So, what *legal* acts should we have done in the 30's as Nazism rose in Germany?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How should society deal with Neo-Nazis?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
So, what *legal* acts should we have done in the 30's as Nazism rose in Germany?
Augustus
…
A small number of extremists can cause significant problems for a much larger number of people. A large number of those who initially opposed Assad were at least secular-ish. Now it is almost entirely dominated by Wahabbis.
Countless other examples exist throughout history, from the Nazis to the Balkans to the Bolsheviks.
Why do you consider it hypocritical or morally questionable to apply the principle of reciprocity? You can't complain about someone else taking away rights that you want to take away from others. That to me is fairness, not hypocrisy. It is the rejection of one groups expectation of special privilege.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You realize that Germany was/is a sovereign nation, correct?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I have no idea what your strawman has to do with the original question or what I responded.
Augustus
…
Never mind.
Much easier to continue the RF trend of not understanding logical fallacies.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Seems to be a popular fad.
It seems that you're creating a false choice here? Either do nothing or break the law?
How about sanctions and/or tariffs? How about honest, open criticism? How about counter-propaganda?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You're going to apply economic sanctions and tariffs against neo-nazis?
And yes, when I said "ideas should battle it out in the realm of public discourse," it includes things such as criticism and "counter-propaganda" (any type of rhetoric, really).
One thing to keep in mind is that the ideas generally associated with Nazism (nationalism, racism, expansionism, aggressive invasion, etc.) have already been marginalized in the eyes of the general public. A lot of the old ideals of "Americana" have also become marginalized, such as the romanticization of the Old West, the Antebellum period, the Lost Cause, Manifest Destiny, US expansionism. These ideals have all fallen by the wayside and are generally looked down upon by most Americans these days. They are seen now as ideals largely fostered by ignorance - and now that most people know this and recognize it as such, it would be extremely difficult to get the general public to turn back the clock. It's only when people don't know any better that such ideals can flourish and come to power.
The other side of this is that the economy has to continue to remain viable. Nazism probably never would have come to power in Germany if their economy had not been in such a shambles. People can be talked into accepting the unacceptable if they're desperate enough and hungry enough. Logic, reason, compassion, conscience, and morality will all go out the window under the duress of economic instability and deprivation.
Why shouldn't I, when they wish to destroy me and this very society? They don't support rights for me, so I see no reason to support rights for them.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
What I'm hoping to discuss is this: What if, here and now in 2017, we have an ideology that we want to marginalize. How would we go about the marginalization process?
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
Most Neo-Nazis hold no ill intentions towards the common nonwhite. Even though us Nationalists are labeled by most as "White supremacists", we are in fact Western supremacists.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Not my experience with them. They hold ill opinions, they just don't say it in public.
Go on, don't be shy. If I'm right and this thread is a thinly veiled 'we should treat Muslims like Nazi' my husband owes me dinner.
There are any number of 2017 ideologies that this could apply to. Islamism is one. But so is extremist Christianity. And climate deniers. And so on...
so go dutch on dinner.
The golden rule is more 'do unto others as you would have them do unto' than 'do unto others as they would do to you' right?
Education would be a necessary component. The best way to fight an idea is with another idea.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
The irony there is that fascism is the very thing you are against, yet you would be happy with banning these people from forming groups, and you would also be fine with suppressing their speech. That is straight up fascist, and there is no getting around that. I'm not saying that you are fascist, but you certainly lean that way when it comes to the rights of those you disagree with.
A government's policy on dealing with political groups should be non-interventionist. It shouldn't deal with people based on political bias. I simply do not see what Nazi groups are doing wrong by existing.
That implies that you're dealing with "normal" people. It's also an ideal to strive for and ideals don't always work in all circumstances.
Last edited:
What's normal, how is that determination made, by whom, and why are they being held to different standards? I never got the impression there was an exemption clause in the golden rule.