I think it's completely normal and I expect people to be arrested for belonging to neo-nazi organisations, especially since simply displaying any nazi symbols is illegal where I live(as it should be). Is that scary?
Nazi symbols include e.g. swastikas which had long prior been traditional symbols in hinduism and other religions. Besides, how do you distinguish simply radical right-wing crackheads from neonazis using only their speeches/statements?
I live right next to the former Auschwitz concentration camp - If some idiot pulls out a swastika during a demonstration and walks with the nazi salute I really don't believe he's simply displaying his affection for hinduism, and I really expect the police to arrest him.
Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.
The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation.
After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable.
To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out.
Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law.
Those laws still exist.
Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice.
Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
If you are not willing to admit that they might be right and you might be the one to change your views, it's hardly a real dialogue. It's preaching or brainwashing, depending on how charitable you feel like being.
That's an oversimplification: your aim is to understand why they hold the views they have - often they face very real problems themselves which are externalized as hatred and violence. Solving the root causes, whether it's a lack of social mobility as a result of poor education, a lack of agency or control in a fast-changing world, you can begin to understand their plight and look for ways to treat the underlying illness. Usually the correct answer is: good cheap education (but that's also an oversimplification).
Brainwashing or banning forms of expression would be treating the symptoms rather than addressing the underlying cause. Brainwashing/censorship might be quicker and, in the short-term, cheaper than changing the culture and living conditions of a group of people, but you'll forever be addressing symptoms at great cost long-term.
You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong and that they only believe those things because of something else that went wrong in their lives. That's not going to lead to a sincere conversation. That's what I mean by preaching.
> You're still being condescending by assuming that their views are wrong
If you posit a preexisting bias as condescension then you can throw nearly all forms of dialogue between two disparate groups in there.
> That's what I mean by preaching
Allowing someone to have a voice, even if you quite vocally disagree with them and have preconceived ideas that there's something wrong with them, is more material and consequential than suppression. Call it what you will.
Channeling your earlier post...
> If you are not willing to admit that they might be right
This starts with dialogue, no matter what your feelings towards them are. The opposite is the death of debate.
The basis of your position seems to be that if one or more parties has a sense of superior mindset then a real discussion can't take place. That is incorrect by definition.
Nope. It's pretty much guaranteed that each side thinks their own position is superior. Else why would they hold it? The problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. That guarantees an unproductive discussion. I'm beginning to think that this might be an example of such.
The problem is when a party is so certain in their superiority they are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong.
Which is a straw-man argument, as you're asserting something which might or might not happen in a hypothetical exchange based on my preconceived notions regarding a typically violent, intolerant group of people to be reality.
You're asserting a hypothetical outcome based on my assumptions regarding a hypothetical dialogue. You could be right, but it doesn't classify as fact. So it's a bit of a straw-man-ish shaped argument to be so adamant about.
For fun, replace Nazi's with Jazz (we can make this mental leap...weeee). Maybe I'm not really into it and have preconceived ideas about why people like it. Perhaps I can convert them to Baroque, I think to myself. In the process of talking to someone about Jazz I gain a broader understanding of its intricacies, but still without having to like Jazz. They, of course, find Baroque bereft of any spirit and we part ways and so my sinister plan has failed.
Then someone comes along and asks, why even talk about Jazz with this guy? He doesn't like it and never will.
Well, nothing changed except one more person understands the others position a little better. Perhaps with time the dialogue can evolve into something more sophisticated. Meanwhile Jazz-lovers-friend shakes his head thinking, what a waste of time...
It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you.
Think of them like children - do you talk to them about something they've done, like take a socially taboo substance, or do you make it clear to them that they can't use it in your presence, opening the door to them seeking a place that they can take it without consequence or discussion?
> It's disrespectful in a way that I can't ever fully fathom, but why are they doing it? You need to have a dialogue with them to understand why they're doing the stupid shit they're doing. You need a dialogue to guide them towards becoming more considerate people, otherwise you're just hiding an element of society that will eventually come back to bite you.
You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse.
> You could write the same sentence about, say, physical abuse.
I'm not sure if we're in agreement here but yes, you could say the same about physical abuse. Perpetrators of violent acts are often found to have been recipients of violence or abuse themselves. We know this through counseling which is a form of dialogue. The more we can understand something, the better we'll become at preventing it from being exacted in the first place.
Understand and treat the cause, rather than ignore the cause and treat the symptoms.
Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences.
The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
"The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments."
I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
It is an arbitrary line and drawing such line would probably be a risky proposition in US, but it works in Europe because it's a Schelling point. Openly endorsing Nazi Party ideology through symbolism was forbidden immediately after the war for obvious reasons (and I seriously doubt that anyone in the still burning Europe really protested), and those symbols still bring bad memories to people - so the law kind of stuck.
So yes, this sounds like a slippery slope, but in that case Europeans have a Schelling fence on it. See [0] for a more detailed take on the whole topic. For our purposes though, the money quote:
"In the original example with the alien, I cheated by using the phrase "right-thinking people". In reality, figuring out who qualifies to join the Right-Thinking People Club is half the battle, and everyone's likely to have a different opinion on it. So far, the practical solution to the coordination problem, the "only defensible Schelling point", has been to just have everyone agree to defend everyone else without worrying whether they're right-thinking or not, and this is easier than trying to coordinate room for exceptions like Holocaust deniers. Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any...
...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it. There are also a host of other well-respected exceptions to free speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Presumably, these exemptions are protected by tradition, so that they have become new Schelling points there, or are else so obvious that everyone except Holocaust deniers is willing to allow a special Holocaust denial exception without worrying it will impact their own case."
Well.....Hitler should have been and in fact was forcibly stopped from practicing his beliefs. In my mind, people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped. Those people should be forcibly supplied other beliefs, just like rapists are forcibly put into prison and forced to accept a different set of rules from their own.
And what about atheists' beliefs in a country largely populated by theists? How should we treat them?
It's easy to say that you think that speech that is almost universally repugnant should be illegal. The problem is that the benefit from doing so does not outweigh the risk that some day you may hold a socially repugnant belief of your own and find yourself legally silenced.
"people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped."
This is hate speech and is illegal in the US. In the US we draw a line between holding beliefs (or owning swastikas) and public hate speech or other illegal acts. This is similar to how it is not illegal to be a racist, but it is (often) illegal to discriminate.
