Jump to content

Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 194 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

In other words it was more Hugenberg's social status, money and contacts than his paper that was influential.

In short and as a summary he supported Hitler with all he had, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Nice try. The difference is fascist regimes put you into concentration camps or or kill you in another way. While in democratic systems you get away with the same offense.

Odd, considering democratic systems also had camps in WW2. Australia, UK, Canada and USA.

The Japanese and the dark legacy of Australia's camps (sbs.com.au)

1 minute ago, Doc Carling said:

In short and as a summary he supported Hitler with all he had, correct?

Vastly different to what you posted where you implied that it was mega media companies like FOX who is owned by Murdoch and his newspaper and tv empire stretches the entire globe.

Edited by Drayke Newall
added reply to another post to stop spam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Talon Brown said:

I'm defending freedom of speech and freedom of thought.  I'm terribly sorry you consider those unpleasant concepts.  As for your last statement...

 

badass.png

Freedom of speech cannot be used to defend fascism, stalinism or any kind of regime that kills democracy, period.

Edited by foneco Zuzu
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

Odd, considering democratic systems also had camps in WW2. Australia, UK, Canada and USA.

Seems we define concentration camps different. I'm talking about camps were the human life had zero value. Camps where people were just killed like cattle, their bones used to produce soap and their hairs were sold in barber shops. About what camps are you talking?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Yes, he exploited a loophole within German politics whereby the NSDAP walked out of session over and over resulting in a continual election which gave the party more and more seats. That said Hindenburg (the president you mention) despised Hitler and his ideals and refused to pass him chancellorship over and over until the NSDAP had to much control of the parliament, there was a stalemate and left him with no choice. 

Also your 34% statement is misleading. 37% was enough seats to make the party the largest in the Reichstag, which generally by law mandated that that party be given chancellorship, but Hindenburg still refused despite Hilter's demands. So whilst your phrase implies that Hindenburg was right wing and favoured him, that is wrong and misleading.

1: Hindenburg HAD a choice.

2. The decisive vote in parliament could only be won by the Nazis and their enablers because Hindenburg signed an "exective order" (in that sense) which allowed Hitler (and his right wing conservative cabinet) to arrest the communist representatives before that vote was cast.

3. No, there was no constitutional necessity to make Hitler chancellor. None, zero, zilch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that at some point, people started to only see in binary. Black-or-white, good-or-bad, right-or-wrong.
Heated debates are okay, but at this point, any "discussion" I see isn't about, well, discussion, but "I'm right and you are wrong here's why!" vs "NO I am the wrong who is right and you are wrong, facist!".  It's some sort of "My way or the highway" mentality I see growing more and more in people.
I do rarely discuss with people anmore, because I found, that nobody is open to have their opinions changed anymore. It's.. people are SO set in their thinking, you can argue against walls. And that's a generall problem, not one side speciific. Nobody  tries to understand the otherside anymore - I'm not an exception to that, but since I recognozed that, I try to not continue that.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article by this scholar, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, is great for clarification:

"I spoke to Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, an expert on fascism. 

Ben-Ghiat is the author of the new book, “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present,” which is described as “the first study to place President Donald Trump in the context of a century of authoritarian leaders that use a playbook of corruption, violence, propaganda, and machismo to stay in power.”

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/the-start-of-something-that-is-very

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, foneco Zuzu said:

Freedom of speech cannot be used to defend fascism, stalinism or any kind of regime that kills democracy, period.

Freedom of speech can be used to defend anything.  That's why it's called freedom of speech.  I'm terribly sorry your dictatorial views aren't mainstream in the US.  I'm sure they will be soon though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the good ol' "Any view that opposes me is fascistic views" followed by "Ban fascists".

Fascists, nazi/neo-nazi, hate group, etc are dog whistles for the left-wing extremists to say "anyone who has opposing views" or "anyone who is right wing". They don't mean what they used to, they are just used to dehumanize the opponent. Which in turn, is fascism.

All you are trying to do is divide the community and the country even further, as well as create more extremists that you can go "LOOK THEY ARE ANGRY" and try to deplatform even more people.

Banning and deplatforming is not the answer. The more platforms you remove, the shadier places they have to go, and the people you keep deplatforming end up on extremists sites where they are further pushed to extremist views(both because of the echo chambers you are pushing them into, as well as them seeing you more and more of a enemy).

Linden Lab already has a policy regarding intolerance. I think that is enough.

Edited by Chaser Zaks
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   How is your juvenile delinquency record in any way, shape, or form a relevant argument in an online environment with international participants, though? Not that a whole lot of anything around here is relevant by any means, but that one stood out as particularly peculiar. 

My juvenile delinquency record was to defend My Country in 1977 to  1981 from a communist coup that almost succeeded.

For that i had to do several things i`m not proud about but that opened my mind to the reality that a dictatorship shall never be allowed to exist; no matter how democracy seems to fail in our exceptions.

