The GUTS of some people.

[Rand Al'Tor]

Well I have to agree the guy has guts. But yeah, it would have been better if he had made a mock flag himself and tore that one up, or in another way showed that he disagreed with them. But I don't think he should be persecuted and I DO respect the fact that he dares to face a beating to show he disagrees. If all people would hold a huge counterprotest march (wich is ALSO their right) every time some racists do that (within reason of course) those bastards would feel a lot less smug, and the chosen groups of contempt (jews, blacks, gays, immigrants) would KNOW most of the country doesn't agree with the nazi's.

[Arrian]

Ecthelion,

I'm an American, I loathe fascism, but I kinda agree with my compatriots on this one.

Let me try to explain:

You say that the difference between America and Europe is that Americans are ok with fascism and value property over morality.

I think there is a major misunderstanding here. The major difference here is the way in which Americans approach the right to free speach, as opposed to the way Europeans (or should I say Germany?) approach it. Americans, by and large, feel that this right is pretty much the single most important right we have - and short of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, you should have the right express yourselft - even if you're an *******. That pretty much sums it up. The KKK, the Neo-Nazis, etc., are *******s. If they march with their stupid flags and slogans, their are excersizing their right to be *******s.

Why does America allow this? Because, by and large, we feel that it is best to keep these idiots out in the open, where everyone can see what *******s they are. They are less dangerous that way, frankly. They are ridiculed, shouted down, and generally reviled. They get nowhere. If the government goes out of its way to suppress an organization it is admitting fear - fear of that group's political clout (not to mention violating the Bill of Rights, but that's another story). To admit such fear is to empower this fringe group. They become mysterious, and can claim to be the victims. In the case of neo-nazism, this is a poweful propoganda tool (i.e. - "see, the Jewish conspiracy that runs the government is after us. They are violating our rights, oppressing us. See, they are the evil ones!"). Why play into their hands?

Now, to the question of the guy who tried to destroy the flag. Well, I certainly sympathize with him in that I can't stand nazis. However, technically, he had no right to take and destroy that flag. The marchers had the right to march and spew their hate, so long as the march was peaceful (by this I mean they did no physical harm to anyone or anything), which it apparently was. So, though I do admire this guy's courage, I also happen to think he was wrong. What he should have done was get some visable token of Judaism and/or peace and started a countermarch. I'm sure the neo-nazis are nothing more than a vocal minority.

So, back to the reason I even started writing this post: your supposition that Americans are pro-fascist and value property over morality is incorrect, and I find it insulting. Very insulting.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

I quoted them.

Maybe I should take the link to the relevant thread into my signature... digging it up for you now

BTW, Hitler had the right to be an arsehole as well, but noone found it funny.

[Ecthy]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43625

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43320

Funniest thing about it all is their reasoning. First they say it's because their damn right to property and that noone has the right to live but themselves. And then they give you examples of how bad communism is, by counting several dictatorships of the past. If the Soviet Union or even Cuba were only halfway communist I'd understand that, but it's such a BS.

Now go and kill innocent women and children to secure your wealth

[Arrian]

Oh, COME ON!

You missed my point. I said, SO LONG AS THEY WERE PEACEFUL. When I said people have the right to be a-holes, I was explaining how many Americans feel about the right of free speach. Free speach is about expressing yourself - without harming anyone else. So marching and shouting slogans is ok, even if the slogans and signs are offensive. Rioting, beating people, breaking into their homes & shops, etc. (I use Crystalnacht, sorry about the spelling, as an example) IS NOT.

I'm not defending neo-nazis, the KKK, or anyone else here. I am, however, defending their right (at least here in the USA) to march and rant and rave to their hearts' content, so long as they don't physically harm anyone. The moment they do harm to another (break the law), screw 'em - send in the SWAT team.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

How do you want to know when they'll stopb eing peaceful? True, the Hitler movement was being violent from the very beginning on, but so are Neo Nazis in Germany nowadays, so you can hardly tell me we're suppressing people in their freedom of speech and to possess things which they are allowed to defend by killing children on the other side of the world. We're protecting the majority's right to govern itself. That's democracy in a real modern sense, although I must admit I don'T fully agree with the basic principle. If you knew a t least a bit of history, about the end of the Weimar republic and so on, you'd get my point.

