Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Now, let me stress that this is a HYPOTHETICAL question. It's not really happening, but I was faced with a choice regarding this decision. Tell me your views on this.

Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Argument A:
"Frankly, I'm appalled that the government can even consider allowing this travesty to go ahead," says prominent Jewish banker Charles Longfellow. "We can't let these animals broadcast their message of hate. Surely too civilized for that."

Argument B:
"It's exactly because we're civilized that we must let the demonstration proceed," says free speech campaigner Lars McGuffin. "We may not like what they have to say, but in this society, people have the right to argue whatever political view they want, no matter how hateful, selfish, or stupid it is."

I side with A. What do all of you think of this?

I came into here thinking it was gonna be about nazis doing a car rally across rugged terrain.

"GET AHF ZE ROAD!" "YOU GET AHF ZE ROAD, ADOLF! ZIS IZ NOT POLAHND! YOU VON'T INFADE MEIN ROAD!" "COS ZIS IZ MEIN ROAD!!!"

(I'm joking)

Well I'm all for freedom of speech to a certain extent but surely this just screams "bad news". Fuel to the fire.

-AC

Technically, the only thing that can be restricted is where and when it takes place, I believe.

Though obviously it'd stir up trouble.

There actually was a KKK rally somewhere in the Chicago area a few years ago, I believe

If its a gathering to incite racial hatred and disturb public peace its against the law.

Free Speech would have nothing to do with it.

B

plain and simple.


Hopefully, one day...we'll live in a world that ignores this kind of thing....that dismisses it for the crap it is. But, we don't.

B, definitely. Freedom is speech means not preventing anybody from presenting their views... No matter how ignorant they may be.

But is it worth letting an Osama or a Hitler preach their message with the possibility that all their listeners will be convinced to act out genocide?

If Osama said "Go blow up the empire state building because America is the devil!" and some drones did it because he said so, I doubt it would be a saving grace for everyone to say "Well, he had the right to say that and preventing him would have meant we were oppressing freedom of speech." Yeah, it also would have prevented the destruction of a great landmark and thousands of deaths.

If politician was my occupation, I'd take being called a hypocrite for censoring an Osama or a Hitler than have the deaths of thousands on my head for not acting to quell the hate messages.

-AC

I think A, because they are voicing hate and prejudice to other people, if they are doing this, they don't even deserve Free Speech

Nazi supporters? That falls into 2 things:
White Supremacists
White Nationalists

The two are very different. Elaborate please.

I don't personally care what they believe in, believe what you want. As soon as you start cramming that belief down the throats and into the ears of the world's impressionable populace, it becomes everyone's problem.

Purely because a bulk of us are at risk from global terrorism.

-AC

Dont you idiots know? Only black supremasists and black nationalists can have rallys and claim it is to "further their culture". Whites cant do it! it would be racist!

Originally posted by FeceMan
giving voice to their violent, racist views.

inciting violence is already illegal.
since they would directly put others
in danger by calling for violence, it goes
beyond freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But is it worth letting an Osama or a Hitler preach their message with the possibility that all their listeners will be convinced to act out genocide?

If Osama said "Go blow up the empire state building because America is the devil!" and some drones did it because he said so, I doubt it would be a saving grace for everyone to say "Well, he had the right to say that and preventing him would have meant we were oppressing freedom of speech." Yeah, it also would have prevented the destruction of a great landmark and thousands of deaths.

If politician was my occupation, I'd take being called a hypocrite for censoring an Osama or a Hitler than have the deaths of thousands on my head for not acting to quell the hate messages.

-AC


The problem with that point of view, is that it's hypocritical to the very freedom that we value. The only way that such a point of view can be countered with absolute certainty, is a concentrated program of education and mutual acceptance. That's why I said "Hopefully, one day" in my first post.

This won't happen in a country that is controlled by corporations, which have certain economic benefits to be gained by keeping rich people and poor people seperate. You know, in this country (the US) black people have more in common with those back-water, poor southern state racists, than they do with either Hitler...or the rich white people in this country.

Well said AC ; you couldnt have made a better analogy !

As for FantaMan ; I wouldnt put too much trust in 'hope' when i know i can go horribly wrong.

Who is Fantaman?


Because if you're reffering to me, hope is about the only thing left for this world.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The problem with that point of view, is that it's hypocritical to the very freedom that we value. The only way that such a point of view can be countered with absolute certainty, is a concentrated program of education and mutual acceptance. That's why I said "Hopefully, one day" in my first post.

This won't happen in a country that is controlled by corporations, which have certain economic benefits to be gained by keeping rich people and poor people seperate. You know, in this country (the US) black people have more in common with those back-water, poor southern state racists, than they do with either Hitler...or the rich white people in this country.

I know it's hypocritical. Hence my ending part about making that sacrifice.

If it was my job to protect people, I'd rather have "Stopped some man spreading hate and possibly resulting in terrorism: Contradicts freedom of speech." than "Let a man spread hate, resulting in many deaths" on my resume.

-AC

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Who is Fantaman?


Because if you're reffering to me, hope is about the only thing left for this world.

You are Fantaman : trying to live in a fantasy world !
Im sorry but i prefer being hypocritical rather than putting all my trust in hope. Hope is for lazy people who wont do anything.

Originally posted by Gryn Jabar
Nazi supporters? That falls into 2 things:
White Supremacists
White Nationalists

The two are very different. Elaborate please.
That is the only information I was given. *Shrugs.*

I believe there should be restrictions on personal freedoms. This being an example of one of them.

This sounds like something off that online government game NationStates...

And I'm going with A since any view is fine as long as you don't try to force it on other people.

Well, if the point of the rally is to incite violence, then it can be legally stopped, as "fighting words" (speaking or acting in a way to incite violence) are illegal.

Otherwise, there's nothing to be done about it.

