it so important for you play as a swastika-wearing soldier in a game's multiplayer mode?

Art should be an exception.

Besides I havent played Wolfenstein (or CoD) as it isnt striking my fancy too much.

I don't know where in the world you get the idea from that it would be in any way important for me to play a swastika wearing soldier in a MP game.

Besides the issue is censorship here.

So you seriously argueing that Wolfenstein players are intending to incite another Holocaust?

Like those, i guess, merkelian voters who believe this kind of garbage?

There's a sort of cringey amusement to seeing you folks try to identify and then apply German law, but maybe it's time you leave it there. You've missed the point by miles.

No it is you folks who are the cringy ones. Leave it there? No. We're just going to get started here.

Because this is bullshit, even so inside Germany, and you going to have to expect to be called out of it.

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

It's the live and let live approach that the Nazis oppose most. To abandon it would be sacrificing the primary thing which differentiates us from the Nazis.

For once we agree 100%.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

It's the "Live and let live" approach that has give rise to the alt-right.

It's the live and let live approach that the Nazis oppose most.

Could've sworn it was the Jews.

[Neu Leonstein]

I don't understand what you're saying here. You appear to be saying Nakena's misinterpreted German law, and yet you don't explain how.

It's broader than that, really. Several strands of argument in this thread are doing it. And it's understandable, given the educational and cultural background of the people involved.

The point of the laws that are the subject of argument, and the point about violating freedom of speech in order to save it ... they are not things that one learns about in English-language schooling. Even people who read beyond schoolwork rarely get it, not least because of the language barrier.

The fundamental story that virtually everyone in this thread has subscribed to is the ultimate effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas. It's what a great deal of liberal political philosophy is based on. And yet we have exceedingly obvious evidence that it is not an effective defense of society, property or livelihood. Germany is just one example - there are plenty more.

The reason this is not acknowledged in Anglo political thought is, I think, a function of propaganda rewriting history. It's not a coincidence terminology from the late Weimar and Nazi eras are so often left untranslated. The fundamental different-ness has to be highlighted, lest the English or American audience starts to realise that what actually happened in pre-war Germany is general. It is that our baser, irrational, social ways of thinking are far too powerful to be overridden by a rational argument.

The answer to the sort of emotional connection that radical political philosophies rely on (and none of these moreso than fascism and its modern-day homages) cannot be to present peer-reviewed journal publications. Sometimes it really is just denying the medium of communication. The Nazis knew this better than most - Goebbels writings from the 1930s are full of references.

What the writers of the German Basic Law, including those involved from the western allies, understood, was that the state as a neutral entity that stood outside of political argument and thoroughly uncommitted to the defense of civil society (and not simply democratic proceduralism) does not survive indefinitely.

Arguments about Holocaust denial, and even about what is considered appropriate for sale to the underage public, are so far from relevant that it's not really worth spending the time on disagreement about them.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's the live and let live approach that the Nazis oppose most.

Could've sworn it was the Jews.

Yes. Them too. The Nazis opposed many good things, on account of them being genocidal totalitarians.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't understand what you're saying here. You appear to be saying Nakena's misinterpreted German law, and yet you don't explain how.

It's broader than that, really. Several strands of argument in this thread are doing it. And it's understandable, given the educational and cultural background of the people involved.

The point of the laws that are the subject of argument, and the point about violating freedom of speech in order to save it ... they are not things that one learns about in English-language schooling. Even people who read beyond schoolwork rarely get it, not least because of the language barrier.

The fundamental story that virtually everyone in this thread has subscribed to is the ultimate effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas. It's what a great deal of liberal political philosophy is based on. And yet we have exceedingly obvious evidence that it is not an effective defense of society, property or livelihood. Germany is just one example - there are plenty more.

