• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the rights of White Nationalists et al. be ignored/removed?

Should the rights be ignored/removed?


  • Total voters
    76
What seems to be growing is an active effort to out these groups and tie them to Trump. Most of what we see happening has more to do with political motivations rather than public safety.

That's bull****, President Trump tied himself to these groups, and he's too chicken**** to sever the ties even when that's what's necessary to protect the US' interests.
 
Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

Having the beliefs can not be outlawed.

Expressing the beliefs on private property should not be outlawed.

Expressing the beliefs on public property is where i get uneasy. I don't really see why they should have additional limitations beyond that which applies to protests more generally, but there are probably local/state laws that should reconsider what legal entitlements are made to public protestors, in general.

Criminal activity which targets white nationalists is still criminal activity. The violence on the counter-protest side should be limited to self-defense.

The sharpest weapon with which to battle hatred is not more hatred, but love. I never understood "fight fire with fire," it seemed to me a mechanism to simply create a bigger fire. What do we want to do, kill the "outsiders"? Purge them from our civilization? Freedom conquers tyranny, you cannot avoid tyranny with counter-tyranny.
 
They have rights too.

I also have the right to spend a night in jail if one ever spouts off around my Filipino grandchildren or my black sister in law.
 
Right, that was my point in relation to my comment about nto actually caring about "rights violations" as much as political opportunism. If you only care about protecting rights when it will change something for minorities, then you're not ACTUALLY caring about protecting rights, you're just using that as a tool when useful for your political purposes and not caring about it when it doesn't suit them.

Which is fine and all, but is the exact type of thing you were just complaining about in a one sided fashion.

Oh, I'm completely aware of the double standard I'm setting up. But the double standard is the lesson, the means to an end. Sometimes you need to show people the error of their ways, because they will never, ever, listen to your words. That's my point. The double standard already exists, I'm merely suggesting we flip the sides.

I was raised by white supremacist's, had a picture of Hitler on my living room wall growing up. My family considers me a race traitor, if words and ideas could work on them, I wouldn't be afraid to go home for Christmas. You can't reason with them, and they don't care about the consequences as long as they get what they want. It's time we made them start caring about consequences. Whether doing so is right or wrong, it won't matter as long as they are put in their place for good.
 
Far better, in my view, to allow all to operate and protest/act in the open than to force them into the shadows and the underworld. Make no mistake, banning rights to such individuals will not change the minds and opinions of such individuals. Laws won't/don't change someone's heart and soul.
 
I'm going to assume those who are OK with people being fired from their jobs because they were found to have attended a Nazi/KKK/white nationalist/etc event, are also OK with an employer firing someone for going to a Communist or Socialist, or BLM rally, if the employer finds that ideology reprehensible...
 
I'm going to assume those who are OK with people being fired from their jobs because they were found to have attended a Nazi/KKK/white nationalist/etc event, are also OK with an employer firing someone for going to a Communist or Socialist, or BLM rally, if the employer finds that ideology reprehensible...

Theres a qualitative difference between a cancer in society, and the aggressive chemotherapy required to treat it.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to assume those who are OK with people being fired from their jobs because they were found to have attended a Nazi/KKK/white nationalist/etc event, are also OK with an employer firing someone for going to a Communist or Socialist, or BLM rally, if the employer finds that ideology reprehensible...
Employers (within certain limitations) can hire or fire at will. So yeah, sure.

Just to say that I know who I'd rather have been employed by, had I not been self-employed before retirement already.
 
Theres a qualitative difference between a cancer in society, and the aggressive chemotherapy required to treat it.

That doesn't answer the question. If you're ok with one, then you're ok with the other, or else you're being highly biased and hypocritical.
 
Far better, in my view, to allow all to operate and protest/act in the open than to force them into the shadows and the underworld. Make no mistake, banning rights to such individuals will not change the minds and opinions of such individuals. Laws won't/don't change someone's heart and soul.
Good point.

I have some reservations over freedom of speech also constituting freedom of responsibility over own words or actions, but yeah, nevertheless.
 
That doesn't answer the question. If you're ok with one, then you're ok with the other, or else you're being highly biased and hypocritical.
Legally, sure. Personally, no. I would think it could be contested, and if high enough profile, the damage to the company may be far more severe than to the individual that lost their job.
 
