LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Lucja]

How about not banning speech based on point of view? Holocaust denial is legal here, and should not be illegal here, but like tankie BS should be shamed and mocked. There is not enough shaming and mocking of tankie BS.

Historical revisionists such as Nazis and Marxist-Leninists should absolutely be jailed for propagating lies when the Holocaust and Katyn Massacre are objectively proven.

[West Leas Oros 2]

How about not banning speech based on point of view? Holocaust denial is legal here, and should not be illegal here, but like tankie BS should be shamed and mocked. There is not enough shaming and mocking of tankie BS.

Historical revisionists such as Nazis and Marxist-Leninists should absolutely be jailed for propagating lies when the Holocaust and Katyn Massacre are objectively proven.

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Historical revisionists such as Nazis and Marxist-Leninists should absolutely be jailed for propagating lies when the Holocaust and Katyn Massacre are objectively proven.

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

Interesting. I don’t know much about Polish laws.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

Interesting. I don’t know much about Polish laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish ... d%20Poland

You can learn more about it here, although the writing seems a bit biased towards the government position.

[Novus America]

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

Given that unlike other areas occupied by the Nazis (and Soviets when they were still working with the Nazis before fighting them) Poland was NOT given any sort of puppet government and virtually nothing of the previous government was maintained there is some logic to this, although I still am not in favor of such laws.

I do not think we should ban even the worst views, because it is a dangerous path to go down and often backfires (Streisand Effect and all) but I do think we should as individuals mock and shame denial of genocide and war crimes were there is no serious scholarly doubt they occurred and who was responsible.

[Philjia]

Historical revisionists such as Nazis and Marxist-Leninists should absolutely be jailed for propagating lies when the Holocaust and Katyn Massacre are objectively proven.

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

Criminal libel was repealed in Britain in 2009, however it is still a tort; that is to say, you are liable for the consequences of the defamatory statement.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

Given that unlike other areas occupied by the Nazis (and Soviets when they were still working with the Nazis before fighting them) Poland was NOT given any sort of puppet government and virtually nothing of the previous government was maintained there is some logic to this, although I still am not in favor of such laws.

I do not think we should ban even the worst views, because it is a dangerous path to go down and often backfires (Streisand Effect and all) but I do think we should as individuals mock and shame denial of genocide and war crimes were there is no serious scholarly doubt they occurred and who was responsible.

I disagree. Some views are without merit, and to say that specific banning of fascist rhetoric will lead inevitably to the banning of reasonable viewpoints is predicated only on the slippery slope fallacy. Which is conveniently forgotten as soon as other laws are discussed, by the way. Why give the police powers to arrest? If we give the police power to arrest you over murder, they might one day arrest you for being a Mormon! Of course, when we make laws, we do not judge them on whether other laws would be bad.

The only defence I have seen given of allowing fascists to spout their fascist beliefs are:

1. They might one day take away my right to free speech! (They were going to do that anyway, don't worry)
2. Free speech, as an abstract concept, should not care about what is being said.

But, of course, the right to free speech exists to serve the public debate, and the public debate is not served by fascist talking points. We can never allow our nations to become fascist, so fascists might as well shut up. No-one should be allowed to vote for fascism, it's a destructive ideology that stands against everything democracy believes in, and if we are never going to allow it in power, it makes no sense to give them the freedoms as if that were even possible.

No-one is actually defending fascists, by the way, just the abstract concept of free speech, the theoretical application of which falls apart when fascists use it to destroy the rechtsstaat. Like, give a defence of what value fascist speech has, or otherwise, accept that it is detrimental in every way imaginable.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The same restrictions should be imposed on communists then as well, considering how messed up their regimes tend to be as well.

Marxist-Leninist speech has no value. I mean they deny Stalin's crimes, stand in solidarity with brutal left-wing regimes, some even support Kim Jong Un, and claim his repressive Nazi-style death camps are nothing more than "propaganda" from the west. Something tells me you won't be consistent on this though.

