While the Confederate does have a bad history as a symbol of a group who supported slavery and fought to keep slavery they also didn't round up millions of people and commit mass genocide.
No they just tortured, beat and enslaved an entire race of men women and children and categorized them as cattle and property and completely disenfranchised and belittled them for over a hundred years nbd just bad
Get off your high horse. It may come as a shock to you, but MANY other countries and civilizations have kept slaves throughout history. It was England and Spain who established slavery in the new world, in fact. AND I'm sure this will blow your closed little mind: the very FIRST SLAVE OWNER in what would become America WAS A BLACK MAN!
I mean Nazis didn't round up jews, blacks, gay people, the disabled, and anyone who didn't agree or fit a certain ideal and then killed them all off and almost completely wiping out an entire religion that's no big deal either. Our ancestors were pieces of shit and honestly the Confederate flag should be banned your right but let's not forget it wasn't only white people who owned black slaves and black people weren't the ONLY slaves ever in America we did the same thing with the Irish which is a huge majority of white people. The Confederate flag symbolizes terrible shit but we don't like to own up to our own mistakes either.
Actually the Irish were never slaves. They were, however, treated worse than slaves. Slaves were valuable property while the Irish and Chinese laborers were a dime a dozen, particularly on railroad work crews. Where's all the uproar about how they were treated? What makes blacks better than Chinese or Irish immigrants?
Thank you summer. It's disgusting people like guestwho actually compare tragedies to another denouncing one as less valid and vile for whatever unadmitted biases they have against certain groups of people. And yes I've read the story of the Angolan man who owned white and black servants. But I'm not sure why ur touting this random fact as if it somehow changes the atrocity of slavery. I'm sure you think your condescending, know it all, smart ass tone makes you seem enlightened and anyone who dare disagree with you inferior but really it's just a giant red flag to anyone who has the misfortune to meet you on or off the internet that your an ignorant, obnoxious blowhole
Please name one fact I created? When did I say something filled with hatred or contempt? Please share when I violently denounced people (except for you lol)? Spare me with all the over the top histrionics Donald Trump Lol I love when people like you react so dramatically when someone has the audacity to DISAGREE and DISLIKE you. You scream and cry like a victimized hit dog as if I really did anything beyond state my opinion but Have no empathy for others and tell everyone else how they need to just get over it. Just stop talking, seriously.
And while I'm sure you'd love for me and others like me to leave America, we won't because we are just as American and have a right to be here as you love. I am damn proud to be American. So much so I that I don't feel the need to rewrite its history. I'm proud of the good bad and the ugly. Because SOME of us have learned great lessons from it.
Just going to say that on a purely factual basis guestwho is not wrong. The civil war was not over slavery. Slavery was a very small part of the it and was reason it got pushed over the edge but it was mostly about the southern states getting their state governments overpowered and overstepped by the feds. Slavery is just the thing people are taught in school to be the reason as the other reason would probably have went over their heads at such a young age. There were actually quite a few different things that the feds went just went past the state governments powers that were put there for the reason of being about to get past the feds on the reason of them being closer to the problem.
Thank you for sharing that in a respectful and intelligent way. I read (beyond school) that the civil war was about states rights and slavery (as you said) was one of the more hyped and passionate arguments during the debates between the 2 sides. I totally get it wasn't the ONLY reason but I don't think I'm wrong in saying it was one of many serious reasons?
I tip my hat to you bethorien. Maybe you got through where I couldn't.
No Ashley you are not wrong; slavery WAS a factor, and a large part of the Confederacy's grievance, but it was really more about their way of life. The south had had complaints about taxation, representation, freedom of self-governance, and more since the founding of our nation, and they just found the straw that broke the camel's back. While you may hate me right now, I do not return the sentiment. I love everyone, even those who are wrong! ;-)
The Pegida? Yes, they're fighting angainst the refugees, but you learn from your mistakes, so stuff like that won't happen again
3Reply
·
Edited 9 years ago
deleted
· 9 years ago
If any of you believe this, i posted this poc without the text at the bottom months ago on my durell479 account before the whole refugee thing. Jus sayin.