The reason this is not acknowledged in Anglo political thought is, I think, a function of propaganda rewriting history. It's not a coincidence terminology from the late Weimar and Nazi eras are so often left untranslated. The fundamental different-ness has to be highlighted, lest the English or American audience starts to realise that what actually happened in pre-war Germany is general. It is that our baser, irrational, social ways of thinking are far too powerful to be overridden by a rational argument.

The answer to the sort of emotional connection that radical political philosophies rely on (and none of these moreso than fascism and its modern-day homages) cannot be to present peer-reviewed journal publications. Sometimes it really is just denying the medium of communication. The Nazis knew this better than most - Goebbels writings from the 1930s are full of references.

What the writers of the German Basic Law, including those involved from the western allies, understood, was that the state as a neutral entity that stood outside of political argument and thoroughly uncommitted to the defense of civil society (and not simply democratic proceduralism) does not survive indefinitely.

Arguments about Holocaust denial, and even about what is considered appropriate for sale to the underage public, are so far from relevant that it's not really worth spending the time on disagreement about them.

That's true. There is inevitably going to be a values difference between anglos and germans on this debate.

That's true, the argument over whether it's acceptable or worthwhile to violate free speech to save it is an important one in this debate. In my view, it's not acceptable or worthwhile. If you become censorious to defeat censors, you have not defeated censorship and claimed victory for free speech, you have defeated one brand of censorship and claimed victory for your particular brand of free speech.

It's not an effective defence of society because it's not meant to be. If Nazis start hurting people or getting into power, that's the point at which you stop them, not before.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not an effective defence of society because it's not meant to be. If Nazis start hurting people or getting into power, that's the point at which you stop them, not before.

If they start winning elections how do you stop them without betraying your values?

[Nakena]

It's broader than that, really. Several strands of argument in this thread are doing it. And it's understandable, given the educational and cultural background of the people involved.

The point of the laws that are the subject of argument, and the point about violating freedom of speech in order to save it ... they are not things that one learns about in English-language schooling. Even people who read beyond schoolwork rarely get it, not least because of the language barrier.

The fundamental story that virtually everyone in this thread has subscribed to is the ultimate effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas. It's what a great deal of liberal political philosophy is based on. And yet we have exceedingly obvious evidence that it is not an effective defense of society, property or livelihood. Germany is just one example - there are plenty more.

The reason this is not acknowledged in Anglo political thought is, I think, a function of propaganda rewriting history. It's not a coincidence terminology from the late Weimar and Nazi eras are so often left untranslated. The fundamental different-ness has to be highlighted, lest the English or American audience starts to realise that what actually happened in pre-war Germany is general. It is that our baser, irrational, social ways of thinking are far too powerful to be overridden by a rational argument.

The answer to the sort of emotional connection that radical political philosophies rely on (and none of these moreso than fascism and its modern-day homages) cannot be to present peer-reviewed journal publications. Sometimes it really is just denying the medium of communication. The Nazis knew this better than most - Goebbels writings from the 1930s are full of references.

What the writers of the German Basic Law, including those involved from the western allies, understood, was that the state as a neutral entity that stood outside of political argument and thoroughly uncommitted to the defense of civil society (and not simply democratic proceduralism) does not survive indefinitely.

Arguments about Holocaust denial, and even about what is considered appropriate for sale to the underage public, are so far from relevant that it's not really worth spending the time on disagreement about them.

I happen to be able to read german as it happens, and it doesnt makes your argument look any better.

In fact, it does it makes even more suck in front of an international audience who is not in the slightest afraid or impressed of whatever german laws and customs you bring into the field here. Besides I have seldom seen so little substance spread across so many words.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's not an effective defence of society because it's not meant to be. If Nazis start hurting people or getting into power, that's the point at which you stop them, not before.

If they start winning elections how do you stop them without betraying your values?

Enshrine democracy, equal rights and free speech in the constitution to ensure they can't betray those principles. If they violate that, remove them from office. However, if a Fascist party gets elected, which it won't, the country may be too far gone culturally to them to be removed from office. Hopefully the supreme court will be robust enough.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

If they start winning elections how do you stop them without betraying your values?

