7 ms·

> Denying the Holocaust is not just idiotic, it is an outright denial of provable facts and an immense disrespect to all the victims of the gas ovens at Auschwi

> Denying the Holocaust is not just idiotic, it is an outright denial of provable facts and an immense disrespect to all the victims of the gas ovens at Auschwitz and the other KZs. Even more than that, it contributes to creating an atmosphere where it could happen again. Simply existing as a Nazi or white supremacist is a call for violence, and silencing them is justified self defense.

ikashdfnjafh 8y ago
Silencing them by what means, exactly?
- normal_man 8y ago
  Any
  - ikashdfnjafh 8y ago
    "Any" includes murder, do you realize that?
    - normal_man 8y ago
      You're asking if I know what the word 'any' means?
      - pc86 8y ago
        Well when you say something like "silencing someone by any means necessary based solely on their beliefs is justifiable" I think it's fair to make sure you know that you're literally advocating killing people based not on their actions, or even their words, but their thoughts.
        normal_man 8y ago
        Is "Nazi" a race of people now? Edit: I see you thought better of your use of "genocide" Also I'm not "advocating" anything. I just think its justified and wouldn't really care if someone murdered a Nazi.
      - ikashdfnjafh 8y ago
        Interesting. And when Palestinians openly advocate for genocide of the Jews or Farrakhan refers to Jews as "termites" how do you feel about these things?
    - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
      I am sympathetic to your incredulity but you are the one that needs to realize that yes these people exist and this one is here on HN discussing his mass murder plans with you.
      - ramsss 8y ago
        mass murdering nazis is very good
        ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        No it isn't, because murder is always wrong. Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing Nazis was a matter of self-defense. Murdering them would not be.
      - normal_man 8y ago
        That's not at all what my comment says or implies, and you know that.
sparkie 8y ago
If this is true (which I might be willing to concede), then should the same standard not be applied equally to anyone who self-identifies as a communist in today's world? Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century (and 21st century, because they're ongoing), which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism. Silencing has the opposite effect to what you wanted. It's the Streisand Effect. Your act of censorship only serves as arsenal for the people you are censoring, because they can point at it and say "look, if they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't restrict us from talking about it." This is why I won't call for silencing communists, even though I vehemently disagree with their ideology. I have a bit more faith that humans can recognize bad ideas themselves and do not need to be told what to think.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century, which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism. Communism in itself does not imply violence towards minorities or putting people into Gulags. Nazism or fascism always does, the demonization of those not in the "Volkskörper" (or deemed too weak to be worthy) is the core ideology. While I agree that autoritarian Communism has failed and those who still adore Stalin are morons, there are many more Communist views that do not resort to authoritarianism.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    Communism implies violence against anybody who does not wish to have the fruits of their labour stolen from them by the state. If people had the choice as to whether or not they can keep the wealth they generated, or to give it up "for the greater good," then which option do you think most people would take if they were not under threat of violence? This is why communism simply cannot work. If you give people choice, it turns out they generate wealth not only for themselves - but they generate wealth for the societies in which they live too. This is what Adam Smith calls the invisible hand. Free markets economies are prosperous because people's self-interest leads to innovation and improved standard of living for everyone. http://freedomschool.us/how-an-economy-grows.pdf http://freedomschool.us/how-an-economy-grows.pdf Communism is rooted in jealousy. Even though people owe their standard of living to the merits of the capitalists which built their societies, they're bitter because they are not among the most wealthy. It is no surprise that there are now countless examples of it being tried in the real world and it leading to all around suffering. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is always going to be controlled by bitter people, and they're going to use their newly found powers to extract wealth in attempt to cure their own bitterness.
pc86 8y ago
Isn't the whole crux of this discussion whether or not "immense disrespect" should be enough to jail someone? Denying provable facts shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an idiot. Being disrespectful shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an asshole. I don't want to live in a world where being an asshole and an idiot is enough to get you put in prison.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
> Simply existing as a Nazi or white supremacist is a call for violence, and silencing them is justified self defense. It's very easy to make the same argument for Muslims. Yes, there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the U.S., but their religion dictates that they need to conquer and subjugate infidels. There's 1400 years of history to back that up. It is absolutely arguable that just existing as a Muslim is a call for violence. Should we ban them as well? What about "Antifa", who exist entirely to wreak violence on people they disagree with, and even do it with impunity. If we should ban Nazis and white supremacists, we need to ban Antifa as well. I'm just trying to apply your principles consistently.