As a german, the only thing I am proud of when it comes to our country, is the fact that unlike any other nation, a solid majority of our citizens have actualy accepted our historic responsibilities, so not to call it guilt. It may not even be that unique, most countries got some shit in their heritage in the closet. But we are pretty much out there. You cannot show the Hitlergruss, and its prohibited to deny the Holocaust. Some people see this as a limitation of the freedom of speech. I can live with the fact, that we can insult a few people less than other nations, and that you can be a public idiot asshole in two ways less.
Freedom is an illusion imo if you define it by being free in what gun you can buy or who you can insult, when your kids cannot go to a decent university cause you're not rich. I define my freedom for example by how you can act towards your police without getting shot.
I'm not sure what _you're_ getting at. So you prefer to risk getting shot if you refuse getting arrested, as long as you can say Heil Hitler in public? I mean think about it: in germany in order to really get prisoned for anything like this, you must be kind of making a career with it. Just being a drunk idiot will be frowned upon and possibly reported, but thats basically it in most cases.
Those laws have nothing to do with each other. Would it not be better if you could both not be imprisoned for being a drunkard and also be able do the Nazi salute without getting imprisoned?
"getting imprisoned for doing a nazi salute or denying the holocaust would take a lot of determination and efforts."
That's not what the picture implies.
Then why not read the text. "If charged" means, maybe he's going to be charged, but maybe (likely) not, depending on the circumstances. Then he _could_ face three years, but that would be the highest possible sentence, and in germany that will only be applied in repeat cases with a lot of priors. The normal sentence is a fine, or a sentence on probation. Every day people do this type of shit, and it actually happens a few dozen times a year someone is charged at all. It only happens every couple years that someone is imprisoned, when s/he is a repeat offender with a lot of publicity.
The picture doesn't say he *could* get 3 years, it says he *will* get 3 years if charged. And he can be charged for doing it, and that's bullshit. Just because they probably won't charge him doesn't make the fact that they can charge him any less fucked up.
It's been a law in German for years, enforced and all, just cause this asshole is gonna get a sentence, it doesn't mean other people in Germany didn't get the same sentence. It's his own damn fault
The German people shouldn't have to live with the guilt of what their stupid elders did during world war 2. Freedom of speech is one of the reasons this planet is going to shit. There has to be a certain amount of control on "freedom" and the people of Germany have every right to do this
"Freedom of speech is one of the reasons this planet is going to shit."
Are you serious? Do you really want people to be able to control what opinions you have? To legally enforce what you can and can't think?
Garlog, I get it, you'ld probably not wanna move here, fine. Good thing: you don't have to. I would not like to live in a country thats banning all sorts of foodstuffs, drinks and tobacco, ie. cuban cigars, absinthe, Kinder Überraschung (Kinder Eggs), all sorts of cheeses etc.pp. Also I would feel uncomfortable in a country that's prohibiting public exposure of nipples and banning The Merriam Webster Dictionary from schools for defining "oral sex". Not topic related? Fine, let's talk free speech: what about the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act” which is actually threatening anonymous annoying (!) behaviour on the net with 2 years prison? This site would fill a whole prison complex. What about the copyrights, totally a free speech topic, at least partly way more repressive than in europe (at least when it deals with big corporations copyrights). ...
What about personal liberty? Drinking beer under 21? Gay marriage and actual equalization of non-traditional partnerships? Treatment of whistle blowers? Killing your own citizens "because terrorism"? Just but a few examples I googled in a couple minutes. It will not take you more to find a lot of reasons why you prefer to stay right where you are, and I'm not inviting you here. If you want to reduce all that to where can I insult more people and monger absurd insults and defamations (not anonymously of course, see above), then hey, you're exactly where you want to be. Just don't ride that high horse with a bald eagle on your arm and tell me I'm opressed. Cause thats just bullshit.
Apropos bullshit: how does a state "control what I think", when it forbids me to say a short list of certain things in public? That's a ridiculous belittlement of what censorship and mind control is all about. Trust me, as a former citzen of the GDR I have an idea of what this really means.
