Politics Aussie Fascists, (neo)Nazis and Leg Spinners

[Muddiemoose]

How many in Australia support apartheid and ethnic cleansing?

Not sure what industry you work in but I’m in manufacturing
It’s actually pretty shocking some of the stuff I hear if we start talking politics

 

[kranky al]

Yeah Thatcher and Reagan both loved 'voodoo economics' where deregulation, cuts in governmental spending on its most important investment (the people!), and tax cuts for the rich would trickle down and the effects would benefit everybody! Except in reality next to nothing trickled down and wealth concentrated at the top end of town.

Next to nothing?

It trickled up.

And up

And up….

The middle class was hollowed out, the bottom rung expanded.

There was zero trickle down.

 

[H00t]

What is the nuance that you are alluding to that I have failed to understand?

You’ve taken one part of fascism to try and slander people standing up to Nazi’s as fascists. Just like I took one aspect of being stabbed vs surgery. Somehow you perfectly understood why the second one was nonsensical but not the first.

You are aware that labelling people who stand against Nazi’s as equally bad as Nazis has been a Nazi tactic for a very long time. There is no place for the intolerant. Being tolerant of the intolerant has the same effect as being intolerant yourself.

 

[GudOnya]

Fascism suppresses opinions dictated by the will of a centralized power. An autocrat/despot/dictator.

Popper's paradox of intolerance implies that it is the civic duties of everyone involved in a democratic society to suppress intolerant beliefs as intolerance that is left to fester leads to the erosion of democracy and the promotion of autocracy. It's a direct critique on the concept of a benevolent philosopher king - of which reality would suggest does not exist. We as a people in a democratic society have a duty to protect our democracy.

They are not the same.

I would hope someone who had studied even entry level philosophy would have a more nuanced understanding between two extremely different concepts.

The first line is a different debate about whether or not being anti-fascist is part of a centralized will in Australia, but that debate is probably far enough off-topic here to ignore.

For the rest of your point though I certainly do understand that but that's not where my issue lies, my issue lies in the means of achieving Popper's end goal.

Personally I think fascism is stupid, which is why I rail against the use of fascist techniques for any purpose.

If so many people have such a strong belief about the danger of fascism spreading amongst the community then instead of simply advocating that fascists should be forcibly silenced they should be using their energies, and exercising the same rights to voice their opinions as the fascists have, to educate the community about those dangers and to promote the ideals of democracy.

Banning things just because we don't like them or agree with them is inherently dangerous and not something that a nation such as Australia should tolerate in my opinion. Education and information should be the tools, not suppression. We don't have to let anything fester, but just saying "Nah just ban it" isn't going to address the matter and is incredibly lazy thinking for people who seem to be so passionate about the issue.

 

[GudOnya]

You’ve taken one part of fascism to try and slander people standing up to Nazi’s as fascists. Just like I took one aspect of being stabbed vs surgery. Somehow you perfectly understood why the second one was nonsensical but not the first.

You are aware that labelling people who stand against Nazi’s as equally bad as Nazis has been a Nazi tactic for a very long time. There is no place for the intolerant. Being tolerant of the intolerant has the same effect as being intolerant yourself.

The action of banning them from voicing their beliefs is a fascist action though, it is the action that I take issue with not the reasoning or even people behind it.

I am not trying to suggest anywhere that people who are against Nazi's are as bad as Nazi's, as I mentioned in my latest post (which occurred after yours that I am replying to) I am saying that using fascism to fight fascism is stupid and lazy and we can surely do better than that.

 

[Gralin]

this seems like good old fashioned american small liberal brain

violence is never the answer

you must only use words in a public debate to stop fascism

anything else is as bad as fascism

funnily enough its exactly the kind of thinking that allows fascism to take root and grow its base

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

We're on a football forum, not a political one. Keep the political stuff off.

Hoy matey, I realise you probably got here by clicking on 'New Posts' up the top but check WHERE in the forum you are

Forums/Not Footy Related/Society, Religion and Politics

 

[GudOnya]

Community policing (which is what this is) isn’t fascistic. Calling out Nazis isn’t fascism. What it is doing is trying to prevent it ever gaining a foothold here.

The government has banned some hate speech and Nazi gestures but most of it isn’t being done by the state. This also isn’t fascism.

You calling it fascism doesn’t make it so. If you hate fascism as much as you claim you should direct your energy in fighting back against Nazi’s not using their talking points against those calling out Nazism.

Calling out Nazis, rather than banning them from publicly speaking, is exactly what I am advocating for. The government banning hate speech is an example I used as not being a fascist action too, as it is a sweeping ban that encompasses all things considered "hate speech" regardless of the source as it should be.

