Summary
Australia has enacted strict anti-hate crime laws, mandating jail sentences for public Nazi salutes and other hate-related offenses.
Punishments range from 12 months for lesser crimes to six years for terrorism-related hate offenses.
The legislation follows a rise in antisemitic attacks, including synagogue vandalism and a foiled bombing plot targeting Jewish Australians.
The law builds on state-level bans, with prior convictions for individuals performing Nazi salutes in public spaces, including at sporting events and courthouses.
Would, say, an actor playing a Nazi officer in a movie be protected from this?
I used to be a person that believed very strongly in freedom of speech and that anything which was categorized as a philosophy or belief shouldn’t be censored.
However, after seeing how hard fascism has taken hold in America, I’m beginning to change my mind.
Freedom of speech was created so citizens could feel safe criticising the government, not so they could spout hatred about people who were different to them. You can say whatever the fuck you want, up until it makes others unsafe, that doesn’t mean oh they say bad words and im offended, or i don’t like them promoting that candidate over the one i like that has christian* values. No, that means you words and actions intentionally incite hatred and violence.
All this hiding behind free speech shite thats been happening for a very long time has just given the shit cunts the courage to be shit cunts. And now because the US shat the bed and its been spreading the world, the rest of the world needs to sanitise.
time has just given the shit cunts the courage to be shit cunts
There’s something to be said for that, knowing they are shit cunts.
It’s crazy watching the left throw freedom of speech under the bus as soon as people start saying things they don’t like.
Really makes me proud not to consider myself a liberal at this point. Ya’ll are nuts.
American fascism is unique because it solely exists to distract the working class from their exploitation by the ruling class.
In other words, it’s cool to be a useful idiot because that’s what makes rich people richer the fastest.
I think it should be legal to do exactly one free punch on anyone who does a nazi salute.
I say two
Because if you don’t see the nazis, then it’s OK that they’re nazis
Good. This needs to be worldwide. They need to reeducate the people as to
A: Why the Nazis were bad beyond ‘they wanna kill people!’ Their utter disgust of science and technology, and how their social policies were actively fucking over their own people in addition to others. B: Just how incompetent the Nazis were, and were far from a hyperefficient machine. C: Just how bad they were at science and despite their demonization, West Germany was never fully denazified and how many former Nazi officers returned to work as politicians and military officers.
There is a plethora of books written before and during WW2 that showcased just how evil the Nazis were and how fucked their society was. They also need a review of Mein Kampf and how Hitler dictated it. Exactly like how Trump dictated the Art of the Deal to a writer and did not write it himself.
My suggestion of one book written during the Nazi Era is Education for Death by Gregor Ziemer. The society it showed was really, REALLY fucked. How anyone could think this was a paradise is beyond me. Most modern fascists, with their donut bodies and chinless faces would be the types considered feeble and probably sterilized as a ‘charity’.
I don’t see how mandatory jail time helps with “They need to reeducate the people”
People tend to get further radicalized in prison, not less.
If you want to Re-educate people you need to invest in education in the first place.
Once someone buys into Nazi rhetoric it can take decades to deprogram them. How do you suggest this to be done when it takes far shorter amount of time to spread their rhetoric?
Their point is that not only does jailing them not deprogram them or prevent them from spreading their rhetoric, it is more likely to have the opposite effect.
That is a poor point and allowing it to spread is the reality we are actually facing.
Case in point. Germany has been tightly controlling this for several decades. Is their society now overran by Nazi rhetoric? The answer is no.
Being German, unfortunately the answer to that is yes, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum, it’s because the media and politicians have been courting right wing ideologies over the past 20 years to an extent that things have become normalized that should have never been normalized, e.g. framing asylum seekers as „migrants“ and adopting dehumanizing language against them, which has led to us having AFD polling at 20% and CDU at 30%.
CDU has recently collaborated with the right wing extremist AFD to push through a proposal for an anti-migration bill that violates our constitution. There has been an uproar but CDU and AFD actually polled higher after this. Our country is in deep trouble and we’re moving into a very scary direction.
Corps always swing right…darn.
Thank you for that perspective. It is sad to see all that diligence being chipped away.
That example proves the first users point. The answer to the German question is that they spend a great deal of money on having an excellent education system, and spend a lot of time educating their youth with an honest, unflinching look at the history of Nazism and fascism.
I’m not even saying don’t throw people in jail, I’m simply saying it is pure idiocy to believe that will do anything at all to help the underlying problem.
The answer to the German question is that they spend a great deal of money on having an excellent education system,
I think it was more that they had their country completely flattened due to them being fascists, and didn’t want it to happen again.
Some people need to be separated. This isn’t about censorship, it’s about group dynamics.
Let’s take it from both angles - just to avoid politics. A disruptive kid in a classroom affects every other kid. Get rid of that kid, and suddenly the whole classroom improves. Everyone can agree to that.
The other side - a company has a pro-union worker. Shitty company doesn’t like not controlling their workers, so they find a way to fire them.
Back to the Nazi, separate them from the rest of society. We don’t need them.
Back to the Nazi, separate them from the rest of society.
Permanently. Like how we permanently separated Nazis from the rest of the world in the 1940s.