Enshrine democracy, equal rights and free speech in the constitution to ensure they can't betray those principles. If they violate that, remove them from office. However, if a Fascist party gets elected, which it won't, the country may be too far gone culturally to them to be removed from office. Hopefully the supreme court will be robust enough.

This is a straight-up admission that if you let them speak you may not be able to prevent them creating a fascist state.

GOSH, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD STOPPED THEM SPEAKING!

[Washington Resistance Army]

Enshrine democracy, equal rights and free speech in the constitution to ensure they can't betray those principles. If they violate that, remove them from office. However, if a Fascist party gets elected, which it won't, the country may be too far gone culturally to them to be removed from office. Hopefully the supreme court will be robust enough.

This is a straight-up admission that if you let them speak you may not be able to prevent them creating a fascist state.

GOSH, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD STOPPED THEM SPEAKING!

Given the rise of far right and third position parties in Europe where overt displays of such things are banned even that isn't stopping it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Enshrine democracy, equal rights and free speech in the constitution to ensure they can't betray those principles. If they violate that, remove them from office. However, if a Fascist party gets elected, which it won't, the country may be too far gone culturally to them to be removed from office. Hopefully the supreme court will be robust enough.

This is a straight-up admission that if you let them speak you may not be able to prevent them creating a fascist state.

GOSH, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD STOPPED THEM SPEAKING!

See the underlined.

And also, if you're in a country that would actually elect a Fascist, you're gonna need more than censorship to fix such a broken country. I mean if you need censorship to stop Fascists from getting elected, you're living in a shit country.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

This is a straight-up admission that if you let them speak you may not be able to prevent them creating a fascist state.

GOSH, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD STOPPED THEM SPEAKING!

See the underlined.

And also, if you're in a country that would actually elect a Fascist, you're gonna need more than censorship to fix such a broken country. I mean if you need censorship to stop Fascists from getting elected, you're living in a shit country.

Have you seen the US president?

"A country might elect a hard-right moron, but there's no way they'd ever elect a fascist!"

Do show me where I said we could fix everything with censorship. If your country is shit, then maybe you should stop the fascists speaking while you fix the shittiness using non-fascist means so that the fascists can't try to sell fascism as a "fix".

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

See the underlined.

And also, if you're in a country that would actually elect a Fascist, you're gonna need more than censorship to fix such a broken country. I mean if you need censorship to stop Fascists from getting elected, you're living in a shit country.

Have you seen the US president?

"A country might elect a hard-right moron, but there's no way they'd ever elect a fascist!"

Do show me where I said we could fix everything with censorship. If your country is shit, then maybe you should stop the fascists speaking while you fix the shittiness using non-fascist means so that the fascists can't try to sell fascism as a "fix".

There's a fine line between a dumb right-winger and a Fascist.

That quote but unironically.

I never said that you said that we could fix everything with censorship. All I'm saying is that if my country ever elects a Fascist party, I will seriously consider suicide or emigration. You talk about fixing shittiness through non-Fascist means, yet stopping people from speaking is Fascist means.

[Nakena]

This is a straight-up admission that if you let them speak you may not be able to prevent them creating a fascist state.

GOSH, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD STOPPED THEM SPEAKING!

Given the rise of far right and third position parties in Europe where overt displays of such things are banned even that isn't stopping it.

Because muh censorship is totally stopping Cyber Hitler 2025 AD

[Nilrahrarfan]

YouTube isn't going far enough. They should outright ban all this far-right content instead of merely demonetizing it. Neo-Nazis should never be given a safe space to peddle their hatred.

If you're going to ban Neo-Nazis, you should ban SJWs too. They're basically the same, just on different sides of the Political horseshoe.

[Neu Leonstein]

-snip-

OK, so let's ask the first question. When you learned about what happened in Germany in the 1930s, what did you think went on in the heads of the people who lived there and then? Why didn't people just do what you suggested and stop the Nazis?