And no me calling the forcible suppression of opposing views for the benefit of the greater good doesn't make it fascist, the definition of fascism does. And I do use some energy combating fascism when I encounter it, I have a mate from high school who started down that rabbit hole and I have had many discussions with him about why I believe it is stupid. Everyone else from our old friend group gave up on him as it was all too much work and have instead joined the "just ban them" group. He is slowly coming around but it does take effort.

And again, calling out Nazism is what I am advocating for, I am not using Nazi talking points against those that do so. I am simply trying to suggest that there should be better ways to do it in a "free" society that seemingly values freedom of thought.

 

[H00t]

Calling out Nazis, rather than banning them from publicly speaking, is exactly what I am advocating for. The government banning hate speech is an example I used as not being a fascist action too, as it is a sweeping ban that encompasses all things considered "hate speech" regardless of the source as it should be.

And no me calling the forcible suppression of opposing views for the benefit of the greater good doesn't make it fascist, the definition of fascism does. And I do use some energy combating fascism when I encounter it, I have a mate from high school who started down that rabbit hole and I have had many discussions with him about why I believe it is stupid. Everyone else from our old friend group gave up on him as it was all too much work and have instead joined the "just ban them" group. He is slowly coming around but it does take effort.

And again, calling out Nazism is what I am advocating for, I am not using Nazi talking points against those that do so. I am simply trying to suggest that there should be better ways to do it in a "free" society that seemingly values freedom of thought.

Nazis don’t have a right to a platform. The community banding together to prevent them from being given a platform isn’t fascism.

It’s no different than the community not accepting other abhorrent views.

A big part of calling out Nazism is the public banning it from public discourse. It is in no way acceptable and should never under any circumstances be tolerated or allowed to exist in society.

To continue to be a free society that same society must actively work to protect its freedom from those who seek to destroy it.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Calling out Nazis, rather than banning them from publicly speaking, is exactly what I am advocating for. The government banning hate speech is an example I used as not being a fascist action too, as it is a sweeping ban that encompasses all things considered "hate speech" regardless of the source as it should be.

And no me calling the forcible suppression of opposing views for the benefit of the greater good doesn't make it fascist, the definition of fascism does. And I do use some energy combating fascism when I encounter it, I have a mate from high school who started down that rabbit hole and I have had many discussions with him about why I believe it is stupid. Everyone else from our old friend group gave up on him as it was all too much work and have instead joined the "just ban them" group. He is slowly coming around but it does take effort.

And again, calling out Nazism is what I am advocating for, I am not using Nazi talking points against those that do so. I am simply trying to suggest that there should be better ways to do it in a "free" society that seemingly values freedom of thought.

Only works to a point imo especially when you start to get campaigners like Cottrell who take pride in being called Nazi’s and love people to try and call them out, because it widens their platform or move in force to intimidate anyone who might try and call them out

 

[GudOnya]

Nazis don’t have a right to a platform. The community banding together to prevent them from being given a platform isn’t fascism.

It’s no different than the community not accepting other abhorrent views.

A big part of calling out Nazism is the public banning it from public discourse. It is in no way acceptable and should never under any circumstances be tolerated or allowed to exist in society.

To continue to be a free society that same society must actively work to protect its freedom from those who seek to destroy it.

But under the law they do have the right to platform just as everyone else does.
Banning it from public discourse may help some people and will draw others to it. I have a young child and as soon as I tell them they can't do something it is the first thing that they will then do. When they are old enough I will certainly be discussing the Nazis with them, as well as what happened in WW2, what they believe in and why that belief is stupid and has no place in our society.

Obviously neither of us are going to change our minds about this and that's fine, I just think there should be better ways to go about it than "don't mention the war".

 

[GudOnya]

Only works to a point imo especially when you start to get campaigners like Cottrell who take pride in being called Nazi’s and love people to try and call them out, because it widens their platform or move in force to intimidate anyone who might try and call them out

I honestly haven't seen anything about this bloke specifically so can't speak to him but do you think that if he likes being called out that banning him from talking about his views would decrease his popularity or viewership or legitimise it for many already leaning that way?

 

[Muddiemoose]

I honestly haven't seen anything about this bloke specifically so can't speak to him but do you think that if he likes being called out that banning him from talking about his views would decrease his popularity or viewership or legitimise it for many already leaning that way?

It would decrease his reach at the very least imo

Of course people will still flock around people like him but only people who actively go out and look for it

 

[GudOnya]

It would decrease his reach at the very least imo

Of course people will still flock around people like him but only people who actively go out and look for it

Fair enough.