Maybe I got lost in translation when calling you a stooge, this usually translates to Vogelscheuche in german and the typical picture is a puppet made of straw, a scarecrow. Not a native speaker, so that may have caused confusion. I still think youre a dope though :-)
"You reduced my arguments to a one sentence insult, calling it a straw man."
It is a straw man. US law has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Also, me insulting your argument doesn't justify you insulting me personally.
"Maybe I got lost in translation when calling you a stooge, this usually translates to Vogelscheuche in german and the typical picture is a puppet made of straw, a scarecrow. Not a native speaker, so that may have caused confusion."
Fair enough. A stooge is just a sort of unintelligent, subordinate, lackey sort of person, no scarecrow implication.
Guest does have a point, but consider this; if you can censor my freedom of speech just because you do not like what I say, how long will it be until you get censored because someone else doesn't like what you say?
And what difference does this make actually? Your "as long as you can't insult every single person and group without any restriction, your freedom is opressed" shtick is pretty much proto-us-american.
Freedom of speech has brought us radicalism and extremism. There needs to be a certain amount of control to ensure that people are not spreading their harmful idealologies onto the young and impressionable...
@funsubstanceuser
It matters because your post implies that the the US doesn't actually have freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which you think means that I don't have a good concept of what censorship is. That's obviously all irrelevant if I don't live in the USA.
@demon_razgriz
"Freedom of speech has brought us radicalism and extremism."
The dangerous radicals and extremists are mostly from countries that don't have freedom of speech.
"There needs to be a certain amount of control to ensure that people are not spreading their harmful idealologies onto the young and impressionable..."
And who gets to decide what is a "harmful ideology"?
The idea of complete freedom of expression is an illusion everywhere, and defining freedom by your standards just doesn't make sense, so it doesn't matter where you live. The type of point you made usually comes from us-americans, thats why I assumed you were a us citizen. Tell me where you're from and I'll find aspects of limited freedom there, just give me a couple minutes.
You're telling me all these radicals who grew up in England for years on end grew up without free speech? No. I'm not talking about ISIS, I'm talking about other radicals such as the IRA, and I'm pretty sure Ireland had free speech....
@funsubstanceuser
"The idea of complete freedom of expression is an illusion"
Of course, within reason, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. But people should definitely have the ability to voice any opinion they have without fear of legal consequences.
"defining freedom by your standards just doesn't make sense"
What are my standards?
"us-americans"
I'm guessing this is a language thing, but for the record, at least in regular English speech, it's just "Americans".
@demon_razgriz
"You're telling me all these radicals who grew up in England for years on end grew up without free speech?"
Those are not "most radicals", and those peoples' radical ideologies didn't originate in England.
"I'm talking about other radicals such as the IRA, and I'm pretty sure Ireland had free speech"
Of course freedom of speech has the potential to foster radical ideology. My point is that even in places that don't have freedom of speech radical ideologies are present, so obviously free speech isn't a cause of those ideologies, meaning getting rid of free speech won't remove that possibility.
Also, answer my question, who gets to decide what ideologies should be allowed and which shouldn't?
Denying the holocaust as a german in a penetrating, public way (and only that will have any consequences) is not that far away from shouting fire in a theatre. Showing the nazi salute does exactly express what opinion? The ones who first asked me to say US americans rather than americans, when I mean citizens of the USA, were anglophone Canadians, who pretty much see themselves as americans. So I will ignore your etymology lesson.
@funsubstanceuser
"Denying the holocaust as a german in a penetrating, public way (and only that will have any consequences) is not that far away from shouting fire in a theatre."
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre will cause an immediate panic. What similar effect will denying the holocaust in a "penetrating", public way?
Also what do you mean by "penetrating"?
"Showing the nazi salute does exactly express what opinion?"
The opinions of the Nazis, obviously. Aryan supremacy, and being racist against Jews and the like.
