It wasn't really a problem for the Nazis though. Hannah Arendt explained how in a way defying reality is a badge of honor for members (of one of the onion layers of) totalitarian movements.
This is 100% off-topic and just about WP, but something just occured to me: I wish Wikipedia had a way to make new articles as stubs and mark them as such, so they don't show up on the main page, unless people are logged in and want that. Kinda like "showdead" on HN. Even better, make links to stub articles in other articles not be links either. I can't count the times I wanted to add something, but either didn't know enough about the subject or was too lazy to submit enough on the first try. I don't mean to sound entitled, but lowering the bar for "casuals" would be great, if it could be done in a way to not diminish quality (i.e. it would still have to be stubs about something that belongs in WP according to the rules, but not necessarily stubs of good quality). It's a bit disheartening to be shot down by deletionists who aren't even willing to give it some time.. if it can dishearten stubborn me I'm sure it disheartened a lot of people over the years, and who knows what articles could have been grown from tiny kernels by now.
Being a snob, I'm already bored by the incoming generation of bland, obedient.. hobbits. Eugenics to life to me is like pitch correction to singing, it's missing the point entirely.
edit: am I not allowed to my opinion? How is that less constructive than someone they're worried about being rendered useless? That's also just some random person giving their personal outlook.
But okay, I'll also give my 2 cents on leaving the planet as well: yeah, genetical engineering or transfering minds to machines would surely be necessary if you want to spread across the galaxy. But the shit non-skillfull way we treat ourselves and other life on this abundant Earth so far makes this also a more boring prospect to me than I wish it was. As people pointed out in the article about software bloat, there is no pressure anymore -- why not go all the way and go back to emailing BMP images? Similarly, if we "solve" our problems by leaving Earth, instead of mastering the lessons we so shamefully fail so far, instead of reaching a whole different ballpark of skill and tradition, letting that sink for another 100000 years, and then embracing technology to its full extent and blooming all over the galaxy -- it will be boring and lame compared to what we could be. It's like betting on aliens all being schmucks, too; if they aren't, they will not be impressed.
I like tightness, beauty, skill. Sue me.
> Ah, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dog shit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?
-- George Carlin, "Complaints and Grievances"
Look at George Carlin, and look at China, and tell me they're not a bunch of pussies. Heh.
> I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.
I didn't say "Yup, hateful ideology", I said "Yup, Nazis."
They run around with torches and swastikas and celebrate murder. What's controversial about that, and what does Twitter have to do with anything? I don't use Twitter. It's very telling how people constantly drag in shit like that to bloat and pad. Face Hannah Arendt, face Sebastian Haffner, face Erich Fromm; but your ignorance and shallowness will not keep me from shaking you and any other comers off.
> The problem is not them beeing clearly nazis, its there opponents never stopping with the censor-ship and persecution once they get going.
And if it wasn't this excuse to not denazify, it would be another.
> your limitation tendencies
That's like saying someone suggests cutting out cancer just because they like mutilating bodies.
But of course, I can't call that a tendency for mental masturbation, and warn of the consequences of it remaining unchecked, right? Right.
> until the sjw circus visited theire town
As someone who thinks the BLM chicks screaming at Sanders would be in jail if they had been white guys screaming at Hillary, as someone who things Google shit the bed with the "memo guy", as someone who doesn't even like Bill Maher anymore but like him wishes he could have Camille Paglia -- even that "circus" deserves more respect than those who think people marching with swastikas and torches are expressing an idea. I still have so much beef with "SJW", but still, there's priorities.
Yeah, they came to their town and "gave them attention". And shame on those who did not.
> manpiulated a large neutral crowd into supporting them
The fuck? So the SWJ manipulated people into liking Nazis? If ANYTHING IN THE WORLD can make you side with Nazis, you already have it in you, and the next set of questions I'd have for you would be about your childhood and adolescence.
> All political ideologues think their opposition wants to take away their freedoms. If you make the rule that people who want to remove freedoms don't get them
Analogous would be "if you make the rule that people who you think want to remove freedoms but actually don't" -- instead you're switching goal posts mid-sentence.
Why does this story about CF dropping the Daily Stormer have not simply one comment saying "Good."? Why is there even a discussion? No one is defending it explicitly, but many do implicitly.
I decided to never even attempt to enter the US somewhere after 2001. Not until a bunch of things change (well, they did change; for the worse). What's the use of flying across the big pond if you can get turned away that nilly willy?
> The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence
Well good luck then. Just like Hitler famously wanted people to not wait for his orders, but distill his wishes and creatively go beyond in doing things in his spirit to get official support later, the guy who drove his car full speed into people didn't need anyone to specifically tell them to do that.
> At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.
Oh, so the second the car approaches the crowd, time just stops and it gets "shut down"? No wait, that's totally not what happened and also what will happen as this shit repeats under a president who implicitly supports it and a populace that would rather berate those who DO want to shut it down than those who need shutting down.
Only very few will call for "specific acts of violence", I won't join you in holding your breath for that. Read Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner or don't. These aren't anecdotes, these are your betters, casting pearls before pigs. Pearls that were bought with suffering the likes of which neither you or I can even begin to imagine. But if you offer yourself as hostage to the Nazis, then you're out of what I consider polite society, too.
I'm not saying it, I'm asking it. What more do you need than swastikas and glorification of the holocaust and so on? I love how the bar there seems to be raised so high that even Adolf Hitler might not qualify as Nazi to some people here, but I simply ask a question, and that's being like a Nazi.
I can do and am things a Nazi cannot do and isn't. I also can be brutal and hateful, like when I get sick of all these snakes on this motherfucking plane. I can do everything they can, but also so much more. That is the difference.
Nothing about being German in there? Nothing about hating Jews? Or any of the other things that the Nazis espoused just because they were handy, and which had nothing to do with "the ideology" because there isn't one?
This is people talking to me about grammar who don't even know what a letter is. Read "Origins of Totalitarianism". Read Sebastian Haffner. Everybody is so interested in the subject, so knowledgeable about it, and so against Nazis.
The proof is in the pudding. You cannot disprove my with your straw men and having no clue about the nature of Nazism and related diseases, you can strike yourself from my phone book is all.
> I think the sentiment GP is trying to communicate is that many seem to throw the label out there without any further investigation as to whether its justified.
That's great, but totally irrelevant here, in response to me, in this context. When I call a dog a dog, I don't care that sometimes, somewhere, other people call a vase a dog. And it's incredibly rich in the context of "free speech" and whatnot: what use is my right to free speech, when people then also have the "right" to just replace what I say with some other anecdote in their mind? What use is being allowed to ask a question when people then just talk to each other about anything but the question? The protection of free speech arose in contexts where people suppressed speech because they otherwise would have to face it. If people don't face it anyway, there's no need to suppress any of it. And congratulations, too.