Now read those damn threads and see.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not defending neo-nazis, the KKK, or anyone else here. I am, however, defending their right (at least here in the USA) to march and rant and rave to their hearts' content, so long as they don't physically harm anyone. The moment they do harm to another (break the law), screw 'em - send in the SWAT team.

Noone is taking their right to think what they're up to. We're not giving them their rights to own guns, attack minorities, agitate the masses and so on. Our society has another sense of dignity thyn yours. I donT' say the American society has no dignity, but it is widely based on economic success and individual rights. We're more into enlightenment, French revolution, social reforms and civil rights though.

Edit: to be quite precise, more like all of the last things altogether. You'd probaly find more parallels between the ideas of the French revolution and the US society than between the former and ours. So it's all about cultural and social evolution over a long time.

[mactbone]

Ecthilion - IIRC, I never posted there, or at least never answered the flawed question.

You equate Fascism with Hitler, yet Stalin never practiced Communism. So, you take the worst version of one government and compare it to an ideal that has never been achieved.

Not to mention you never made it clear at the beginning.

Which is better - Football or Hockey?

Oh, BTW I meant hockey as in there are no rules and everyone beats the **** out of each other, and by football I mean a regulated sport with no injuries.

[Arrian]

I had no part in the Nazi vs. Commie thing, but I'll chime in now:

I think the Nazis were worse. However, the communist dictatorships the world has known (USSR, PRC, DRNK, Cuba) were/are pretty bad too. The distinction I would make is that communism, in its ideal form, should be democratic. But that has never been implemented in a nation-state. Anyway, the way I see it, totalitariam regimes that kill millions of people, whatever their ideological excuse(s) may be, are bad. Ergo, Hitler = bad, Stalin = bad. If you want to split hairs and try to decide which one was worse... I'd go with Hitler, by a nose.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

Arrian - fair enough, but as I said, it's not fair to call those regimes truly communistm while we defien national socialism and/or fascism after what we have seen. Those weren't prepared in theory for centuries before, so you can hardly argue about those.

Originally posted by MacTBone
Ecthelion - IIRC, I never posted there, or at least never answered the flawed question.

You equate Fascism with Hitler, yet Stalin never practiced Communism. So, you take the worst version of one government and compare it to an ideal that has never been achieved.

Not to mention you never made it clear at the beginning.

Which is better - Football or Hockey?

Oh, BTW I meant hockey as in there are no rules and everyone beats the **** out of each other, and by football I mean a regulated sport with no injuries.

1. Learn to spell my name

2. I did make it clear, people just won't follow. The original quesiton was "Nazi party or Communist party in elections in around 1930 in Germany." Then I expanded it to "theoretical model of communism vs. practical application of authoritarian right-wing regimes, such as Mussolini's fascism or Hitler's national socialism." Later people tried to "equate" that by using pseudo-communist dictatorships as examples for communism which just doesn't count.

3.Football (as in 'soccer') is better. Noth are sports so I don't see a problem there.

It seems you want to argue on the same level. Alright, so we go with theoretical idea for both since there's no practical application for communism. In theory, fascism (and/or national socialism) is all about hatred, [a burgeois dictatorship in fascism] and big money ruling the war machine against allegedly inferiors. Communism is all about . And I don't accept said dictatorships that were dominated by peoples without the necessary development / evolution (culturally speaking) to run such blocks as communist systems. They were just evil :Evilgrin:

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
If you knew a t least a bit of history, about the end of the Weimar republic and so on, you'd get my point.

Now read those damn threads and see.

