NATION

PASSWORD

[FAILED QUEUE] Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5318
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Capitalizt

[FAILED QUEUE] Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"

Postby Jutsa » Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:15 pm



Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"
Category: Repeal | Target: SC #358




Security Council Resolution #358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Applauding SC#358's honorable goal of and noble effort in curtailing fascism through direct and aggressive legislation,

Aware that fascism is a dangerous ideology that has caused untold harm and has crippled numerous nations,

Worried however that the declaration acts as a barrier of discussion and education efforts in correcting the wrongs associated with fascism,

Concerned by the implications Article IV Section 2 has on member states and regions that wish to stop fascism in this manner,

Asserting that regions, nations, and organizations can and have made their own decisions on whether to be associated with, or how to properly handle, fascists or their associates while taking into account the implications such actions would have on their reputation and relationships at large, as well as the consequences of such actions,

Uncertain about what the ramifications are for non-fascist: radicals; far-right ideologies; psychotic dictatorships and ironfist consumerists; other totalitarian societies; cases where the unclear label of "fascism" is not unanimous (such as inoffensive centrist democracies by liberals); otherwise state-militarized organizations; nations and regions that are recognized by the World Census as being excessively patriotic, militaristic, or exclusionary; and those who have acknowledged their former alignment with fascism yet have since declared turning a new leaf,

Disgruntled that the target resolution has precautions against fascist nations and organizations regardless of whether said nations or organizations are run by a truly fascist leader, all while dismissing otherwise non-fascist nations overseen by genuinely fascist leaders, an issue which is difficult to if not impossible to address in legislation,

Appalled that otherwise well-meaning legislation could theoretically be barred from entering vote if said legislation was submitted by a nation or an organization the nation is in which is unknowingly associated with or sponsored by fascists,

Believing that fascists could weaponize Article II Section 3 by sponsoring a region or organization a draft-submitter is associated with in order to undermine legislation from passing,

Ashamed that Article II section 4 encourages member states to vote for legislation regardless of said states' standing on the quality of the legislation in question or the potential ramifications it could have on non-fascist states,

Shocked that Article II Section 2 could be interpreted to exclude even this very legislative proposal from being approved of on the grounds that it may "directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region",

Noting that said section does not clarify what "benefit" entails and thus could be interpreted to suggest that converting fascists and liberating fascist regions is consequently also prohibited and thus contradicting Article III,

Affirming that the delegates and voting member nations of the World Assembly at large should be the judges and deciding factors of such matters at large and on an individual basis,

Uneased by Article III Section 1's demands for total cooperation of disagreeing or warring organizations in order to coordinate attacks on fascism, along with its exhorting regions without a military to participate in said attacks,

Disheartened that Article III Section 2 commends total and permanent foreign control over a region previously held by fascists, not promoting reformed independence, nor accounting for otherwise non-fascist regions who've been invaded by raiders under the guise of being fascist,

Fearing that puppet militaries under the guise of being fascist could be used to justify taking over major regions as a form of legal protection under the target resolution to fully conquer any region while protecting against liberations (as liberations of said regions would be in violation of Article 3 Section II),

Stressing the target resolution and security council resolutions in general are not an effective method of curtailing fascism in a way that does not severely compromise, complicate, or impair the Security Council's relationship with the World Assembly and its member states,

Hereby repeals SC#358: Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action.




Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"
Category: Repeal | Target: SC #358




Security Council Resolution #358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Applauding SC#358's honorable goal of and noble effort in curtailing fascism through upfront and direct terms,

Aware that fascism is a dangerous ideology that has caused untold harm and has crippled numerous nations,

Worried however that the declaration acts as a barrier of discussion and education efforts in correcting the wrongs associated with fascism,

Concerned by the implications Article IV Section 2 has on member states and regions that wish to stop fascism in this manner,

Asserting that regions, nations, and organizations can and have made their own decisions on whether to be associated with fascists or their associates,