How do the logistics of the ban work? Is he banned from talking in public in general or just about fascism or being a Nazi? Can he speak about race as long as it doesn't include any politics? Can he host a cooking show?

Yes the examples are facetious, but the intent behind them is not. I honestly can't see how a ban like this could work without essentially being fascist itself and am interested to know if there is a way.

 

[H00t]

I honestly haven't seen anything about this bloke specifically so can't speak to him but do you think that if he likes being called out that banning him from talking about his views would decrease his popularity or viewership or legitimise it for many already leaning that way?

It’s all about preventing him from spreading his views to a wider audience.

The more Nazi messages spread the more people they have the chance to influence. There will, unfortunately, be people susceptible to their messaging which is another reason why it’s so vital to not allow it to take any hold in society.

 

[Gralin]

I honestly haven't seen anything about this bloke specifically so can't speak to him but do you think that if he likes being called out that banning him from talking about his views would decrease his popularity or viewership or legitimise it for many already leaning that way?

He's the mentor and recruiter of Brendan Tarrant

You might have heard of him

You can't good faith debate and call out people that don't act in good faith

People don't have a right to a platform, no one is obligated to listen to hate speech

And there are real consequences to letting these guys speak like Tarrant

 

[GudOnya]

It’s all about preventing him from spreading his views to a wider audience.

The more Nazi messages spread the more people they have the chance to influence. There will, unfortunately, be people susceptible to their messaging which is another reason why it’s so vital to not allow it to take any hold in society.

Then should we not be doing more about ensuring that people aren't as susceptible to this messaging? We allow these same people to drive cars so obviously as a society we have some level of trust in people to not be too stupid. Yes I get that some messages can be dangerous and would agree that a lot of them are, but I just don't see how as a society that values freedom of thought and all the rest of it we can decide that we can just block certain people from speaking their opinions because they differ from ours. Deciding for the people what they can and can't think or believe in is a very slippery slope towards fascism.

 

[GudOnya]

He's the mentor and recruiter of Brendan Tarrant

You might have heard of him

You can't good faith debate and call out people that don't act in good faith

People don't have a right to a platform, no one is obligated to listen to hate speech

And there are real consequences to letting these guys speak like Tarrant

No I haven't heard of him either but I really pay very little attention to these sorts of people. Even not knowing anything about these people I'm still happy to believe that they are scumbags since the people that do know things about them say they're proud Neo-Nazis.

I'm not saying we need to hold a good faith debate with them, I'm just saying that selectively banning things we don't agree with isn't something that I feel we as a society should be doing. If we want to say that we're better than these types of people then we need to show that we are better and also be better. When you take the moral high ground, which admittedly against Nazis is a very easy position to take, then you are held to a higher account. If we are just banning specific groups and ideologies then where we draw the line is a very real consideration. Do we ban Nazis but still allow satanists? What about specific mainstream religions that have extremist offshoots? Some people will probably say that is whataboutism but once we move away from blanket bans on certain topics (like inciting violence) and towards specific people then it does need to be addressed.

And again I think people do have a right to platform, but no I don't think anyone is obligated to listen. There is a large difference between those two points.

 

[Gralin]

No I haven't heard of him either but I really pay very little attention to these sorts of people. Even not knowing anything about these people I'm still happy to believe that they are scumbags since the people that do know things about them say they're proud Neo-Nazis.

I'm not saying we need to hold a good faith debate with them, I'm just saying that selectively banning things we don't agree with isn't something that I feel we as a society should be doing. If we want to say that we're better than these types of people then we need to show that we are better and also be better. When you take the moral high ground, which admittedly against Nazis is a very easy position to take, then you are held to a higher account. If we are just banning specific groups and ideologies then where we draw the line is a very real consideration. Do we ban Nazis but still allow satanists? What about specific mainstream religions that have extremist offshoots? Some people will probably say that is whataboutism but once we move away from blanket bans on certain topics (like inciting violence) and towards specific people then it does need to be addressed.

And again I think people do have a right to platform, but no I don't think anyone is obligated to listen. There is a large difference between those two points.

Brendan Tarrant committed the Christchurch massacre, he was radicalised by and idolised Blair Cottrell

If you're not even going to bother doing a quick google I have to ask why you're so passionate about letting nazis speak

 

[GudOnya]

Brendan Tarrant committed the Christchurch massacre, he was radicalised by and idolised Blair Cottrell

If you're not even going to bother doing a quick google I have to ask why you're so passionate about letting nazis speak

Right, the name isn't familiar but obviously the actions are.

