Mandatory jail term for Nazi salute under new hate crime rules in Australia
-
-
What you want is the government to enforce what you think the standards should be.
-
What you will get is the government enforcing what the government thinks the standards should be.
I disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, and I cite the results of the last election is the foundation of my own.
-
-
This argument boils down to "You want the government to do a good thing, but bad people can abuse the government to do the opposite." Sure, that happens sometimes.
But following your logic, I guess all laws shouldn't exist then. After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way! This argument is fundamentally unworkable, because it doesn't just apply to enforcing rules regarding speech, it applies to all rules.
Yes, I believe the government should enforce the standards I believe are correct. No, I do not believe that simply by enforcing such standards the power is magically granted for them to use it incorrectly, in a way that they wouldn't be capable of had my preferred regulation not been implemented. Whether Nazis are or aren't allowed speech won't stop a bad government from simply censoring acceptable speech, if the government is acting in bad faith. They will do so regardless of if anti-Nazi speech regulations were in place prior.
Should we never attempt to implement any positive policy if it grants power that could theoretically be abused?
-
But following your logic,
You're not following my logic.
I guess all laws shouldn't exist then.
That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.
After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way!
I am saying that the law should be objective. "The speed limit is 35mph" is an objective law. Yes, it can be abusively enforced, by allowing some people to go 55, while stopping others at 36.
Contrast, "Disturbing the peace", a purely subjective law. Cops apply that law to do pretty much anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want, with zero consequences. The only objective factor is your presence in public: It's pretty hard to argue you were disturbing the peace from the comfort of your own home.
Concepts as nebulous and vague as the ones we are talking about here are as broadly and subjectively enforced as "disturbing the peace". The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support "pedophiles" (by which they mean "trans"). Or supporting "enemy invaders" (by which they mean "immigrants"). Even mentioning "Luigi" could qualify as a violation.
Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.
-
The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support “pedophiles” (by which they mean “trans”). Or supporting “enemy invaders” (by which they mean “immigrants”). Even mentioning “Luigi” could qualify as a violation.
Nazism, however, can be more objectively defined than single-word terms, as you've used here.
For instance, if someone says the words "Heil Hitler" while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn't exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll but you saying 'black lives matter' with your fist up is the same thing, actually," if the law explicitly states that saying the exact words "Heil Hitler" while raising your hand in that salute is the specific thing required to get you imprisoned. Laws can be more objectively defined than "pedophiles," "supporting enemy invaders," or "Nazis."
Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.
Nazis simply ignore the law. Trump is quite literally doing it right now, He's passing executive orders he doesn't actually have the legal capacity to enforce, which is then leading to things like congresspeople being prevented from entering buildings they have a right to enter, or databases being given to people without legally required security credentials. They don't care what the law was, they care what it will be once they're done screwing with it.
Whether or not you pass a law prohibiting explicit behaviors that are categorically harmful to society will not change whether or not they are then capable of manipulating the laws to do what they wanted to do to you regardless.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power, and having the ability to misuse any laws or power they may have in the first place
That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.
And yes, it obviously does. You stated that we should not censor Nazis because Nazis in power later on could use that law to suppress others. The same logic applies to any other regulation or prohibition. We shouldn't pass gun control legislation because it's possible someone uses it to take the good people's guns away. We shouldn't imprison people for rape because someone could redefine what rape means to mean non-married people having sex. We shouldn't jail pedophiles because they could redefine trans people as pedophiles simply for existing.
It's the same logic all the way down. There is nothing different when it comes to imprisonment for Nazi-aligned speech/actions, or other dangerous speech/actions. All of them can be prohibited to an extent, even though there's a possibility that the power dynamic could then be reversed later on by the same group of people being prohibited.
Look, I'm not going to keep going on this because I think it's clear neither of us are changing our stances. Send a reply if you want, I'll gladly read it, and give it some thought, but I'm done trying to continue a conversation if you think we shouldn't try to stop Nazis because Nazis could possibly get in power and stop us instead. That applies to any regulation against any group that could possibly come into power, and I would encourage you to look back at the examples I provided, stop, and think about just how different the logic really is to the idea of censoring Nazis, because I think you'll find it is, in fact, not different at all.
-
For instance, if someone says the words "Heil Hitler" while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn't exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll
Then "HH" isn't a violation. "88" isn't a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.
They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power,
No, it won't. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.
Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.
The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.
-
I have no idea why you think that makes it okay to lie about me, but I called you an authoritarian because you wanted me to go to the police.
Go ask the cops they’ll help explain it to you if you need help understanding the concept.
That's what you said.
And for some reason you think that justifies lying about me defending rapists. Have you considered therapy?
-
You're lying about me by calling me an authoritarian bruh, and you know what increases crime like rape? Having no law enforcement.
Asking someone who applies the law if your theory that you can be violent towards people that haven't committed a crime is the smartest thing you can do before you go commit crime.
-
I based it on the literal words you used. Which I quoted.
What are you basing your claim I defend rapists on?
-
You called me authoritarian for telling you to ask the cops about your theory of being allowed to commit crime because you think someone may have the potential to become violent.. If you think people should be able to commit crime cause they feel like it & that talking to cops is authoritarian, then you support rapists. Do you believe that & if so you support rapists.
-
Got it. The elves told you.
-
The therapist thing was projection. Got it.
-
Nice try, but when you're in therapy and suggest someone else also needs therapy, it is not projection.
When I am misinterpreted and upset about being misinterpreted, I don't accuse other people of supporting rapists... but I am sorry I misinterpreted you.
I have a feeling you will not apologize for the claim that I defend rapists. In fact, I fully expect you to double-down on it.
-
You called me authoritarian because I said you should ask the cops a question. You want an apology for what I said then apologize for what you said.
-
What?
I literally apologized:
I am sorry I misinterpreted you.
I misinterpreted you as saying something authoritarian. I was wrong. Again, I am sorry.
Let me guess- apologize again but do it in the right way. Anything but either prove that I support rapists or admit I don't.
-
Okay then. I misinterpreted you as saying talking to police is authoritarian as being pro-crime, therefore enabling rapists. I was wrong. I am sorry.
-
It was not a misinterpretation and you know it. You said it as a deliberate insult.
But I you saying you "misinterpreted me" as "saying talking to the police is authoritarian as being pro crime, therefore enabling rapists" is the closest you will ever come to admitting that I do not defend (not enable, defend) the rapist.
But then admitting what you actually did was accuse me of being a proud Trump supporter would be too honest of you, so I'll take what I can get.
I'd say be better, but you won't.
-
Being against cops altogether does enable & defend rapist from punishment. I wish you the best in your therapy though.
-
I’d say be better, but you won’t.
-
You can talk to your therapist about it.
-
I’d say be better, but you won’t.
