Unfortunately Tims doings here, amongst others, just fuel these groupds and drive membership. It creates a we against them mentality that will expand membership not curtail it. Far more can be accomplished here by ignoring these fools instead of giving them forums to drive recruitment.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pulls Apple Pay Support From Websites Selling White Nationalist and Nazi Apparel [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
NO. We will not fall for this nonsense. Your false equivalency is not welcome. GOODBYE. I don't make equal time for child pornographers and I will not do the same for Nazis and their sympathizers. People that are against the Alt-right are NOT the same as the alt-right. NO!
Nope supporting the constitution and free speech has nothing to do with supporting a bunch of Nazis fools.
Nope you are just displaing complete ignorance of what the concept of free speech is all about.
You might ask yourself why these groups are seeing so much attention right now. Like it or not you are being manipulated by the media to see such groups as a threat while the media protects its favored species.
In the end laws that target hate speach end up biased and innactuality are a form of hate themselves. If you want to curtail hate you confront it with love not more hate.
Neo-Nazis want to see me tortured and dead for who I am. I still support their right to speak about their warped views because I truly believe in free speech. Those protections exist not for popular opinions or even mainstream minority opinions but for the outsiders that would otherwise be silenced by the majority. Expressing the hateful views of how these groups believe society should exist is exactly the type of thing the first amendment is intended to protect; contrarian opinions, those in direct conflict with government and societal norms. I will also support the rights of an Imam preaching jihadist interpretations of the Quran and anarchists theorizing that violent revolution is the only way to overturn oppressive classism in America. I don't agree with any of those views but can still respect that America is a country that believes everyone has a right to their own ideology and to speak about their philosophy even if their perspective is the antithesis of what makes our country great.
You can disagree while serving a protected class and gay folks are a protected class
If the cops did it it's a 1a violation, the government can't surpress free speech.
Trump has a good argument about keeping statues, but he is WRONG about that being the matter we should be focusing on. The real problem is Neo Nazis hate agenda. The whole "keep the statutes" or "tear down the statues" thing is a different debate. The fact that Trump cannot see that is unnerving. Neo Nazis try to get behind some arguably reasonable causes to legitimize themselves, but the fact of the matter remains that they believe non-white people (including white jews) are animals and are to be blamed for all the wrongs in society.
------
Neo Nazi says: We are here to push back against so-called "reverse racism" which is really racism against white people.
Neo Nazi thinks: White is right. If you are not white, you are an animal and you need to die to fix society.
------
Neo Nazi says: Taking down Robert E. Lee's statue is only going to lead taking down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. We cannot change the past so let's keep the statues since they are part of our history.
Neo Nazi thinks: I want a statue of Adolf Hitler erected and I want to tear down statues of Martin Luther King because he was an animal.
------
We cannot legitimize these guys in any way. Their agenda is pure hate no matter how they try to dress it up.
------
Neo Nazi says: We are here to push back against so-called "reverse racism" which is really racism against white people.
Neo Nazi thinks: White is right. If you are not white, you are an animal and you need to die to fix society.
------
Neo Nazi says: Taking down Robert E. Lee's statue is only going to lead taking down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. We cannot change the past so let's keep the statues since they are part of our history.
Neo Nazi thinks: I want a statue of Adolf Hitler erected and I want to tear down statues of Martin Luther King because he was an animal.
------
We cannot legitimize these guys in any way. Their agenda is pure hate no matter how they try to dress it up.
There is a huge difference between the two, though. Don't conflate them as they are entirely separate matters.
"Sweet Cakes by Melissa" was the Oregonian bakery. However, the Colorado case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" is the case which is headed to the US Supreme Court. Each wants to use their own -religion- to discriminate against a characteristic of an individual.
Apple, on the other hand though, wants to use the specific *language* and *visuals* of the products their customers sell to discriminate against who they will do business with. Which *is not* the same as discriminating based on what their personal beliefs or religion are.
Tread carefully here.
First of all, boycotts are "where people use economics to force their morality on others" -- you don't like that Wal*Mart underpays its employees or that Chick-fil-a donates to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage or that Apple supports LGBT advocacy? Then don't shop there.
Second, The Bill of Rights does not require that companies support or tolerate ignorance and hate. Sorry. Nor do businesses themselves have to support or tolerate employee views that are or might be offensive to other employees or be harmful or embarrassing to the company enterprise.
But some States DO protect sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act.
Can you really not see that sexual orientation is much closer to the Civil Rights Act vs Nazism? How is this even a debate? Nazism is anti civil rights.
Just because their beliefs are "disgusting"? They believe in the eradication of all other groups except whites. You know how 6 MILLION Jews were murdered? Because people sympathized with the Nazi's "beliefs".
What if I think Al Gore is hate speech? Is it OK for me to shut him down and split open the heads of his supporter? You are right this is enlightening...it's enlightening to see how the far left is OK with violence. This is going to spiral out of control if unchecked. Be careful what you wish for, it will not be pretty.