"The ones who first asked me to say US americans rather than americans, when I mean citizens of the USA, were anglophone Canadians, who pretty much see themselves as americans."
I am an anglophone Canadian, and this is definitely not the case. We are Canadians and they are Americans. No Canadian would refer to themselves as American.
@demon_razgriz
I also think he got what he deserved, because he wasn't charged, so he didn't get anything, which is what he should have got, because it shouldn't be illegal.
1. ask a holocaust survivor or any of his relatives. <edit>penetrative means repeatedly, and not to deliver a message, but to cause an effect</edit> 2. you can legally express all of these opinions. Thousands of germans do so. Youre just forbidden to do the actual salute and publically display a swastika and a few other symbols 3. I don't care for you as I don't know you, youre just a few kb on the internet. I go with what my actual canadian friends told me. BTW: As a canadian, have you ever heard of Ernst Zuendel? And what happened to him? And why? So how about fuck you?
"ask a holocaust survivor or any of his relatives."
You're the one making the argument. Besides there aren't really any of those people around here.
"penetrative means repeatedly, and not to deliver a message, but to cause an effect"
Is that a German thing, or just an English thing I'm not aware of?
"you can legally express all of these opinions. Thousands of germans do so. Youre just forbidden to do the actual salute and publically display a swastika and a few other symbols"
Well that's better, but even more absurd.
"I don't care for you as I don't know you, youre just a few kb on the internet. I go with what my actual canadian friends told me."
Well it's wrong, but whatever. Where in Canada are they from, if you don't mind me asking?
"As a canadian, have you ever heard of Ernst Zuendel? And what happened to him? And why? So how about fuck you?"
I know Canada has hate speech laws. They're just as much bullshit as what we're talking about.
Reply
deleted
· 9 years ago
Let me settle this argument, freedom of speech is what gave you almost everthyong you have today. If it qasn't for some random guys saying "Ay fuck this let's try this" we wouldn't be progressing. Fuck whoever says freedom of speech is dangerous, fuck whoever says it's usless. You obviously have no idea what people have accomplished with freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is great, it's important and necessary Total freedom of speech maybe not so much, not everywhere, everytime, for everybody. Apart from the fact that total freedom of speech and expression doesn't exist anywhere, so its just super childish to bash on a country because it has a few exceptions, because EVERY country has those. I don't even give a shit if other countries do not prohibit nazi salute and denying the holocaust, whatever. Just cause a dry alcoholic should not drink alcohol, everybody else can, maybe better in moderation, but thats up to them. And just cause an alcoholic should not drink booze, he doesn't need to die of thirst.
You're right, inapt metaphor. I give you that. So let's think of germany as a compulsive-obsessive gambler who voluntarily banned himself from casinos, making it a crime for him to enter them. Which, ironically, can be done in the USA, but not in germany.
That makes it sound like Germans are prone to fascist totalitarianism.
"Which, ironically, can be done in the USA, but not in germany."
Interesting, I wasn't even aware this was a thing. I don't know whether it speaks well or poorly of the US, though.
"That makes it sound like Germans are prone to fascist totalitarianism. "- Like, d'oh... absofuckinlutely. Like many other (most but mot only) european countries that only have a very short history of democracy and/or having formed a nation. Thats why I am so happy, we germans are doing pretty well in comparison when it comes to remembering and reflecting the past.
"I don't know whether it speaks well or poorly of the US, though." - I didn't mean it to sound well or poorly of the US. I just found it ironic how this is different in the Shangri-La of personal freedom.
You might have a point, but I think democracy should be spread and encouraged by conversation and discourse, rather than by making opposing ideals illegal. Even if it is just symbols of the ideals, and not the ideals themselves.
"I didn't mean it to sound well or poorly of the US."
I meant it more to be funny. Like, is it good that you can do that in America, or is it bad that that's something that needs to be done in America?
The people getting in trouble for these matters are sure as hell not interested in conversation and discourse. We are talking about a small minority even within the openly rightwing minority. Same as you probably I find it wrong and even disturbing that many germans support the attempt to actually prohibit the most active right wing party in germany, the NPD but I have no problem with the prohibition of nazi salute, public display of certain nazi symbols and denying the Holocaust, that's all. I don't think we are too far apart when it comes to free speech.
