[YEwSdObPQT]

> You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you?

No.

The only concession I would consider is a call to violence if there is an real and immediate threat. Not internet death threats.

The second I may concede would be defamation under a very strict standard e.g. You were claiming someone broke a law.

> Or about the things I think other people should do to you?

People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me.

> (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.)

If you are talking about the Communists. The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people. Also some of the famines were entirely predictable and in some cases were deliberate.

[hutzlibu]

"People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me."

So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing?

I don't think so. This is the line I mean, which is not at all clear.

"The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people."

You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources.

But you do not have to tell me about pol pot, gulags and co. I am certainly no fan of them either. And like I said, I am not in favor of banning swastikas. Not so much, because some poor nazis are then not free to express their ideology, but because the symbol is way older and was not invented by the nazis, just missused. So I agree, that by the same logic, you would have to ban the hammer and the christian cross with it. Still, the death chambers and the holocaust was very unique in its quantity and quality, so I cannot really stand nazis whining about oppression. I live in a hotspot of them.I know they do it a lot. I also know, they are the first, to supress anything they do not like, if they are in a position of power.

[YEwSdObPQT]

> So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted?

Yes

> And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing?

If people are likely to assault someone because someone else told them over social media. They would have probably done it anyway.

> You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

It is literally like the second or third result on DDG.

[ailef]

That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source. From the page itself:

> Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation.

There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition. One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

[YEwSdObPQT]

> That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source

Obfuscate the discussion with numbers when it entirely misses the point I was making. So I will spell it out for you.

It is totally okay to bring into question the numbers and whether it happened when it comes to the crimes of the communist regimes. However if you deny the holocaust that is too much and must be criminalised. That is a double standard.

Either let everyone deny any event occurred or don't let them deny any genocide. If you are going to denounce Nazism and essentially make it illegal, you must also do the same for Communist, Jihadism or any other extremist group. But it is only done for Nazis because they must justify curtailing your freedoms by pointing to the very small amount of people that still think the Failed Austrian Artist with a Charlie Chaplin moustache might have had some good ideas.

> There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition.

Whether or not the Communists regimes killed more or not doesn't really matter. The problem is that there is a double standard. That wearing a Nazi Swastika is somehow beyond the pale, but waving a communist flag with Che T-Shirt is somehow acceptable. Both the Nazi and Communist regimes committed atrocities.

BTW Far-right apologists do the same. Try to obfuscate the issue by talking about numbers and whether the numbers were true. I've been to the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia. I know what I saw there.

> One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

I am essentially a Anarchist (I don't like putting labels on myself, but for most intents and purposes that is what I am). So I am completely on board with criticising the state's wars done in the name of "spreading democracy and freedom". I was against the Iraq War, The War in Afghanistan, Drone Strikes. People bring this up as some sort of gotcha. I don't support any War other than one of purely defence.

[hutzlibu]

"the very small amount of people that still think the Failed Austrian Artist with a Charlie Chaplin moustache might have had some good ideas."

Small amount?

He is still admired worldwide. Just not so much openly in most places. Just look, how many Hitler documentaries are still made and that you can still buy Mein Kampf worldwide.

In either case, communist organisations do regulary face prosecution in the west, as well as islamist groups.

The only "unfair" thing would maybe be, that way more symbols of nacism are forbidden and so more possibilities to prosecute - but they just have substitutes and nothing really changes.

But - the difference between communist and nazi ideology is, that communist want a better world for everyone. Nazis only for a certain race, while enslaving the "lower" races. This might be a reason, why che is more accepted (despite being a sociopath on closer look) and hitler is not.

And the holocaust is still very unique in its significance. So they quite earned their special treatment. And they are still very much alive and organizing in the underground. This is why the rules will not soften in the foreseeable future. And I do not really feel like fighting for nazi freedom, despite being more tolerant in theory. But just for the reason alone, that those hypocrites can no longer present themself as victims, I would let them legally have all their symbols, flags and conspiracy theories.

[YEwSdObPQT]

> Small amount?

Yes. There is a small amount of these people in the Western world. I would estimate it as less than 1% of the total population.

The state and the media want you to believe they are just waiting to crawl out of every crevice and take over the world again to justify taking your rights away.

> He is still admired worldwide. Just not so much openly in most places. Just look, how many Hitler documentaries are still made and that you can still buy Mein Kampf worldwide.

In the Islamic world maybe. Not in the Western world. You are delusion if you think that lots of people genuinely admire Hitler in the Western world.

Reading a book doesn't mean you support it. I have books from all sorts of people that were / are awful and it doesn't mean I believe it. I have a copy of Mein Kampf, I am not a nazi though (though I am sure some people would like to smear me as one).

Lots of people watch Hitler and WWII documentaries because quite frankly they are easy to make (lot of archive footage) and it was the first mechanised large war that encompassed the globe and Historically it had many iconic people involved in position of political and military power.

> In either case, communist organisations do regulary face prosecution in the west, as well as islamist groups.

Good. They are both evil. Many people have died because of both groups.

> But - the difference between communist and nazi ideology is, that communist want a better world for everyone. Nazis only for a certain race, while enslaving the "lower" races. This might be a reason, why che is more accepted (despite being a sociopath on closer look) and hitler is not.

This myth needs to die. Communists do not want a better world for everyone. Many of the communists that aren't students are the ones wishing they were the ones in power. All communism is, is theft justified by the thief.

Communism violates private property rights (which almost all other rights are obtained) and once they are eroded individual rights are next. They have no good intentions. In fact I think the Nazis were better, they are at least honest about their intentions.

> And I do not really feel like fighting for nazi freedom, despite being more tolerant in theory.

I would not expect you to. I would expect someone to fight for theirs. By protecting everyone's individual rights, you protect your own and other marginalised groups and unfortunately that includes odious people like Neo-nazis.