Hey Kero,

You planning on responding to me citing your own words?

As far as I've noticed kerowo is the only North American poster who has ever called for banning Nazi speech. There are some anti Nazi speech laws in Euroland.

Other posters like fly and rep have advocated getting down in the gutter with the right to win. I can appreciate the visceral sentiment but I think it's very misguided. My point is that is a short sighted strategy which is far more likely to hurt progressives in the long run by eroding the foundation of democracy.

Around here it is.

Ok, just pretend I didn't omit the word 'political' in front of 'free speech'. You want to moderate someone who is actually keeping the record straight wrto actual neonazi content on this site's now-defunct 'unfettered free political speech' forum. That little experiment didn't work. It just attracted a lot of bad actors and gave a platform for truly deplorable opinion.

Congrats on virtue signaling about your donations. It's not totally relevant, and wouldn't change your rights or ability to post. Please continue fighting racism in whatever way you see fit. But you are out of your element about how to confront this on a message board.

Nazism does not deserve the classification of political ideology. Once you get all genocidey and stuff, you lose that privilege.

It's four years too late for that, my dude.

Short sighted strategists who helped preserve the foundations of democracy: Lincoln

Long term strategies that eroded the foundations of democracy: not stamping out the nazi menace in pre-nazi Germany

Where did you get that we disagree? We are taking about banning their speech. Go yell them down. Ignore them. Ridicule them. That's also protected.

Has anyone used that in court? "Hey, murdering my spouse was just political speech, the government can’t jail me for it!"

Nazism is by definition a political ideology.

Let me ask where you draw the line?

Because they never hear us from the ivory tower.

I'm all for stomping out Nazism. I have lots of skin and money in the game. I do things in the real world to accomplish it all the time.

I'm just not willing to use censorship as a tool to accomplish it because I'm not a suicide bomber, to extend my earlier metaphor.

I know we probably agree, but I wish you used a different choice of words. Bad ideas are there to be crushed and suppressed.

Honestly without meaning to sound hostile, IDGAF about the definition. I don't know where to draw the line, but I believe it should be pretty damn conservative. That said, I feel it has to be to the left of genocide.

What are the political beliefs of modern American neo-nazis, aside from "Jews will not replace us" and torch-wielding?

Also, which country is having a bigger problem with neo-nazis, Germany, which is where nazism originated but currently has strict laws against promoting nazism, or the US, which fought against nazis in WW2 but does not restrict nazism from spreading at all?

Desegregation seems like a mild word there.

Are there any cites on Fly's numerous alleged lies?

You are conflating thought with action. Of course genocide should be illegal. My point is talking about it should not.

We have laws against action, not ideas. It should be illegal to deny someone access to school because of their race. It's shouldn't be illegal, not matter how idiotic it is, to argue a given race is less intelligent and would not succeed in school.

White supremacists are explicitly political. They advocate for a white ethnostate.

How did Germany's ban work out in thier last election?

Worked out better than our lack of a ban.

And they want to achieve this white ethnostate via peaceful demonstrations?

Incorrect in America. There are plenty of ideas that are against the law without action being necessary.

I don't see getting down in the gutter as eroding the foundations of democracy. I see it more like vibrant and passionate disagreement. The erosion of democracy comes when the state does it. You know when that happens because the actual act of suppression is done by the police. As I mentioned in a recent semi-serious response to bobman, I might consider suppression of speech by corporations in a similar light to government suppression. The issue is who has power. Ag-gag laws come to mind. The enforcement requires government, but the line between government and industry can get pretty blurry.

Fair, because I was unclear. To be more clear, advocating for it should be illegal, which seems to cross your line of free speech. (That includes advocating for Nazism, and whatever-the-**** branches of it are still around, whether they explicitly advocate genocide or not.)

Well it's a whirlwind thread right now, but if it wasn't clear in that single post I am talking specifically about free speech that is legally protected by the first amendment being censored by government action that is counter to the current law--i.e. An exception for ideology that advocates genocide or sympathizes with one that historically has.

Honestly, it's not possible even if it is righteous. The stupid mother****er in office and any untold millions of his followers, appointees etc will 100% make a case that pro immigration equals white genocide. They already have done. There is zero chance an exception that people are asking for itt works or stays unweaponized if it passes. You are handing them a tool to crash the whole, delicate structure and they have looked us in the face and said they want nothing else.

I'm sure I'm being dumb but I'm drawing a blank?