If that’s true, the comment being downvoted like this is… interested. On Lemmy, you’re either a Nazi killer or lover, which is interesting since 99.999999% of people here have never killed anyone, let alone a Nazi. We can say fuck Nazis but also say that murder is wrong.
No, he is right. The only people ‘cosplaying’ Nazis are Nazis. If you are an actor on stage or film cast to play a Nazi then you are doing your job. If you don a SS pin and a swastika armband you are a fascist and actively advertising yourself as a threat to those around you (unless they look like you). This is “hate speech” which means that it is “free speech” and thus should be protected from government interference. It, on the other hand, can also fall under “fighting words” which are not protected. It all depends on context. In the context of a fascist wannabe dictator taking office who is openly promoting violence against minorities and showing blatant support of white supremacist groups like proud boys and KKK, it falls under the latter. It is also speech that removes ones self from the social contracts of “tolerance”, “compassion”, and “safety”. Just like any contract, the privileges and protections are only afforded to those who are a party to the contract. If someone goes out in a Nazi ‘cosplay’ and gets gunned down, beaten, savaged, spat on, or verbally assaulted they have no room to complain since they wore “speech” that said “I support or intend to do harm to those in my community and I am a threat.”
You’re literally making it up as you go. You have no clue what someone advocates for, but it sounds like people need to pass your own personal test else you think you should get to murder them in cold blood then try to make up a reason afterwards. Do you Nazi that you’re the Nazi?
Nazism refers to a school of political beliefs. It’s not some vague unknowable thing, a Nazi is perfectly capable of advocating for Nazism using speech and symbolism. So don’t pretend they have no clue what a Nazi advocates.
No, killing a Nazi does not make someone “the Nazi”. It would be nice if you didn’t trivialize atrocities like the Holocaust.
Thank you. All of these things are actually very well defined. Nazism, Fascism, Authoritarianism. These are not words that are just thrown around haphazardly and have no meaning. The ones who DO use them inappropriately are those whom they describe. It is a concerted effort to redefine or undefine them so there is no longer a word to describe them.
I was referring to the reaction to the top level comment. A bunch of people getting pissed as though if you say murder is wrong then you are defending Nazis. This is just mental laziness.
Killing Nazis isn’t wrong in the slightest. The USA has a rich history of doing exactly that.
We do have to make sure that they’re actually Nazis though. Maybe if their leader were to perform two back to back obvious sieg heil salutes then we could know for sure.
Nazis are human. Cruelty is all too human. The problem is, some people are completely beyond help, and will kill you just for existing, the first chance they get. You have to be ready if that happens, because it might happen sooner than you think.
Yeah, see the problem, echoed in nearly every philosophy in human history, is that you shouldn’t enact vengeance (preventative or otherwise) because you might be wrong. It’s the same reason the death penalty is immoral.
As much as I’d like to see some of these fucks at the end of a rope, that doesn’t mean I will be making any blanket statements which assume I always know who the “bad” guys are.
And this is the crux of the statement. Social contracts are group moral codes. The Nazis do not adhere to the terms of the contracts and thus are not protected by them.
I can see that point. I get the same thing sometimes when I casually defend social media companies censoring speech. That is why I usually do it like I did here; direct, verbose, and overtly unambiguous.
People do need to have an understanding that applying an ideal to all people does not mean that you condne the behavior of anyone in specific. I do, personally, hold the philosophy that social contracts need to be mutual and by nature cannot be applied ubiquitously. That is the essence and source of the Tolerance Paradox. That is the most easily digested version, but all social contracts hold the same paradox. Tolerance, compassion, inclusion, safety, etc. The only reason any of of them function is because we all agree on them. It is safe to drive becuse we all agree that that yellow line means we don’t cross it. We are safe standing on a subway platform because we all agree not to push each other onto the tracks. We are able to lead peaceful lives because we agree not to accost each other in public spaces. We are confident we can shop in stores, attend churches, spend time in parks, and move about in life because we include each other in our spaces.
Those who do not do these things forfeit the confidence they hold in those contracts. If you own a store or business and exclude some group, you should expect to be unwelcomed in the spaces of others. If you express hateful commentary or accost people, you should expect to be accosted and to not lead a life of peace. If you openly declare yourself as a threat to the health, wellbeing, and/or safety of other members of society, you are not owed any of those things. Period. That is the solution to the Social Contract Paradoxes. Those who are not party to them are not protected by them. It would be like if I signed a contract with a roofer to replace my roof and my neighbor started demanding they replace his roof too under my contract. They are not a party to the contract so they derive no benefit from the contract.