I don’t see how mandatory jail time helps with “They need to reeducate the people”
Jail doesn’t work for Nazis. The world learned only one things solves the “fascism problem”.
It depends upon whether Australian prisons are focused on rehabilitation or punishment.
facists are deadend for humanity
Just how bad they were at science
Operation Paperclip.
Those were the exceptions. When it came to things like medical science with experiments on POWs and concentration camp prisoners they were so abysmal it wasn’t funny.
First, I despise the fucking Nazis and Communists. The disgusting human experiments that were conducted by the Germans and Japanese were gobbled up by the Allied medical professionals.
you can just call them fascists
I feel like this copypasta is mandatory here:
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
I first saw this on reddit
Also this idiot performing a nazi salute outside court after just being sentenced, got busted. What a nimrod.
“No charges to be laid over alleged Nazi salute made by officer at Victoria Police academy”
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/104796744
Cops get to be a little Nazi as a treat.
Yeah. There’s not a lot of information there though. Who really knows what happened.
Maybe the police covered it up. Maybe it wasn’t a Nazi salute.
This guy was pretty emphatic. I mean there was nothing about how she’s a good officer or maybe a misunderstanding or whatever. That was a sincere and direct statement of position and intent to prosecute any offenders.
I think a distinction can be drawn between this and what Australia is reported to have done. Imo, this is an example of social intolerance, and I’d argue that there is a sharp distinction between that and policing behavior through the use of governmental force. So, I don’t see this excerpt as being a supportive argument for Australia’s new law; I see it as being an example of how the issue can be handled socially.
That’s a fair point. I didn’t really post it thinking “this anecdote supports this law”. I just think it’s worth remembering the insidious manner in which these organisations encroach on society.
Obviously laws are intended to be policed through governmental force, but they’re also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable.
For example, if a society legislates that the age of consent is 16, then people being charged with statutory rape is only a small part of the impact of that law. In Australia we literally have police giving presentations in schools to ensure that teenagers are aware of the laws that exist to protect them, and how something that might seem innocent to a 15 year old (like sending your crush a photo of your boobs or something), can have dire consequences. In summary, the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will.
Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate.
The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.
[…] The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.
Presumably, this is under the assumption that education and awareness are insufficient means to that end.
It’s not really an assumption. Clearly, education and awareness has been insufficient.
[…] Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate. […]
For my own reference, do you have any empirical sources to back up the claim that opinions sympathetic to fascism are accelerating? I’m not disputing your claim — I just like sources.
No.
[…] [laws are] also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable. […]
[…] the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will. […]
That this isn’t necessarily true: For example, if a society is ruled by a tyrannical government, then there is a divergence between the laws imposed on the citizenry, and what the citizenry thinks is socially just.
Sure ok but in a democracy the presumption is that law makers have the support of the public.
In this specific case most (maybe all?) Australian state’s and territories have already enacted similar laws, the federal law just reinforces them. That doesn’t really seem tyrannical?
deleted by creator
Yes that’s how corruption works
Send nazi pig Elon there on a one way flight.
Hey now! Australia is probably sick of everyone just sending criminals there!
I don’t think this behavior should be socially tolerated; however, I don’t think it’s a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.
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.)
-
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.
-
Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective? I’m not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons with non-violent offenders.
Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective?
Fines are generally not as effective as we’d like, because fines only affect the poor. If you’re wealthy, a fine is nothing to you. If a working class person espousing Nazi ideology were to be fined, say, $10,000, that could possibly make them bankrupt. If Elon Musk was fined $10,000 every time he said something directly aligned with the Nazis, he’d still be a multi-billionaire.
Now, sure, we can adjust fines as a percent of income, for instance, which helps, but generally speaking, the loss of autonomy (imprisonment) discourages bad behavior more than the loss of money, thus it tends to be a better way to prevent given behaviors from occurring.
I’m not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons […]
I understand, and I agree to an extent, but I think if the problem is the for-profit prisons, we should focus on not having for-profit prisons, rather than not prosecuting what should be crimes just because the current prison system is quite bad.
[…] with non-violent offenders.
Nazis are inherently violent. They may not directly harm an individual, but the ideology revolves around harm coming to other groups. (e.g. how the Nazis killed Jewish people, advocated for the death of homosexuals, etc) When someone supports Nazism, they directly support an ideology that effectively mandates the death of many.
In the same way that I believe health insurance CEOs should be considered murderers when they deliberately implement bad algorithms that deny claims for the sake of shareholder profit, even though they didn’t directly cause a death, I believe that people who support ideologies that can lead to the death of many should be treated maybe not as someone who has done a murder, but as someone who allowed the means for a murder to happen, knowingly, gladly, and deliberately.
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 clarify 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.
References
- 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.
- Policing speech is incompatible with the freedom of speech.
- ¶1
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.
[…] 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. […]
I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech [1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association [1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship [2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech [3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).
All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.
References
- Title: “Liberalism”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:53Z. 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. […]
- Liberalism espouses freedom of speech.
- ¶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. […]
- Liberalism espouses freedom of association.
- ¶1.
