Banning Nazis from discourse

[Iwassoclose]

So recently I saw a discussion online about banning any person who shows Nazi support from the place of said discussion, and I whole wholeheartedly agreed with that position. I thought this was a common view not enough to generate such an issue. However people were bringing up points about how having rational discourse was the only way to resolve tension and possibly change their minds. Which does not make much sense because by choosing such stances as the Nazis they have already conditioned themselves or become biased against any arguments that can be bought before them.

Another point was that if Nazis are banned then so should Communists and any other group of people that has supported or engaged in violence against another in the past. This argument to me was whataboutism, Nazis have a singularly destructive agenda that they should be given no concessions on any ground. Unlike the other groups, we can easily point out the failures and the history of this group to recent memory.

What is your view on banning Nazis on any platform?

[Conserative Morality]

My opinion is that when you have nine Nazis sitting at a table and you sit with them, you have ten Nazis. Nazis should be cast out of public discourse wherever possible by a free society. I only draw the line at legal bans.

[Dooom35796821595]

There are no Nazis, they’re all dead. Neo Nazis, on the other hand...

[Iwassoclose]

My opinion is that when you have nine Nazis sitting at a table and you sit with them, you have ten Nazis. Nazis should be cast out of public discourse wherever possible by a free society. I only draw the line at legal bans.

this really shouldnt even be a topic of discussion yet we have reached a state in society where the white nationalists and the altright group have managed to ingrain themselves into the consciousness of the people. through pseudo-intellectualism and straight up filth with little to no consequences.

[Uxupox]

My opinion is that when you have nine Nazis sitting at a table and you sit with them, you have ten Nazis. Nazis should be cast out of public discourse wherever possible by a free society. I only draw the line at legal bans.

this really shouldnt even be a topic of discussion yet we have reached a state in society where the white nationalists and the altright group have managed to ingrain themselves into the consciousness of the people. through pseudo-intellectualism and straight up filth with little to no consequences.

how about we also ban your ideas from discussion as well in conjunction with the Neo Nazis.

[Washington Resistance Army]

How about we just ban discourse entirely?

[Costa Fierro]

this really shouldnt even be a topic of discussion yet we have reached a state in society where the white nationalists and the altright group have managed to ingrain themselves into the consciousness of the people. through pseudo-intellectualism and straight up filth with little to no consequences.

how about we also ban your ideas from discussion as well in conjunction with the Neo Nazis.

Go one step further and ban liberals and the alt-right.

[Iwassoclose]

this really shouldnt even be a topic of discussion yet we have reached a state in society where the white nationalists and the altright group have managed to ingrain themselves into the consciousness of the people. through pseudo-intellectualism and straight up filth with little to no consequences.

how about we also ban your ideas from discussion as well in conjunction with the Neo Nazis.

what are my ideas that you find so reprehensible?

[The Liberated Territories]

Any sort of vulgar speech should be subject to discourse. If it isn't, it festers underground and eventually explodes.

[The New Sea Territory]

Nazism and assorted related positions must be confronted and contained directly. We cannot let fascists build a mass movement. A ban on fascist discourse won't be sufficient. Top-down, government regulation does not stop them from appealing to masses; only mass action against fascism can actually defeat a growing fascist organizing. There are many different ways to develop and engage in an antifascist mass movement.

Physical confrontation is often the most extreme and gets a lot of attention, but its really the tip of the iceberg. There are many different tactics to deny fascists a real-world presence. As for the internet, not allowing fascists to communicate in online spaces limits their ability to spread their ideas. This keeps them as a relatively closed movement, detached from popular internet culture. Though I will say that fascist discourse online is way less threatening than discourse in a public rally or public propaganda (billboards, posters, strickers,etc).

[Iwassoclose]

Any sort of vulgar speech should be subject to discourse. If it isn't, it festers underground and eventually explodes.

its like not reporting suicides on public locations because you dont want it to increase. by giving them a platform you give them the ability to recruit and organize. where before they would be alone with their thoughts and conform to society now they have an organization that shovels propaganda down their minds. mild racism now becomes full blown xenophobia.