-snip-

Oh, the point isn't to claim some sort of superiority or scare anyone. The point is that it is hard for people to really internalise what happened when it's portrayed as having happened to a bunch of foreigners. And if people don't really understand that it was a real society and real people that collapsed so quickly into something so different, then they don't understand the need for actions to prevent that from happening. Then such actions just look like wanton outrage and ridiculous hyperbole.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you the same question:
When you learned about what happened in Germany in the 1930s, what did you think went on in the heads of the people who lived there and then? Why didn't freedom of speech stop the Nazis?

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Have you seen the US president?

"A country might elect a hard-right moron, but there's no way they'd ever elect a fascist!"

Do show me where I said we could fix everything with censorship. If your country is shit, then maybe you should stop the fascists speaking while you fix the shittiness using non-fascist means so that the fascists can't try to sell fascism as a "fix".

There's a fine line between a dumb right-winger and a Fascist.

That quote but unironically.

I never said that you said that we could fix everything with censorship. All I'm saying is that if my country ever elects a Fascist party, I will seriously consider suicide or emigration. You talk about fixing shittiness through non-Fascist means, yet stopping people from speaking is Fascist means.

No, it isn't. Every country places some restrictions on speech. Fascists don't restrict the free speech of fascists; they restrict the free speech of everyone else.

[Nilrahrarfan]

There's a fine line between a dumb right-winger and a Fascist.

That quote but unironically.

I never said that you said that we could fix everything with censorship. All I'm saying is that if my country ever elects a Fascist party, I will seriously consider suicide or emigration. You talk about fixing shittiness through non-Fascist means, yet stopping people from speaking is Fascist means.

No, it isn't. Every country places some restrictions on speech. Fascists don't restrict the free speech of fascists; they restrict the free speech of everyone else.

And that is why I'm AnCap

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

OK, so let's ask the first question. When you learned about what happened in Germany in the 1930s, what did you think went on in the heads of the people who lived there and then? Why didn't people just do what you suggested and stop the Nazis?

Because powers to go against the Weimar constitution in cases of emergency was entrusted in the chancellor during the Stresemann government due to the hyperinflation crisis of the early 20s. After the reichstag fire, Hitler used these powers to suspend the parliament and the constitution indefinitely. At least, that's my interpretation of what I was taught in Modern History.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No, it isn't. Every country places some restrictions on speech. Fascists don't restrict the free speech of fascists; they restrict the free speech of everyone else.

And that is why I'm AnCap

But in your sig it says you're a Fascist...

[Nakena]

Oh, the point isn't to claim some sort of superiority or scare anyone. The point is that it is hard for people to really internalise what happened when it's portrayed as having happened to a bunch of foreigners. And if people don't really understand that it was a real society and real people that collapsed so quickly into something so different, then they don't understand the need for actions to prevent that from happening. Then such actions just look like wanton outrage and ridiculous hyperbole.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you the same question:
When you learned about what happened in Germany in the 1930s, what did you think went on in the heads of the people who lived there and then? Why didn't freedom of speech stop the Nazis?

I have never said Freedom of Speech would have stopped the nazis.

In the late Weimar era there were several powerful groups and factions competing with each other, and in the end Hitler emerged as the victorious one. The Weimar Republic was intrinsically instable from the beginning. By the early 1930 Weimar was already pretty much doomed. The question was not if it would be going away but rather what would be following it.

I do not believe this situation is present in contemporary Germany, and if it ever would come to that, censorship laws would be unlikely to fix any of the deeper running problems that undoubtly would exist in such a case.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No, it isn't. Every country places some restrictions on speech. Fascists don't restrict the free speech of fascists; they restrict the free speech of everyone else.

Yes, every country places some restrictions on speech, but the more restrictions you pleace on it, the more you have in common with Nazi Germany. Of course you don't want to restrict the same speech as Fascists, but what you have in common is that you both want to restrict speech to an unacceptable degree.