- Title: “Freedom of speech”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-03T14:50. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:55Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. […]
- Word: “Censorship”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:56Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship.
- §“noun”
- §“noun”
- Word: “Censor”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:57Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring.
- §“verb”
- §“verb”
I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech
Yes, it does. The extent to which I support any individual’s freedom of speech only extends until that speech causes demonstrable harm. Unfettered free speech has no beneficial social utility compared to free speech that has restrictions for things that cause great social harm.
People often get caught up in the idea of “free speech = good, therefore anything I disagree with should still be allowed to be said,” when it doesn’t actually provide any value to let them do so, and actually harms society in the process. People have the right to say almost anything they want, but if we know the things they’re saying inevitably lead to fascist systems of power that oppress and kill millions, then restricting their free speech as much as possible is always justifiable, because doing so directly reduces the chances of people dying unjustifiably.
- Title: “Liberalism”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:53Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
[…] 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”.
Generally speaking, espousing/engaging in the support of many harmful beliefs traditionally held by Nazis, and generally fascists more broadly since Nazism is just a branch of fascism, such as:
- Supporting the actions of the Nazi party historically (e.g. saying the Nazis were right to kill Jewish people, saying “Heil Hitler,” or doing the Nazi salute in a clearly deliberate manner)
- Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal
- Belief in a so called “master race” or the subordination of other races for the benefit of another/the nation
- Advocating for the imprisonment/killing of homosexual/transgender individuals (the exact category of people at risk here can change over time, since fascism just re-selects a new group of people to attack once the former has been exterminated/ostracized enough)
- Religious nationalism by any denomination
- Advocating to eliminate unions for the benefit of corporations/the state
- Ultra-nationalist rhetoric
- Advocating for an expansion of the police state
- Views of immigrants as sub-human
- etc.
Practically speaking, I think it would probably make the most sense to judge whether somebody is a “Nazi” legally, by requiring at least a few of these tenets to be met before any trial could take place to prevent false imprisonment and the like, but as these views are objectively harmful to society, I don’t believe they should be allowed to flourish, full stop.
If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.
[…] 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, I agree that 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.
Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:
(referencing your other comment for consolidation purposes)
I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.
So what we’ve established is that:
- You are intolerant of their views…
- …and won’t socially accept them…
- …but if given the choice to force them to stop the behavior, you are no longer willing to not tolerate them, at that extent.
Your stance is categorically "I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that."
So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?
[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?
It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.
Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.
[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]
I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?
[…] 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.
Liberalism has proven ineffective at keeping fascists out of power I say we do something else.
deleted by creator
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.
- Title: “Liberalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
[…] 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.
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.”
[…] 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.
Okay, let’s throw that out then, and look at this objectively. Social shunning or unemployment does not discourage something more than imprisonment, because not only does imprisonment do all of those things, it also restricts individual autonomy altogether, and is thus a more harsh punishment than just denying someone business or employment. Stating that businesses rejecting Nazis will somehow be more of a punishment than arresting them is quite irrational.
Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them, whereas ideally, the law doesn’t care how much money you have, and if you break it, you go to jail. Obviously the wealthy are able to skirt many regulations using money, but there are many that they can’t. If a billionaire stabs someone in broad daylight, they go to jail regardless.
[…] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]
Hm. Your statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis” is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis”, I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition [1]; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place [2], assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn’t, it’s plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.
References
- “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-08T16:40Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:13Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
- ¶1.
[…] The defining characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, [competitive markets], price systems, recognition of property rights, self-interest, [economic freedom], work ethic, [consumer sovereignty], decentralized decision-making, profit motive, a financial infrastructure of money and investment that makes possible credit and debt, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor, production of commodities and services, and a strong emphasis on innovation and economic growth. […]
- ¶1.
- “Majoritarianism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-01-15T01:23Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:19Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
- ¶1.
Majoritarianism is a political philosophy or ideology with an agenda asserting that a majority, whether based on a religion, language, social class, or other category of the population, is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. […]
- ¶1.
the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition
The government rarely actually steps in, even in cases of demonstrable monopolies. This is very easy to see in our world today, and will always be the case as long as you live in a capitalist system. Capitalism grants power to the capital holders by allowing them to buy the means of productions, restricting the power of workers to mobilize against corporate action, elect representatives not favorable to capital owners, etc. It causes anti-monopolistic tendencies to waver, because in a system built on being able to buy up businesses, capital concentration is the design, not just an unintended side effect.
if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place
A group of people do not need to be the majority of the population to hold drastically more wealth, and thus a direct ability to impact the choices of businesses. See: the top 1% of wealth holders owning 30% of wealth, and the bottom 50% of wealth holders owning just a few percentage points.
Critically though, we need to look at the possibility of such a drastically negative outcome occurring in both of our possible systems. In mine, Nazism simply is not given a chance from the start. It is not given the opportunity to even attempt a power grab, because those who publicly spread the ideology are imprisoned.
In yours, they are given the ability to spread their ideology, still get employment and buy goods at sympathetic businesses, can gain functional societal acceptance by accumulating wealth, and so on. Your system does less to stop Nazi ideology from spreading than mine does. It is fundamentally less hostile to Nazis.