Originally posted by MC Mike
And I'm going with A since any view is fine as long as you don't try to force it on other people.

But, that's exactly what A is doing. And in turn, AC is agreeing that some views shouldn't be allowed. But, then, where does that end?

Well then, provided it is well overseen, B might work.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, that's exactly what A is doing. And in turn, AC is agreeing that some views shouldn't be allowed. But, then, where does that end?

Freedom of speech is always tempered by rights to privacy, and especially by the right to live your life in peace (in all its connotations).

Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Can it get any simpler than that ?
Do we not learn from the past mistakes ?

A stitch in time saves nine.

Calling for violence against anyone in a public forum is against the law in the US. The neo-Nazis would know this before they took the stage. This hypothetical rally would be shut down, especially given the participants taking part in it. So, then, we're left with them espousing their beliefs. That is within their right.


Just look at all the "rallys" these guys HAVE put together. The leaders of these groups know what they can and can not say. That's why their public speeches are carefully worded...and thinly vield. They always operate on the assumption that it will be Nuremburg 1933 all over again. But, at most...it's a couple of dozen white guys preaching from a pulpit, behind barbwire and fences. The fences aren't there to keep the blacks out...it's to protect the people making speeches and their supporters.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, that's exactly what A is doing. And in turn, AC is agreeing that some views shouldn't be allowed. But, then, where does that end?

I'm not agreeing that some views shouldn't be allowed. I said previously that anyone is free to believe what they want to believe.

However, when spreading hateful and dangerous messages to other impressionable people is what you wanna do and as a result, possibly endanger my life, I'm gonna make the move to say "Stop saying that."

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

However, when what you want to do is spread hateful and dangerous messages to other impressionable people and as a result, possibly endanger my life, I'm gonna make the move to say "Stop saying that."

-AC

*Movie voice over*

They were spreaddding hateful and dangerous messsaaaggges.

Possssibly endangering his lifffe.

He made the mooove to say...'Stop saying that. P-please.'

I didn't say "P-please" did I? You roboplegic.

-AC

can you lower the volume ; im getting feed-back

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't say "P-please" did I? You roboplegic.

-AC

You didn't actually star in a movie with that plot though, did you?

So I'll c u next Tuesday.

You ****.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not agreeing that some views shouldn't be allowed. I said previously that anyone is free to believe what they want to believe.

However, when spreading hateful and dangerous messages to other impressionable people is what you wanna do and as a result, possibly endanger my life, I'm gonna make the move to say "Stop saying that."

-AC


But, saying..."you're not allowed to say that"...only strengthens the resolve of the people saying it. To do such a thing in their paranoid, conspiracy-driven minds won't solve anything. Especially in a country where "freedom of speech" is a guarenteed right.

Look, I'm all for not allowing hate speech. I'm all for taking those Nazi twins away from their parents and deprograming them, I'm all for stringing people up in the streets for their hate crimes. Be they white, black, gay, straight, muslim or christian.

But, to do so, makes me no better than the very injustice with which I disagree.

Nazi and sympathy just don't look right together...

And hmmm. Of the two choices available? I don't like pro-Nazi views, but then there is the whole freedom of speech thing, but the way I see it more places should be like Australia - yes, we have freedom of speech, but it is recognised that just because a person can say what they want, doesn't mean they should - as in tact. As such we have anti vilification laws - there can be rallies, opinions and what have you, providing they don't promote racial hate and vilify minorities, the moment they do that it is illegal, much like a vastly more severe case of slander.

So while I wouldn't really want these unpleasant characters wandering around, spouting there trash and glorifying the defunct Hitler and his equally defunct Third Reich I still guess they have the right to, in a legal sense. Still I only hope someone does the classic thing and organises a counter protest that will drown out the Nazi-Sympathisers words of hate.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, saying..."you're not allowed to say that"...only strengthens the resolve of the people saying it. To do such a thing in their paranoid, conspiracy-driven minds won't solve anything. Especially in a country where "freedom of speech" is a guarenteed right.

I'm not talking about hunting them down and going to massive lengths of effort to stop them doing things. I'm talking about not actively giving a racist, facist organisation an open and approved platform to spread hate. What's the confusion?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Look, I'm all for not allowing hate speech. I'm all for taking those Nazi twins away from their parents and deprograming them, I'm all for stringing people up in the streets for their hate crimes. Be they white, black, gay, straight, muslim or christian.

But, to do so, makes me no better than the very injustice with which I disagree.

Yes, and as said, it's hypocritical in that sense. Personally, that's one case in which I'll take the label.

-AC

Originally posted by MC Mike
This sounds like something off that online government game NationStates...

And I'm going with A since any view is fine as long as you don't try to force it on other people.
What a coincidence .

A, incitemtents to violence are not protected speech.

There you go then, they can have their rally as long as they aren't going to advocate violence, so with any luck that would mean they can't have their rally.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not talking about hunting them down and going to massive lengths of effort to stop them doing things. I'm talking about not actively giving a racist, facist organisation an open and approved platform to spread hate. What's the confusion?
-AC


There is no confusion on my part. The confusion is coming from your argument. In this country, where this proposed rally is to take place, there is a law against publically calling for violence against anyone or any group. However, they are allowed to speak their minds in a public situation. Open, yes. Approved, no. The vast majority of public and private citizens in this country do not condone or support neo-Nazi beliefs or actions. However, the neo-Nazis have a right to speak their minds, publically. Let's not forget, that these guys don't just go out and stand on a ladder and speak their mind, like Malcome X did. They have to apply for permits to do this, they have to agree to abide by certain criteria (such as not advocating, verbally, violence against any one person or group.) That's why their websites are littered with calls for violence against blacks, jews, gays, etc. But, once they step foot on that platform, thay aren't allowed to espouse such rhetoric. Once they do, the authorities step in and shut them down.