Legally, sure. Personally, no. I would think it could be contested, and if high enough profile, the damage to the company may be far more severe than to the individual that lost their job.



In both cases?
 
In both cases?
in both cases. Legally they can hire/fire. Personally I would support a company that fired an outed KKK member who was espousing racist views or worse. I would oppose a company that fired someone based on being a liberal or democrat, (or a republican or conservative) and I'd hope the person fired challenged it, and raised the profile of the company, and the manager that made that choice.
 
IM glad that at the time of my post the vast majority, like 86% agree rights should not be removed or ignored. But at the same time im sad its not higher . . i mean at this time its only 3 that said yes which is a completely retarded opinion but it shouldnt even be 3.
 
And it's all well and good to say, well be the bigger person, don't do to them what they are trying to do to you. But guess what, being the bigger person isn't going to change anything.
Really. Tell that to Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu....

Moral integrity is critical to activism.

And again, even from a practical perspective, what you're suggesting will not work. Thugs cannot restrain thugs. In fact, what you suggest plays into their hands. You're eroding the rule of law and the moral standing of society as a whole, which has largely kept these hate groups in check for decades.


Everyone ignored the Nazi's under Hitler til they gained enough support and power to conquer Europe.
While I'm not an expert on Weimar Germany, I'm quite certain that's not what happened.

Long story short: The Nazis rose on a wave of populism, in the wake of social, economic and political uncertainty caused by the Great Depression, reparations, and throwing a democracy at a nation with a long history of autocracy, militarism and warfare. Many of their early adversaries were weak (Poland), ill prepared (France), or welcoming (Austria). Others hesitated in the foolish hopes, encouraged by Nazi sympathizers, that Germany would be satisfied with its early conquests.

I see no indication that allowing police to beat up Nazis would have, in any way shape or form, stopped the Nazi rise to power.

This is not a binary choice -- "do nothing" or "unlawfully beat them up." The better method is to maintain one's moral standing, shine a light on their hatred and bigotry, drop the hammer when they do violate the law, and not give them any more excuses to play the persecuted victim.


When a normal white person is afraid of being pulled over because the cops may think they are a Nazi, because they share the skin tone of a Nazi, I bet some things are going to get changed.
That doesn't even make sense.

77% of the US is white. You're suggesting that police officers treat 250 million Americans as though they are criminals. I assure you, that would change things -- but in a way that would be an utter disaster for the nation.

Encouraging police to act like thugs is the exact opposite of what we need.


It's not a pretty solution, but it's the Karmic solution.
What you're suggesting is not "karma," it's not justice, and it's not going to work.

This is just anger, which presumes that retribution will produce the outcome you want. It won't. It will produce the opposite. It will further damage the rule of law; it will further damage trust in the police; it will erode due process; it will trash the moral standing of the nation; it will turn them into martyrs; it will prove true their claims that the state and nation is unfair.
 
Oh, I'm completely aware of the double standard I'm setting up. But the double standard is the lesson, the means to an end. Sometimes you need to show people the error of their ways, because they will never, ever, listen to your words.
They're not going to listen to your punches, either.
 
I'm going to assume those who are OK with people being fired from their jobs because they were found to have attended a Nazi/KKK/white nationalist/etc event, are also OK with an employer firing someone for going to a Communist or Socialist, or BLM rally, if the employer finds that ideology reprehensible...
Ideology is not a protected class in most jurisdictions.

That said, hate groups and fascist organizations are NOT morally equivalent to socialism, BLM or anti-racist organizations. (Communism might be as bad, but mostly if you're a Stalinist who is intent on violently overthrowing the US government, and slaughtering political dissidents.)

So basically, you're comparing someone who espouses racial genocide with... people who want safety nets, and protestors who blocked a highway a few times. Not comparable.
 
Wrong. They lost power because *everyone* attacked them.

Once they had lost so much power that they couldn't even rally in the South anymore, THAT is when it became ok to ignore them. That is when they become nothing more than some teenie tiny minority of loons, like flat earthers. And we can ignore that.

