NS lenient on Nazi's?

[Grays Harbor]

Recently I've seen a couple of posters using names directly referencing the Nazi's or other extreme far right groups (who many consider to be Nazi's in all but name), as well as sticking Hitler fan stuff in their sig's, motto's and so on.

Know I know use of the swastika is banned for certain, and I've always assumed that other openly Nazi worshiping behaviour was as well.

Am I wrong, or is NS really going lenient on Nazi fanciers?

lenient on Nazis because they are permitted to RP as a nazi-ish state? Yeah, nazis were extreme and murderous, but so have been many other political philosophies that have been just as objectionable to as many people. Do we also ban stalinist nations from being RPed? How about imperialist conquerer nations? Where should the line be drawn? Any type nation that is deemed objectionable to somebody should be banned? That would leave, well, nobody because it is a fairly constant law of the internet that somebody will bitch about something, no matter what it is.

[Neo Art]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

[Baycosa]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

[Belschaft]

Read my sig Neo.

[Dyakovo]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

[Maurepas]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

but I believe that the word "Nazi" is actually an Acronym....so, what would be the proper way to make it plural?

[Neo Art]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

the....fuck?

[Valkyriana]

As others have said it's simply a freedom of speech topic. Freedom of speech is for everyone not 'freedom for me but not for you'.
If you don't like what someone else is saying then your freedom of speech allows you to voice your objections to their viws and challenge theirs.

If you banned the free speech of people like nazis they would just go underground to spread their message and by doing that it removes the opportunity for others to argue against them, also banning them validates some of their views as well as gaining sympathy for them which would actually help them.

[The Animal Union]

No one has seen us yet.

Alright comrades, I have a plan. We found Nazist nations. All of us. With swastikas on the flags.

[Maurepas]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

Well, Stalin did kill more people than Hitler...

So, in the sense of murderous regimes, I can see it...Any educated person should be able to tell the difference ideology-wise, however...

[Kadinichung]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

Well, Stalin did kill more people than Hitler...

So, in the sense of murderous regimes, I can see it...Any educated person should be able to tell the difference ideology-wise, however...

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

[Neo Art]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

but I believe that the word "Nazi" is actually an Acronym....so, what would be the proper way to make it plural?

I'd say that "a Nazi" has sufficiently entered the vernacular to refer to someone who is a member of the Nazi party (or subscribes to those ideals) that the simple "Nazis" is sufficient. Besides, you don't need an apostrophe to signal the plural of an acronym, such as "ATMs"

[Classic Rockstars]

Hitler wasn't peaceful, but I agree, dudes.

[West Failure]

I would like to point out that Nazis, i.e. National Socialists, were a far-Left phenomenon, and were properly recognized as such for years, until the Soviet Union under Stalin decided to label what it properly viewed as a strong competitor to is own socialist ideology as "right-wing." I've never seen anyone believe that Trotsky was right-wing, but for some reason, people are still in the dark and confused regarding the National Socialists.

No they weren't they were a right wing phenomenon, you are the confused one. They were not socialists in any usual sense of the word.

[Baycosa]

If NS is soft on Communist images and similar I can't understand whay they shouln't be soft on nazis, it's pretty much the same thing.

What, the nazis killed the jew because they belived jews were destroying their race, commies killed "class-traitors" and "parasites" that they belived were destroying their utopian society.

Both advocated the "rights of the workers" and both inhumanely slaughtered innocents, millions died in Ukraine before the 2nd world war when the commies confiscated "the peoples food" from the farmers and sold it to the west.

[Maurepas]

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

Yeah, and you find people that say that Hitler wasnt fascist either, in reality, its beside the point...

[The Romulan Republic]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

Actually that's a fairly easy typo to make if you're at all careless, even if you know its wrong when you think about it

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like a lot of the posters here prefer to nitpick grammar over responding to the point actually being made? And I'm referring to NSG as a whole, not this thread alone.

[Baycosa]

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

What about Lenin then, or Pol Pot or let's say good ol Kim Jong Il.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

http://www.calacademy.org/newsroom/rele ... teracy.php

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 20501.html

Why do you have any faith at all anymore. I can't remember the specific survey, but I remember seeing that America really isn't that far behind most other nations in scientific literacy. Overall, it seems that a very small percentage of the population of ANY nation is scientifically literate.

[Grays Harbor]

at what point did our educational system fail so utterly as to make it seem that an apostraphe is a good way to signal a plural.

Actually that's a fairly easy typo to make if you're at all careless, even if you know its wrong when you think about it

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like a lot of the posters here prefer to nitpick grammar over responding to the point actually being made? And I'm referring to NSG as a whole, not this thread alone.

yes. definately. argueing semantics, punctuation and spelling is seen as a marvelous means to refute an argument. just how, I haven't quite figured out yet.

[Kadinichung]

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

What about Lenin then, or Pol Pot or let's say good ol Kim Jong Il.

Nope.

[Baycosa]

I would like to point out that Nazis, i.e. National Socialists, were a far-Left phenomenon, and were properly recognized as such for years, until the Soviet Union under Stalin decided to label what it properly viewed as a strong competitor to is own socialist ideology as "right-wing." I've never seen anyone believe that Trotsky was right-wing, but for some reason, people are still in the dark and confused regarding the National Socialists.

No they weren't they were a right wing phenomenon, you are the confused one. They were not socialists in any usual sense of the word.

Why not? They wanted a utopian society ruled by the workers who builds the country for tomorrow, most of Hitlers reforms were based on socialist ideas and both advocated a "master-class" or "master-race" that would rise through thier ideas.

[Baycosa]

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

What about Lenin then, or Pol Pot or let's say good ol Kim Jong Il.

Nope.

Som Lenin was not a communist, then who is "communist". I guess all that did not commit atrocities (none that is).

All "communist" rulers have commited foul acts aginst humanity, denying them is like denying the holocaust, idiotic.

[Maurepas]

The problem with protecting free speech is that you sometimes have to suffer speech you don't like. Nazi sympathizers are allowed to speak their piece here, so long as they don't get offensive in their speech (it rarely takes long before they degenerate into it anyway). Of course, there's nothing saying we can't challenge Nazi sympathizers on their opinions, and a lot of people do.

So I don't see it as NS being lenient on Nazis, just big on free speech. "Free speech" is not the same as "unchallenged speech."

Just so. We see this a lot here, people getting all "I'm entitled to my opinion!" when someone challenges them on a post. You can say pretty much any damn-fool thing you want here but saying it's your personal opinion does not exempt you from being called on it. Or make you exempt from Mod action.

True, but I would object to mod action being extended to symbols and names, people should be entitled to whatever banner they want...

it should be the ridicule and hatred of the posters that weed out the bad ones...

[Grays Harbor]

Yes, but Stalin wasn't a communist.

What about Lenin then, or Pol Pot or let's say good ol Kim Jong Il.

Nope.

so then, in order not to step on toes, cause aneurysms, or ruffle feathers, we should refer to folk like Stalin, Pol Pot, KJL, etc as "murderous Left-wing wackjobs" and not communists when referencing nations who RP emulating those fine folk?