[doublepost=1503068015][/doublepost]
My point exactly. If they are just marching and chanting expressing their opinions then good for them regardless of how vile it is. I am pro liberty first and foremost. What the Nazi's want is NOT liberty so I stand against them..but I don't beat them down like a bunch of fascists. If they are obeying the law, leave them be, let people see them for who they are. Or do you think people are so easily swayed to hate?
Don't play false equivelancies.
Al Gore doesn't call for the genocide of entire races.
However, I don't condone responding with violence. However, I have every right to get up in a Nazi's face and tell them "NEVER AGAIN".
What I have issue with is the fact that they're being ALLOWED to have their own protests. The fact that Nazism isn't classified as hate speech is deplorable.
and anyone who permits Nazi's to peddle their ********, is complicit in allowing Nazism
Last edited:
This is where you and I disagree, they need a good beat down and hopefully they get one at the next event too.
The one problem with that; who defines what is "intolerant". Roman Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, New Yorker, Californian, Alaskan, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Hispanican, Panamanian, French, German, Inuit, etc... all have different ideas of this definition. While the "cartoon" has merit, it totally ignores the underlying problem with that statement.
First, you have to have faith in your government to have the peoples best interest in mind, then follow that up with accontability.
Once you have that, you can have trust in your elected officials to best represent the people. This means if they pass over reaching censorship, they should feel afraid to be replaced.
once you have accountable leaders, you give them the mandate to do what needs to be done.
The important thing is that our western culture should be completely, 100% secular. Rules and laws should be made to help all people, regardless of race, nationality or creed.
Once you're comfortable with that, The government can then action on it. if they go to far, they get replaced. if they don't go far enough, they get replaced.
but at some point, you have to draw a line in the sand. If you allow unequivical right to free speech with no limitations on intolerant views, you are giving and allowing those intollerant views to not only be said, but to be heard and learned by others. As Hitler once said "Give me a child at the age of 3 and he's mine for life". If you allow Nazi's to continue to speak their message, people will listen. This is how movements gain traction.
At some point you have to put a foot down and say "this isn't right. This isn't appropriate". My line is any speech that promotes violence and hatred. Doesn't matter the group. if the group is doing nothing but getting up and talking about eradicating someone else. killing, hurting, maiming, or enslaving someone else. That speach has no place in our society. Because if these very people had their way, our society as we know it would cease to exist. if Nazi's ran the country, you wouldn't have free speech. you wouldn't have free market capitalism. You wouldn't have proper elections. You would have a country run by a chancellor who can dictate every aspect of your life, while killing everyone who was not "Aryan".
That should be the line in the sand for EVERYONE.
What do you mean by "isn't classified as hate speech?" I think most people consider the expression of Nazi views to be hate speech. But if you're referring to the situation here in the U.S., there isn't some official classification of hate speech which would mean that it was prohibited. That would violate our Constitution.
Here we still have fairly robust speech protections. (Unfortunately we've ceded considerable ground when it comes to other individual liberties, but those are other matters.) Most speech is protected from both prior restraint and punishment by governments. There are narrow exceptions, of course, but hate speech isn't one of them. The closest exceptions would be incitement to imminent violence, fighting words, and true threats. But those exceptions depend on objective criteria (which I'll happily walk through if you're interested) that aren't met merely by, e.g., contemtible expressions of racial or religious animus or even by general advocacy of violence.
So... most of us do regard the views in question, if expressed, to be hate speech. But even as such it's protected speech. That being the case, for the most part they have to be allowed to have their own protests on the same terms as others would be. If they go beyond mere hate speech and, e.g., incite imminent lawlessness, that's another matter.
While I mostly agree, the first few sentences of your post do a good job on why this is a current challenge. Don't focus on Aryan or Nazi. These are just a point among many. Before we start identifying specific "items" that are "not right" or "not appropriate", we need to understand what a slippery slope this can easily become. Nazi today, Fascist tomorrow, white/blonde/blue a year later...
Your use of the term secular would not be popular nor accepted in the majority of the world. Well, if we exclude China.
I think what i'm "having problems with" is how Nazi's protesting isn't considered a threat of violence outright.
The whole existence of nazi's is a direct threat to large groups of people. The very thing they stand for is the eradication of people. When I see a Nazi flag, it's a call to arms to kill me, my family, my people, and many other peoples who would desire freedom and peace.
I'm really a strong supporter of freedom of speech. I will generally side with most people here that the government SHOULD only enforce limitations in limited and highly controlled cases where the government needs to be held accountable / responsible for it.
But Nazism is a line. A very clear line. if their only message was "we want national socialistic authoratarian leadership", i wouldn't being saying this, Because ones desire for a political system that is different than our own doesn't qualify as hate speech
But that's NOT what these Nazi groups are spreading. They are spreading hate, and hoping that others will take up the banner of Racial purity. it's an indefensible position to take.
This singe line you wrote is a good definition of the issue. Do we respond because of the vocal threat that could incite some to violence or do we respond once the violence erupts? Or is it the scale? Personally I think our response is paradigmed by WWII and the atrocities that occurred.
If we want to establish "Nazism" as an outright threat of violence, we need to establish laws defining this, use them, and go though the judicial process to clarify them. Thoughtful controlled response. Not emotional response.