Ok, now you're really starting to piss me off. I have a bachelor's degree in History, and studied mostly European history, including courses on Modern Germany (Bismarck -> WWII, with a good long time devoted to the Weimar Republic and Hitler's rise to power), WWII and another separate one on the Holocaust.

So I know my history.

Regarding those other threads... what are you trying to show me? That other posters have said stupid things? I don't care what they have said. You made a general comment on the differences between the German/European way of doing things and the American one. I took exception to your comments, and tried to show you that you made an erroneous assumption. You assume that David Floyd and the other posters you've encountered here at 'poly are representative of Americans. Assumptions like that are easy to make, but wrong.

My argument was restricted to the issue of free speach as it relates to fringe groups such as neo-nazis and the KKK - whether or not they should be allowed to march, and whether or not it is ok for someone to take a flag from them and attempt to destroy it.

What's this "killing children on the other side of the world?" Are you trying to bring up Afganistan, or the ME? How, exactly, does either of those things apply to the issue of free speach & the right to hold a march or rally?

"We're not giving them their right to own guns, attack minorities, agitate the masses and so on - emphasis added. Agitate the masses, huh? Define that, exactly. And tell me exactly which group should be allowed to do this, and which should not?

I maintain that such restrictions (except for the gun thing, because I happen to wish the 2nd amendment was repealed. That would mean, however, that NO ONE could have a gun, not just targetted crazies like the neo-nazis) are the wrong way to combat such extremism. You have your opinion, I have mine. That's ok, we can agree to disagree. My issue was your generalization about American values - which I think has been overly influenced by your exposure to certain posters here at Apolyton.

-Arrian

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

Does a pro Osama Bin Laden rally fall under the right of speach too in America?

because you either have it or you don't

[Arrian]

P22,

Yes, it does.

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

SIDENOTE - because of being slightly to moderately pissed off while answering your posts, some rhetorical means might appear a little out of conversation rules. That was not necessary but when I realized I might change something of it, I noticed it was way too much so I couldn't be bothered to edit it. Just overread the insults and general accusations of murder and low education

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, now you're really starting to piss me off. I have a bachelor's degree in History, and studied mostly European history, including courses on Modern Germany (Bismarck -> WWII, with a good long time devoted to the Weimar Republic and Hitler's rise to power), WWII and another separate one on the Holocaust.

So I know my history.

You're good at bragging, did you learn to do that in your studies?

Regarding those other threads... what are you trying to show me? That other posters have said stupid things? I don't care what they have said.

If you don't care, then you should stop posting here. Because posting on forums is not half as interesting if you don't read other people's pposts and deal with their opinions.
What am I trying to show? Maybe you shouls scroll up a bit. There you will find me saying something, you saying I was wrong and me giving proof. As I said, I quoted others. Now that I have proven you wrong, you get into that typical "I don't care anyway" attitude. Very mature, at least you get the gals I suppose...

You made a general comment on the differences between the German/European way of doing things and the American one. I took exception to your comments, and tried to show you that you made an erroneous assumption.

As a matter of fact, I put a very certain emphasis on the fact I could not make a general assumption but only tell about what other American posters have said here. Another helpful thing about posting in forums is the ability to read and understand.

You assume that David Floyd and the other posters you've encountered here at 'poly are representative of Americans. Assumptions like that are easy to make, but wrong.

How often do I have to repeat this? Are your ears totally shut? I onestly hope (and actually know pretty well) that most Americans understand things that you tell them, and are able to tell you otherwise when you're wrong. But for you very special being, I shall repeat it again - I did not have se... sorry, I did not make any general assumption but rather said what I encountered, constructed a parallel to this very thread (even if I cannot talk about all Americans, the American Apolytoners yesterday are likely to be the same American Apolytoners of today, tomorrow and so on... so in the end, I talk about American Apolytoners and hwat they think and do, so it doesn't even matter), and then even admitted to being unable to conclude for all the people. Which, as you will understand if you read the brackets (after learning to read, does not even matter. But anyway...

