[Juliate]

> The argument that it leads to violence is not logically sound and very minority reportesque.

That a nazi salute, corroborated with converging political views…? You obviously don’t understand, don’t see how things happen.

Or you do, and you know downplaying “nazi wannabees” is part of the game.

It’s not about being scared but principled: an open democracy does not tolerate ideas going against its very foundations: it makes sure these are, expressed maybe, but kept in a very strict perimeter which they ought no get out from.

[throwawaythekey]

We don't ban Maoists or Stalinists or Mussolini style facists. We don't ban Napoleonics or Confederates.

After WW2 there was a period of strong Jewish support for nazi rights. Were they not an open democracy? Is the risk in 2025 stronger than what they faced?

I don't know really, is it that every era needs a boogeyman or is it just that we are on a grand cycle away from liberality? Both maybe?

[Juliate]

We don't? Maybe you don't. From where I am (France), maoists, stalinists, mussolinists, napoleonics or confederates are pretty badly considered, maybe only considered weird and silly as long as they are just spouting vague theory stuff or giving some substance to the conversation.

But as soon as they associate their "thing" to a violent/segregationist personality/behaviour, you can be certain that they are banned, and in no gentle manners.

Wow, I don't know either. Saying nazis could be sort of boogeyman or victims?... that tolerating nazis would be liberal? Wow. Sounds like a line from "OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies".

You seem not to understand how a society works or what liberal even means... A liberal cannot tolerate ideas that are explicitly against tolerance, as those lead to illiberal behaviours. The best illustration of it is the actual suppression of speech that is happening in the USA, by the very people that reclaimed freedom of speech.

Or again, you do know.

Either way, you're certainly not in the middle, you're actually supporting the violent ones to be violent, asking the ones reacting to that violence to accept it as it is. Not too good looking.

[throwawaythekey]

> Sounds like a line from "OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies".

Thanks I'll check it out.

> Either way, you're certainly not in the middle, you're actually supporting the violent ones to be violent

I think I understand where you're coming from but I would instead state it as supporting first amendment style laws for my country, warts and all.

Would you argue that the first amendment should be annulled?

[Juliate]

No, I’d argue that you do not understand the implications of your first amendment:

because you have an absolute free speech, you also expose yourself to the absolute consequences of what you say, or do.

Exposing oneself as a nazi exposes one to consequences.

Once, not that long ago, your country was proud of kicking nazis dead, for good reasons (albeit a bit hypocritical too when one reads history).