And you know, once the right people are in power, then I will be all for hunting them down and stomping those beliefs out of existence...as well as the people who espouse them.

Here in England I don't believe there's any kind of law like that. Hence the confusion.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Here in England I don't believe there's any kind of law like that. Hence the confusion.

-AC

We have lots of laws like that.

Yes, it seems sensible for a nation to have laws that establish a clear line as to what is acceptable and what is not, especially when it comes to potentially racist opinions and rallies.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, it seems sensible for a nation to have laws that establish a clear line as to what is acceptable and what is not, especially when it comes to potentially racist opinions and rallies.

The point is that yes, freedom of speech is desirable.

However, so is the right to live your life without fear of negative action from others.

If the former will lead to the latter, then there need to be checks and balances.

Exactly.

And I am sure most people are happy to sacrifice a tiny bit of their "freedom" so that we can live in a safe enviroment, which is what ordered society is all about - total freedom would be anarchy, those checks and balances are vital to insure the protection and safety of as many people as possible.

Well I'd say B. Let them voice their opinion...as stupid as many mind find it, if they get even more people to follow it, well then that is their choice, if people commit bad deeds bevcause of it that#S also the responsibility of the people that did it not the once that talked aboot it, I think everyone should have the right to voice their opiniopn, I believe only personal insults shouldn't be tolerated.

Hmmm give them choice B.....I have seen some crazy things in DC gay rights parade(not crazy by itself however people went out of their way to be outlandish) million man march I know perhaps the premise was different for these however free speech none the less as long as the "rules" are maintained in the process.

Originally posted by Bardock42
if people commit bad deeds bevcause of it that#S also the responsibility of the people that did it not the once that talked aboot it,

It is though, if they are directly inciting the consequences.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It is though, if they are directly inciting the consequences.

Lemme take another approach to getting my point across.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center = ( PUBLIC*CF) tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

No where in this scenario does it say that the group will call FOR violence against a specific person or group. Simply spread hateful rhetoric. Rhetoric, I might add, with which few who attend such rallies in support of the cause aren't already familiar. But, most of the calls for violence by these groups occur at PRIVATE rallies...on back-water farms and in private homes and buisness. Why PRIVATE? Because to do so in PUBLIC is AGAINST THE LAW in the US.

Knowing that is the situation, Option B is the more correct option, in terms of United States LAW. Option B is deceptive however, because the question in the original post itself is flawed. But, Option B is the most constitutional.


I'm not arguing that these people, sharing their views won't CAUSE violence at some point. But, they can not specifically call for violence, publically. But, that's America. I'm not saying it isn't ****ed up...but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It is though, if they are directly inciting the consequences.

I am talking my opinion not what the law says ....

Argument A - but add shooting the Nazi scum to it!

B.

but then i also see things like the MOBO awards as double standards, because the MOWO awards would be shut down in a heart beat

Of course, the game has turned against me, manipulating my decision into saying that "racists comments in public are not allowed." Civil rights has been changed to "unheard of" instead of "rare."

I hardly think that banning racist, Nazi-tacular rallies qualifies for the former statement.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Of course, the game has turned against me, manipulating my decision into saying that "racists comments in public are not allowed." Civil rights has been changed to "unheard of" instead of "rare."

I hardly think that banning racist, Nazi-tacular rallies qualifies for the former statement.

Could you explain this game to us, as I am personally unfamiliar.

Also, are you saying that this game says that option B is the right way to go?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Could you explain this game to us, as I am personally unfamiliar.

Also, are you saying that this game says that option B is the right way to go?
The game is called NationStates. Basically, you design a country and take a short questionnaire that helps form the country to your ideals. After that, you are given an issue every day that gives more detail on your personal stances. You can range from ulta-leftist to hyper-conservative, or anywhere in between.

From what I can tell--and I just began--the game may favor a more liberal society and has the issue of vast generalization.

wow ; let history repeat itself and have Nazi in power again.

Let them kill every Jew, Handicapped, Homosexual and Gypsy.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The game is called NationStates. Basically, you design a country and take a short questionnaire that helps form the country to your ideals. After that, you are given an issue every day that gives more detail on your personal stances. You can range from ulta-leftist to hyper-conservative, or anywhere in between.

From what I can tell--and I just began--the game may favor a more liberal society and has the issue of vast generalization.


Humm..sounds like a cool game. But, if the point is to create a country in your own image, then how can they penalize you by rigging the game? So, it sounds cool, but it sucks if you can't make your OWN country.

Originally posted by GCG
wow ; let history repeat itself and have Nazi in power again.

Let them kill every Jew, Handicapped, Homosexual and Gypsy.

Well, you have to admit that a benevolent dictator, or king, would do a lot of good in the world today.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, you have to admit that a benevolent dictator, or king, would do a lot of good in the world today.

Yes but dictatorship no matter how benevolent is still dictatorship

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am talking my opinion not what the law says ....

What the law says is also my opinion.

You are of course entitled to yours.

Unless it incites violence, then you goin' down.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well I'd say B. Let them voice their opinion...as stupid as many mind find it, if they get even more people to follow it, well then that is their choice, if people commit bad deeds bevcause of it that#S also the responsibility of the people that did it not the once that talked aboot it, I think everyone should have the right to voice their opiniopn, I believe only personal insults shouldn't be tolerated.

We do not want charismatic leaders causing the mistakes of the past to be repeated Bardock - do we?

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
Yes but dictatorship no matter how benevolent is still dictatorship


Perhaps it is the only way...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Perhaps it is the only way...

I thought you were not talking to me

<---throws up a little in his mouth.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
<---throws up a little in his mouth.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What the law says is also my opinion.

You are of course entitled to yours.

Unless it incites violence, then you goin' down.

Good that we agree on that.

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
We do not want charismatic leaders causing the mistakes of the past to be repeated Bardock - do we?