My argument was restricted to the issue of free speach as it relates to fringe groups such as neo-nazis and the KKK - whether or not they should be allowed to march, and whether or not it is ok for someone to take a flag from them and attempt to destroy it.

Yes. That's true. So?

What's this "killing children on the other side of the world?" Are you trying to bring up Afganistan, or the ME? How, exactly, does either of those things apply to the issue of free speach & the right to hold a march or rally?

The apparent emphasis Americans (on these boards) put onto their rigth to possess lots of big things seems to be represented in their policies. Many wars that were fought by America in the past century seem to have had a rather economic background, thus leading to the very wealth of the American people. Similar for gun ownership, but this topic has a bad reputation here...

Agitate the masses, huh? Define that, exactly. And tell me exactly which group should be allowed to do this, and which should not?

Noone should, especially not those that claim past criminals and mass murderers (such as Hitler) to be righteous persons. And that is what Neo Nazis do. "Agitate the masses" as in "using similar propaganda means and very superficial statements, facts, arguments, false statistics, etc. in order to gain a pretty high popularity in the population. also called populism". Capiche? Quesitons like that don't earn you the reputaiton of being a well-read person here.

I maintain that such restrictions (except for the gun thing, because I happen to wish the 2nd amendment was repealed. That would mean, however, that NO ONE could have a gun, not just targetted crazies like the neo-nazis) are the wrong way to combat such extremism. You have your opinion, I have mine. That's ok, we can agree to disagree. My issue was your generalization about American values - which I think has been overly influenced by your exposure to certain posters here at Apolyton.

Uh, can't be arsed to edit all those insults out of my post now, though I'd like to now . Well then, I have repeatedly stated that there was no sense in generalizing. But there is logical thinking, and considering Apolytoners are probably a little higher in educaton and intelligence than the average, it makes me wonder about that society.

[Arrian]

Ecthelion,

So you can insult me by asserting that I don't know history, but when I refute that you say I'm "bragging?"

Your quoting other posters proves nothing, so far as I can see. Look, the point I was trying to make was simple - that the ideological difference between the way you prefer to deal with extremist groups and how I prefer to deal with them comes down to a different view of the right of free speach, not a like/dislike of nazis or valuing money over all else. Your attempt to dredge up things that other posters have said by posting links to the Nazis vs. Commies thread didn't strike me as relevant to that. I thought we were discussing the flag incident in P22's original post.

It does appear, however, that I made an assumption I should not have made. This was born of the tone of your posts, and my general recollection of prior posts by you. I assumed that your superior tone and references to baby-killing to support wealth were somehow attacks on Americans in general, as opposed to a small number of posters here at 'poly. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize. But your general tone has been insulting from the start, and I reacted angrily.

I should not have done that. I actually wanted to debate, not argue. The topic I wished to debate, however, has been lost in a budding flame war. I don't wish to continue that.

Noone should, especially not those that claim past criminals and mass murderers (such as Hitler) to be righteous persons. And that is what Neo Nazis do. "Agitate the masses" as in "using similar propaganda means and very superficial statements, facts, arguments, false statistics, etc. in order to gain a pretty high popularity in the population. also called populism". Capiche? Quesitons like that don't earn you the reputaiton of being a well-read person here.

Ok, in the spirit of debate, I'll ignore the insult at the end.

I Capiche. I also disagree. Groups that idolize mass murdering bastards like Hitler are indeed distasteful, but suffering their presence is part of the price of free speach. I believe it is a mistake to place special restrictions on such groups. I think that they key to combating the dangers of extremism is education, not restrictive legislation. I assume that German schools teach about the Holocaust. My public high school certainly did. Educating a nation's youth about what the Nazis did is the best way to guard against their return to power.

I also think you may have misunderstood my question with regard to agitation of the masses. I brought it up to illustrate the possibility that restrictions placed on groups such as neo-nazis can be extended to any group the government doesn't like. And I think that's dangerous.

-Arrian