Now, I’m going to try consolidating my responses to all your other replies in this one comment, since I want to try and keep this tidy.
I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?
They can do so, but they are less effective. We as a society, generally, hold distaste for people who do murders. If we lived in a society where nobody was ever imprisoned for murder, would we see less murder? Of course not, because the only consequence to doing so would be social shunning, but you would still be free to do whatever else you please in your life, and if you’re a person that doesn’t care what people think of you, or can surround yourself in a community of like-minded murderers, then social shunning does nothing to disincentivize you from murdering more people. Imprisonment exists for a reason, that being it is more effective than other means of preventing behavior, such as social shunning.
The exact same logic applies to Nazism. The ideology, after spreading far enough and gaining power, inevitably leads to outcomes that most of us would find highly undesirable, such as the genocide of entire groups of individuals, and thus should be treated as such, with the strongest force possible to reduce the chance of it spreading by as much as possible.
I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).
Sorry if I was unclear by what I meant here. I meant specifically that imprisonment isolates you from the rest of society, by locking you up either in a cell block with very few other people to communicate with (relatively speaking) or by putting you in solitary, with no people to communicate with. You objectively have less ability to interact with other human beings, and have been “shunned” as a result. Or at least, you experience similar effects. (Social deprivation, being placed in situations only involving other people rejected from the common populace, etc) Again, apologies if I was unclear.
It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.
Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.
I understand this point a lot, and I do think it’s a quite justified opinion to have. If we can’t be certain our views are moral, we want to do what requires the least harm to come to people, in case we’re wrong.
This
I fear tyrannical overreach
is a good fear to have, but if this logic was applied consistently, then we wouldn’t imprison anybody, for any offense, because we can’t actually be 100% confident that we were making the right choice in imprisoning them. As I mentioned earlier, we already know what Nazi ideology leads to in the end, we’ve seen its effects before, and with the rise of fascism in America with Trump’s second term, we’re seeing it begin again.
Just like how we could observe that murder negatively impacts the wellbeing of local communities, and societies as a whole, we can observe that what tends to arise from Nazi rhetoric also produces those same outcomes. For instance, Trump’s new executive orders are doing things like cutting billions in aid that currently keep many people alive in struggling countries, who are now likely to die from a lack of aid. His policies will be resulting in a significant shortfall in spending on critical programs people need to stay alive, like Medicare/Medicaid, are cutting funding for research that develops critical cures for people’s health problems, he’s actively stripping policies that level the playing field for disadvantaged groups which will only result in their overall relative share of wealth going down over time, not to mention his billionaire supporting policy that’s actively funneling more of the few percentage points of wealth everyone not in the top 50% of people has to the top 1%, which will only make their lives harder.
We see the outcomes, more concrete moral biases we can often feel more confident in (e.g. less death is usually ideal, people should ideally be healthy and happy, etc) back up why those outcomes are wrong, so we can then feel confident in saying the thing that caused those outcomes should be legislated against.
If you believe Nazis are a harm to society, and we have all our concrete understanding of their misdeeds to back that up, then it is no different from any action we take against any other bad action to say that they should be imprisoned for the harm we know they do to society.
I understand it’s difficult to support something that you could end up being wrong on, that ends up overreaching, but if you do nothing more than the social shunning that already happened just recently right up through when Trump entered the Oval Office, then you get fascism, and we’re seeing, yet again, the harm that fascism causes.
- “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-08T16:40Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:13Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
[…] not only does imprisonment do [social shunning] […]
I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).
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.
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.
There was a lot more going on in Germany leading up to WW2.
Neo-nazis don’t have to deal with the Treaty of Versailles in 2025, for example.
well put. i still thoroughly disagree with you, mind, but this comment clicked my understanding of this argument.
[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]
Would you mind outlining why?
because giving them wiggle room in the law only for them to destroy that legal protection for everyone else only leads to disaster.
matter of fact it did in every country that ever had fascism take root. they openly want to take actual freedom away for everyone else.
Question for everyone supporting this: do you think saying women can’t think for themselves should be classified as hate speech?
Asking for a friend.
Fucking finally. Good shit Australia. Doing better than most. Watch Elmo throw a hissie fit. Pathetic
I hope he tests the waters there and Australia follows through.
Don’t kid yourself. Australia is also an oligarchy where corporations get most of what they want passed within days/weeks, with little to no debate, while popular or inconsequential policies are given months or years of debate (so the murdoch/oligarch propaganda machine can distract the public and tell them how to think).
There is no chance in hell either major party would imprison an American dictators right hand man. They’re both corporate whores at heart, with little/no virtue.
Don’t import this “both sides” bullshit just because you see everyone saying that about the US.
Criticising governments is fine, but Albo’s government is a polar opposite to LNP.
Any politician needs to function within our capitalist society. If you don’t like that, have a revolution and return us all to agrarian communism. In the mean time the PM needs to keep corporate Australia ticking over. That said, there’s a reason Labor has such deep ties to Australia’s unions. Labor has very consistently improved wages and terms for employees, while LNP wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
Labor got me two pay rises, basically pays for my daily coffee.
That’s just in this term though.
There’s a ratchet effect over many decades.
Agreed.
