Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia

[siredcalot@lemmy.today]

My thoughts exactly. I have absolutely no sympathy for Nazis, or anyone else who thinks mass murder and genocide were good policy.
But one of the things that makes a free society different from Nazi Germany, is free expression. If we limit free expression to only things the people in charge want expressed, no matter how noble the intent that starts us down a very dark path very quickly.

The way we fight Nazis and racism is not by beating them up or jailing them. It's by teaching each other and our children why they are wrong, by learning and understanding what it is like to have racism directed against you. And thus, we defeat racism not with force but with empathy.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the sort of policy that would make Hitler proud. It's the sort of policy that would be enacted in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.

[archrecord@lemm.ee]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.

Oh it absolutely is.

If you don't think it should be socially tolerated, then great, regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn't just "I don't like you, please stop, but also I won't do anything to you if you keep doing it."

Furthermore, and this is something you'll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don't tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn't come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

(This mini comic explains the paradox well, as well.)

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]

I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like "I wont allow you into my place of business". I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that's damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

I would like to reiterate that I am not advocating for tolerance. It's quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1]^, which I personally espouse.

::: spoiler References

1. Title: "Liberalism". Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
   • ¶1

     […] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. […]
     :::

[worldsdumbestman@lemmy.today]

Corps always swing right...darn.

[carbonbasednpu@lemm.ee]

Liberalism has proven ineffective at keeping fascists out of power I say we do something else.

[carbonbasednpu@lemm.ee]

How well did that work out for us this time? We have concrete evidence that this is not enough and that we need to try something else at this point.

[archrecord@lemm.ee]

I would like to reiterate that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors.

Saying we shouldn't police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones. You say you don't want to tolerate them socially, but when it comes to any actual legal intervention, suddenly, they should be tolerated. If saying they shouldn't be stopped using the force of law isn't tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don't know what is.

It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism [1], which I personally espouse.

Then you should reconsider your ideology. If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don't believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views.

If you don't think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. If you don't do that, then you inherently are tolerating them to an extent.

[archrecord@lemm.ee]

I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like “I wont allow you into my place of business”

Ah yes, not letting Nazis buy from a business, at the business's will, dependent on every single individual place of employment all knowing they're a Nazi and actively choosing to deny them business and employment, as opposed to... just locking them up so they don't have a chance of their views being spread in the world. Truly, the "more forceful alternative."

[carbonbasednpu@lemm.ee]

Oh boy do I have news for you about what the US did without laws to anyone considered communist. Free speech has and will never be absolute, so it is up to us to determine what is allowed and what is not.

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”

I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:

I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones. […]

Yes. That is what I said. What's your point?

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]

Yes, not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant, as you mentioned above:

Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views.

This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by "being Nazis".

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]

I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

[umbrella@lemmy.ml]

well put. i still thoroughly disagree with you, mind, but this comment clicked my understanding of this argument.

[gold_e_lox@lemmy.world]

you can just call them fascists

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]

Would you mind outlining why?

[kalcifer@sh.itjust.works]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I'm not disputing your claim — I'm simply curious what your rationale is.

[flyingsquid@lemmy.world]

Yes, I'm famous for not understanding humor.

Everyone on Lemmy knows me as a 100% humorless person.