That would be “safety”. Just to be clear. And we do condone the harming and killing of those who mean to harm or kill us. Self defense laws, castle doctrine, capital punishment, etc.
You’re literally bringing up driving privileges & laws. The social contract you have is the US legal system. You don’t get to go murder or attack people cause you decided they deserved it while you still try to claim you’re following the social contract.
By definition a legal framework is not a social contract. Technically there IS a social contract that we will agree to follow the laws, but not everyone does that one either. We violate speed limits, download media, burn crosses in front yards.
There are also many cases where laws do not cover the violations of a social contract. Slurs are protected speech under most circumstances, but that does not mean that there are no consequences to utilizing them in your vocabulary in public. You will never go to jail for it, but in using them you violate a social contract of tolerance, and thus the members of society around you should not tolerate your presence. If you pull a gun while using those slurs, that is a clear indicator that you intend harm, specifically on the people to whom the slurs refer. This violates the social contract of safety, which means that you are open to being harmed yourself by the members of the contract around you. They protect the safety of the members by preventing you from harming them. It is actually covered in the US laws and has been condoned by society. The “murder is wrong” tautology fails very quickly in the face of reality. Is it OK to kill someone who is actively raping an infant? How about if they have a knife to your partner’s or child’s throat? What about if they point a loaded gun at a crowd of unarmed protestors and are not a legally recognized peace officer? Your moral code determines where that line is, but everyone has a line. Do you condone Israel’s actions against the Palestinians? Let’s go for the good ole trolley problem. Do you pull the lever? Is that OK?
When someone intends to enslave or kill you, your family, or your friends. If they try to strip you of your rights and otherwise destroy your society and way of life, then killing them is not murder. It’s self defense.
I am going to resist in whatever way is available to me. Right now that means defending people in my community from ICE. If the situation around me does heat up to the point of armed conflict I know what side I will be on.
If that’s true, the comment being downvoted like this is… interested. On Lemmy, you’re either a Nazi killer or lover, which is interesting since 99.999999% of people here have never killed anyone, let alone a Nazi. We can say fuck Nazis but also say that murder is wrong.
No, he is right. The only people ‘cosplaying’ Nazis are Nazis. If you are an actor on stage or film cast to play a Nazi then you are doing your job. If you don a SS pin and a swastika armband you are a fascist and actively advertising yourself as a threat to those around you (unless they look like you). This is “hate speech” which means that it is “free speech” and thus should be protected from government interference. It, on the other hand, can also fall under “fighting words” which are not protected. It all depends on context. In the context of a fascist wannabe dictator taking office who is openly promoting violence against minorities and showing blatant support of white supremacist groups like proud boys and KKK, it falls under the latter. It is also speech that removes ones self from the social contracts of “tolerance”, “compassion”, and “safety”. Just like any contract, the privileges and protections are only afforded to those who are a party to the contract. If someone goes out in a Nazi ‘cosplay’ and gets gunned down, beaten, savaged, spat on, or verbally assaulted they have no room to complain since they wore “speech” that said “I support or intend to do harm to those in my community and I am a threat.”
You’re literally making it up as you go. You have no clue what someone advocates for, but it sounds like people need to pass your own personal test else you think you should get to murder them in cold blood then try to make up a reason afterwards. Do you Nazi that you’re the Nazi?
Nazism refers to a school of political beliefs. It’s not some vague unknowable thing, a Nazi is perfectly capable of advocating for Nazism using speech and symbolism. So don’t pretend they have no clue what a Nazi advocates.
No, killing a Nazi does not make someone “the Nazi”. It would be nice if you didn’t trivialize atrocities like the Holocaust.
Thank you. All of these things are actually very well defined. Nazism, Fascism, Authoritarianism. These are not words that are just thrown around haphazardly and have no meaning. The ones who DO use them inappropriately are those whom they describe. It is a concerted effort to redefine or undefine them so there is no longer a word to describe them.
I was referring to the reaction to the top level comment. A bunch of people getting pissed as though if you say murder is wrong then you are defending Nazis. This is just mental laziness.
Killing Nazis isn’t wrong in the slightest. The USA has a rich history of doing exactly that.
We do have to make sure that they’re actually Nazis though. Maybe if their leader were to perform two back to back obvious sieg heil salutes then we could know for sure.
I think that dehumanizing other humans is something to be on the watch for. It doesn’t make you a Nazi to wonder if you’re also morally unsound
You aren’t dehumanizing anyone. Nazis did the dehumanizing themselves, who are you to object to that personal freedom of choice.
It’s also important to keep in mind that intolerance cannot be fought off with tolerance. It’s not possible. You have to not tolerate the intolerant.