I’m so sick of this absolutist free speech bullshit that wants to make room for terrorist ideologies to hide.
There is no free speech absolutism. Dare to criticize him or make fun of him and you are banned and ostracized. It’s a Nazi enablement pure and simple.
He’s a free speech absolutist- when it comes to his own speech.
It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing. I don’t want to identify as a conservative, but I definitely want to conserve institutions of justice and whatnot and not have them corrupted by right-wing crypto cucks.
It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing.
For what it’s worth, politics is more complex than conservation and change. The status quo is what got us here, so we must to better than merely conserve.
Maybe Musk should take one of his Boeing Cyberplanes to Australia
Kudos to Australia. Leon Hitler should travel there, have his arrested and deposited in the middle of the Great Australian Desert.
Sending people to jail is a great way to make sure they don’t spend time embroiled in Nazi ideology on every level. Probably the best way to make sure someone never comes in contact with a single particle of Nazism, is to send them to prison.
(Can you tell I’m american?)
Yeah, but most of the people I imagine pulling a Nazi salute “as a joke like Elon (were so hilarious haha look at those [insertracialslur])” might be deterred from pulling their shitty “joke” if it actually means prison time automatically. It doesn’t matter if it’s just like a week. Try explaining to an employer why you didn’t attend the important meeting you had because you sat in jail for a week for a fascist “joke”.
It’s illegal to do it “in public”. So doing it at work is perfectly fine, as long as it isn’t a public place.
So doing it at work is perfectly fine
Alright. Make me a video of you giving the salute to to your boss during work hours and we’ll see how it goes.
Maybe he works at Tesla? Hell probably get a raise and employee of the month trophy.
As if he ever saw Elon while working at the factory floor, loltz. And the manager might not take too kindly, no matter who they work for. Lots of them prolly got their job before Elon went batshit insane. Or took mask off, whichever. Or pre- crippling ketamine addiction. Idk.
It was a joke, chill bro.
Well both can be true.
I did understand it was a joke but also yes I wish I could but there’s laundry to do and a genocide to stop.
Woosh
Work like at a business open to the public?
Obviously not on the street, but on private business premises.
Like disturbing the peace laws.
I was joking but it seems people don’t understand humor.
Yes, I’m famous for not understanding humor.
Everyone on Lemmy knows me as a 100% humorless person.
I mean free speech is a deeply contradictory concept, which i largely support, however, people having the “right” to harm others as fascists mean to do is not a human right but a right of domination, which I am actively and deeply set against. And prison justice is just a “right” to harm others, only one that we are conditioned to live with.
It does create an opportunity for a little irony, which I can’t pass up.
But part of my criticism is not just “Nazis exist in prison” but “carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere but the fringes of the prison abolition movement.
And things like prisons and police, the existence of many kinds of crime, particularly property crimes, need to be considered historically contingent, so that no matter how much we want to just delete all prisons they do serve as a solution to contradictions that arise within our society. So that the struggle to abolish carcerial punishment has to be simultaneously replaced with something better. Which is just and worth fighting for.
Getting rid of heil Hitler hand gestures in public might prevent the public proliferation of “signs” of fascism, the actual causes of it are institutional and function in cooperation with systems of institutional racism, Etc., and until those tendencies are abolished, and that is the worst expressions of class domination within capitalism, fascism will always be a problem to contend with.
In other words, we have fascism because we have prisons. Or rather, the underlying logic of fascism is just the underlying logic that justifies carcerial justice, taken to its natural conclusions.
So its not just irony, its like a double irony
“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywher
Yeah because it’s childish strawman. Of course it’s not the same to have to spend a day in a drunk tank because you lost control and were kicking off mirrors from cars as it is to be marched into a gaschamber.
That’s false equivalency.
Also, if you had ever picked up a single philosophy book, you’d know how much positive and negative freedoms and the right of the government to impose those on others is actually discussed. It’s like >95% of what philosophy has been going on about for the 1000 years.
Getting rid of heil Hitler hand gestures in public might prevent the public proliferation of “signs” of fascism, the actual causes of it are institutional and function in cooperation with systems of institutional racism,
Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
In other words, we have fascism because we have prisons.
Fucking roflmao, literally. Well I didn’t drop to the floor but I did roll around giggling a bit on my chair. I would suggest reading “Leviathan” from Hobbes, but since I know you won’t, here’s a video sort of summarising Hobbes’ thoughts, by a professional philosopher called Alain de Botton and his channel “School of Life” POLITICAL THEORY - Thomas Hobbes
Alain de Botton did some really good philosophy videos, maybe for the BBC.
Recommended.Alain de Botton omg and you thought I was funny.
Anyway you completely missed my point wrt false equivalence since both things are true. Its called nuance, dingus. I believe in the continual progress of human spirit, similar to Hegel’s formulation of freedom, but I’m a materialist and Marxist, not right wing liberal like Hobbes. Because believe it or not society has progressed since the 1680s when the ascendent English bourgeoisie seized control of the British empire and needed rational justification for their rule – which Thomas Hobbes Leviathan is. Its a piece of political philosophy, and certainly worth studying. I haven’t read it and might not, but I know others that have. I get the gist I don’t need Alain de Buttman’s watered down baby philosophy for online babies, please and thank you.