ikashdfnjafh 8y ago

Silencing them by what means, exactly?

normal_man 8y ago
Any
- ikashdfnjafh 8y ago
  "Any" includes murder, do you realize that?
  - normal_man 8y ago
    You're asking if I know what the word 'any' means?
    - pc86 8y ago
      Well when you say something like "silencing someone by any means necessary based solely on their beliefs is justifiable" I think it's fair to make sure you know that you're literally advocating killing people based not on their actions, or even their words, but their thoughts.
      - normal_man 8y ago
        Is "Nazi" a race of people now? Edit: I see you thought better of your use of "genocide" Also I'm not "advocating" anything. I just think its justified and wouldn't really care if someone murdered a Nazi.
    - ikashdfnjafh 8y ago
      Interesting. And when Palestinians openly advocate for genocide of the Jews or Farrakhan refers to Jews as "termites" how do you feel about these things?
  - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
    I am sympathetic to your incredulity but you are the one that needs to realize that yes these people exist and this one is here on HN discussing his mass murder plans with you.
    - ramsss 8y ago
      mass murdering nazis is very good
      - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
        No it isn't, because murder is always wrong. Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing Nazis was a matter of self-defense. Murdering them would not be.
    - normal_man 8y ago
      That's not at all what my comment says or implies, and you know that.

sparkie 8y ago

If this is true (which I might be willing to concede), then should the same standard not be applied equally to anyone who self-identifies as a communist in today's world? Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century (and 21st century, because they're ongoing), which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism. Silencing has the opposite effect to what you wanted. It's the Streisand Effect. Your act of censorship only serves as arsenal for the people you are censoring, because they can point at it and say "look, if they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't restrict us from talking about it." This is why I won't call for silencing communists, even though I vehemently disagree with their ideology. I have a bit more faith that humans can recognize bad ideas themselves and do not need to be told what to think.

mschuster91 8y ago
> Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century, which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism. Communism in itself does not imply violence towards minorities or putting people into Gulags. Nazism or fascism always does, the demonization of those not in the "Volkskörper" (or deemed too weak to be worthy) is the core ideology. While I agree that autoritarian Communism has failed and those who still adore Stalin are morons, there are many more Communist views that do not resort to authoritarianism.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Communism implies violence against anybody who does not wish to have the fruits of their labour stolen from them by the state. If people had the choice as to whether or not they can keep the wealth they generated, or to give it up "for the greater good," then which option do you think most people would take if they were not under threat of violence? This is why communism simply cannot work. If you give people choice, it turns out they generate wealth not only for themselves - but they generate wealth for the societies in which they live too. This is what Adam Smith calls the invisible hand. Free markets economies are prosperous because people's self-interest leads to innovation and improved standard of living for everyone. http://freedomschool.us/how-an-economy-grows.pdf http://freedomschool.us/how-an-economy-grows.pdf Communism is rooted in jealousy. Even though people owe their standard of living to the merits of the capitalists which built their societies, they're bitter because they are not among the most wealthy. It is no surprise that there are now countless examples of it being tried in the real world and it leading to all around suffering. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is always going to be controlled by bitter people, and they're going to use their newly found powers to extract wealth in attempt to cure their own bitterness.

pc86 8y ago

Isn't the whole crux of this discussion whether or not "immense disrespect" should be enough to jail someone? Denying provable facts shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an idiot. Being disrespectful shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an asshole. I don't want to live in a world where being an asshole and an idiot is enough to get you put in prison.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

> Simply existing as a Nazi or white supremacist is a call for violence, and silencing them is justified self defense. It's very easy to make the same argument for Muslims. Yes, there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the U.S., but their religion dictates that they need to conquer and subjugate infidels. There's 1400 years of history to back that up. It is absolutely arguable that just existing as a Muslim is a call for violence. Should we ban them as well? What about "Antifa", who exist entirely to wreak violence on people they disagree with, and even do it with impunity. If we should ban Nazis and white supremacists, we need to ban Antifa as well. I'm just trying to apply your principles consistently.