|
Blackbird Fly posted:That quote from Maroni reminds of blood libel and other forms of antisemitism. Why does anti-Roma hate still run so deep in Europe compared to antisemitism? The Nazis killed more Roma than Jews (per capita) and there were no strong Roma voices to speak out against continued discrimination afterwards.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:What's your source for this? What I have has 'only' 300,000 of 700,000 Roma and Sinti being killed in the war, while 2/3rd of Jews were. Looking into it I'm finding a wide range of estimates, from 150,000 to 1,500,000 Roma and Sinti deaths, and the high estimates depend on much higher estimates of the prewar Roma population. It's not crucial to my point. Discrimination against "gypsies" is so bad now because of the lack of advocacy and recognition of anti-Roma discrimination in the years after the Holocaust. It remained more acceptable to hate the Roma in occupied Germany after the war, while virulent anti-semites were suspected of being Nazi loyalists. It took until 1979 for West Germany to recognize that persecution of the Roma was racially motivated and their right to reparations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'd say it stems to before the war: Roma were even more ostracized than Jews in Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, etc. The Roma weren't very established in the US, and those that were tended to have cut most connections with Europe, and so the international Roma community didn't have the same ability to help them out after the war. That's true as well, the reason for a lack of Roma voices after WWII is definitely tied to their increased ostracism before the war. It's an issue that goes back a long time and tends to pop up with many nomadic and semi-nomadic groups around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:See this is you sticking up for fascism. This makes you an rear end in a top hat. Just keep that in mind. He's arguing against the use of violence to exclude people from politics, and then you say he's sticking up for fascism. I think the key is that we should be opposed to any groups using violence to keep people out of politics, and that means not using violence against right-wing groups until they are actively becoming violent themselves. You can't justly ban a form of political discourse because it tends to lead to harm, even though that's a really tempting concept when you have a turn holding the reins of power. Groups in Greece and Russia have already crossed the line while there aren't comparable groups in the United States.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Jesus Christ, people are getting killed because of this. Sorry if wanting to ban people who only use violence in order to kill people they hate and live solely to do that from assembly is the same as a GULAG, which by the way held lest people in numbers and per capita than the current US prison system. Fojar argued upthread it is a moral imperative to attack violent fascists. Fojar38 posted:I can agree with this. If civil authorities, especially the police or god forbid the military are corrupted by the fascist movement then I would say that it is not only justified to oppose them but also a moral imperative to do so with all means necessary including violent resistance. Also, the reason the Gulag held fewer people than the U.S. system is turnover - 1.6 million people were murdered or worked to death in the camps.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
LP97S posted:
Hey, here are some innocents murdered by Communists, Democrats, and Republicans:    Removing accountability from the political process and allowing "might makes right" never ends well. The arguments to allow suppression of law-abiding fascists could also be used to crush other movements if the tables ever turn and simply shouldn't be tolerated. I'm arguing that we should start bashing fascists after they break the law, not crush any nascent political movement whose law-abiding members have opinions simply too different for the government to allow.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
LP97S posted:At least the last two and even to some extent the first one pretends that those were horrible mistakes or necessary instead of being back-slapping cool about it and say "good starts!" I'm concerned that my message isn't getting through despite all my attempts to be clear. I hate fascism and think it is terrible. However, I think it's ridiculous for any political group to gain the power to point at an enemy and say "this group must be forbidden from participation in politics." We should resist the suppression of law-abiding political groups in all cases, and applying that standard consistently is more than enough to prevent fascists from taking power. Sometimes the people need to go out with clubs and bash the fash, but allowing that position to be the default legitimizes political violence and inevitably leads to corruption of the unaccountable enforcers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Fascism works within the system (or puts up the appearance of) until it thinks it has the strength to take over and crush its opponents. As such, fascist love unwitting collaborators like you since your attitude protects them while they're weak. Out of curiosity, when's the last time you went to an anti-fascist protest? At my city's nazi-free rally in March we had about 300 antifascists to 20 white supremacists and 50 police protecting them from our group. A few guys got around the barricade to try charging the nazis with an axe and got run off by the police.