If you mean "we" as in the Nazi Sympathizers then, well they actually "we" want that

You have to understand that your opin ion is not better than anyone elses.

really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! soooo they hired in people to do the planing for them then....and help them tying their shoes and boots for this rally

Originally posted by finti
really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! soooo they hired in people to do the planing for them then....and help them tying their shoes and boots for this rally

what?

meaning the nazi sympathisers aint bright enough to plan it themselves

I don't think that the rally should be stopped. Stopping Nazis from preaching racism is no different than banning video games and music cause of what people fear it might influence others to do. Obviously if someone is going to act based on something they hear at a rally then they've either already had this view for a while or they are so easily influenced that it could've been anything that influeced them. I think that people need to take responsiblity for their own actions and stop blaming it on some shit they saw on TV or heard at a rally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have to understand that your opin ion is not better than anyone elses.

Why?

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
Why?
'Cause you stupid.

Heh, I was just faced with the decision on changing the laws regarding corporations and the amount of money that they can donate to political parties. Here was one of the stances I could take:

"Frankly, I don't see why we need to have elections at all," says your brother, Dave Trax, over a late-night malt whiskey. "You always seem to know what's best. Why not scrap the whole political system? It would make things so much simpler."

Originally posted by FeceMan
'Cause you stupid.

Heh, I was just faced with the decision on changing the laws regarding corporations and the amount of money that they can donate to political parties. Here was one of the stances I could take:

"Frankly, I don't see why we need to have elections at all," says your brother, Dave Trax, over a late-night malt whiskey. "You always seem to know what's best. Why not scrap the whole political system? It would make things so much simpler."

I disagree

Your far more stupid, your good at grammar, but you fail to recognise the fluidity of language.

U C WAT I M'N

Keep the faith

Stay Ghandi

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
I disagree

Your far more stupid, your good at grammar, but you fail to recognise the fluidity of language.

U C WAT I M'N

Keep the faith

Stay Ghandi
Pssst...you used the wrong form of 'your' in your post.

And **** the what is the fluidity of language?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Pssst...you used the wrong form of 'your' in your post.

And **** the what is the fluidity of language?

Fluidity, how it flows and changes with time, how dictionary's are often wrong because they fail to see how language of the world in the street is often ahead of the language they use. The language of the street is often not the language of the dictionary writer, they are not even restricted and elaborated codes in some situations they are just the now and the then.

- "aboot" "your", there's been a thread on how often I do this in the Comics forum - Its because I have several linguistic SPELD's Specific Learning Disabilities, doesn't stop me probably being better educated than you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good that we agree on that.




That was a test, you failed.

F+.

Originally posted by FeceMan
"Frankly, I don't see why we need to have elections at all," says your brother, Dave Trax, over a late-night malt whiskey. "You always seem to know what's best. Why not scrap the whole political system? It would make things so much simpler."


That's pretty liberal.

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
Fluidity, how it flows and changes with time, how dictionary's are often wrong because they fail to see how language of the world in the street is often ahead of the language they use. The language of the street is often not the language of the dictionary writer, they are not even restricted and elaborated codes in some situations they are just the now and the then.

- "aboot" "your", there's been a thread on how often I do this in the Comics forum - Its because I have several linguistic SPELD's Specific Learning Disabilities, doesn't stop me probably being better educated than you.


So, because I use proper grammar and precise language, I should be...what, looked down upon by the general populace?

Elaborated and unrestricted codes? *Rolls eyes.* Sounds like somebody's reaching...
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
That's pretty liberal.
How do you figure?

I was reading in the newspaper today about proposed anti-terrorist laws, and the proposal to ban literature that promotes hate, calls for the extermination of Jews, the butchering of infidels whatever... as well as this our Attorney General already has the power to make illegal political gatherings and groups that deal with things like terrorism and such...

And I wondered, why not Neo-Nazis? In some ways they have similar aspirations to certain terrorist group (only they aren't as widely known for terrorist acts.) Now nobody defends the rights for "terrorist" sympathisers to get together and go on about fighting the west or whatever, why do governments want to defend Nazi groups who go on about genocide and such? I know I'm generalising, and some would say "but the Nazi sympathises aren't using suicide bombers etc" which is true. They just have a tendancy to idolise figures who led the world into a terrible war and promoted genocide and the like.

So I say does the world need Neo-Nazis? No. Would the world be worse of if they, like terrorist sympathisers, were banned? No.

I am pretty liberal, but I think somethings can be done without. Gahhh, I really need sleep.

Originally posted by Lana
Technically, the only thing that can be restricted is where and when it takes place, I believe.

Though obviously it'd stir up trouble.

There actually was a KKK rally somewhere in the Chicago area a few years ago, I believe

They marched on Washington DC en masse back in the early 1920's. The government took no action, especially since they all ran away when it started raining.

Originally posted by FeceMan
How do you figure?


Read your history, my friend. Hitler was a liberal. Taken to extremes, liberal thought lends itself to fascism. That is one reason I'm not a liberal.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Read your history, my friend. Hitler was a liberal. Taken to extremes, liberal thought lends itself to fascism. That is one reason I'm not a liberal.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.
Oh, come on, surely you can't mean that. I mean, he was a Christian. Christian fascists are OBVIOUSLY all conservative.

Current issue at hand:

The Issue
Several major city streets were clogged with bicycles this morning, as the environmental group 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' staged a protest. Several hundred riders ambled through downtown streets, blissfully ignoring the torrent of abuse hurled at them by thousands of motorists running late for work.

The Debate
"People are sick of dirty, smelly automobiles," said protest organizer Chastity Christmas. "They're choking the city, the environment--our lives! Cars must be banned!"

"The only thing people are sick of is long-haired idiots riding their bicycles at two miles an hour on major thoroughfares," says committed motorist Stephanie Silk. "People shouldn't be able to protest like this. The government needs to crack down on them."

