243
What can a city do when neo-Nazis start marching down its streets?
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
243 points (97.6% liked)
News
23376 readers
1809 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think the answer to that is not 'also arrest the Nazis,' it's 'don't arrest the left-wing protesters either.'
Balancing the scales doesn't solve the problem.
And neither does playing by the gentleman's rules of boxing when your opponent is using brass knuckles. Fucking "They go low, we go high"? Did we not learn our lesson? If a weapon is used, the correct answer is to make the opposition see why that weapon was banned in the first place - it's the same reason why many signatories of the Geneva Protocol allow for retaliation if chemical weapons are used against them.
So left-wing protesters should continue to be arrested as long as Nazis are also arrested? Really?
... what? Not arresting Nazis isn't going to magically un-arrest left-wing protesters.
It's also not going to arrest Nazis that have already done these things. So how about we don't arrest anyone for protesting and just make it legal from now on?
You're fucking kidding me, right? You don't pre-arrest people. You arrest people after they've done shit.
God, why didn't we think of that brilliant solution before? How many left-wing lawyers and political organizations have simply overlooked that we can just make it legal to protest?
I see, this is one of these "never try" situations. We could never stop left-wing protesters from being arrested so we should never try to stop it and advocate for that to end and instead just call for other people to be arrested too.
Because we shouldn't want people to have rights, we should want other people's rights taken away.
No, it's apparently one of those noble martyrdom things, where the correct response to getting brutalized by Nazis is to roll over and show how very moral you are by just passively taking it.
You do realize that this is already happening to left-wing protesters, right? The only thing you're advocating for is that left-wing protesters get the full force of the state laid down on them while Nazis are allowed to roam free because "It wouldn't be fair" to apply the same goddamn laws to them as long as those laws are on the books.
You've convinced me. Never try to get back rights that were taken away from you. Just get vengeance.
Vengeance is when you show why mutual disarmament is a good idea instead of showing that you won't fight back, and the less you fight back, the less vengeful you are.
Got it. Fight back, but not for your rights which have been taken away from you.
You do realize a society can do more than one thing at a time, right?
Like, demanding police chiefs to arrest Nazis under the same circumstances that they arrest left-wing protesters is not going to magically diminish the work of left-wing lawyers and politicians to redefine the rules so that protesters, in general, are not being arrested. Even application is kind of the point of laws, and not simply allowing but actually advocating that an unequal application of the law be perpetuated (because it wouldn't be fair if the Nazis got the same treatment as left-wing protesters) is, itself, incredibly damaging to the legitimacy of the government as a whole.
Fuck's sake.
That... was literally what I was saying.
Read it again.
Okay, but it won't happen, so what's the point of demanding it rather than just working to redefine those roles and working to elect politicians who will do so?
It reminds me of some vegans who go out and protest meat eating. That's not going to stop people eating meat. Working on campaigns to convince people why they should stop eating meat is what should be concentrated on.
I do not see what demanding they be arrested accomplishes when you and I both know they won't be.
This you?
And furthermore, it's a lot easier to get cops to arrest people than to get cops to not arrest people.
I don't know how I could have been any more clear that I was being sarcastic.
... yes. You were being sarcastic. Which is what makes that response contradict your current point.
You mock the idea that we should never try to stop something because "We could never stop it", yet, then say, without any sarcasm or irony, "Okay, but it won’t happen so what’s the point of demanding it" on another issue.
Do you... not see the contradiction?
I'm saying arresting Nazis won't happen but changing the laws to make it so that protesters won't get arrested at all is a possibility, especially on a regional or local level.
One relies on the cops cooperating. The other relies on just telling them they can't even be there.
Yes, and you dismiss the idea of attempting it because "it will never happen" after mocking the approach of "It won't happen so why try".
I legitimately don't know how to simplify this any further.
Do you... do you think the cops listen when they're told not to be somewhere and they want to be there? Do you think that's not cooperation?
Yes. I think cops will not go places if they're told they will be facing things like fines if they do. They like getting paid.
And I think it's much easier to do that on a local level than telling them to go arrest the Nazis.