Uncertain about what the ramifications are for non-fascist radicals; non-fascist far-right ideologies; psychotic dictatorships and ironfist consumerists; cases where the unclear label of "fascism" is not unanimous (such as inoffensive centrist democracies by liberals); and those who have acknowledged their former alignment with fascism yet have since declared turning a new leaf,

Disgruntled that the target resolution has precautions against fascist nations and organizations regardless of whether said nations or organizations are run by a truly fascist leader, all while dismissing technically non-fascist nations overseen by genuinely fascist leaders, thereby defeating the main purpose of the target resolution,

Appalled that otherwise well-meaning legislation could theoretically be barred from entering vote if said legislation was submitted by a nation or an organization the nation is in which is unknowingly associated with or sponsored by fascists,

Believing that fascists could weaponize Article II Section 3 by sponsoring a region or organization a draft-submitter is associated with in order to undermine legislation from passing,

Ashamed that Article II section 4 encourages member states to vote for legislation regardless of their standing on the quality of the legislation in question or the potential ramifications it could have on non-fascist states,

Shocked that Article II Section 2 could be interpreted to exclude even this very legislative proposal from being approved of on the grounds that it may "directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region",

Noting that said section does not clarify what "benefit" entails and thus could be interpreted to suggest that converting fascists and liberating fascist regions is consequently also prohibited and thus contradicting Article III,

Affirming that the delegates and voting member nations of the World Assembly at large should be the judges and deciding factors of such matters at large and on an individual basis,

Uneased by the insinuation that Article III Section 1 demands total cooperation of disagreeing or warring organizations in order to coordinate attacks on fascism, along with its exhorting regions without a military to participate in said attacks,

Disheartened that Article III Section 2 commends total foreign control over a region previously held by fascists, not promoting reformed independence and not even accounting for otherwise non-fascist regions who've been invaded by raiders under the guise of being fascist,

Fearing that puppet militaries under the guise of being fascist could be used to justify taking over major regions as a form of legal protection under the target resolution to fully conquer any region while protecting against liberations (as liberations of said regions would be in violation of Article 3 Section II),

Hereby repeals SC#358: Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action.




Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"
Category: Repeal | Target: SC #358




Security Council Resolution #358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Applauding SC#358's honorable goal of and noble effort in curtailing fascism through upfront and direct terms,

Aware that fascism is a dangerous ideology that has caused untold harm and has crippled numerous nations,

Worried however that the declaration acts as a barrier of discussion and education efforts in correcting the wrongs associated with fascism,

Concerned by the implications Article IV Section 2 has on member states and regions that wish to stop fascism in this manner,

Asserting that regions, nations, and organizations can and have made their own decisions on whether to be associated with fascists or their associates,

Uncertain about what the ramifications are for non-fascist radicals; non-fascist far-right ideologies; psychotic dictatorships and ironfist consumerists; cases where the unclear label of "fascism" is not unanimous (such as inoffensive centrist democracies by liberals); and those who have acknowledged their former alignment with fascism yet have since declared turning a new leaf,

Appalled that otherwise well-meaning legislation could theoretically be barred from entering vote if said legislation was submitted by a nation or an organization the nation is in which is unknowingly associated with or sponsored by fascists.

Believing that fascists could weaponize Article II Section 3 by sponsoring a region or organization a draft-submitter is associated with in order to undermine legislation from passing,

Ashamed that Article II section 4 encourages member states to vote for legislation regardless of their standing on the quality of the legislation in question or the potential ramifications it could have on non-fascist states,

Shocked that Article II Section 2 could be interpreted to exclude even this very legislative proposal from being approved of on the grounds that it may "directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region",

Noting that said section does not clarify what "benefit" entails and thus could be interpreted to suggest that converting fascists and liberating fascist regions is consequently also prohibited and thus contradicting Article III,

Affirming that the delegates and voting member nations of the World Assembly at large should be the judges and deciding factors of such matters at large and on an individual basis,

Uneased by the insinuation that Article III Section 1 demands total cooperation of disagreeing or warring organizations in order to coordinate attacks on fascism, along with its exhorting regions without a military to participate in said attacks,

Disheartened that Article III Section 2 commends total foreign control over a region previously held by fascists, not promoting reformed independence and not even accounting for otherwise non-fascist regions who've been invaded by raiders under the guise of being fascist,

Fearing that puppet militaries under the guise of being fascist could be used to justify taking over major regions as a form of legal protection under the target resolution to fully conquer any region while protecting against liberations (as liberations of said regions would be in violation of Article 3 Section II),

Hereby repeals SC#358: Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action.