I’ve read thousands of pages of philosophy. You’ve watched thousands of hours of vaush and destiny. We are not the same. Come back when you’re capable of making a point or having an adult discussion. I’ll be here.
Actually if you could point to the place in the book where he argues definitively for carcerial justice over other forms, effectively addressing arguments that have come since from intellectuals like Michel Foucault and Angela Davis, as well as the abolition movement more broadly, that would be super helpful to a big dumb idiot like me a hurr durr
I believe in the continual progress of human spirit
Good luck with that happening and allowing Nazis to be Nazis right out in the open.
Nazism, and I’m not sure why you don’t know this, is the opposite of progress.
I’m not false equivocating in order to take the fight off of fascism, both things are true. My point is we don’t fight fascism by allowing courts to make performative gestures outlawing performative gestures, its done by organizing against the worst tendencies of capital. By all means ban Nazi salutes it won’t affect anyone I associate with, and if it did I would no longer.
Lots of people seem to think having a slight criticism is the same as trying to bad faith rhetorically muddy the waters to give space for fascism. But no, that’s what liberalism does, consistently.
Oh you’re laughing at it because he’s so familiar to you because it’s the most “hardcore” philosophy you’ve ever engaged with? Yeah, I assumed as much.
That’s why I assumed you wouldn’t read “Leviathan” and from all your writing it’s clear you never have previously. Or even listened to a summary. Perhaps had those playing in the background, pretending like you’ve been listening to them.
The way you can’t distinguish a thought from the philosopher who brought it up shows that you larp as being read instead of being read.
I don’t need Alain de Buttman’s watered down baby philosophy for online babies, please and thank you.
Oh you most certainly do. It would definitely improve your skill on larping as a philosopher if you had the ability to pay any attention.
I’ve read thousands of pages of philosophy.
Thanks. That got rid of some phlegm. THOUSANDS of pages you say. Wow. That must be like… at least a half a dozen books. :D
We’ll continue the conversation when you understand how asinine your earlier garbage is. If you weren’t an egoistical teenager who’s all about what other’s perceive for them to have read and done and actually put import on understanding the things people say to you, you would at least skim what the Leviathan is about so you’d know what point I was making. But the fact you’re incapable of even understanding that means that I’m simply not interested in anything you have to say as you have zero intellectual curiosity. That sort of youthful egoism is fine, as long as it’s driven by actual intellect.
Yours isn’t.
Your previous comment. It looks a bit like how ridiculous it looks to you to now look illustrations of what people in the late 19th century thought the 21st century would look like. Firemen with flappy wings and whatnot. It’s utterly ridiculous because you know that would be the absolute worst way to go about flying. Either the wings would have to be absolutely massive or go really fast and still they’d be much worse than most other options we have for personal flying we can already achieve, like the jetpacks. The reason I’m saying this is that is what it looks like to me when reading your “arguments”. I can see how someone ignorant of political theory might formulate a naive theory like that, but the theory itself is utterly ridiculous and wouldn’t work because of facts you do not seem to know.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity, you’ll look up what the Leviathan is about (while remembering to distinguish between an author and an idea) and then you’ll see why your earlier assertions are laughably naive.
Why are you so rude and mean? I actually have an interest in philosophy, which you apparently do too? But I don’t use it to like make people feel stupid. I’m nobody. I’m just like a guy with a job and a family that reads hard books. I’m proud of what little intellectual accomplishment I’ve made, and I encourage others to study. But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan! I’ll read books by people who have read it, but not Alain de Botton because he is a turd, but despite a good measure of intellectual curiosity, more than most in my life at least, it isn’t something that will come up for me. I’m glad you got so much out of it. made it into your whole identity maybe, but it hasn’t come up for me in the way that will lead me to read it, at least not yet! All I can say if on my very long reading list, it isn’t on there and I don’t see that changing this year.
This book is so important and crucial to your point yet you can’t point to a single line or paragraph to support your non existent arguments, which amount to “ur dum”. Why not demonstrate how great a book it is by quoting a passage that is relevant? L
I’ve read more than 6 philosophy books in the last 6 months. You are strawmanning me, because I’m not who you have delusionally convinced yourself that I am. Its completely unnecessary and not at all about the topic at hand.
I’m neutral and you’re reading into it.
If you find it offensive that I caught on about you actually not having the authority which you pretend to have on the subject, then the “hostility” is from your own non-acceptance of your ignorance, not me calling out your hypocrisy. If you don’t pretend to be an expert falsely, people can’t shame you for falsely pretending to be an expert, can they?
But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan!
Then don’t make statements like
“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere
Because it DOES GET DISCUSSED, you just “don’t fucking care” to read the discussion.
Just to alleviate the “you’re so mean” thing, the point here is very shortly that you can not have a society without some sort of a government. That probably sounds very authoritarian, because lots of people don’t use these words in the same context as they’re used in the philosophical discussion of politics. It’s because any society that comprises of more than three members will have some sort of rules. And those rules will then be enforced in some way. And that is the question they try to answer in these HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION that isn’t hidden anywhere and accessible to pretty much literally everyone in the world through the miracle of the internet, which you claim doesn’t exist.