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:The gently caress? My point was it's useless to decry our lack of attention on X ideology or Y ideology when neither of them are gaining traction nor representing growing threats. Reiterating, but if parties sprang up across Europe and followed the thinking and style of Pol Pot's or Stalin's brand of Communism I'd agree it'd be a problem. This is not happening, however. It seems we're all arguing that there's a point where a political party has become a threat and should be resisted violently. However, you draw the line at a point before any laws have been broken. When fascists start saying that we should kill the Jews, that's illegal and that's the point you arrest their leaders or, if the police won't serve justice, firebomb the fascist headquarters. Not before that point because someone identifies the local conservative party as a fascist group.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:I just don't see the point of having political purgatory for people who carry flags 2 line segments away from a full blown swastika. Because the flag of Switzerland is 4 line segments away from a full blown swastika. Can you or anyone describe a set of laws that would suppress fascists without having a chilling effect on legitimate political discourse, whether or not you agree with that discourse? The key is to be proactive and stop the fascists from breaking the law, not regulating speech based on its similarity to the speech of violent groups.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Strawman argument, nobody is arguing this in the thread. I contend that you can't entrust a party with the power to determine which of its political rivals will and won't be outlawed in a system that bans particular ideologies. I say again, what new laws would bar fascism while allowing legitimate movements? The existing hate speech laws should be enforced and in many cases should already be in use. I'm arguing that violence would be appropriate against Golden Dawn and Occupy Pedophilyaj, but not any group that identifies as fascist. It comes down to the kind of democracy we want to have versus the kind of democracy that is realistic in a political system. Shes Not Impressed posted:I mean, your last sentence is a difficult question, but didn't Hitler basically go along with the law to get elected after being arrested? Hitler seized power after losing seats in the second 1932 federal election. My argument still comes from the duty to preserve fairly, democratically elected governments, since the Nazis never formed a legitimate government. edit 2: In my opinion, the United States has the weakest hate speech laws in the First World and they should be strengthened to be more like the laws in Canada or Europe. If I could design an ideal constitution to preserve democracy, that would be a key part. Chamale fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I am intrigued by the fact that while the handwringers are at great pains to work out who exactly are violent fascists (a tautology) they accuse anyone who suggests violence may be necessary to combat fascism of being a Stalinist and thus just as bad. No, the point is that if we try to combat "fascism" by immediately resorting to violence, it is too easy for legitimate political movements to be labelled as fascism and destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Only if your understanding of fascism is so thoroughly and uselessly facile that you think the definition of "fascism" is "any political organization which uses violence". Go ahead and try to define fascism in a way that's coherent enough that it can't be used as an excuse to crush legitimate, although unpopular political opinions. I would like to see a useful definition, but it would be too easy to corrupt the political process by condoning violence against any one ideology. d3c0y2 posted:What's rather damning is that typo is so much a product of the liberal episteme that he cannot even recognize how it is limitting his ability to comprehend the subject matter here. When he says that he could replace any mention of fascist here with leninism, he thinks he is proving some kind of point because to him leninism and fascism are equally bad - anything that is an outsider to the current liberal episteme is wrong, and it's wrongness is based on exclusion rather than it's parts. Leninism and Fascism are equally bad, and therefore interchangable, because they are not liberalism. The differences between them are unimportant to typo, because he genuinely believes that any difference is immaterial - to him the defining point of fascism and any other non-liberal ideology is the fact that it is non-liberal, regardless of their respective internal characteristics. Meanwhile I could argue that your argument stems from the revolutionary's eternal optimism that if violence can strip accountability away from the political process, this time it won't have horrific results. Unaccountable political parties in the First World granted power to suppress political rivals always do so, whether it's through vote suppression or outright acts of violence. I'm all in favour of violence against fascists like the Golden Dawn, but no group should start crushing nascent law-abiding political movements.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:How about advocates for ethnic or racial purity as a governmental policy? Have fun barring 14% of Americans from voting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Who said anything about banning people from voting? I'd ensure that a party that advocated legislation banning inter-racial marriage was banned though. Frankly I think a party that advocates banning inter-racial marriage has a right to exist despite its despicable viewpoints, and this comes down to the old problem of granting too much power to bar groups from politics.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:02
|
|