[Proctopeo]

Only if we ban communists as well.

[The New Sea Territory]

by giving them a platform you give them the ability to recruit and organize.

This needs to be emphasized. We need to target and deny platforms fascists who have the ability to recruit and organize, either because they have been given a platform or have organized their own platforms, online or in public.

[The Liberated Territories]

Any sort of vulgar speech should be subject to discourse. If it isn't, it festers underground and eventually explodes.

its like not reporting suicides on public locations because you dont want it to increase. by giving them a platform you give them the ability to recruit and organize. where before they would be alone with their thoughts and conform to society now they have an organization that shovels propaganda down their minds. mild racism now becomes full blown xenophobia.

Underground societies give fascists the opportunity to radicalize in a way that interacting with society does not. It is Stormfront and similar platforms which cause people with "normal" opinions to be exposed to a community that reinforces them instead of a community that diffuses them. If we (US speaker here) push fascists underground, then like in Germany we'll soon see a volatile movement that cannot be extinguished.

Likewise, I believe that thinking the people are incapable of drawing their own conclusions after hearing people with controversial views speak a similarly authoritarian sentiment. It's as if personal responsibility does not exist.

[The Lone Alliance]

by giving them a platform you give them the ability to recruit and organize.

This needs to be emphasized. We need to target and deny platforms fascists who have the ability to recruit and organize, either because they have been given a platform or have organized their own platforms, online or in public.

The problem is they've been driven off of nearly every platform in the world, all it's done is allow them to concentrate their forces in the few platforms left giving them the ability to organize on a much more large scale.

When they were scattered in little subgroups all across the internet and real life they were annoyance, but the more they were forced to centralize themselves the more organized and dangerous they got.

Basically the more they retreated the easier their logistics became.

In a way the opposition has the opposite problem, there's 9000 different forms of people who have declared themselves driven to "Fight fascism" but most of them likely can hardly agree to pick someone to lead them all.... kind of a problem with anarchist like groups in general.

[The New Sea Territory]

Only if we ban communists as well.

It's a false equivalence.

Nazism does nothing to serve existing poor communities....it typically creates its own communities, either by making compounds, gangs, subcultures or insular online communities. Communists have historically and continue to this day to provide food services to poor and working class communities. They help organize protests against gentrification. Communists were on the front lines of the efforts to break segregation in the South. Communists played a key role in union organizing throughout history.

Communists benefit working-class people outside their organizations. Nazis benefit Nazis; their organizations are self-serving and prone to terrorism.

[Costa Fierro]

Nazism and assorted related positions must be confronted and contained directly. We cannot let fascists build a mass movement. A ban on fascist discourse won't be sufficient. Top-down, government regulation does not stop them from appealing to masses; only mass action against fascism can actually defeat a growing fascist organizing. There are many different ways to develop and engage in an antifascist mass movement.

Physical confrontation is often the most extreme and gets a lot of attention, but its really the tip of the iceberg. There are many different tactics to deny fascists a real-world presence. As for the internet, not allowing fascists to communicate in online spaces limits their ability to spread their ideas. This keeps them as a relatively closed movement, detached from popular internet culture. Though I will say that fascist discourse online is way less threatening than discourse in a public rally or public propaganda (billboards, posters, strickers,etc).

Communism and assorted related positions must be confronted and contained directly. We cannot let communists build a mass movement. A ban on communist discourse won't be sufficient. Top-down, government regulation does not stop them from appealing to masses; only mass action against communism can actually defeat a growing communist organizing. There are many different ways to develop and engage in an anticommunist mass movement.

Physical confrontation is often the most extreme and gets a lot of attention, but it is really the tip of the iceberg. There are many different tactics to deny communists a real-world presence. As for the internet, not allowing communists to communicate in online spaces limits their ability to spread their ideas. This keeps them as a relatively closed movement, detached from popular internet culture. Though I will say that communist discourse online is way less threatening than discourse in a public rally or public propaganda (billboards, posters, strickers,etc.)

Now, which one is more acceptable?

[The Liberated Territories]

Only if we ban communists as well.

