News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
Good.
Sick of literal nazis being allowed to spread their hate in my city.
Fuck off and go live in your cooker huts and leave respectable society in peace.
Putting aside the laughable notion that we have anything approaching a respectable society, how many Nazis did you punch in the face today? because it wasn't enough.
Surely all the people who wanted Nazis off Substack will also celebrate the ban on the Hamas flag
Oh wait, the Israeli government is very clearly promoting a violent ideology as well... we need to... outlaw the Israeli flag?
Oh wait
Hang on
I like how Israel is probably a major reason for the rising anti-semitism yet the world ignores that part for whatever reason
Now do the genocidal apartheid ethnostate flag next.
Funny how all these Roman salutes started when Posie Parker held a rally and now her crowd are staunch supporters of Israel and this law also punishes people for criticizing Israel. Never a good sign when your law also targets those who also tend to oppose the fascists.
Let the Slippery Slope begin.
Let's ban Nazis! "Sure sounds good"
and Hezbollah! "ok"
And Hamas! "sure"
and anyone who criticizes Israel! "well we already do that, so I guess it's good to make that official policy."
and anyone who criticizes allies of Israel! "Wait what?"
You Fascist anti-semite!
Actual not-rhetorical question: did it become a slippery slope in Germany?
No, because slippery slope is the name of a logical fallacy, not something that actually happens.
If you made a colour gradient going from blue to green, at what point in that gradient does the transition from blue to green actually happen? It's impossible to say! It is therefore impossible to tell blue and green apart! That's the same argument the other comment is making. It suggests that because the transition point between A and B is blurry that something banning A effectively also bans B.
To quote United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when asked what the criteria for pornography entails, "I know it when I see it".
Your mistake is thinking the purpose of these laws is to stop "nazis." It's not. The purpose of these laws is to provide some legal backing to silence critics of the government. They will never make a law that says you can't criticize the Government. But they don't need to, all they need to do is make a law that says supporting terrorism is illegal, then it's easy to squint and say that agreeing with a terrorist organization is the same as supporting terrorism.
For example, if the green party of Australia wants to stop coal mining or whatever and ELF blows up a coal mining truck, suddenly the green party of Australia is breaking the law by existing so they have to spend all their effort defending themselves against the law, rather then attempting to ban coal mining.
That scenario is the purpose of this law, but with governmental support of Israel. Every time a public figure criticizes Israel they have bend over backwards and spend the majority of their time claiming how much they love the Jewish people and definitely aren't Nazis, and now if they don't sufficiently prove their non-naziness, they are suddenly breaking the law and now there is another avenue for people who want to silence critics to pursue. It's not a coincidence that this law was passed on Dec 8th.
That's what the slippery slope is, the silencing of dissent, not the specific verbiage of the law.
For example, ask yourself why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party would be be banned under this law?
Not in exactly that way, no. There are a bunch of instances of "these groups are so violent and dangerous that we need to ban them outright from even existing" developing into "these other groups are marginalized out-groups and we can ban them politically" developing into "the opposition party is a marginalized out-group, the dominant party is the only party allowed to exist." In 1930s Germany it happened that way to the Communists for example.
Not every country without strong protections for marginal group automatically collapses into that cycle. Most wealthy countries just kind of continue on their way for the most part.
I also think neo-Nazis in Germany are a special case because they have such a unique and powerful stigma that there's no real risk that someone will use the anti-Nazi legal framework against any other group. In America, it seems sort of realistic that as soon as you start saying "you can't have a Nazi demonstration" that could become "you can't have a Palestinian demonstration" which could become "you can't have a BLM demonstration," but Germany feels like no one will generalize from the literal Nazis.
Commonwealth of Enlightened Centrists
I'm surprised, sad, shocked and disappointed that such laws even have to exist.
There are actually people out there who want Nazism to exist and flourish. Why are many so short-sighted not to learn at least from recent history?
... and so on. So many lessons to ignore and mistakes to repeat, because many can't be bothered to look for new solutions to old problems.
But IDF flags are fine right.....
I'm against this because it will always get abused, and who gets to determine what is acceptable hate? Is an atheist flag religious hate when religiosity becomes socially popular? Do State flags become hate symbols when their people want to secede? Someone's terrorist is another person's hero, and it's all relative - we're seeing this with the changing sentiment about Israel and Palestine.
This just can't be trusted.
Are they also banning the Viet Cong flag? Cause that's basically what Hamas and Hezbollah are for their respective countries. Also, equating resistance movements with the Nazis is utterly disgusting.