Nazis - how you should treat them :)

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Treat them as you would anyone else. That is, if the ideology is found to be repugnant, shunned and vilified.

[Infected Mushroom]

Treat them as you would anyone else. That is, if the ideology is found to be repugnant, shunned and vilified.

What about political correctness?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

What about political correctness?

I'm not particularly fond of it either, so I'd shun and vilify it. The act of shunning and vilifying something is ultimately up to the individual.

[Minoa]

The lack of context in the photo is why it is hard to tell if it is offensive or a silly joke, even though I recognise the UK’s long history of mocking Nazis, initially to boost the morale of the troops during the Second World War.

[Risottia]

it's not a defense of Nazis. It's an attack on forceful thought policing.

Banning Nazi parades, pro-Nazi political speeches and displaying Nazi paraphernalia isn't "thought policing". It's "action policing". One can think Hitler was a great man and the saviour of all (white) mankind, and that exterminating Jews, Slavs, etc is a good thing indeed for all I care. That's freedom of opinion.
The moment you voice those opinions in public, publish material supporting genocides past or future, or try to make your pro-dictatorship party, that's not an opinion anymore. Those are actions. Which can be legitimately policed.

[Purpelia]

it's not a defense of Nazis. It's an attack on forceful thought policing.

Banning Nazi parades, pro-Nazi political speeches and displaying Nazi paraphernalia isn't "thought policing". It's "action policing". One can think Hitler was a great man and the saviour of all (white) mankind, and that exterminating Jews, Slavs, etc is a good thing indeed for all I care. That's freedom of opinion.
The moment you voice those opinions in public, publish material supporting genocides past or future, or try to make your pro-dictatorship party, that's not an opinion anymore. Those are actions. Which can be legitimately policed.

Stopping people from associating, assembling and publicly sharing their beliefs is "thought policing". Don't ask, don't tell is not a valid view on freedom of thought. It's only action when they go from sharing to actually work toward making those thoughts a reality within society like for example founding a political party or similar organization. And you can potentially make the case that some of that should be illegal. I'd certainly agree that making a political organization that goes against the constitution and socioeconomic system of a country should be banned. But just pure assembly and open conversation, no way.

[Infected Mushroom]

I see...

I like your flag, by the way. Nice drawing.

Thanks!

[Calladan]

Banning Nazi parades, pro-Nazi political speeches and displaying Nazi paraphernalia isn't "thought policing". It's "action policing". One can think Hitler was a great man and the saviour of all (white) mankind, and that exterminating Jews, Slavs, etc is a good thing indeed for all I care. That's freedom of opinion.
The moment you voice those opinions in public, publish material supporting genocides past or future, or try to make your pro-dictatorship party, that's not an opinion anymore. Those are actions. Which can be legitimately policed.

Stopping people from associating, assembling and publicly sharing their beliefs is "thought policing". Don't ask, don't tell is not a valid view on freedom of thought. It's only action when they go from sharing to actually work toward making those thoughts a reality within society like for example founding a political party or similar organization. And you can potentially make the case that some of that should be illegal. I'd certainly agree that making a political organization that goes against the constitution and socioeconomic system of a country should be banned. But just pure assembly and open conversation, no way.

You do realise that none of these stories involves government action, right? That it is the public (and to some extent the press) who are shaming these fuckwhitted dicks into apologising and behaving like human beings? The governemnt had nothing to do with turning Harry into a joke, making the Bake Off guy apologise or throwing someone out of Asda. It was the fact that most British people think dressing up as a Nazi is the act of a cunt, not the act of a civilised human being, and people who do it should be shamed, vilified and shown the error of their ways, not tolerated and patted on the head for having some kind of arsholic courage.

[Sovaal]

But what if I want to take part in a World War 2 reenactment?

[The Sauganash Union]

If it's not really impacting your day, then why give a shit? Communists are a bigger problem.

[Miasto Lodz]

Its your lucky day people, found a video on youtube some time back about a kid who has the youth uniform. He says its for re-enactments. But it seems the kid likes collecting such things since he has other videos. Going back, he says the youth uniform are hard to find.

Video is from 2012 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPsm9aANoTU

...which was modelled after Beitar uniform

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

This honestly has to be a question, folks?

You treat them as you would any other person. Should they be throwing out hateful rhetoric, you counter it with a more enlightened approach to humanity. Should they offer you violence, you defend yourself. Should they be minding their own business, you're free to do the same, though if they're being provocative in some way, you're free to offer your opinion on it. Free speech works both ways, neh?