[Novus America]

Given that unlike other areas occupied by the Nazis (and Soviets when they were still working with the Nazis before fighting them) Poland was NOT given any sort of puppet government and virtually nothing of the previous government was maintained there is some logic to this, although I still am not in favor of such laws.

I do not think we should ban even the worst views, because it is a dangerous path to go down and often backfires (Streisand Effect and all) but I do think we should as individuals mock and shame denial of genocide and war crimes were there is no serious scholarly doubt they occurred and who was responsible.

I disagree. Some views are without merit, and to say that specific banning of fascist rhetoric will lead inevitably to the banning of reasonable viewpoints is predicated only on the slippery slope fallacy. Which is conveniently forgotten as soon as other laws are discussed, by the way. Why give the police powers to arrest? If we give the police power to arrest you over murder, they might one day arrest you for being a Mormon! Of course, when we make laws, we do not judge them on whether other laws would be bad.

The only defence I have seen given of allowing fascists to spout their fascist beliefs are:

1. They might one day take away my right to free speech! (They were going to do that anyway, don't worry)
2. Free speech, as an abstract concept, should not care about what is being said.

But, of course, the right to free speech exists to serve the public debate, and the public debate is not served by fascist talking points. We can never allow our nations to become fascist, so fascists might as well shut up. No-one should be allowed to vote for fascism, it's a destructive ideology that stands against everything democracy believes in, and if we are never going to allow it in power, it makes no sense to give them the freedoms as if that were even possible.

No-one is actually defending fascists, by the way, just the abstract concept of free speech, the theoretical application of which falls apart when fascists use it to destroy the rechtsstaat. Like, give a defence of what value fascist speech has, or otherwise, accept that it is detrimental in every way imaginable.

Banning specific conduct Is very different than banning certain viewpoints.
And sometimes the “slippery slope” or those in power using gradual steps to steadily erode freedom is real. I think the state should only be involved to the extent it is absolutely necessary and effective and it must be very clear and specific what conduct is prohibited.

And I do not think this suffices. Viewpoints are different than conduct.
And what defines “Fascist” anyways? The term is so grossly overused.
Nazis are not your regular Fascists anyways, Nazis are a particular extreme version of Fascism (and yes Fascism is already extreme.
Also it is not clearly effective as places that ban these viewpoints do not seem to have less a problem with them. They just call themselves something else.

I would rather know who they are than have them hide while still advancing their goals.

Then there is the problem that seeking to change, even abolish entirely the constitution is allowed. If you want to propose a amendment to the constitution to radically change it or end it it is allowed.

Also here is the issue. If we ban “Fascism” (again where do we draw the line) because it seeks to end the constitutional order we currently have, should we not ban other ideologies (Marxism, Islamism etc.) that week to do so as well?

Political freedom does entail the freedom to advocate changes the current governing structure or ending even ending it. As long as it does not goes as far as extreme, intentional likely incitement of violence. But that is not based on one viewpoint, anyone who crosses that line is to be held accountable Fascist or not.

Now that does not mean you have to just let such groups run amok. Mere advocacy is legal BUT if they actually take real overt acts towards violence then they can be held accountable.
And organizations engaging in criminal CONDUCT (not simply viewpoints) can be banned.

Also open Fascism let alone Nazism is not really a credible threat, the next threat will come under a different name and all. The issue in Hungary to the constitutional order there was not the actual open Fascists but a more mainstream movement and leader, that would not have been banned under such laws.

More pragmatic authoritarians are far more likely to actually achieve power.
So what then is the point? An openly Fascist (let alone Nazi) party has no chance of actually winning anything here. As soon as they admit to it they lose any real public support anyways.
So why not let them commit electoral suicide by admitting who they are?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It is very low effort for regimes to permit free speech when the ideological system underpinning them is stable and relatively uncontested. It is not surprising that liberal capitalism is taking this authoritarian turn as more and more people become dissatisfied with the system. The inability of a system to allow defection from its values is a symptom of a system in crisis, that is not able to (re)produce a populace with the shared principles and identity that normally make defection a rare choice. Extremists need to be silenced because they are saying things that speak to people's dissatisfaction and the system is not willing or able to suitably redress those dissatisfactions.