Repeal "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action"
Category: Repeal | Target: SC #358




Security Council Resolution #358 "Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Applauding SC#358's honorable goal of and noble effort in curtailing fascism through upfront and direct terms,

Aware that fascism is a dangerous ideology that has caused untold harm and has crippled numerous nations,

Worried however that the declaration acts as a barrier of discussion and education efforts in correcting the wrongs associated with fascism,

Concerned that this will inevitably further the occurrences of non-WA-associated echo chambers for which fascists may become more ideologically isolated and pose a more serious threat,

Fearing the implications Article IV has on member states and regions that wish to stop fascism in this manner,

Asserting that regions, nations, and organizations can and have made their own decisions on whether to be associated with fascists or their associates,

Uncertain about what the ramifications are for non-fascist radicals; far-right ideologies; psychotic dictatorships; cases where the unclear label of "fascism" is not unanimous (such as inoffensive centrist democracies by liberals); and those who have acknowledged their former alignment with fascism yet have since declared turning a new leaf,

Appalled that otherwise well-meaning legislation could theoretically be barred from entering vote if said legislation was submitted by a nation or an organization the nation is in which is unknowingly associated with or sponsored by fascists.

Believing that fascists could weaponize Article II Section 3 by sponsoring a region or organization a draft-submitter is associated with in order to undermine legislation from passing,

Ashamed that Article II section 4 encourages member states to vote for legislation regardless of their standing on the quality of the legislation in question or the potential ramifications it could have on non-fascist states,

Shocked that Article II Section 2 could be interpreted to exclude even this very legislative proposal from being approved of on the grounds that it may "directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region",

Noting that said section does not clarify what "benefit" entails and thus could be interpreted to suggest that converting fascists and liberating fascist regions is consequently also prohibited and thus contradicting Article III,

Affirming that the delegates and voting member nations of the World Assembly at large should be the judges and deciding factors of such matters at large and on an individual basis,

Hereby repeals SC#358: Advancement Of Anti-Fascist Action.


Let the controversial filth slinging begin. :)
Last edited by Jutsa on Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:46 am, edited 12 times in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2946
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:19 pm

Opposed on principle.
she/her

Radiohead wrote:No [x42]

User avatar
New Quebecshire
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: May 06, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Quebecshire » Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:22 pm

I believe that nearly anybody can better themselves and be redeemed, including fascists. However, it is wise to let up on fascism for the sake of that. The idea that we should ease up on fascism because there is a risk that some will become defensive and more ostracized is foolish. First and foremost, we should keep our communities welcoming and safe, while giving people second chances and worry about that sort of thing.

Fully opposed on principle, because of the poor logic behind parts of this, and the baseless paranoia that Cormac's resolution is going to lead to something it won't.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific
Consul and LDF Command of The League
Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens
Public Relations Director of NationStates Today
Player Résumé
"Quebecshire has proven time and time again that he is perfectly capable of standing in front of a room, full of people who hate him and continuing to defend his views." - Redacted
"Quebec may be more regionalist than I ever was, which is basically the highest compliment I’m capable of giving." - HumanSanity
"I find it disappointing that Quebec has posted without saying cope." - Fauxia

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1578
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Algerstonia » Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:39 pm

Support. I'd also add that "fascist" is undefined and that the definitions of "fascist region" all either rely on knowledge of the undefined word "fascist", or in case of the Identify definition, can be easily subverted by fascist regions by simply not advertising themselves as fascist.
Ultranationalist State governed by megacorporations and the military, who are also locked in a consistent power struggle with each other that neither side actually wants to end because the death of one means the death of the other. Flag is the same as the OTL black-yellow-white Tzarist tricolor, no political links between my flag and the Tzarist flag
Pro: Consistent Life Ethic, Conservatism, Nationalism, Unrestricted Gun Ownership, Distributism, Required Voter ID, States Rights
Anti: Illegal Immigration, Government Overspending, US Democratic Party, Current US Foreign Conflicts, Socialism, Woke, China, Violent Protest, Breaking the Law
North Washington Republic wrote:I think Minnesota may be the next Florida in about two weeks.