Nazis I don't care about, equality in a literal sense I do. Hypocrisy also irritates me, but given I can be somewhat hypocritical myself at times I can't really judge that one as harshly.

 

[H00t]

Then should we not be doing more about ensuring that people aren't as susceptible to this messaging? We allow these same people to drive cars so obviously as a society we have some level of trust in people to not be too stupid. Yes I get that some messages can be dangerous and would agree that a lot of them are, but I just don't see how as a society that values freedom of thought and all the rest of it we can decide that we can just block certain people from speaking their opinions because they differ from ours. Deciding for the people what they can and can't think or believe in is a very slippery slope towards fascism.

You know what a very slippery slope towards fascism is? Platforming Nazi’s.

This country is constantly blocking racism, homophobia, sexism, and transphobia. Anyone outwardly espousing such views won’t last long in the public eye or public spaces. Why would Nazism which is all of that and more be any different.

Also we’ve seen throughout history and currently a lot of “normal, everyday” people will go along with or commit atrocities with the right circumstances.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not sure what industry you work in but I’m in manufacturing
It’s actually pretty shocking some of the stuff I hear if we start talking politics

Mining, haven't heard any support of apartheid.

Don't hear of it at local when I'm on break.

As for the discussion about 'trickle in indoctrination ', leading to Armageddon

Ok I'll concede there's an element of that, for the really naive, yeah ok in 10 years time. They might be indoctrinated.

But no one's gonna convince me that that entails the bulk of the population. Not a meat Pies chance in a kennel of starved canines.

This is the impression I get from the discussion, far far from sensible to suggest that Armageddon is gonna slowly creep in under the radar because the bulk of the population are somehow ridiculously naive and gullible, and will gobble it up and start violent crimes on every street corner.

Would've already happened by now.

It's hyperbole gone too far, sorry I can't engage in that.

I'll leave it there, until some measured discussion comes back in. I'll keep an eye on it (and probably have a little giggle).

 

[GudOnya]

You know what a very slippery slope towards fascism is? Platforming Nazi’s.

This country is constantly blocking racism, homophobia, sexism, and transphobia. Anyone outwardly espousing such views won’t last long in the public eye or public spaces. Why would Nazism which is all of that and more be any different.

Also we’ve seen throughout history and currently a lot of “normal, everyday” people will go along with or commit atrocities with the right circumstances.

Where it's against the law they are yes, but where it isn't then they aren't. Your comment about people espousing those views not lasting long in the public eye is different to banning people from having a voice completely, which is what I was initially responding to. Shun them, don't watch/listen to them, ridicule them and their beliefs? Go for it, that's exactly the sort of thing I think we should do along with educating people about why. Again though that is different to censoring them completely.

 

[H00t]

Where it's against the law they are yes, but where it isn't then they aren't. Your comment about people espousing those views not lasting long in the public eye is different to banning people from having a voice completely, which is what I was initially responding to. Shun them, don't watch/listen to them, ridicule them and their beliefs? Go for it, that's exactly the sort of thing I think we should do along with educating people about why. Again though that is different to censoring them completely.

Doesn’t have to be against the law for someone to be deplatformed.

Thomas Sewell and Blair Cottrell only a couple of days ago had their accounts suspended from X. This is deplatforming Nazis. They aren’t owed anything. They don’t get the right to spout hateful views.

Nor should any society allow them to spread their views. It’s not enough to just ignore it because others won’t and the more it becomes common place the more people will be tempted by parts of their views or all of them.

 

[kranky al]

Mining, haven't heard any support of apartheid.

Don't hear of it at local when I'm on break.

As for the discussion about 'trickle in indoctrination ', leading to Armageddon

Ok I'll concede there's an element of that, for the really naive, yeah ok in 10 years time. They might be indoctrinated.

But no one's gonna convince me that that entails the bulk of the population. Not a meat Pies chance in a kennel of starved canines.

This is the impression I get from the discussion, far far from sensible to suggest that Armageddon is gonna slowly creep in under the radar because the bulk of the population are somehow ridiculously naive and gullible, and will gobble it up and start violent crimes on every street corner.

Would've already happened by now.

It's hyperbole gone too far, sorry I can't engage in that.

I'll leave it there, until some measured discussion comes back in. I'll keep an eye on it (and probably have a little giggle).

You sound like someone who has never studied history.

At no stage did Hitler win an election. However he gained power and 53 days later he turned a democracy into a dictatorship.

It didn’t need all of Germany to be sieg heiling and on board. It required him to grab power and then for his thugs to throw anyone who argued in concentration camps - after that, everyone sieg heiled.