They're probably trolling. They should be cautioned, but not kicked out of the army.
Also, why is it an outrage that these guys posed in front of a controversial flag, yet it isn't an outrage the way certain soldiers deal with citizens of invaded countries - rape, murder, torture...etc.
Priorities are all wrong.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also all fascist movements start with people being intolerant to people they don't like. Until they actually break a law there's no reason to be as harsh to them as you would like.Like, do you not realize that you sound like a Fascist right now?
In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They're probably trolling. They should be cautioned, but not kicked out of the army.
I agree that they're probably just being assholes but why not kick them out? Any other job would get you fired for that kind of thing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.
I don't think that they're inciting violence, panic, or murder. No more than the Prince of England was when he wore a Nazi costume.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh no, I'm advocating intolerance against the intolerant. Freedom of speech stops at incitements to violence, panic, and murder. Shortsighted US courts have somehow failed to equate hate speech with these so we haven't adopted the double standard that the rest of the western world has in regards to racist and far-right ideologies. So we get assholes in our military learning tactics to use on the streets at home and selling weapons to their patriot pals. This double standard exists for a reason. Communist movements are easy, their usually external. Fascist movements are often internal and like a cancer use liberal democracy and capitalism against themselves.
I think the government should be as "hate" neutral as possible. That also means preventing hate in the military as well as not cracking down on non-violent hate.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.I agree that they're probably just being assholes but why not kick them out? Any other job would get you fired for that kind of thing.
Because, while it can be considered offensive, I don't think it breaks any particular rule.
Or perhaps it does, in an indirect kind of way.
[i]Like, do you not realize that you sound like a Fascist right now? [/B]
Originally posted by lil bitchinessThe US Military has rules to keep political extremists and criminals out, including people with gang affiliated tattoos, etc. However, ever since the Bush wars, members of street gangs (crips, bloods, etc.), neo-nazis, and fascists are allowed in. Socialists and Communists are still kept out.
Because, while it can be considered offensive, I don't think it breaks any particular rule.Or perhaps it does, in an indirect kind of way.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Again, healthy double standard. Nearly every single Anti-fascist social democratic or democratic socialist state has laws against hate speech and far right groups. Making the argument that hate and the right-wing should be protected speech and classes is in the vein as Senator Roman Hruska implying that it's wrong to discriminate against the mediocre in hiring or promotion.
You've got tunnel vision, you see one Nazi symbol and you immediately demand blood from the person sporting it.
Now it's entirely possible that they are Extreme Right, I just don't think it's as likely as them just being jokers.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, we should expect less morals from the people we train to kill others than we do from common citizens?
That depends on your definition of morals.
My personal morals on war is: don't kill anyone at any time for any reason. But that's unreasonable. If I expect someone to go to war and do something that I consider NOT moral, I am automatically lowering my expectations of their moral standards.
This is why defining "standards" and "morals" is essential to properly answer your question.
But, yes, hiring someone to kill other people, IMO, constitutes lowering your moral standards for those people.
Edit - Case in point.
You lower your standards for those you would fill your military ranks compared to those you would fill your Nanny ranks.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, at least I've never heard you bat an eye about war crimes...
Did you see my diatribe about all the crap we've done to the Iraqi people?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That depends on your definition of morals.My personal morals on war is: don't kill anyone at any time for any reason. But that's unreasonable. If I expect someone to go to war and do something that I consider NOT moral, I am automatically lowering my expectations of their moral standards.
This is why defining "standards" and "morals" is essential to properly answer your question.
But, yes, hiring someone to kill other people, IMO, constitutes lowering your moral standards for those people.
Edit - Case in point.
You lower your standards for those you would fill your military ranks compared to those you would fill your Nanny ranks.
Did you see my diatribe about all the crap we've done to the Iraqi people?
so, to keep this on topic, you think it is ok to have different standards regarding nazi symbolism between the military and general work force?
Further, you think it should be more ok for military personnel to display fascist and nazi symbolism than it is for the average citizen?
Like, if I were to wear a red arm band to the lectures I give to first year students, that might not be ok, but if I were in a military situation, it becomes more ok?
Originally posted by inimalist
so, to keep this on topic, you think it is ok to have different standards regarding nazi symbolism between the military and general work force?
Let's rewind the conversation to where we are on the same page:
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Because the military is the only job that requires you to willingly give your life
Originally posted by inimalistso there should be lower standards?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Define standards.But, yes, I think so.
I expanded that and explained it: Yes, there should be lower speech standards required of our military personnel compared to...say...our nannies.
To address this new question you are asking me:
Should there be a difference in speech standards between private workforce and the US Military forces? Yes: some areas would be more strict and some areas would be less strict for military personnel.
To be even more specific about your question: it's quite obvious that the US military personnel should never fly or sport 3rd Reich symbols for extremely obvious diplomatic reasons.
But my comment to you question was NOT specifically about that: it was much more general. I simply answered your question directly: yes, there should be lower speech standards for military personnel depending on your definition of "standard" (and later how i defined "morals"😉.
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, if I were to wear a red arm band to the lectures I give to first year students, that might not be ok, but if I were in a military situation, it becomes more ok?
The depends. Do you know how many factors would play into the scenario you just brought up?
Is your school a state institution? Does a majority of its funding come from the state? Does a significant enough proportion come from the state enough to have the government decide on speech practices in your school? Is wearing that armband protected by speech rights? What is or are your reasons for wearing that armband? Will you be displaying any symbols on the armband (because this is the difference between a Nazi Armband and a version of the Red Cross armband...pretty huge). Does your military have any rules regarding what can and cannot be worn on their person while not in uniform? Are red armbands banned at all time for active duty personnel? Man, I'm tired of the questions...moving on to my actual point...
A better question to ask me, that would have been in line with the context of my post, would have been this:
"Would it be more or less okay for me to curse up a storm in front of my first year students than it would be in front of my Canadian Army platoon?"
The answer is generally "no, it would not be okay to do so in front of the class but might be okay in front of the platoon".
Yes, our standards for US Military personnel should be lower than it is for other areas. Depending on how you define "standard".