The Automotive Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, has called for government support. "It's clear that we need to boost the level of automobile support in this country. This protest this morning is a clear indication of... um... anyway, we need more government funds."

Uh, so I get screwed no matter what. Ban all cars, which is retarded. Cancel all protests--which is what I'm leaning towards, simply because I find protests that hamper other people unacceptable--as the game will take whatever I do to the extreme. Or I can hand out money to the automotive industry for no reason whatsoever.

No way to increase funding to design cars that are less polluting? *Sighs.*

Yay, I'm Hitler Lite.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Read your history, my friend. Hitler was a liberal. Taken to extremes, liberal thought lends itself to fascism. That is one reason I'm not a liberal.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.

I'd say it's more socialism that links the political sphere back to fascism.

If you go too far left, you end up on the right.

Although I know the US conception of liberalism is slightly different.

Originally posted by FeceMan
So, because I use proper grammar and precise language, I should be...what, looked down upon by the general populace?

Elaborated and unrestricted codes? *Rolls eyes.* Sounds like somebody's reaching...

How do you figure?

no not reaching at all

Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, come on, surely you can't mean that. I mean, he was a Christian. Christian fascists are OBVIOUSLY all conservative.



I do mean that. Look at a lot of the left's issues. They want more government, government in control of social issues, government programs that provide aid to private citizens. That's liberal. That's socialism. Hitler wanted the state to dictate every aspect of social life in Germany. That's what a lot of liberals want, government that dictates social order.

Just because Hitler was hateful, doesn't make him a conservative.


And Hitler was a Catholic, yes...but, much like the current US admin. it was an act...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'd say it's more socialism that links the political sphere back to fascism.

If you go too far left, you end up on the right.

Although I know the US conception of liberalism is slightly different.

As I said before, socialism and liberalism are almost one and the same.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As I said before, socialism and liberalism are almost one and the same.

Not really.

Unless you are talking about an American brand of liberalism that isn't actually liberalism.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not really.

Unless you are talking about an American brand of liberalism that isn't actually liberalism.


Okay, I'm not too familiar with UK liberalism. So, when you hear me discuss liberals, it will never be in the context of YOUR version of "liberal".

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, I'm not too familiar with UK liberalism. So, when you hear me discuss liberals, it will never be in the context of YOUR version of "liberal".

Out of interest, is it any of these?

(I haven't looked through it yet, but I'm ignorant of the current usage in the US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

I'm wondering if it's not just a misapplied tag.

"This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide."



A lot of the concepts discussed in that general definition apply to a lot of concepts that any major political party would ascribe to themselves.

But, when you follow the link to 'liberalism worldwide', then it doesn't really address the US.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
"This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide."



A lot of the concepts discussed in that general definition apply to a lot of concepts that any major political party would ascribe to themselves.

But, when you follow the link to 'liberalism worldwide', then it doesn't really address the US.

I see.

I imagine liberalism is posited as a diametric opposite to conservatism there, what with the democrat/republican divide.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I see.

I imagine liberalism is posited as a diametric opposite to conservatism there, what with the democrat/republican divide.

Pretty much. When there are only two parties, ideology gets split right down the middle. An issue comes up and one party states it's position, and the other party is forced to take an opposing stance on the subject..simply to maintain a difference in national theory. It's sad really, America could be much better place if it had more than two viable political parties.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Pretty much. When there are only two parties, ideology gets split right down the middle. An issue comes up and one party states it's position, and the other party is forced to take an opposing stance on the subject..simply to maintain a difference in national theory. It's sad really, America could be much better place if it had more than two viable political parties.

Definitely. In a sense, two party isn't that much better than one party, all told.

It's a weird bastardisation of the term liberal though.

I think Spelljammer might now be making just the slightest iota of sense.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think Spelljammer might now be making just the slightest iota of sense.


Whoa! That's just out of line.

Originally posted by Gandhi_of_KMC
Why?



Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That was a test, you failed.

F+.

At least I failed with honour.Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Read your history, my friend. Hitler was a liberal. Taken to extremes, liberal thought lends itself to fascism. That is one reason I'm not a liberal.

You might think I'm joking, but I'm not.

I very much hope you are not talking aboot the liberal I am thinking aboot....

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'd say it's more socialism that links the political sphere back to fascism.

If you go too far left, you end up on the right.

Although I know the US conception of liberalism is slightly different.

That's what I hope he meant...US Liberal is ore socialist than liberal actually...Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Definitely. In a sense, two party isn't that much better than one party, all told.

It's a weird bastardisation of the term liberal though.

I think Spelljammer might now be making just the slightest iota of sense.

For someone who himself claimed to be a socialist he very much hated the American "Liberals"

Originally posted by Bardock42


I very much hope you are not talking aboot the liberal I am thinking aboot....



That's what I hope he meant...US Liberal is ore socialist than liberal actually...

For someone who himself claimed to be a socialist he very much hated the American "Liberals"

The only liberal I'm talking about, is Hitler.

When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.

So, that sounds pretty much like Hitler to me.

As for Spelljammer, he's retarded. Whatever name he's using to troll around here, he's still just an idiot. He has no control over how sick he allows himself to become. I would imagine he mastubates a lot. He says he's a socialist, but doesn't even know what that means. He heard somewhere that socialists are evil...so, that's why he associates himself with them...he has also heard that the conservatives are the same as republicans...so, he applies himself to their cause, but only on these forums...as it's clear that he has no life outside of his darkend bedroom, softly lit by the light of his computer monitor.

Someone suggested that I make good chicken, so I thought I'd drop some by....

OK..gotta go now....