[Salus Maior]

Historical revisionists such as Nazis and Marxist-Leninists should absolutely be jailed for propagating lies when the Holocaust and Katyn Massacre are objectively proven.

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

What about spreading ideological propaganda for harmful/extremist ideologies?

[Salus Maior]

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

The Polish government didn't collaborate with the Nazis in any way. The government was exiled to France and then to Britain when the Nazis and the Soviets raped their country.

How would the Polish government collaborate with the Nazis, when they were actively at war with the Nazis?

[Novus America]

The issue is that some people seem to ascribe Fascism with some eternal transcendent appeal or hypnotic power. But it has no special power. It was created, rose and fell from the 20s to 40s based on the ideological patterns and unique conditions of the time.

History does not in fact repeat itself. Each historical event and era is unique.
Sure there are patterns and similarities but to assume an exact repeat is ridiculous.
Banning Fascism in 1900 would not have worked because nobody yet knew what it was. It was a new term for a new combination of new and old ideas.

The next ideology to do such things, if there is one will follow the same pattern. It will have new names, new symbols and even some new ideas combined with old ideas, some drawn from Fascism.

But it will not be openly Fascist and this laws banning Fascism would not stop it.

Again Orban and Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey did not achieve new authoritarian regimes via claiming to be Fascist, and are not in fact Fascist, but rather under new names and symbols and ideological differences with it.

So while we have Anti Fascist tunnel vision trying to ban a small extreme group we will completely miss the actual ideologies and movements that can and might triumph.

[Novus America]

Interestingly, you have basically two schools in that regard. In Germany, holocaust denial is illegal, because it's so pernicious and because it's mainly done by Neo-Nazis.

Then, you have Poland, where it is illegal to say that the Polish government collaborated with the Nazis in any way. This, of course, is simple censorship and has no value but to shield Poland from historical criticism.

The Polish government didn't collaborate with the Nazis in any way. The government was exiled to France and then to Britain.

How would the Polish government collaborate with the Nazis, when they were actively at war with the Nazis?

Also the Nazis never established a collaborationist government in Poland unlike other places they occupied (as they intended to destroy Poland as a concept).

And unlike other places the Nazis never had a Polish SS unit.

The Nazis did forcibly conscript a some local Polish units but these proved horribly unreliable, prone to desertion, mutiny and actually working with the Polish underground, and the Nazis ended up executing large numbers of them.

Of the two combat battalions raised from Poles by conscription (when they tried to get volunteers only TWO people actually showed up) the entirety of one battalion deserted and half the other deserted as well.
Both were disbanded after only a short time.

So although I understand why people are concerned about the law, and I would not vote for the law if it was my choice to do so, I understand where the Polish government is coming from (and the purpose is not to prevent the rise of Neo-Nazis in Poland) as when people say “Polish Death Camps” it seems to indicate a Polish government was somehow involved in it or that they were staffed by Poles.

Although being on occupied Polish territory they had not connection to any Polish government, not even a collaborationist one because unlike say in France or Croatia no such collaborationist government ever existed in Poland.

Although some individuals may have collaborated Poland was the LEAST collaborationist of any Nazi occupied area, something people do not give them fair credit for.

[Novus America]

Being wrong isn’t a crime, nor is denying facts or spreading lies. At least not in much of the West, as far as I’m aware.

What about spreading ideological propaganda for harmful/extremist ideologies?

The inherent issue here is what ideologies do we decide are illegal? How do we define them? And even if we try that like in Germany (we could not do it in the US without amending the Constitution, which although we theoretically could good luck getting such an amendment passed) the groups and ideologies still exist, just with a little rules lawyering. The NDP is obviously Nazi but skirts the ban by just not openly saying they are.

[Salus Maior]

Although some individuals may have collaborated Poland was the LEAST collaborationist of any Nazi occupied area, something people do not give them fair credit for.

It's hard to be collaborationist with people who want to exterminate you.

It's kind of like saying that Jews were collaborators.