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5318
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Jutsa » Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:52 am

Great Algerstonia wrote:Support. I'd also add that "fascist" is undefined and that the definitions of "fascist region" all either rely on knowledge of the undefined word "fascist", or in case of the Identify definition, can be easily subverted by fascist regions by simply not advertising themselves as fascist.


OOC: Excellent point! Thank you. :)

I've tried to clarify in the "borderline cases" clause that non-fascist far-right alignment and an unstable belief of who is or is not fascist should be considered.
(Made a blatant reference to the liberal theme for NS at that.)
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Karteria
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Jun 28, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Karteria » Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:05 am

Opposed. The target resolution promotes the right message and is at worst effectual neutral and at best highly beneficial. There is especially no justification for a repeal without a replacement. I'd be willing to listen to a repeal argument if there is a better version of the target proposed.
World Assembly Delegate for the New West Indies region.

User avatar
Poskukune
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jan 28, 2021
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Poskukune » Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:16 am

Solidly support.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12542
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Outer Sparta » Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:55 am

Poskukune wrote:Solidly support.

Maybe you should have supported this one (a much better repeal draft than yours) than write something that isn't well-written.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5318
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Jutsa » Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:02 am

Outer Sparta wrote:
Poskukune wrote:Solidly support.

Maybe you should have supported this one (a much better repeal draft than yours) than write something that isn't well-written.


Naeh, in their defense they made theirs before I did and since shelved it. :P
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Sacara
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1841
Founded: May 13, 2014
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Sacara » Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:02 pm

Full support.

What is fascism? I was amazed to see it wasn't defined in "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action." Wouldn't it be smart to define the ideology that we are opposing? How do we know if a nation or region is fascist in the first place? It seems the Declaration is relying on the self-labeling of fascist nations and regions for any of the guidelines it suggests to take effect. What if a fascist nation or region does not label itself as such? How is the Security Council suppose to implement those guidelines since fascism has never been defined?

The moral posturing by the Security Council is really something to behold, too. I'm really surprised this wasn't followed up by a declaration opposing murder. Most of us oppose murder, or at least I hope so. But, as long as we are in the business of passing declarations that are entirely common sense and trivial, I suppose someone better draft that up next. In fact, this has opened a whole new can of worms. Do we need to pass a declaration opposing every bad thing in the world now? We've set the standard as such. Might as well pass a declaration against bad things, too.

Also, I simply can't wait for someone to quote me on this and claim that I *must* support fascism because I support the repeal of "Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action", wholly misinterpreting what I've just said. I'm entirely opposed to the vile ideology. You don't have to support fascism to see the gaping holes in the Declaration and the need for its repeal.
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara,
I tend to hang out in Got Issues? a lot.
Issues That I've Authored (14)

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1153
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:14 pm

Oh look, it’s the free speech argument and the fear of somehow ostracizing the fascists making the problem worse. Do you have any arguments that haven’t been refuted over and over again?

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2153
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:02 pm

It shall not pass.

/thread

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1578
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Algerstonia » Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:47 pm

Comfed wrote:Do you have any arguments that haven’t been refuted over and over again?