Or we don't ban either group and just let both slug each other on the streets. Takes care of both I think.

[The Lone Alliance]

Only if we ban communists as well.

Or we don't ban either group and just let both slug each other on the streets. Takes care of both I think.

Quite so. Really the best option is to just get popcorn.

[Costa Fierro]

Or we don't ban either group and just let both slug each other on the streets. Takes care of both I think.

Quite so. Really the best option is to just get popcorn.

Indeed. If either side wins, we all lose.

[The New Sea Territory]

Underground societies give fascists the opportunity to radicalize in a way that interacting with society does not. It is Stormfront and similar platforms which cause people with "normal" opinions to be exposed to a community that reinforces them instead of a community that diffuses them. If we (US speaker here) push fascists underground, then like in Germany we'll soon see a volatile movement that cannot be extinguished.

Likewise, I believe that thinking the people are incapable of drawing their own conclusions after hearing people with controversial views speak a similarly authoritarian sentiment. It's as if personal responsibility does not exist.

What is more dangerous to actually-existing communities?

a) a small, mostly online community of neo-Nazis self-radicalizing in an echo chamber that promotes and praises violent action

b) a neo-Nazi mass movement, with support in real-world neighborhoods, an active street presence and the capability of mobilizing hundreds or thousands to various political causes

[The Liberated Territories]

Underground societies give fascists the opportunity to radicalize in a way that interacting with society does not. It is Stormfront and similar platforms which cause people with "normal" opinions to be exposed to a community that reinforces them instead of a community that diffuses them. If we (US speaker here) push fascists underground, then like in Germany we'll soon see a volatile movement that cannot be extinguished.

Likewise, I believe that thinking the people are incapable of drawing their own conclusions after hearing people with controversial views speak a similarly authoritarian sentiment. It's as if personal responsibility does not exist.

What is more dangerous to actually-existing communities?

a) a small, mostly online community of neo-Nazis self-radicalizing in an echo chamber that promotes and praises violent action

b) a neo-Nazi mass movement, with support in real-world neighborhoods, an active street presence and the capability of mobilizing hundreds or thousands to various political causes

False equivalence. From where did the alt-right etc. first start recruiting their members?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Underground societies give fascists the opportunity to radicalize in a way that interacting with society does not. It is Stormfront and similar platforms which cause people with "normal" opinions to be exposed to a community that reinforces them instead of a community that diffuses them. If we (US speaker here) push fascists underground, then like in Germany we'll soon see a volatile movement that cannot be extinguished.

Likewise, I believe that thinking the people are incapable of drawing their own conclusions after hearing people with controversial views speak a similarly authoritarian sentiment. It's as if personal responsibility does not exist.

What is more dangerous to actually-existing communities?

a) a small, mostly online community of neo-Nazis self-radicalizing in an echo chamber that promotes and praises violent action

b) a neo-Nazi mass movement, with support in real-world neighborhoods, an active street presence and the capability of mobilizing hundreds or thousands to various political causes

The former.

[The South Falls]

While no one likes a Nazi, freedom of speech should still be upheld.

[Proctopeo]

Only if we ban communists as well.

It's a false equivalence.

Nazism does nothing to serve existing poor communities....it typically creates its own communities, either by making compounds, gangs, subcultures or insular online communities. Communists have historically and continue to this day to provide food services to poor and working class communities. They help organize protests against gentrification. Communists were on the front lines of the efforts to break segregation in the South. Communists played a key role in union organizing throughout history.

Communists benefit working-class people outside their organizations. Nazis benefit Nazis; their organizations are self-serving and prone to terrorism.

It's not, tho. All your cited benefits can be done by moderate socialists the very same. And lest we forget that 1) communism is, inherently, a revolutionary ideology, and therefore always a concern regardless of the good some communists can bring, and 2) the millions dead due to famines and pogroms caused (or exacerbated by) communism.

Both are shit, but I like this idea the best:

Only if we ban communists as well.

Or we don't ban either group and just let both slug each other on the streets. Takes care of both I think.

As long as we make sure to step in if someone manages to "win".