To be honest I am very, very, very uncomfortable with you calling Hitler a Liberal. His political ideology is best described as fascist...that's why it's called Fascist. He had some ideas of what the Aericans call liberals as well as what they call Conservatives. His views were Authoritarian/Progressive/Facist (Fascist as partly Socialist and partly Capitalistic, centralized but still free). So Libertarians, Socialists and Fascists are basically different political views although soe might overlap.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be honest I am very, very, very uncomfortable with you calling Hitler a Liberal. His political ideology is best described as fascist...that's why it's called Fascist. He had some ideas of what the Aericans call liberals as well as what they call Conservatives. His views were Authoritarian/Progressive/Facist (Fascist as partly Socialist and partly Capitalistic, centralized but still free). So Libertarians, Socialists and Fascists are basically different political views although soe might overlap.

I'm sorry I've made you feel uncomfortable. That was not my intent. However, if Hitler were alive today, in the US, and had to choose between the two political ideologies, he would be a liberal.

And, I'm aware that Hitler was a fascist. I'm very familiar with Hitler...and the Nazi party. I've been studying it for years at this point. I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm just sharing what I know. Hitler would be a liberal. Everything about his point of view agrees with that statement.

I think the problem so many of my friends across the pond are having, is understanding that I'm really only familiar with the term 'liberal', as it applies to American politics.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm sorry I've made you feel uncomfortable. That was not my intent. However, if Hitler were alive today, in the US, and had to choose between the two political ideologies, he would be a liberal.

And, I'm aware that Hitler was a fascist. I'm very familiar with Hitler...and the Nazi party. I've been studying it for years at this point. I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm just sharing what I know. Hitler would be a liberal. Everything about his point of view agrees with that statement.

I think the problem so many of my friends across the pond are having, is understanding that I'm really only familiar with the term 'liberal', as it applies to American politics.

The problem I am having is that I don't think so at all actually. The ones you call conservatives are more nationalistic and in great parts more authoritarian than the liberals....I just can't picture Hitler as a Liberal (meaning a US Democrat) at all. There's no real comparing his beliefs with those two parties but if he actually was forced to chose I believe he'd chose the current Republicans (now by Party Programme this might be different, but the way they practice nowadays I mean)

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem I am having is that I don't think so at all actually. The ones you call conservatives are more nationalistic and in great parts more authoritarian than the liberals....I just can't picture Hitler as a Liberal (meaning a US Democrat) at all. There's no real comparing his beliefs with those two parties but if he actually was forced to chose I believe he'd chose the current Republicans (now by Party Programme this might be different, but the way they practice nowadays I mean)


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.


As you can see, I have already stated that the two parties in the US are, for all intents and purpose, the exact same thing....at this point. Many points in teh liberal agenda agree with me. Basically, the liberal movement promotes the individual citizen's dependance on the federal governmnet. While, the conservative doctrine would promote less government interference with the individual citizen. Which sounds more like Hitler?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I do mean that. Look at a lot of the left's issues. They want more government, government in control of social issues, government programs that provide aid to private citizens. That's liberal. That's socialism. Hitler wanted the state to dictate every aspect of social life in Germany. That's what a lot of liberals want, government that dictates social order.

Just because Hitler was hateful, doesn't make him a conservative.


And Hitler was a Catholic, yes...but, much like the current US admin. it was an act...
*Pokes Capt.*

Just add water...

And, yes, as VVD mentioned, the political sphere--or ring or what-have-you--is round because there is such a small degree of separation between the extremes of the Left and the Right.

This is the problem, nowadays. So many people--myself included--don't see politics as the proper way to create the government. Republicans aren't those who favor a republic and Democrats aren't those who favor a democracy--all we see are the issues at hand. I admit that I prefer the republic as a form of government to the democracy, but that's not why I vote the way I do. It all comes down to core beliefs.

I've always considered Hitler very conservative simply because of the racist, hateful views that he espoused were so comparable to those like the Dixiecrats. And today, whenever we hear about intolerance, it's always the Christian far right-wingers who are stirring up trouble. Thus, we have all come to associate one side with one set of ideals and the other with a totally different set (hence the mini-tirade in my signature).

This should probably be remedied. But it won't be.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The only liberal I'm talking about, is Hitler.

When you look at the "core" principles of the two parties in this country, you see that liberals/socialists are into big government, social control, etc. and that conservatives are in it for small government and less social control. However, by now...both concepts have really become one. At this point, it's a war for control...and that's it. There is no more concern for the people...only the power.

So, that sounds pretty much like Hitler to me.

As for Spelljammer, he's retarded. Whatever name he's using to troll around here, he's still just an idiot. He has no control over how sick he allows himself to become. I would imagine he mastubates a lot. He says he's a socialist, but doesn't even know what that means. He heard somewhere that socialists are evil...so, that's why he associates himself with them...he has also heard that the conservatives are the same as republicans...so, he applies himself to their cause, but only on these forums...as it's clear that he has no life outside of his darkend bedroom, softly lit by the light of his computer monitor.
Yes, it is all about control, unfortunately. But power is the only way to get things done.

(Ugh. Now I pity Spelljammer.)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As you can see, I have already stated that the two parties in the US are, for all intents and purpose, the exact same thing....at this point. Many points in teh liberal agenda agree with me. Basically, the liberal movement promotes the individual citizen's dependance on the federal governmnet. While, the conservative doctrine would promote less government interference with the individual citizen. Which sounds more like Hitler?
But that is just one part, if you look at the role of the State then yes Hitler would be a "Liberal" ....if you look at Human Rights, Patriotic and Nationalistic Beliefs he'd be "Conservative" ....if you look at most other things he wouldn't be either....

Originally posted by FeceMan
Now, let me stress that this is a HYPOTHETICAL question. It's not really happening, but I was faced with a choice regarding this decision. Tell me your views on this.

Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Argument A:
"Frankly, I'm appalled that the government can even consider allowing this travesty to go ahead," says prominent Jewish banker Charles Longfellow. "We can't let these animals broadcast their message of hate. Surely too civilized for that."

Argument B:
"It's exactly because we're civilized that we must let the demonstration proceed," says free speech campaigner Lars McGuffin. "We may not like what they have to say, but in this society, people have the right to argue whatever political view they want, no matter how hateful, selfish, or stupid it is."

I side with A. What do all of you think of this?


I side with A too, ofcourse in Belgium this would not even be a question: Thank god for that law

Good point about Hitler BD

Originally posted by FeceMan
*Pokes Capt.*

I've always considered Hitler very conservative simply because of the racist, hateful views that he espoused were so comparable to those like the Dixiecrats. And today, whenever we hear about intolerance, it's always the Christian far right-wingers who are stirring up trouble. Thus, we have all come to associate one side with one set of ideals and the other with a totally different set (hence the mini-tirade in my signature).




You don't think a democrat can be racist? In fact, sometimes making excuses for a minority is just as silly and counter productive as outright hitting them in the face.


As for your pity for Spelljammer, don't pity him. He could be better informed...it's just too much work. He's lazy. Don't pity that.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You don't think a democrat can be racist? In fact, sometimes making excuses for a minority is just as silly and counter productive as outright hitting them in the face.


As for your pity for Spelljammer, don't pity him. He could be better informed...it's just too much work. He's lazy. Don't pity that.

But it's a different type of Racism...one that Hitler wouldn't agree on

there is a difference between racism and destroying more than 5 million people because they have a different faith and so on...

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that is just one part, if you look at the role of the State then yes Hitler would be a "Liberal" ....if you look at Human Rights, Patriotic and Nationalistic Beliefs he'd be "Conservative" ....if you look at most other things he wouldn't be either....

You're addressing the situation like a fox news correspondant. National pride isn't solely the right of the conservative. Human rights, well...that is a touchy subject I can't even begin to approach. Hitler was crazy...human rights were at teh very center of his cause...it's just too bad that he considered 80 percent of teh planets population to be less than human.

True, and ofcourse not all nationalists or patriots are conservatives. But I think when you look at parts of Hitler his nationalistic idea's I'd consider that conservative.

But as BD said on a lot of other points he was pretty left wing

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're addressing the situation like a fox news correspondant. National pride isn't solely the right of the conservative. Human rights, well...that is a touchy subject I can't even begin to approach. Hitler was crazy...human rights were at teh very center of his cause...it's just too bad that he considered 80 percent of teh planets population to be less than human.

I am not talking aboot national pride, but preaching country-fanboyish-fanatism......the Fox Correspondant did hurt by the way....

Yes, well i didn't mean human rights..more hjuman freedom....or...well i don't know....

You mean the ideas of enlightenment Bd

Originally posted by Fire
You mean the ideas of enlightenment Bd

Do I?

By the way just you know I refuse to accept that because of the Liberal Ideas the Liberals have...not the Socialist

Well if you look at the principle ideas of enlightenment it's a lot of those things Hitler (and a lot of other facists) hate

A: All people are equal <=> Their are/there is a natural leader(s) among us

B: All people should be free <=> The leader should decide for the people because he knows best

Ofcourse you disagree with those.

Originally posted by Fire
Well if you look at the principle ideas of enlightenment it's a lot of those things Hitler (and a lot of other facists) hate

A: All people are equal <=> Their are/there is a natural leader(s) among us

B: All people should be free <=> The leader should decide for the people because he knows best

Ofcourse you disagree with those.

True.

Although CF has a poiont in saying that Hitler agrees with "All People are Equal" but that he decides what people are.......

nah, he still makes a difference between the normal people and the leader class.

Remember his speech about how the german people were lucky they found him (dunno which one it was but it is quite famous)

Originally posted by Fire
nah, he still makes a difference between the normal people and the leader class.

Remember his speech about how the german people were lucky they found him (dunno which one it was but it is quite famous)
Hmm....he obviously did, but I'm not sure if his ideology does.....

If you mean Facism by that it sure does, it's a quintessential element of Facism

Originally posted by Fire
If you mean Facism by that it sure does, it's a quintessential element of Facism
I meant do they believe that the Leaders are better....but actually think,ing aboot it of course they do....I am an idiot...forgive my ignorance...

lol, don't worry, they've been pooring in info about facism in my brain for the last two weeks at uni. When you talk about the politics of the interbellum and the second world war it comes up a lot.

Originally posted by Fire
lol, don't worry, they've been pooring in info about facism in my brain for the last two weeks at uni. When you talk about the politics of the interbellum and the second world war it comes up a lot.

No Shit

Politics ion germany are too sad...there are way to few Liberal Movements.....

I think we can safely assume that Hitler was a nut. He had varying views on issues, but also his own that don't conform with any of the parties/ideologies.

I always find that my own views don't conform with any of the designated groups, and are more a collection of various parts of each.

I think the groupings are reductive and non-representative anyway. They are just a practical solution.

yea and Merkel still hasn't found a decent government.

Just a few excerpts from his speeches:

"Simultaneously with this political purification of our public life, the Government of the Reich will undertake a thorough moral purging of the body corporate of the nation. The entire educational system, the theater, the cinema, literature, the Press, and the wireless - all these will be used as means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all serve for the maintenance of the eternal values present in the essential character of our people. Art will always remain the expression and the reflection of the longings and the realities of an era. The neutral international attitude of aloofness is rapidly disappearing. Heroism is coming forward passionately and will in future shape and lead political destiny. It is the task of art to be the expression of this determining spirit of the age. Blood and race will once more become the source of artistic intuition.... "

"Great are the tasks of the national Government in the sphere of economic life."

