(July 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Blackout Wrote: Firstly, there is some heritage, but the majority of the population isn't fascist. Secondly, the purpose is to make security prevail. Dispatched? Do you really think so? Have you heard of populism? It tends to work during crisis. If propagated correctly, fascism could (even using another definition to put aside the prejudice associated with the word 'fascism') influence a large majority of the population. I'd like to see if americans started liking dictatorship ideals thanks to propaganda, destroyed the government trough revolution and made an authoritarian constitution. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it... The problem here is not only the government, but the people, usually fascists are common people that start rising while spreading ideas.
You're right, I wouldn't like it. The difference between you and I is that instead of lending the idea a rebellious cache by outlawing its expression, I'd speak out against it, which is what we typically do in democracies.
Quote:You'd be surprised by the amount of people I could convince that fascism is a good idea, and I'm not a fascist. It's extremely easy. The idea is to avoid propagating ideas so that less people become fascist. In america it works better because of territorial dimensions. I live in a country that is probably smaller than New York, it's too easy for such ideas to spread vigorously. We had a party called the national front, they were nationalists but not fascists, or at least they said... The party was made illegal after.. Why? Because their members were jailed, accused of murders and other violent crimes against gays and black people, drug trafficking, sexual exploitation, they were members of nazi brotherhoods all over europe, and of course with all members arrested the party had to end. And I will repeat something you may have not read, this isn't solely a national prohibition, it's implicit in the EU policies, the EU doesn't like fascism (even though I sometimes suspect they are fascists of some kind), the EU likes democracy and human rights, any EU member that allowed fascism would have to restrict it or they would bail out immediately
I have no problem barring an operational party that encourages or supports the violation of laws on the books barring violent crime etc.
I don't like the idea of shutting up the expression of ideas out of fear. I think the best antidote is reasoned argument, perhaps coupled with mockery and/or humorous scorn.
I understand the EU not wanting member-states adhering to a fascist national model, and I have no issue with that either. I am discussing the limitation of the right of individuals to freely express themselves.
Quote:Discussing fascism is not promoting, you are free to discuss fascism, did you even read the argument? Propagating actively is punished, not debating it or talking about it
I may have missed that, and if so I apologize.
Quote:It's reduction for the common good. And the main focus is not about free speech, but prohibiting fascist parties and associations (and racists, nazis). I never say there wasn't a reduction, but if we felt all rights unrestricted there would be immeasurable collisions and conflicts
I never argued for unrestricted rights. That's a strawman representation of my point.
Quote:Damn, you really didn't read the argument did you? Please go read the article 18 I presented from my constitution, that clearly stops the government from taking away our rights, restrictions are allowed exceptionally if they threaten a common good. And what's right is defined in my constitution, it's not up to the government to decide, if they disrespect the constitution, they can be fired by the president. The constitution is clear in it's exceptions, the prohibitions I mentioned being some of them, and is also clear that human/fundamental rights must never be taken away, and there are no restriction to those, so your argument to 'not trust my government' largely fails. And it's truly naive of you to make your point without reading the restrictions and guarantees constitutions in europe have. Do you really think europeans were dumb enough to not predict slippery slope? Of course they weren't, we have rights to protects us from exaggerated restrictions.
I came late to this discussion, it's true. I opined about what I consider to be an unhealthy restriction of the freedom of speech. I wasn't opining about your constitution directly, but simply one particular element of it.
However, I stand by my opinion that trusting any government is dangerously naive.
Quote:I will repeat this, the emphasis is not on restricting a specific right, but on banning anything that promotes going against human dignity. Human dignity is clearly defined in the constitution and those articles are unchangeable by revision. So there is no way for the government to turn things against us, we thought very well on how to deal with this. If the constitution praises human dignity, there is no reason to allow people to promote behavior that is against the most basic constitutional principles. And the constitution is not subjective to acceptance, you may disagree with it's content, I partially disagree with some things, but you have to accept it as a fundamental law.
I understand that. I hope your faith in the rectitude of your government is well-placed.
Quote:I tolerate people thinking differently, I don't tolerate them promoting violence, against me or other people. Tolerating the intolerant could lead to an intolerant society that doesn't tolerate the tolerant. Think about it
Rather than interpret any support of fascism as a call to violence or genocide (a postion which strikes me as overbroad), I think the appropriate solution is to prosecute the crimes (threats, assaults, etc) as they actually occur.
Quote:Misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the nazi regime, but about German's restrictions after WW2, they consider human dignity sacred. They went as far as banning a laser tag game for simulating murder, something I consider too much
My apologies for misreading you in this passage.