"The people getting in trouble for these matters are sure as hell not interested in conversation and discourse."
Neither are the people who outright prohibit those things.
I don't see why the Nazi salute, public displays of certain Nazi symbols and denying the Holocaust are different from anything else, so obviously I disagree with banning them, but yeah, it seems like other than that we're on the same page.
@youreallykindado: I'm not a native speaker. It was meant as "need to grow up in a society or live there" to grasp priorities of that said society. I'm pretty sure though you knew this all along.
Garlog: I didn't tell you to grow up, I guess you're aware of this, if not, please accept my apology.
The prohibition of nazi salute yada yada yada is not to silence dissent, but out of respect to the holocaust survivors. Trust me, there is an open athmosphere of dissent in this country. you can pretty much say anything in public. You can be sceptic about the holocaust too, no problem, its sort of a pretty specific way of denying it thats actually prosecuted. If you really believe this does influence the free development of the formation of opinion, so be it. I think we have both made our points explicitely enough for you to know, I don't believe that.
"The prohibition of nazi salute yada yada yada is not to silence dissent, but out of respect to the holocaust survivors."
Respect shouldn't be legally enforced. Is it really respect if your legally forced to do it?
Other than that yeah, I think we understand each other's position fairly well.
Its not to force nazis to actually respect anyone, obviously this couldn't work. But society can express respect to the holocaust victims (which includes their progeny) by certain gestures.
It should, but it does not happen. Never did, never will. So this prohibition is not important for changing peoples ways, as I said.
At least the first and second generations after holocaust victims and KZ survivors are psychologically influenced by that. Its partly epigenetics, partly family dynamics. Its been examined and found with holocaust victims, but its also present with victims of Pol Pot, the vietcong and of the chinese "cultural revolution" and also other genocides. Even some Kurd families are still influenced by the turkish genocide more than a 100 years ago.
"It should, but it does not happen. Never did, never will."
Well if they don't want to they shouldn't be forced to.
"At least the first and second generations after holocaust victims and KZ survivors are psychologically influenced by that."
Do you really think people who weren't involved in the holocaust should be forced to be apologetic to people who weren't victims in the holocaust?
These people weren't victims IN the holocaust, but they definitely are victims OF the holocaust. And no one is forced to be respectful or apologetic to them, none of this is expected. People mustn't say or do certain things in certain ways in certain contexts in a certain frequency. This leaves a very small number of people affected by that. Sucks for them. That's it.
Everyone is affected by it, because the law applies to everyone. It's bullshit to prevent people from expressing ideologies or organizations, especially when it's because of what other people did.
This discussion has turned into a travesty. I can explain how and why this is regulated in germany, thats what I did. Most western countries have laws against hate speech, there is not real free speech anywhere. It seems you're not getting tired of repeating exactly the same thing over and over, I do.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Your whole argument is just you saying why YOU think people shouldn't haven't Free Speech in certain grey areas with YOUR RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, sit down son.
"I can explain how and why this is regulated in germany, thats what I did."
I don't understand difference between being able to speak in support of a Nazi ideal and displaying Nazi symbols. What is the difference that makes one legal and the other not?
"Most western countries have laws against hate speech, there is not real free speech anywhere."
Hate speech laws are bullshit too. No one should should go to jail because they hate any group of people.
Interesting that his sentence will be longer than that of the Muslims who raped those women in Cologne on New Year's Day...they will be forgiven because they, as immigrants, don't know any better.