"We want, too, to restore to the German intelligentsia the freedom of which it has been robbed by the system which has hitherto ruled. In parliamentarianism they did not possess this freedom. We want to liberate Germany from the fetters of an impossible parliamentary democracy - not because we are terrorists, not because we intend to gag the free spirit. On the contrary, the spirit has never had more violence done to it than when mere numbers made themselves its master. "

Yea the time that democracy failed europe went too hell

Originally posted by Fire
yea and Merkel still hasn't found a decent government.

Oh well to hell with it.....stupid germans....I think I dislike at least 90% ....and I don't even know that many (would be hard to too......)


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Just a few excerpts from his speeches:

"Simultaneously with this political purification of our public life, the Government of the Reich will undertake a thorough moral purging of the body corporate of the nation. The entire educational system, the theater, the cinema, literature, the Press, and the wireless - all these will be used as means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all serve for the maintenance of the eternal values present in the essential character of our people. Art will always remain the expression and the reflection of the longings and the realities of an era. The neutral international attitude of aloofness is rapidly disappearing. Heroism is coming forward passionately and will in future shape and lead political destiny. It is the task of art to be the expression of this determining spirit of the age. Blood and race will once more become the source of artistic intuition.... "

"Great are the tasks of the national Government in the sphere of economic life."

"We want, too, to restore to the German intelligentsia the freedom of which it has been robbed by the system which has hitherto ruled. In parliamentarianism they did not possess this freedom. We want to liberate Germany from the fetters of an impossible parliamentary democracy - not because we are terrorists, not because we intend to gag the free spirit. On the contrary, the spirit has never had more violence done to it than when mere numbers made themselves its master. "

They don't really relate to the Democrats though.....or did I miss something...

Originally posted by Bardock42
.....stupid germans....or did I miss something...

1) indeed often
2) indeed often

Originally posted by Fire
Yea the time that democracy failed europe went too hell
I'm sure you didn't intend this to be humorous...but, really, it is.

Thank you for the laugh .

no problem

Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't really relate to the Democrats though.....or did I miss something...

How many speeches, made by US democrats have you listen to or watched. These few bits are dripping with US democratic party sentiment.

That last sentence kinda seems dirty...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
How many speeches, made by US democrats have you listen to or watched. These few bits are dripping with US democratic party sentiment.

That last sentence kinda seems dirty...

Hmm well...alright....actually I don't care...I dont like either one of the...but I don't really know their core values so....

The Issue
It's time for the government to hire a new religious advisor. Your people have narrowed down the candidates to:

The Debate
Catholic Archbishop Konrad O'Bannon: boasts an excellent track record, having rapidly increased church attendances in his constituencies through the "Reaching God Through Guilt" program. Seen as a solid choice.

New Age thinker Beth Longfellow: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."

Finally, there's Hope McGuffin. "If I am awarded the appointment, I will immediately resign," the ex-schoolteacher has declared. "Because, frankly, God is a big load of hokey. I'll be doing everyone a favor by just shutting up about it."

(Choices, choices.)

The Hope McGuffin guy is funny....

Heh. Though my civil rights are unheard of, my political freedoms are excellent.

Yay.

hard one, and not a choice I'd take myself, since I couldn't care less personally.

Thing is if I had to make a choice I'd take a look at which religion most people in the communtiy practice.

If the large majority (70% and up) are devoted and practicing catholics the archbishop would be a good choice.

If there isa large majority of another faith or is there is no large majority in the community I'd take Beth

Originally posted by Fire
hard one, and not a choice I'd take myself, since I couldn't care less personally.

Thing is if I had to make a choice I'd take a look at which religion most people in the communtiy practice.

If the large majority (70% and up) are devoted and practicing catholics the archbishop would be a good choice.

If there isa large majority of another faith or is there is no large majority in the community I'd take Beth
I wouldn't, because I'm in charge of the country . There's a reason it's a theocracy.

So, we see the three different choices represent the overly religious, the personally religious and the atheist.

If your country is a theocracy, then the choice is clear. Or, is cathoicism not fanatical enough for you?

I, personally, and seems to be the theme of this obvious and easily "won" game...would choose the second option.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, we see the three different choices represent the overly religious, the personally religious and the atheist.

If your country is a theocracy, then the choice is clear. Or, is cathoicism not fanatical enough for you?

I, personally, and seems to be the theme of this obvious and easily "won" game...would choose the second option.
Catholocism isn't far-right enough for me. I've seen the liberal...things that many Catholic churches have done, and I am very, very disappointed.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Catholocism isn't far-right enough for me. I've seen the liberal...things that many Catholic churches have done, and I am very, very disappointed.

Okay, with which option will you go?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, with which option will you go?
The first, of course.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Now, let me stress that this is a HYPOTHETICAL question. It's not really happening, but I was faced with a choice regarding this decision. Tell me your views on this.

Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Argument A:
"Frankly, I'm appalled that the government can even consider allowing this travesty to go ahead," says prominent Jewish banker Charles Longfellow. "We can't let these animals broadcast their message of hate. Surely too civilized for that."

Argument B:
"It's exactly because we're civilized that we must let the demonstration proceed," says free speech campaigner Lars McGuffin. "We may not like what they have to say, but in this society, people have the right to argue whatever political view they want, no matter how hateful, selfish, or stupid it is."

I side with A. What do all of you think of this?

you choose argument A do you?

So what happens then the Goveerment ban political demos altogether would you like that? Banning Trade Unions next. Then Groups and Societies that spread messages that the goverment doesnt like (religions included) Do you Like all that?

If so Vote me I'd love to be the "Banner" in all that!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
you choose argument A do you?

So what happens then the Goveerment ban political demos altogether would you like that? Banning Trade Unions next. Then Groups and Societies that spread messages that the goverment doesnt like (religions included) Do you Like all that?

If so Vote me I'd love to be the "Banner" in all that!
Yes, because that is clearly what I meant when I picked option A.