Yes, 84% of the clauses do not address free speech. Read the other eleven clauses.
Ultranationalist State governed by megacorporations and the military, who are also locked in a consistent power struggle with each other that neither side actually wants to end because the death of one means the death of the other. Flag is the same as the OTL black-yellow-white Tzarist tricolor, no political links between my flag and the Tzarist flag
Pro: Consistent Life Ethic, Conservatism, Nationalism, Unrestricted Gun Ownership, Distributism, Required Voter ID, States Rights
Anti: Illegal Immigration, Government Overspending, US Democratic Party, Current US Foreign Conflicts, Socialism, Woke, China, Violent Protest, Breaking the Law
North Washington Republic wrote:I think Minnesota may be the next Florida in about two weeks.

User avatar
Spode humbLed minions
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 170
Founded: May 13, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Spode humbLed minions » Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:50 pm

(Bolding added by me)
Shocked that Article II Section 2 could be interpreted to exclude even this very legislative proposal from being approved of on the grounds that it may "directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region",

Noting that said section does not clarify what "benefit" entails and thus could be interpreted to suggest that converting fascists and liberating fascist regions is consequently also prohibited and thus contradicting Article III,

I could interpret this proposal as saying that walruses are purple.

Whether or not someone agrees with an interpretation is up to them- And the more unreasonable the interpretation, the more likely people are to reject it.

Speaking of which, I vehemently disagree with this proposal's claim- Walruses are clearly green.
Opposed.
Director of Foreign Affairs for The League

"Sadly we do not have seven plagues to soften your hardened heart" - Some dude said it to me

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2153
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:02 pm

Great Algerstonia wrote:
Comfed wrote:Do you have any arguments that haven’t been refuted over and over again?

Yes, 84% of the clauses do not address free speech. Read the other eleven clauses.

There still isn't anything in the repeal that convinces me.

User avatar
Grishahakkaverchynot
Attaché
 
Posts: 89
Founded: May 06, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grishahakkaverchynot » Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:05 pm

Full support. The target resolution should never have even got to vote.
Founder of Grishahakkaverchynot League.
sudo rm -rf / --no-preserve-root, the best form of space saving.
Owner of the 54th most upvoted dispatch! With a puppet.
Nation turned 1 year old on May 6th 2021.

User avatar
Black Hawks Matter
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Aug 07, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Black Hawks Matter » Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:56 am

If you are anti anti-fascism, does that make you a fascist? Maybe not, but the risk is too great. If there are people with a fascist flags on NS, it might influence other kids to grow up to be a fascist. I don't believe that being against fascism will promote fascist festering and resentment and cause them to dig deeper in their heels and be even more right-wing. That is a fantasy. Everyone knows that if you defeat fascism with force, it is defeated, like during the WWII. We do not dialogue with fascists like Hitler or Mussolini. Even if I could speak German or French, I would not choose to speak to them because the only language that is effective to use against fascists is forceful action.

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Minister
 
Posts: 3085
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Jul 20, 2021 1:03 am

I look forward to seeing this soundly stomped should it get to the vote.
Former Delegate and Guardian of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart

Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Religious Lennox
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: May 12, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Religious Lennox » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:22 am

Actualy, dis prop aint 2 bad. Da only reesan i don't suoppurt it is cuz, yk wut the purpose is and stuff.

User avatar
Religious Lennox
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: May 12, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Religious Lennox » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:23 am

Also bee ggetting rid of dis

Applauding SC#358's honorable goal of and noble effort in curtailing fascism through upfront and direct terms,

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 936
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:56 am

Sacara wrote:The moral posturing by the Security Council is really something to behold, too. I'm really surprised this wasn't followed up by a declaration opposing murder. Most of us oppose murder, or at least I hope so. But, as long as we are in the business of passing declarations that are entirely common sense and trivial, I suppose someone better draft that up next. In fact, this has opened a whole new can of worms. Do we need to pass a declaration opposing every bad thing in the world now? We've set the standard as such. Might as well pass a declaration against bad things, too.

This might be a relevant comparison if NationStates had a track record of allowing pro-murder regions to promote, discuss and "raise awareness of" murder. Until very recently, however, NationStates officially viewed promoting Nazism as less actionable than spreading Covid disinformation. It's entirely reasonable for the community, via the Security Council, to express a view on that.

