[chartier]

Nazis. We’re talking about Nazis. And white supremacists. And “provacateours” or trolls or whatever they’re called this week.

There was a time when the world didn’t just ostracize people like this, the entire planet went to war to stop them. So, yeah. Silencing them on a social media site seems like a decent first step.

[nextlevelwizard]

Except people play the Nazi card for the slightest infringement these days. For example I've been called a Nazi because I wouldn't knowingly date a trans-female with a male genitalia. That in the eyes of these individual made me trans-phobic and thus as bad as Hitler.

I have nothing against banning people doing Nazi salutes or waving Swastika flags or obviously being racist, but these days thous terms have become some watered down that when I hear someone is a Nazi my first instinct is not disgust or hate, but instead my mind goes to "oh someone who said something mildly politically incorrect"

This all is to say that now the term Nazi does not include you and you are all for silencing them, but that does not mean that in the future you might not be painted as one or same silencing won't be used on your views and opinions.

[apostacy]

Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more.

Of course those who want to censor will call their targets Nazis, and try to scare people like you by saying that the world will end if we don't censor them.

As far as I know, Facebook doesn't censor revolutionary Maoists or Khmir Rouge sympathizers, and their ideas are easily as dangerous, if any ideas are dangerous. No, we can work through this as a society.

Censoring everything is letting them win.

[olliej]

Fb also doesn’t significantly censor white supremacists or nazis, so what is your point?

Also Nazis do exist - they don’t have an explicit functional party in most countries, but there are plenty of people out there who have adopted the swastika, heil hitler, sieg hiel, the antisemitism and racism (and blaming those groups for their inability to get a job), and mein kampf (that delusional book where me fuckhead falsely claimed he was good at science and maths because of his high quality aryan ancestry). The fact that they are no longer backed by an army doesn’t make them not exist.

If someone acts like a nazi, quacks like a nazi, and outright worships the original nazi leader, they’re nazis.

[btreecat]

> Nazis don't exist. They used to, before most of us were born, but they don't exist any more.

So what's the term for a bunch of white guys shouting "Jews will not replace us" while holding swastika, iron cross, and Nazi eagle symbols?

[apostacy]

The term I would use is: 4chan users engaged in Live Action Role Playing. They were trying to spook you, and they did, apparently. The most they could muster from the entire world is < 200.

I remember when the media tried telling us about how "Anonymous" were "hackers on steroids" who treated things like a "real life video game".[1]

Yes, there are some creeps out there. But they are not a serious threat.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128IR21ZQa0

[btreecat]

>The term I would use is: 4chan users engaged in Live Action Role Playing.

Role playing Nazis, by choice. And this wasn't a historical reenactment, or even a skit/play. This was an attempt at showing fear through symbology and crowd size.

You seem to sympathize with them in a very odd manor.

>They were trying to spook you, and they did, apparently.

LOL I see what you pathetically tried to do there.

Please explain, what's so friendly and cuddly about people who's ideology involves extermination of other humans.

>The most they could muster from the entire world is < 200

Not sure what you mean, feel free to clarify.

>I remember when the media tried telling us about how "Anonymous" were "hackers on steroids" who treated things like a "real life video game"

So because one news outlet was wrong one time, we should now disregard all reporting from any outlet till the end of time. Got it.

>Yes, there are some creeps out there. But they are not a serious threat.

You are an expert on what defines a serious threat now too! So in your clearly expert opinion (/s) what is the definition of a "serious threat?"

[isabella_r]

Good point. There are a lot of dangerous ideas. The best way to counter them is by exposing them to debate and dialogue. Banning them only lets the ideas grow unchallenged.