[Novus America]

Although some individuals may have collaborated Poland was the LEAST collaborationist of any Nazi occupied area, something people do not give them fair credit for.

It's hard to be collaborationist with people who want to exterminate you.

True, although actually there were a fair number of Russian and even a few individual Jewish collaborators. And yet no reasonable person would say Russians and Jews as a whole were collaborationist.

But yes, trying to exterminate a group entirely does make it quite difficult to get members of that group on your side.

Actually the Nazis might have been able to beat the Soviets had then been more pragmatic and less genocidal lunatics, but then they would not be Nazis.

[Loben The 2nd]

Although some individuals may have collaborated Poland was the LEAST collaborationist of any Nazi occupied area, something people do not give them fair credit for.

It's hard to be collaborationist with people who want to exterminate you.

It's kind of like saying that Jews were collaborators.

saying that jews were nazi collaborators would be a big brained take.

[Cisairse]

Hey LWDT,

Thoughts on police unions? Should they be treated like every other worker union, or do they deserve irregular consideration due to the function of police in society?

I know the IWW's thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear alternative perspectives.

[North German Realm]

I think this has been asked here before, but I wanted you guys' opinion on something. What should happen when a country goes through decolonization? I mean, this isn't a "is decolonization good" question. Suppose a former colony is now independent and going through the process of being decolonized. Should the descendants of colonial settlers now living in the country be treated any differently to the natives? If not, to what extent would a 'retribution' be justified?

[Novus America]

Hey LWDT,

Thoughts on police unions? Should they be treated like every other worker union, or do they deserve irregular consideration due to the function of police in society?

I know the IWW's thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear alternative perspectives.

Teachers and police unions are something I have difficulties with. Even FDR opposed public sector unions. Although the idea is nice, in reality both have become serious impediments to holding people accountable and reasonable reform.

Federal police are largely prohibited from unionizing already.

[Cisairse]

I think this has been asked here before, but I wanted you guys' opinion on something. What should happen when a country goes through decolonization? I mean, this isn't a "is decolonization good" question. Suppose a former colony is now independent and going through the process of being decolonized. Should the settlers -or their descendants- be treated any differently to the natives? If not, to what extent would a 'retribution' be justified?

Any system of segregating (in a physical sense or legal sense) natives from colonizers will lead to really bad things happening. In a perfect world, there would be no different treatment; realistically, there are probably prejudices and economic biases that would need to be addressed pragmatically.

[Novus America]

I think this has been asked here before, but I wanted you guys' opinion on something. What should happen when a country goes through decolonization? I mean, this isn't a "is decolonization good" question. Suppose a former colony is now independent and going through the process of being decolonized. Should the descendants of colonial settlers now living in the country be treated any differently to the natives? If not, to what extent would a 'retribution' be justified?

I think they should be given equal rights with the natives, now if an individual one actually committed a real crime under the past regime that is different but we are all colonists other descendants of colonists (outside of East Africa) at some point.

Land distribution is tricky. If the descendants of colonists monopolized all the land there needs to be some reasonable land redistribution but one needs to do it in a transparent, legal manner focusing on underutilized land.

Unfortunately in reality it is very difficult because the people are often not going to be patient and often want revenge.

[Fahran]

I think this has been asked here before, but I wanted you guys' opinion on something. What should happen when a country goes through decolonization? I mean, this isn't a "is decolonization good" question. Suppose a former colony is now independent and going through the process of being decolonized. Should the descendants of colonial settlers now living in the country be treated any differently to the natives? If not, to what extent would a 'retribution' be justified?

It would depend on the precise context in all honesty. The absorption of worthwhile values and institutions from the colonial administration, the revitalization and refurbishing of worthwhile values and institutions that preceded the colonial administration, sound and moderate social and economic reforms for the sake of justice, order, and functionality, and lots of communal reflection on what has transpired. Definitely don't pull a Rwanda or Zimbabwe. In all honesty, I'd argue that small number of Latin American and East Asian countries really handled decolonization properly. Egypt wasn't too shabby either but they benefited from their geography and history quite substantially. Greece didn't do too terrible either.