Otherwise, the thrust of much of this repeal seems to be that regions might inadvertently become classified as fascist by failing to notice that they have been infiltrated by fascists. But the title of the target resolution is clear - it's about advamcing anti-fascist action, and that means encouraging regions to be proactive in ensuring they aren't harbouring fascists. When the British Labour Party was recently found guilty of antisemitism it wasn't because the leadership was deliberately and officially antisemitic, but because its response to the activities of antisemitic members was insufficient. Legislation on gender and racial equality works in exactly the same way. It's not rocket science.

User avatar
Drew Durrnil
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1587
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Drew Durrnil » Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:35 am

yes
but no
Nantoraka wrote:
The Nantorakan government would like to express their concerns about all the pedophiles lurking in this market. There's so much grease and body oil in the offers being made, that you could fry chicken in it. We strongly advise wearing a mask when making deals because the strong smell of kid-diddler permeates the air like a dead, fermenting animal.

Tarsonis wrote:Translation: "Notice me Senpai Donaldsan"

News: Former Elite President Pæta Marlín joins the cult of Yahlia, calling it his "sexual and spiritual awakening".

Proud title holder of "Most nations rickrolled on this site".

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5318
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Jutsa » Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:38 pm

However, it is [un?]wise to let up on fascism for the sake of that. The idea that we should ease up on fascism because there is a risk that some will become defensive and more ostracized is foolish. First and foremost, we should keep our communities welcoming and safe, while giving people second chances and worry about that sort of thing.

Very sensible concern. For sure, fascism (in of itself making "ostricization" look like a pet peve) should be curtailed. I'm just a) not entirely sure this is the only way it should be done, b) don't appreciate the insinuation that those who don't believe it to be the only way should be punished proportionally, and c) seriously what's going to happen to IC pseudo-fascist nations? (I'll get into this a bit more at the end.)

Fully opposed on principle, because of the poor logic behind parts of this, and the baseless paranoia that Cormac's resolution is going to lead to something it won't.


It probably wouldn't happen, no. But the point is that this resolution legally enables this to happen, thereby creating needless dissonance in an attempt to enforce already routine practice. That said, I appreciate your comment and it is sensible.

Karteria wrote:Opposed. The target resolution promotes the right message and is at worst effectual neutral and at best highly beneficial. There is especially no justification for a repeal without a replacement. I'd be willing to listen to a repeal argument if there is a better version of the target proposed.


I argue (if you couldn't tell already) tthat at worst it's genuinely weaponizable, but to each their own interpretation.

Comfed wrote:Oh look, it’s the free speech argument and the fear of somehow ostracizing the fascists making the problem worse. Do you have any arguments that haven’t been refuted over and over again?

Naw fam I don't think fascists are in their right mind and probably shouldn't be corrupting everyone else. That said, it could be taken to a logical extreme, but I'd place that under the "ambiguity" clause.

Spode humbLed minions wrote:I could interpret this proposal as saying that walruses are purple.


True. You could. I don't see how you could, but you could. /theyreactuallyteal

Religious Lennox wrote:Also bee ggetting rid of dis


Hah no nice try though.

Black Hawks Matter wrote:If you are anti anti-fascism, does that make you a fascist?


I certainly hope not, but the fact that the target resolution suggests not actively fighting fascism with an active military is an act of not being anti-fascist should be alarming enough. Not to mention Article III Section 2 (pardon me if I'm wrong) seems to imply that any region that has once been fascist or, more damningly, has been invaded by fascists is in turn forever in the control of foreign influence and not permitted to be free ever again. So. If you want to get technical about "weaponizing this resolution". (Actually I might very well add that one to my repeal.)

Maybe not, but the risk is too great. If there are people with a fascist flags on NS, it might influence other kids to grow up to be a fascist. I don't believe that being against fascism will promote fascist festering and resentment and cause them to dig deeper in their heels and be even more right-wing. That is a fantasy. Everyone knows that if you defeat fascism with force, it is defeated, like during the WWII. We do not dialogue with fascists like Hitler or Mussolini. Even if I could speak German or French, I would not choose to speak to them because the only language that is effective to use against fascists is forceful action.