They do explore the alternatives. Pretty much all of them. You should just start with Hobbes because he sort of started the conversation because it was around the time belief in the “divine right of kings” was already faltering. And since you “don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan”, you might put on the “baby philosophy” or whatever you called it (seems you’ve cleaned up your answer a bit) from de Botton and quickly listen to the cliffnotes on what he thought about it from a guy — who is making pop-philosophy videos, yes, but — who also is a professional philosopher and is objectively communicating their ideas rather skilfully. As that will save you time on reading the centuries of books on the matter as you can get the cliffnotes or sort of “previously on:” so that you can get to the book that you’re more interested in reading but which comments a lot on the earlier works which you may or may not have read.
Like 14 years ago or something I had just recently seen Slavoj Zizek, and I enjoyed his analysis (and honestly just his person.) So after watching some of his speeches and the The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema and The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, I decided to pick up a book of his. It’s genuinely the only book I’ve ever just given up on, as back then I was nearly as read and it made so many references to specific ideas of specific earlier philosophers, that I spent like a few days getting through just the first pages as I had to teach my self so much stuff backwardly before really understanding what Slavoj was trying to say. I also tried reading it without doing that and it was fine, you can keep up the context somewhat, but I noticed after a chapter or two that I had gotten something wrong on a fundamental level and had been getting some tiny idea wrong for a few pages and it had coloured my read of it and I had to do it all again.
So, because Hobbes is one of the fundamental thinkers on the subject, despite his own personal political views, he does make good and fundamental points about society. They’re not too complex, so you honestly don’t need to read the entire book. Fucking read a wiki-article what do I care. I’m just trying to point out that because you’re trying to make spending a night in a drunk tank “as fascist” as marching people to a gas chamber, you don’t seem to have a too nuanced understanding of the necessities of certain control measures in a society.
Google “State of Nature” to start with idk.
Like idk how you’d expect me to politely inform you of just how wrong you were in that statement because it would require me to author a succinct reply that would still convey hundreds of years of philosophical ponderings which you thought didn’t even exist?
edit that wasn’t exactly that “shortly”. well, to me it was, but I gather other people perceive it differently sometimes
I sat on a jury recently and a large part of the case had to do with prison culture. It’s so incredibly sad how accurate this is.
My dad was a prison guard, I’ve thought about some of these dynamics a lot over the years.
Honestly what else is there to do? These people aren’t exactly going to change their minds, and letting them display hate in the name of free speech is only going to help them mobilize and elect more trumps in the world.
Well I say it elsewhere, but we need to really start to rethink carcerial justice as a solution to social problems. It doesn’t help, it just compounds the contradictions that lead to problems like crime, fascism in the first place.
I understand we can’t just snap our fingers to make it go away. But The first step is discussion.
Lets discuss freeing violent rapists.
No.
deleted by creator
Does imagining everyone that is locked behind bars as a violent rapist make you feel safe?
No, the vast majority never go to prison. I gave it as an example, i dont think you are pro rape. It’s just an example of incarcarating people in order to protect society. I believe that protecting people is the primary goal of incarceration. Better rehabilitation would obviously help this endeavour. I disagree completely with the idea of no incarceration as this would allow violence to flourish with no protection for those under threat.
Sorry I deleted that comment, I didn’t like my tone.
Personally I’m not a prison abolitionist. I’d like to see an end to it, ideally, but realistically that would be an amount of practical work beyond just simple reforms, the whole of society would have to be changed. I’m into that, which is why I don’t ideally dismiss it.
I treated it better elsewhere, here I just said “you can’t snap your fingers” but what I mean is prisons and police they actually are the answer to a lot of problems in society. I agree with you, I would like to see much more reform programs rather than the USA prison system that “needs” prisons, which isn’t to say every prison is a social necessity, more like there are political and economic incentive structures that make meaningful progressive change extremely difficult. But my father was a prison guard, and we don’t agree much on politics, especially when it comes to carcerial justice, but that man had seen some absolute monsterous behavior from people who are basically unreformable by any modern standard – and as much as I wish that wasn’t the case and I wish they had been given the opportunity for a better life where maybe they wouldn’t have lost every bit of their humanity, that doesn’t change reality.
However I do think that a society that proliferates carcerial justice the way that we do in the USA, which is all my experience is about, I dont know about Aussie prisons, is not one that is able to restore or even preserve the humanity of all its citizens. A society that makes monsters needs a place to put them; however a place to put monsters creates a demand for monstrousness that must be met. This is what I think it is possible and realistic to abolish.
Thanks for the response, I did take it personally but thanks for clarifying your position
I think we would agree that for profit prisons are an absolute atrocity. I harbour a lot of hate for certain types of criminals, but for profit prison is downright evil and corrupt right off the bat. Protecting the public must include rehabilitation or you’re just releasing monsters. I would separate violent and non violent, i would also throw every intervention at the problem and see what works, employ the success stories, end poverty fist and foremost. In my opininion, incarceration is necessary mostly because society has failed, in some caes it is however, unavoidable.
I appreciate your perspective and experience on the subject. Thank you.