Ps. Did you ever shook hands with fraga irribarne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

I think the problem is that at some point, people started to only see in binary. Black-or-white, good-or-bad, right-or-wrong.
Heated debates are okay, but at this point, any "discussion" I see isn't about, well, discussion, but "I'm right and you are wrong here's why!" vs "NO I am the wrong who is right and you are wrong, facist!".  It's some sort of "My way or the highway" mentality I see growing more and more in people.
I do rarely discuss with people anmore, because I found, that nobody is open to have their opinions changed anymore. It's.. people are SO set in their thinking, you can argue against walls. And that's a generall problem, not one side speciific. Nobody  tries to understand the otherside anymore - I'm not an exception to that, but since I recognozed that, I try to not continue that.

The world,. unfortunately, isn´t such a lovely place where everybody is of the same opinion, follows the same ideals and all that. It might become such a place in the distant future, hopefully.

But i do not see much sense in letting a truck run over you without rasing a "STOP HERE" sign. Gandhi was not politically correct.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

And I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  However, it should be a line that is there for ALL, and not just those you agree or disagree with.  

Of course. And the line is definitly crossed when an opinion becomes a call to arms for your followers, while you have the power and your followers the ability to follow that call. Especially if the background noise to that is the wish of ripping apart a democratic government and killing all "enemies".

Being pessimistic I would say this is behond fixable. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Vastly different to what you posted where you implied that it was mega media companies

And you are saying something like, "Hey stop, it was his person who supported the Nazis. The influence of his media imperium wasn't noteworthy. " That is your interpretation. I have a different one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

I think the problem is that at some point, people started to only see in binary. Black-or-white, good-or-bad, right-or-wrong.
Heated debates are okay, but at this point, any "discussion" I see isn't about, well, discussion, but "I'm right and you are wrong here's why!" vs "NO I am the wrong who is right and you are wrong, facist!".  It's some sort of "My way or the highway" mentality I see growing more and more in people.
I do rarely discuss with people anmore, because I found, that nobody is open to have their opinions changed anymore. It's.. people are SO set in their thinking, you can argue against walls. And that's a generall problem, not one side speciific. Nobody  tries to understand the otherside anymore - I'm not an exception to that, but since I recognozed that, I try to not continue that.

I definitely agree with you here, but for me, it is not about changing people's minds so much as accepting that it is okay to have a differing opinion and if we disagree.  

I actually enjoy a spirited debate.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Seems we define concentration camps different. I'm talking about camps were the human life had zero value. Camps where people were just killed like cattle, their bones used to produce soap and their hairs were sold in barber shops. About what camps are you talking?

I'm talking about the camps that collected peaceful and innocent UK, USA and Australian Citizens that where Japanese and German that had done nothing wrong and placed them in jail whilst  innocent. Whilst granted they are not 'death camps' they were populated by innocent people just like all the rest of the camps and inhumane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

"LOOK THEY ARE ANGRY"

I like it, watching them jump up and down, shaking their fists impotently. Much weeping and gnashing of teeth!

5 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

Banning and deplatforming is not the answer. The more platforms you remove, the shadier places they have to go, and the people you keep deplatforming end up on extremists sites where they are further pushed to extremist views.

Gotta disagree with you in general, but agree with respect to SL. By "disagree with you in general", I think this entire "deplatforming" development is awesome!  What, you want fascists to have free speech?

C81CF33D-A728-4579-A205-8762DEFB7978.jpeg.b531cab461e89097e1fcdc1b41d2e043.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

The world,. unfortunately, isn´t such a lovely place where everybody is of the same opinion, follows the same ideals and all that. It might become such a place in the distant future, hopefully.

But i do not see much sense in letting a truck run over you without rasing a "STOP HERE" sign. Gandhi was not politically correct.

I certainly hope there's NO place in the distant future where everyone has the same opinion and same ideals and stuff. O_o
What I hope for is a future where different opinions get accepted and respected.

I do not wish or intent to let a truck driver over me. I'd simply step aside.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I definitely agree with you here, but for me, it is not about changing people's minds so much as accepting that it is okay to have a differing opinion and if we disagree.  

I actually enjoy a spirited debate.

I hope it becomes spirited, as theses merely "ghostly" debates are lacking life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I scrolled past thinking it was one of these.

Meet Felix. He was mad with me because I removed him from my keyboard.

DSC01227[1].jpeg

Edited by Doc Carling
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

All you are trying to do is divide the community and the country even further, as well as create more extremists that you can go "LOOK THEY ARE ANGRY" and try to deplatform even more people.
 

2/3rd of republican voters still believe that the elections were rigged. So please tell me: Do you really want to be united with stupidity? Or, in worst case,  united with a fascist mob? Appeasement never was a good idea while facing extremism.

Cure stupidity, before you start to "unite".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

Of course. And the line is definitely crossed when an opinion becomes a call to arms for your followers, while you have the power and your followers the ability to follow that call. Especially if the background noise to that is the wish of ripping apart a democratic government and killing all "enemies".

Being pessimistic I would say this is beyond fixable. 

That's kind of a slippery slope though, as many opinions seem to be calls to arms, especially the calls to cancel people.

The cynic in me agrees with you...it is beyond fixable.  The tiny optimist is hopeful.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 194 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...