[ SECRET POST #2951 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2951 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The To-Do List, Brandy/Willy]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Amazing World of Gumball]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Agents of Shield]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Galavant]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Soukyuu no Fafner Exodus]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jamie Dornan from "The Fall"]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Neil Gaiman)













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 054 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

O_O I don't even understand. Free speech is one thing, but allowing the reincarnation of an organization which preaches genocide and successfully committed it.... yeah no I'm on the side of the countries who outlaw that shit.
I mean there's 'disagree' and there's 'you are a genocidal maniac'

[(Anonymous)]

Because thought-policing is bad, and we've seen what happens when we downright prohibit speech. Today's goodthink can be tomorrow's badthink.

Besides, I'd a lot rather know who those people are and keep them where I can see them than drive them underground.

[sarillia]

How is policing what people say outloud in a public space thought-policing? It's not about the thought but the action. I understand where you're coming from but people are way to quick to use that phrase.

[(Anonymous)]

Because "freedom of speech" also means "freedom to say things others might find offensive."

I mean, I get offended when people using "fucking" as Jesus's middle name, but you don't see me all over here policing that, even though it's dead common.

[sarillia]

That is indeed what freedom of speech means and it is an admirable goal. But thoughts and speech are different things. I was objecting to your use of the term "thought-policing", so I'm confused by how this is a reply to my comment.

[(Anonymous)]

Because holding rallies and shit is how they recruit more members. And also makes their targets feel incredibly fucking unsafe (well I'm just speaking for myself here).

When they're driven out of public spaces we're not depriving them of thoughts, we're depriving them of an audience. Which I damn well support.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't think outlawing the organizations does deprive them of members. I mean, it might deprive those specific groups of members, but there are still going to be plenty of people who are violent racist bigots and assholes and extremists. They're just going to be in groups with different names and iconography, but that doesn't make them less harmful. Arguably it makes them more harmful, because we don't immediately realize they're Actual Fucking Nazis.

I'm also not sure whether outlawing the groups doesn't fuel the persecution fantasies that seem to drive a lot of this kind of behavior and the conspiratorial mindset that underlies them.

I'm really sympathetic to the argument about feeling unsafe, though.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 for being fucking terrified seeing them :(

and I got to agree with you, I think that limiting their audience is worthwhile

[(Anonymous)]

Most of those groups don't get member by speaking randomly in public.
They target people that can be susceptible to their ideas and that's something they would do even if it was illegal.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you talking about America? Because it seems to me like every time I hear about hate groups meeting up for any kind of protest, they are met with MASSIVE groups (much bigger than them) that ridicule, mock, and counter-protest. Neo-Nazis are not on the rise, and the type of person that would join up with them probably didn't need to see the rally to be convinced that they are themselves a racist fucker.

[(Anonymous)]

Driving them out of public spaces also lets them recruit more members, because it gives them an additional weapon against the people they hate. We're not talking about logical, reasonable human beings here. They won't look at a ban on demonstrating and say "oh, yes, I see, we were violating these strictures against incitement to illegal activity, won't do that again". They'll see themselves as being oppressed and silenced by a government controlled by their targets.

And then they'll go preach that to susceptible people - people who already harbor bigotted ideologies, or people who are looking for someone, anyone to hate for their own misfortunes - and now instead of just spewing delusional babble about being persecuted, they'll have something to point to and say "we're being persecuted, and this is how". Which, in the particular political climate that exists in the USA with regards to free speech and any limitations placed on it (or who should be allowed it in the eyes of any given group), that kind of rhetoric is shockingly effective.

Other countries don't allow them to demonstrate. Other countries have also historically been a lot more discerning about where someone's free speech should end, so it is a hell of a lot harder for extremists to scream "we're being silenced" and have anyone listen.

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the thing about free speech in America. We have so many people spouting out the most ridiculous and sometimes hateful things 24/7 that most of it is white noise to us. What would get a rise and a gasp to say an English person would make your average American yawn. For example in England you can get charged for verbal assault for name calling someone. Like calling someone a "Fucking asshole cunt." To a New Yorker that's a morning greetings. Though strange enough having been around many nationalities I find that Americans curse less on average than say their Australian or Scottish counterparts.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it does much good to outlaw them.

[iceyred]

Really. Do we honestly expect these folks to say "Whelp. We're illegal now. Party's over, everybody go home."?

[sarillia]

Why outlaw anything then?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious about statistics, now, if anybody has really checked this sort of thing and what environment allows the most/least proliferation of these sorts of groups.
I mean I'd assume that if they're not out in public, you'd have domestic counterterrorism organizations whose job it is to monitor the wackos (and if they can't figure out who's dangerous without watching them march by and doing a head count, that's a pretty lousy agency)

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's a better move psychologically. You need to demystify them to the public.
Many people feel drawn to the "enemy" of any government they don't like.

And we all profit from them "demonstrating" their beliefs. otherwise we don't know when their members are increasing, or when people go along because they're small-minded and dissatisfied. Plus, we can make a sign by demonstrating against them.

Pretending that their attitude doesn't exist is worse than showing that there are MORE against them.

Openly anti-semitical political parties are another thing though.

[feotakahari]

The one power without which the Nazis could not have stood was the power to erase speech. Any document they didn't like, and any person who spoke out against them, might as well have never existed. I think preventing a government from having that power again is the best possible way to protect against their return.

[(Anonymous)]

Forcing them to "hide" their harmful believes just makes harder to do anything against them and as long as they can speak freely, other people can also speak freely against them.

[(Anonymous)]

We can still speak freely against their ideals even when Neo-Nazis aren't allowed to march, you know...

[(Anonymous)]

Except making illegal for a group to speak makes easier to do the same against other groups that may not be as harmful and it can even make a subject taboo to the point that it's not even possible to criticize it openly.

That's the main issue of any kind of censorship.
Drawing a clear and objective line is hard as hell and sooner or later the ability of silence people can be abused.

[(Anonymous)]

I keep seeing replies by people saying variations on "at least we know" and that it's better to have it visible. But I don't understand what good that does? I mean isn't the FBIs JOB to follow up on this sort of thing?
I mean seriously, does it make you sleep better at night saying "ah yes, I now know there are 1k Neo-Nazis in my city"?
I mean you the little person on the street aren't at the forefront of combating these movements, whether or not they're visible. Or do so many of you actually volunteer/work for intervention groups?

[(Anonymous)]

I keep seeing replies by people saying variations on "at least we know" and that it's better to have it visible. But I don't understand what good that does?

A lot of cities and towns aren't that big. There really is a good chance that you'll run into these people at random intervals. If you know they're neo-nazis, you can avoid them or treat them accordingly.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

Hadn't considered that, actually. But that means the excuse doesn't work for most of America's major cities. Or do they never get neo-Nazi rallies at all??

[(Anonymous)]

The FBI infiltrates and monitors these groups all the time and keep an active list of what they consider potential terrorist lists.