Yes and you couldn’t possibly be wrong about what a nazi is in a world where that term is thrown around more every day.
Nazis are human. Cruelty is all too human. The problem is, some people are completely beyond help, and will kill you just for existing, the first chance they get. You have to be ready if that happens, because it might happen sooner than you think.
Yeah, see the problem, echoed in nearly every philosophy in human history, is that you shouldn’t enact vengeance (preventative or otherwise) because you might be wrong. It’s the same reason the death penalty is immoral.
As much as I’d like to see some of these fucks at the end of a rope, that doesn’t mean I will be making any blanket statements which assume I always know who the “bad” guys are.
What morals? You think I should have to play by some made up set of rules that the Nazis couldn’t give two shits about?
And this is the crux of the statement. Social contracts are group moral codes. The Nazis do not adhere to the terms of the contracts and thus are not protected by them.
I can see that point. I get the same thing sometimes when I casually defend social media companies censoring speech. That is why I usually do it like I did here; direct, verbose, and overtly unambiguous.
People do need to have an understanding that applying an ideal to all people does not mean that you condne the behavior of anyone in specific. I do, personally, hold the philosophy that social contracts need to be mutual and by nature cannot be applied ubiquitously. That is the essence and source of the Tolerance Paradox. That is the most easily digested version, but all social contracts hold the same paradox. Tolerance, compassion, inclusion, safety, etc. The only reason any of of them function is because we all agree on them. It is safe to drive becuse we all agree that that yellow line means we don’t cross it. We are safe standing on a subway platform because we all agree not to push each other onto the tracks. We are able to lead peaceful lives because we agree not to accost each other in public spaces. We are confident we can shop in stores, attend churches, spend time in parks, and move about in life because we include each other in our spaces.
Those who do not do these things forfeit the confidence they hold in those contracts. If you own a store or business and exclude some group, you should expect to be unwelcomed in the spaces of others. If you express hateful commentary or accost people, you should expect to be accosted and to not lead a life of peace. If you openly declare yourself as a threat to the health, wellbeing, and/or safety of other members of society, you are not owed any of those things. Period. That is the solution to the Social Contract Paradoxes. Those who are not party to them are not protected by them. It would be like if I signed a contract with a roofer to replace my roof and my neighbor started demanding they replace his roof too under my contract. They are not a party to the contract so they derive no benefit from the contract.
There is a pretty big flaw in this argument. Tolerance does not mean “do not murder”. We do not tolerate plenty of people that we don’t kill.
That would be “safety”. Just to be clear. And we do condone the harming and killing of those who mean to harm or kill us. Self defense laws, castle doctrine, capital punishment, etc.
You’re literally bringing up driving privileges & laws. The social contract you have is the US legal system. You don’t get to go murder or attack people cause you decided they deserved it while you still try to claim you’re following the social contract.
By definition a legal framework is not a social contract. Technically there IS a social contract that we will agree to follow the laws, but not everyone does that one either. We violate speed limits, download media, burn crosses in front yards.
There are also many cases where laws do not cover the violations of a social contract. Slurs are protected speech under most circumstances, but that does not mean that there are no consequences to utilizing them in your vocabulary in public. You will never go to jail for it, but in using them you violate a social contract of tolerance, and thus the members of society around you should not tolerate your presence. If you pull a gun while using those slurs, that is a clear indicator that you intend harm, specifically on the people to whom the slurs refer. This violates the social contract of safety, which means that you are open to being harmed yourself by the members of the contract around you. They protect the safety of the members by preventing you from harming them. It is actually covered in the US laws and has been condoned by society. The “murder is wrong” tautology fails very quickly in the face of reality. Is it OK to kill someone who is actively raping an infant? How about if they have a knife to your partner’s or child’s throat? What about if they point a loaded gun at a crowd of unarmed protestors and are not a legally recognized peace officer? Your moral code determines where that line is, but everyone has a line. Do you condone Israel’s actions against the Palestinians? Let’s go for the good ole trolley problem. Do you pull the lever? Is that OK?
When someone intends to enslave or kill you, your family, or your friends. If they try to strip you of your rights and otherwise destroy your society and way of life, then killing them is not murder. It’s self defense.
Then get started. You first.
I am going to resist in whatever way is available to me. Right now that means defending people in my community from ICE. If the situation around me does heat up to the point of armed conflict I know what side I will be on.
Yes, though self-defense may be justifiable.
Yes of course, just about anyone would agree.
Sidenote: my comment is also being downvoted. People just can’t handle the smallest amount of nuance…