That's a fair point, yes. I'm not against attacking or warring against fascist regions. That has gone on long before this resolution was passed. And in fact, festering in echo chambers is a practice that's probably occurred far longer than that. I'll sincerely consider removing that clause from the proposal.

Uan aa Boa wrote:This might be a relevant comparison if NationStates had a track record of allowing pro-murder regions to promote, discuss and "raise awareness of" murder.


Most nations agree murder is bad. Well, aside from states that legalize murder. Or have capital punishment. Lets not go down this road.

Until very recently, however, NationStates officially viewed promoting Nazism as less actionable than spreading Covid disinformation.

The latter was honestly probably more of an immediate threat, but ngl seeing fascism as less actionable is quite sad.

Otherwise, the thrust of much of this repeal seems to be that regions might inadvertently become classified as fascist by failing to notice that they have been infiltrated by fascists. But the title of the target resolution is clear - it's about advamcing anti-fascist action, and that means encouraging regions to be proactive in ensuring they aren't harbouring fascists.


Fair... but is every region in nationstates going to expel every ironfist consumerist state or nation with a low inclusivity score, or nation associated with such a nation? I appreciate the attack on irl fascists (Genuinely; I still prefer a more discussion-based convincing of the evils rather than blunt-forced attacks encouraging isolation into regions not in compliance with the security council, but I still appreciate it), but the SC addresses IC nations, no? Otherwise OOC condemnable users would be condemned and IC condemnations would be an insult to an otherwise sensible userbase. Should the security council condemn IC fascism? I mean, sure, I could understand and even get behind that. Should the security council openly discourage any users whose IC nations are right-wing totalitarian or are willfully associated with said nations from participating in World Assembly affairs, as well as actively encourage any nation, region, or organization to do such, and to break any and all ties of communication with those who don't, or else risk facing a similar fate? I mean, some might say yes, but that kind of userbase alienation doesn't sit well with me personally.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5318
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Jutsa » Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:45 am

Also quoting this from Sedgistan over in Tinfect's WA Assembly Recognition repeal thread:

Sedgistan wrote:You're still struggling with the fact that Declarations do not legislate - they only express an opinion, with no obligation for anyone - including future SC authors - to follow that opinion.

And really, if GA rules did somehow now apply to raiding/defending, what's the issue? The GA managed to get its head around non-compliance being possible several years ago.

Mainly because this could be a valid argument here as well. I also will quote myself from my regional message board. :P

Technically by the wording of #358 even (actually, specifically, depending on one's interpretations of the SC's function) IC nations that are determined to be such must be banned from regions lest said regions face sanctions from others who wish to comply with the resolution. Not dunking on anyone here, just trying to point out the overwhelming arches this resolution has on autonomy and consensus of the various communities of nationstates.

To which I follow:
Granted, sensible OOC users will of course think it over and likely look at this resolution as a figurative representational guideline, but if we're going to just ignore declarations whenever we disagree with them then there's virtually no point to them whatsoever beyond unreasonable tension caused by rivaling interpretations of said declarations and situations they apply to. Which, if that's their entire purpose, then I guess this declaration in particular would be doing its job.

^ In reference to a recent situation. I'm just saying, this particular resolution will either be taken to authoritarian measures or be an embarrassment to the value of declarations. But I'll accept "that's the entire point" as a valid argument.

I've made a few adjustments, namely:
- Removed the part about echo chambers (they'll exist with or without this resolution.)
- Added three clauses regarding military action. I never realized, but this resolution could also theoretically be used as a tool of regional protection against liberations.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Poskukune
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jan 28, 2021
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Poskukune » Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:52 pm

Jutsa wrote:- Added three clauses regarding military action. I never realized, but this resolution could also theoretically be used as a tool of regional protection against liberations.

Good spot, I never caught that. Yet another reason the sooner this resolution is repealed the better

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Island of Misfit Raiders, Old Hope

Advertisement

Remove ads