But I don't think anyone should be searching out anyone else just to pick a fight, for any reason. That isn't free speech. That's vigilantism, and thus, not covered in the constitution etc. By all means, stand up for what's better in life. Show people we aren't afraid of the hate, the ugly out there. But don't give them ammo like many are doing, by going on the offensive, by looking for trouble, by stooping to their level.

My rights begin and end with me, they go no further. Same for everyone else. Once those lines are crossed, and believe me, they have already been severely blurred in all of this, not to mention previous efforts by various groups, we have a hard time going back and keeping things civil.

Don't care if someone hates quietly, and does nothing about it. Not healthy, not ideal, but there's no harm done. They can be bitter and angry all by themselves, and that's fine. Preventing others from enjoying their own rights though, however we may disagree, working to actively shut down any type of speech or expression we dislike, hiding away any evidence of wrong that may have happened in our history whether recent or long past - afraid I don't think that's a healthy way of approaching the overall problem either. As I said elsewhere, with some patience and thought, there is often a better way forward than the quick and easy path. Education, telling the other part of a story, sensible rebuttals to public claims, not allowing the same sort of anger and hate to take the place of love and understanding, and pulling their platform out from under them by not giving them the fight they seem to want? Yeah. Would back that over 'punch a Nazi' and other such efforts.

No, not saying sitting around singing kumbaya is the solution, nor sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it will go away, but come on, folks. Getting down in the mud and wallowing right along with them sure as hell ain't the answer.

[Calladan]

This honestly has to be a question, folks?

You treat them as you would any other person. Should they be throwing out hateful rhetoric, you counter it with a more enlightened approach to humanity. Should they offer you violence, you defend yourself. Should they be minding their own business, you're free to do the same, though if they're being provocative in some way, you're free to offer your opinion on it. Free speech works both ways, neh?

But I don't think anyone should be searching out anyone else just to pick a fight, for any reason. That isn't free speech. That's vigilantism, and thus, not covered in the constitution etc. By all means, stand up for what's better in life. Show people we aren't afraid of the hate, the ugly out there. But don't give them ammo like many are doing, by going on the offensive, by looking for trouble, by stooping to their level.

My rights begin and end with me, they go no further. Same for everyone else. Once those lines are crossed, and believe me, they have already been severely blurred in all of this, not to mention previous efforts by various groups, we have a hard time going back and keeping things civil.

Don't care if someone hates quietly, and does nothing about it. Not healthy, not ideal, but there's no harm done. They can be bitter and angry all by themselves, and that's fine. Preventing others from enjoying their own rights though, however we may disagree, working to actively shut down any type of speech or expression we dislike, hiding away any evidence of wrong that may have happened in our history whether recent or long past - afraid I don't think that's a healthy way of approaching the overall problem either. As I said elsewhere, with some patience and thought, there is often a better way forward than the quick and easy path. Education, telling the other part of a story, sensible rebuttals to public claims, not allowing the same sort of anger and hate to take the place of love and understanding, and pulling their platform out from under them by not giving them the fight they seem to want? Yeah. Would back that over 'punch a Nazi' and other such efforts.

No, not saying sitting around singing kumbaya is the solution, nor sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it will go away, but come on, folks. Getting down in the mud and wallowing right along with them sure as hell ain't the answer.

That literally makes no sense. So they are free to parade around as brainless bugfuckers, but the moment we open our mouths to voice any type of protest, we are in the wrong?

No one in these stories was arrested, punched, hit or smacked (as far as I know). People just made it clear using words - just words - that their behaviour was fucked up and unacceptable in this day and age. No one put them up against the wall and shot them. No one threw them in concentration camps for dressing up as dickless morons. They were just asked to rethink what they had done and asked to reconsider if dressing up as pea-brained swasitaka worshippers was their best choice.

Like you say - freedom of speech goes both ways and if peer pressure prevents this kind of wankish gobshited fecklessness then I say I am all for it.

Now - if they want to dress up as Harry Potter characters - Death Eaters, Voldemort, Slytherins, even Umbridge - I am all for it. If they want to dress up as members of N-Sync I say do it. Hell - if they even want to sink so low and dress up as members of the Tory party I can't see any reason not to.