You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes, their sentence, if any, will be less harsh than three years. But not because they are immigrants (thats actually rightwing wacko propaganda), because german laws "protecting" the right to sexual self-determination have been internationally critized for decades as totally insuffcient. I shit you not: Its not rape when the victim is not heavily physically resisting. Its merely a libel when a man touches a womans breast with his hands ABOVE the shirt, only when he gets under the shirt, its sexual harrassment. Conjugal rape did not even exist until 1998 and so on. Why, you ask? Well, maybe because way most attacks on women were kept within the german volkskoerper. Just sooo little outcry in favour of female victims. Its different now with immigrants of course. Back off, kanacks, its our women. So maybe those assholes in cologne have done their part for adjusting these 19th century laws in favour of women... hopefully. #ausnahmslos
That gesture contributed to millions of innocent people being murdered, starting second world war in which millions more died, and tarnished the reputation of a country that will never live down the crimes the Nazis committed. Don't be a dick and go around doing nazi salutes knowing it's against the law.
Not really, frankly he should have his arm ripped from its socket.but that's just my opinion but seriously though anything nazi related is strictly forbidden in Germany and not only by German rules its part of the peace treaty and victims settlement.
Yeah, because Fuck free speech. Oh, wait? Is it still East Germany? No, You mean Germany entered the realm of non-socialist democratic life? Well, surely then Germany learned about freedom of expression and liberty. Oh, They didn't. Well sometimes a people will do the same thing and oppress a minority over and over again.
In Germany it is ILLEGAL to have any nazi memorabilia or do anything that can be considered nazi. They took down and banned a whole twitter page because it was a nazi page. It is unconstitutional in Germany to do that, it's against their constitution. It's illegal. Just in case you don't get the point.
Germany likes to pretend that that period in history never happened. It's not healthy. You don't deny it. You learn from it. Make sure it doesn't happen again.
They're not pretending it never happened they know it happened they're stopping people from ever doing it again that's why this man was arrested.
15
deleted
· 9 years ago
Yea I mean look at america. We ain't doing shit which is why a bunch of black dudes were murdered in a church by some racist white twat that worshipped the Confederate flag
No Ashley you are not wrong; slavery WAS a factor, and a large part of the Confederacy's grievance, but it was really more about their way of life. The south had had complaints about taxation, representation, freedom of self-governance, and more since the founding of our nation, and they just found the straw that broke the camel's back. While you may hate me right now, I do not return the sentiment. I love everyone, even those who are wrong! ;-)
That's not what the picture implies.
Are you serious? Do you really want people to be able to control what opinions you have? To legally enforce what you can and can't think?
Apropos bullshit: how does a state "control what I think", when it forbids me to say a short list of certain things in public? That's a ridiculous belittlement of what censorship and mind control is all about. Trust me, as a former citzen of the GDR I have an idea of what this really means.
It is a straw man. US law has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Also, me insulting your argument doesn't justify you insulting me personally.
"Maybe I got lost in translation when calling you a stooge, this usually translates to Vogelscheuche in german and the typical picture is a puppet made of straw, a scarecrow. Not a native speaker, so that may have caused confusion."
Fair enough. A stooge is just a sort of unintelligent, subordinate, lackey sort of person, no scarecrow implication.
It matters because your post implies that the the US doesn't actually have freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which you think means that I don't have a good concept of what censorship is. That's obviously all irrelevant if I don't live in the USA.
@demon_razgriz
"Freedom of speech has brought us radicalism and extremism."
The dangerous radicals and extremists are mostly from countries that don't have freedom of speech.
"There needs to be a certain amount of control to ensure that people are not spreading their harmful idealologies onto the young and impressionable..."
And who gets to decide what is a "harmful ideology"?
"The idea of complete freedom of expression is an illusion"
Of course, within reason, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. But people should definitely have the ability to voice any opinion they have without fear of legal consequences.
"defining freedom by your standards just doesn't make sense"
What are my standards?
"us-americans"
I'm guessing this is a language thing, but for the record, at least in regular English speech, it's just "Americans".
"You're telling me all these radicals who grew up in England for years on end grew up without free speech?"
Those are not "most radicals", and those peoples' radical ideologies didn't originate in England.
"I'm talking about other radicals such as the IRA, and I'm pretty sure Ireland had free speech"
Of course freedom of speech has the potential to foster radical ideology. My point is that even in places that don't have freedom of speech radical ideologies are present, so obviously free speech isn't a cause of those ideologies, meaning getting rid of free speech won't remove that possibility.