So there's the power to coerce cops to follow the law, but not the power to coerce cops to do their job and ensure others are following the law. Do we have the power to make cops enforce any laws?
You think it's easier to make cops respect people's rights than it is to get them to arrest people they don't give a fuck about.
Okay.
Yes. It's called money.
Yes, if it costs them money.
I'm sure police chiefs will get right on that
I'm sure police chiefs will get right on arresting Nazis too. What's your point? We shouldn't advocate for not arresting people for protesting?
Left-wing protestors not getting arrested isn't even on the table here, so I don't see why the argument should be couched based on that.
Why isn't it on the table? Shouldn't it be on the table?
Because allowing these nazis to continue marching in the street will have zero impact on what happens to left-wing protestors, and denying these nazis the right to march on the streets will also have zero impact on what happens to left-wing protestors.
Okay, but you said left-wing protesters not getting arrested isn't on the table. Why not? Why shouldn't we do what we can to change that?
Yes, but I don't see how that applies to this situation. The jack boots who arrest people for expressing their First Amendment rights aren't going to stop just because some neo nazis were allowed to harass people on the streets via some left-wing action. They don't care about fairness or our rights and many of them are probably sympathetic to extreme right-wing groups.
I can't believe I have to keep explaining this... Cops do not do things if they are not paid. If you pass a law saying that cops will be fined for arresting protesters, they won't arrest protesters. They may be right-wing, they may be thugs, but they don't do things for free most of the time.
Is that really beyond the pale for a local municipality to pass such a law?
Left-wing protestors respect the social contract. NAZIs don't, and therefore do not deserve to be protected by it.
People don't deserve equal rights under the law? Are you sure that's the position you want to take up? Because it sounds like a very Republican position.
Punching NAZIs is always self-defense, even if they haven't punched you yet. 'Cause they're going to, 'cause that's what NAZIs do.
So you are saying that yes, the law should be applied unequally.
As I said, Republicans agree with that position. You and they are just at odds with who the same laws should help and who the same laws should oppress.
Free speech for me and not for thee has been one of their modus operandi for a long time now.
I'm not arguing with you about this semantic bullshit. To be a NAZI is to declare your intent to commit a crime. NAZIism is a criminal conspiracy.
There is no "equal protection" issue here, unless you think criminals deserve to be protected.
Please show that your claim has a legal basis in U.S. law.
Because I can show you the basis for a right to protest. It's right in the Constitution.
Did I even once mention US law? Did I say anything about prosecuting the NAZIs? Did I say anything -- anything at all -- about the government doing anything about them?
No. I said it is right and good to fuck them up.
Now quit being a goddamn apologist and deliberately trying to misrepresent my arguments.
Okay, well this is about who has the legal right to protest, so your argument is not relevant to the discussion.
Good point: the correct answer is, don't treat them equally, because they don't act equally. What we should be doing is exactly the opposite of what we are doing: fucking-up the NAZIs while leaving the left-wing protestors alone.
This is not hypocrisy, by the way. This is a simple application of consequences: those who do not respect the social contract do not deserve to be protected by it.
It may not be hypocrisy, but it is suggesting that the law continue to be applied unequally (just the opposite way around), which is definitely not a progressive position.
Arrest any and all groups that storm in and disrupt government functions, simple as that
Which means that people in the government can argue that virtually anything the government does is a "government function." Mayor's press conference? Government function. Better arrest those protesters. Governor's mansion? It has public tours. That's a government function. Better arrest those protestors.
Look what happened without that law when a president wanted a photo op with a Bible in front of a church. And you want to make that even easier?
You can protest outside the building perfectly fine, storming into the chambers and stopping the agenda is blatant disruption and I won’t argue it.
But how do you make it clear that is the government function that can't be disrupted but the press conference afterward can because it does not count as a government function?
Don’t enter government grounds for your protests.. do it outside the building.
Outside the building is often government grounds too. Those buildings can be in plazas which are entirely government-owned.
So, again, you're saying you can't protest the press conference (except from a great distance).