Just because I find people dressing up in a very specific form of dress utterly reprehensible and vomitworthy doesn't mean I am going to want to stop people dressing up in every type of dress I find appalling. Otherwise skinny jeans and Mohawks would on my list as well, and that is not going to happen because I am not the arbiter of everything and have no desire to be. (Also clothes with holes in the shoulders - what the fuck is it with them? But there is a change I am digressing at this point).

But this - this is something that should be stamped out and stopped. Pretending, in anyway, that these twats were not the scum of the earth and in anyway are not truly evil fuckwhitted shitforbrains is not acceptable in this day and age.

And I am not suggesting we bury this part of our history - the History channel and a fuck load of text books are going to ensure that doesn't happen. But they don't glorify. They don't make light of it. They don't pretend it was anything other than what it was.

Anyway.

[New Greater Netherlands]

Treat them as a human being, i find free speech important

[Risottia]

The lack of context in the photo is why it is hard to tell if it is offensive or a silly joke, even though I recognise the UK’s long history of mocking Nazis, initially to boost the morale of the troops during the Second World War.

Brits don't count when setting the standards of what can be mocked and how much. Brits mock everything from the Queen (both QEII and the band) to themselves, and everything in between (the weather, Nazis, deities, teapots...)

[Risottia]

Stopping people from associating, assembling and publicly sharing their beliefs is "thought policing".

Exactly how "publicly sharing beliefs" is "thought" and not an "action"? Thoughts stay in your brain.

[Sovaal]

The lack of context in the photo is why it is hard to tell if it is offensive or a silly joke, even though I recognise the UK’s long history of mocking Nazis, initially to boost the morale of the troops during the Second World War.

Brits don't count when setting the standards of what can be mocked and how much. Brits mock everything from the Queen (both QEII and the band) to themselves, and everything in between (the weather, Nazis, deities, teapots...)

Wrong, they just recognize that everything in existence is worth mocking.

[Risottia]

Brits don't count when setting the standards of what can be mocked and how much. Brits mock everything from the Queen (both QEII and the band) to themselves, and everything in between (the weather, Nazis, deities, teapots...)

Wrong, they just recognize that everything in existence is worth mocking.

Everything in existence is comprised between the Queen and the Brits. At least, according to the Brits.

[Sovaal]

Wrong, they just recognize that everything in existence is worth mocking.

Everything in existence is comprised between the Queen and the Brits. At least, according to the Brits.

"So class, what's the basic building block of matter?"

"The Queen! Rule Britannia"

"Goddamit"

[Chestaan]

The problem is not when Nazi's put on the uniform, it's when they take it off. When those of a Nazi persuasion drop the imagery then they can muddy the waters and claim that they are not really a Nazi, and lend some credibility to themselves. The most dangerous Nazis are not the skinheads with swastika tattoos, but are the ones that cleverly try to disguise their true beliefs and intentions.

[Proctopeo]

Stopping people from associating, assembling and publicly sharing their beliefs is "thought policing".

Exactly how "publicly sharing beliefs" is "thought" and not an "action"? Thoughts stay in your brain.

In 1984, "thoughtcrime" was identified through physical actions, no matter how subtle, by way of mass surveillance.
Does writing something like, say, "Hitler did nothing wrong" in a notebook constitute an "action"?

[Krasny-Volny]

For me, this is how people should behave. And how this uniform and general ideology should be treated. If you are making a film or TV show and doing it for a specific purpose, then yes - fine, put it on. But using it for fun? No. It's not something you do for fun.

I knew a kid in school that owned an SS uniform. He cosplayed as Edward Richtofen.

While I don't think putting on any uniform associated with a regime like Hitler's is in especially good taste (save for reenactments or Hollywood), I don't have anything against the people at ComiCon that do it for fun.

[Thermodolia]

They should be placed under state surveillance.

Bring back HUAC!!

[Sovaal]

They should be placed under state surveillance.

Bring back HUAC!!

Did they go after fascists?

[Thermodolia]

Exactly how "publicly sharing beliefs" is "thought" and not an "action"? Thoughts stay in your brain.

In 1984, "thoughtcrime" was identified through physical actions, no matter how subtle, by way of mass surveillance.
Does writing something like, say, "Hitler did nothing wrong" in a notebook constitute an "action"?

No because that's way to vague. Doing a nazi salute while in a Nazi uniform in full view of the public while chanting death to the Jews outside of a synagogue counts as an action. Writing stuff would not be considered an action, possibly though graffiti depending on where and what it's written on.