I don’t know we do it, but I think addressing the root causes as to why people are drawn to hate groups or hateful beliefs would be better. Eliminating the symptom doesn’t solve the problem.
It’s a hell of a lot harder to join a hate group if you can’t identify any members to find out who to sign up with.
They can still easily identify each other online, social groups, clubs, etc. I would think that’s how most of these people get together anyway, and not from some rando on the street throwing up a nazi salute. Making the gesture illegal also doesn’t solve why people are this way. It doesn’t solve the problem. It just covers it up (imo).
I have no idea why you are so convinced that people are just as likely to join hate groups when they don’t know that they exist, but okay…
Because, as I said, they find each other online, in social settings, etc. Shit, the Aryan Brotherhood started as a prison gang. Banning the salute isn’t going to keep people from knowing about hate groups because that’s not how they find out about them to begin with.
I’m not arguing against banning hate speech, I’m just saying that that alone isn’t going to fix the problem. We also need to figure out why people are drawn to this stuff. Is it poverty? Lack of education? Lead in the drinking water?
Yes, no one is denying there are other ways to do it.
What you seem to be suggesting is that if you eliminate literally the most easy way to find who to sign up with when it comes to joining a hate group, it won’t make a difference.
What exactly do you think the point of public advertising is? Aesthetics?
I’mIn American prisons are white, black, Latin superiority gangs.
Someone performing a Nazi salute is already a Nazi.
Making the gesture illegal is a clear communication to all Australians that we will not tolerate this ideology.
See, I am overall against any and all limits of free speech but…
Yeah. Context matters. And in current world context, good job Australia, hope outher countries take notes.
but…
That’s where you lost me.
I don’t really understand this whole “free speech” thing. If it were ww2 would you be worried about nazis having free speech or would you do what needed to be done?
This isn’t WWII, we aren’t in war. By letting go of free speech you are letting goverment tell you what is ok to talk about, and by doing that you allow them to expand taboo. In times of need like today, that is necessary evil, however normally that is something out of horror.
For example, whether you agree or not, at the end of WW II communism was seen as almost as bad as nazizm, and in USA I think, may be wrong, that it was seen as worse. What’s bad is that every social policy is coupled with it mentally. If free speech wasn’t a thing, USA could tell it’s citizens that talking about nazizm, communism, social policies or unions is strictly forbidden under threat of, at least, financial fine.
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.
Knowing my luck, I’d get 12 months for having my arm at an unfavourable angle while giving directions.
Literal hate crimes, I’m all for. A gesture with your arm gets you 12 months? That’s too much, regardless of its origin or meaning.
I’ll say, likely wasting my digital breath, I do not support any sort of Nazi bullshit or affiliates. But truly, outlawing gestures is a next level, knee jerk reaction to a problem they don’t know what else to do to solve.
If you read the article, just a gesture with your arm does not land a person a 12-month prison sentence. It needs to be in public and in combination with: hateful speech, or a hateful act. It seems to be an add-on for specific types of hate crimes.
Excellent, then I’m all for it.
So Elon Musk would’ve been in the clear.
he alludes to the fourteen words right after the salute so you could make a case
Actually I don’t think so, because not only was it on a public stage, he also used racist dog whistles during his speech. If Musk had zeek-hailed like he did during that speech, in Australia, it’s possible he would have gotten 12 months.
It’s a nazi fucken salute mate. What part of it isn’t a hate crime?
The part where it’s raising your arm at an angle. You dislike it because of what it means and signifies, but imagine some group took ‘flipping the bird’ to align with their ideology and in 20 years your kid gets arrested for flipping someone off.
Obviously a silly example but you have to look past the context and think about what are we really doing here? Jailing people for a gesture?
That’s fucking wild.
While without context I’d agree that banning a gesture is a bit much, especially with such steep measures, I think that in a world when one of the de facto co-leaders of major if not the main world superpowers openly does nazi salute twice, we need to up the guard and cut this shit in the bud.
And as you said - we don’t know how to solve USA becoming a nazi state rapidly. Nobody does. And third reich ain’t gonna hold a candle to USA if they decide it’s time for blitzkrieg. So doingall we can to damage and reduce nazizm where we still can is admirable.
I generally don’t do “slippery slope” arguments, and I also dislike invoking the “paradox of tolerance”, but I will say that I think the messaging here is important.
To me, it’s not “just a gesture”. It’s a very clear and intentional demonstration of ideological alignment, and it’s an ideology of hate and intolerance.
I’m absolutely ok with expressing, as a society, that we will not accept this ideology amongst us. If they want to scuttle around through the cracks like cockroaches then so be it.
The problem is application of this kind of law tends to be highly subjective depending on who is in power. This law is ironically ripe for abuse by fascists. This type of free speech should be met with universal scorn, shaming, and ostracism, not jail.
Yeah nah. Any law is ripe for abuse by fascists.
To me the law is less about punishing Nazis and more of a clear statement that as a society we find this ideology unacceptable.
Fair point, best explained response yet.
You sound like those cops who tell victims of domestic violence that there’s nothing they can do until lives are being threatened.
Cool dude. You sound like a battered house wife that sticks up for her abusive husband.