Also, answer my question, who gets to decide what ideologies should be allowed and which shouldn't?
"Denying the holocaust as a german in a penetrating, public way (and only that will have any consequences) is not that far away from shouting fire in a theatre."
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre will cause an immediate panic. What similar effect will denying the holocaust in a "penetrating", public way?
Also what do you mean by "penetrating"?
"Showing the nazi salute does exactly express what opinion?"
The opinions of the Nazis, obviously. Aryan supremacy, and being racist against Jews and the like.
"The ones who first asked me to say US americans rather than americans, when I mean citizens of the USA, were anglophone Canadians, who pretty much see themselves as americans."
I am an anglophone Canadian, and this is definitely not the case. We are Canadians and they are Americans. No Canadian would refer to themselves as American.
I also think he got what he deserved, because he wasn't charged, so he didn't get anything, which is what he should have got, because it shouldn't be illegal.
You're the one making the argument. Besides there aren't really any of those people around here.
"penetrative means repeatedly, and not to deliver a message, but to cause an effect"
Is that a German thing, or just an English thing I'm not aware of?
"you can legally express all of these opinions. Thousands of germans do so. Youre just forbidden to do the actual salute and publically display a swastika and a few other symbols"
Well that's better, but even more absurd.
"I don't care for you as I don't know you, youre just a few kb on the internet. I go with what my actual canadian friends told me."
Well it's wrong, but whatever. Where in Canada are they from, if you don't mind me asking?
"As a canadian, have you ever heard of Ernst Zuendel? And what happened to him? And why? So how about fuck you?"
I know Canada has hate speech laws. They're just as much bullshit as what we're talking about.
"Which, ironically, can be done in the USA, but not in germany."
Interesting, I wasn't even aware this was a thing. I don't know whether it speaks well or poorly of the US, though.
"I don't know whether it speaks well or poorly of the US, though." - I didn't mean it to sound well or poorly of the US. I just found it ironic how this is different in the Shangri-La of personal freedom.
"I didn't mean it to sound well or poorly of the US."
I meant it more to be funny. Like, is it good that you can do that in America, or is it bad that that's something that needs to be done in America?
Neither are the people who outright prohibit those things.
I don't see why the Nazi salute, public displays of certain Nazi symbols and denying the Holocaust are different from anything else, so obviously I disagree with banning them, but yeah, it seems like other than that we're on the same page.
Garlog: I didn't tell you to grow up, I guess you're aware of this, if not, please accept my apology.
The prohibition of nazi salute yada yada yada is not to silence dissent, but out of respect to the holocaust survivors. Trust me, there is an open athmosphere of dissent in this country. you can pretty much say anything in public. You can be sceptic about the holocaust too, no problem, its sort of a pretty specific way of denying it thats actually prosecuted. If you really believe this does influence the free development of the formation of opinion, so be it. I think we have both made our points explicitely enough for you to know, I don't believe that.
Respect shouldn't be legally enforced. Is it really respect if your legally forced to do it?
Other than that yeah, I think we understand each other's position fairly well.
Also, why are their progeny included?
At least the first and second generations after holocaust victims and KZ survivors are psychologically influenced by that. Its partly epigenetics, partly family dynamics. Its been examined and found with holocaust victims, but its also present with victims of Pol Pot, the vietcong and of the chinese "cultural revolution" and also other genocides. Even some Kurd families are still influenced by the turkish genocide more than a 100 years ago.
Well if they don't want to they shouldn't be forced to.
"At least the first and second generations after holocaust victims and KZ survivors are psychologically influenced by that."
Do you really think people who weren't involved in the holocaust should be forced to be apologetic to people who weren't victims in the holocaust?
I don't understand difference between being able to speak in support of a Nazi ideal and displaying Nazi symbols. What is the difference that makes one legal and the other not?
"Most western countries have laws against hate speech, there is not real free speech anywhere."
Hate speech laws are bullshit too. No one should should go to jail because they hate any group of people.