But America fought vociferously against them for decades. At one time, they were so powerful that they basically decided who got to be a candidate in their local races, and even in the presidency. Ignoring them just emboldens them, when they have that level of power. If they can control who gets in office, then they don't need your attention, now do they.

And here came Trump today, shouting about how there were some "fine people" in that neo-Nazi march.

By the way, it was 500 people, and it wasn't Antifa that decided to ride over people with a car. Stop it.

You know better than this. I know you do.

They did nt lose power because everyone attacked them they lost power because the govt stopped sanctioning there terrorism and began enforcing the law upon them as it should have been from the getgo. this was through changing of public opinion rather than through violent means.

Antifa groups use physical violence against anyone they percieve as nazis, which btw they have no clue what a nazi is and apparently never studied history because they think gay jews with black boyfriends are nazis. However historically the last time violence was used like antifa does now to end nazis, it was pree ww2 germany, and antifa helped the nazis gain power, had antifa groups and their predecessor the iron front never acted radical, instead the brownshirts would have looked bad.

It came down to a lesser of two evils scenario and the iron front was more violent and ruthless than the brownshirts, which hitler used to convince the govt to appoint more nazi leaders to prevent socialists from taking over. It got worse with the reichstag burning which was a socialist lone wolf, but the groundwork was laid prior by the iron front for him to convince germany he needed dictator powers and how only the nazi party could save germany from the socialist.

Being more violent and stupid never defeated the nazis only helped them, they are a fringe group that cannot thrive in large numbers without chaos and fear, and the old antifas and iron front gave him the chaos and fear he needed.
 
They did nt lose power because everyone attacked them they lost power because the govt stopped sanctioning there terrorism and began enforcing the law upon them as it should have been from the getgo. this was through changing of public opinion rather than through violent means.

Antifa groups use physical violence against anyone they percieve as nazis, which btw they have no clue what a nazi is and apparently never studied history because they think gay jews with black boyfriends are nazis. However historically the last time violence was used like antifa does now to end nazis, it was pree ww2 germany, and antifa helped the nazis gain power, had antifa groups and their predecessor the iron front never acted radical, instead the brownshirts would have looked bad.

It came down to a lesser of two evils scenario and the iron front was more violent and ruthless than the brownshirts, which hitler used to convince the govt to appoint more nazi leaders to prevent socialists from taking over. It got worse with the reichstag burning which was a socialist lone wolf, but the groundwork was laid prior by the iron front for him to convince germany he needed dictator powers and how only the nazi party could save germany from the socialist.

Being more violent and stupid never defeated the nazis only helped them, they are a fringe group that cannot thrive in large numbers without chaos and fear, and the old antifas and iron front gave him the chaos and fear he needed.

Absolute bull. The KKK was practically part of the government right into the 20th century. They learned how to "civilize" their racism on their own, once they realized that letting the government do it for them was far more effective anyway.

You need to learn your history on this subject. What sort of revisionism have you been steeping in?

Yeah, sure seems to be helping them now, doesn't it. ;)
 
So then I literally don't get what the hell you're ranting about, honestly.

Youre basically saying that if we dont object right now to the few nazis running around, we'll all turn into Nazis. Wheras Im making the point that the only ones acting like NAZIs right now are the ones who are shutting down speech and history in the first place. NOW is the time to object to the social justice warriors trying to cleanse the USA of anything they dont agree with, even if what they dont like is NAZIs
 
That's who I was talking about - the left. The huge majority of the arrests were those on the left. Very few on the right were arrested.

My bad. I misunderstood. I fully agree. The left starts the fights and the right is the bad guys. Don't we know how to just capitulate and let the left have America?
 
No matter how repugnant the views of the white nationalist are they are no different then BLM who advocated killing cops but both are protected to free speak by 1st amendment.
But as far as their violent actions go, both including white supremacist and anarchistic should be prosecuted to the fall extent of the law.
 
My bad. I misunderstood. I fully agree. The left starts the fights and the right is the bad guys. Don't we know how to just capitulate and let the left have America?

True...after all the white rationalist had a permit to march so I am guessing their were there with the blessing of the city....did the leftist? Or were the anarchistic/fascist there just to disrupt.
 
Back
Top Bottom