You cannot debate with people who want to eradicate you, oppress you, harm you, or think you are not quite human. You can debate with people about bridge building.
Bravo for this, Jim. Precisely the piece we need now. Online “debate” has so devalued language that we forget how REAL Fascists work. Substack is wagering the lives of all of its writers--and indeed, their own lives too--that they will be able to “control” Nazi ideology. The same mistake people made in the Weimar Republic.
Of course, the "Nazis" and neo-Nazis in America today are on the lunatic fringe with little or no influence, a far cry from Hitler's dynamic and aggressive mass movement in the last few years of the Weimar Republic. Fighting the last war is a common military mistake. The most aggressive opponents of democracy and employers of violence as a tactic today are on the left. When was the last time you saw a mob of Nazis out in the streets of America rioting, looting burning and killing? Don't forget the Bolsheviks killed people also.
You aren't referring to the disorganized protest that consisted largely of people wandering around inside the Capitol with police assistance? They were not rioting burning and killing.
Keep telling yourself that. It will make you feel better about the crowd you have fallen in with. But did you really plan to fall in with THAT crowd, or are you better than that?
I have not fallen in with any crowd. I am not involved in any party or any activism. But I have read some history - take for example the Bolshevik coup that overthrew Kerensky's provisional government in 1917. It was carefully planned well in advance, with the use of armed forces to seize strategic positions, and to take control of the provisional assembly. It ended with a real seizure of power - it wasn't a bunch of unarmed unorganized civilians wandering around gaping at the capitol with no attempt to seize control of the military or of vital communication centers. It was a protest, and not by any means an attempt to seize power.
Joe, I never forget that—and we are lucky that Bolshevism hasn’t taken root here. There is no organized, radical, violent Left in America anything like there was in Weimar (or even anything akin to the Weather Underground, much less Baader-Meinhof). But to my mind, I saw that mob on January 6th—or as close to it as I’d ever like to get.
Those disorganized protestors milling around aimlessly in the capitol were not trying to seize power or overturn an election. They were protesting blatant and manifest election irregularities. You don't think BLM and Antifa are organized, radical left?
I don't need any political story to get me through the night as politics are not my main interest or concern. I believe what it says in Daniel 4:32, which says that "the most High ruleth (rules) in the kingdom of men, and giveth (gives) it to whomsoever he will." I believe that Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden occupy/occupied the White House according to the express will of God. As it says in Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." As to God arranging Biden's accession to the White House, it can be debated whether that was arranged for America's greater peace, freedom, security and blessing, or whether it was arranged as an expression of divine displeasure, with very negative consequences yet to come. Time will tell if Biden's policies on energy, the southern border, defense, spending and other issues will work to the ultimate benefit of the nation. Personally, I feel they will not, that his policies will prove to be disastrous, but I have no crystal ball.
Joe, I think there is no question that the J6 people wanted to prevent the certification of an election where their candidate lost; they didn’t just protest, they violently stormed a Capitol building that was left purposely lightly unguarded; and they were encouraged to do so by a President who was angry that he lost and had exhausted all legal remedies to overturn his clear and decisive loss. Any other reading of J6 is simply nonsense.
In Pennsylvania, a key battleground state, the Democrat dominated State Supreme Court arbitrarily changed the election laws just months before the election and authored a series of changes that made it vastly more difficult to control the balloting. The Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) states that the legislatures shall determine the rules for presidential election, making arbitrary changes by the Court arbitrary and illegal. Biden won the state by a small majority of 81,000 votes, and unverified ballots, late ballots, invalid ballots could very well have made the difference. Notice I say "could have." I don't claim to know.
Do you believe that there was never any cheating of any kind in previous elections, and that all elections have always been honest? Do you know anything about the Tilden-Hayes election of 1876 in which there was rampant fraud that took months to untangle? Democrats claimed there was fraud in the Republican victories of 2000, 2004, and 2016 - and now anyone who questions a Democrat victory is an enemy of the people, and the 2020 election was the only completely honest election we have had since 1789 when George Washington was unopposed?
There were many arbitrary and illegal procedures in other states in 2020, and people had every right to protest an election full of manifest irregularities. Because the mayor of Washington DC and Nancy Pelosi refused Donald Trump's request for National Guard troops, another reading is that the Democrats willingly left the Capitol undefended and encouraged protestors to enter as a very clever tactical maneuver designed to demonize the opposition and pave the way for future repressive measures against them. I only present that as an alternative reading for you to consider.
So laughable. There hasn’t been an official, organized anti-fascist movement since WW2 when OG Antifa Uncle Sam gathered all of America to prove Nazis follow a losing script.
You said I was completely focused on a three to four hour period when I mentioned the Pennsylvania election fraud months before the election. Since you are not even reading or responding to what I say, good bye and farewell, this time to the entire thread, not just a particular conversation like I opted out of before.
That’s a good idea. You might want to spend a bit of time asking yourself “what would prove me wrong?” Right now you are stuck in a moebius loop of mutually reinforcing ideas that nothing can penetrate. I know you like it that way, but it’s a fearful, lazy and childish way for an adult to be. That is why I don’t engage with your so-called ‘arguments.’ which are really just professions of absolute faith in flawed premises.
Am I guilty of debasing the coinage? Do I say fascist too often? Maybe. The word is oddly polarizing. If I use it when speaking, I begin to lose people. They accuse me of lecturing them. It’s a “bad” word, not because it connotes a bad ideology and worse people, but because people who use it are always agitated and in the-Sky-is-falling! mode of talking down to their listeners. Use of the word fascist causes eyes to glaze over. My fellow citizens don’t have the faintest idea what I’m referring to when I use the word fascist. But this is a country where great swathes of people couldn’t pick Adolf Hitler out of a line up, and kinda sorta think he was maybe king of Germany once - a long time ago?
And that, is a problem in the “... condemned-to-repeat-it” mode. If there is one area of preparing the ground for the “cause” the Repukes have excelled at, it was destroying this nation’s public education system- once a marvel of the world- and making the American citizen one of the least educated people in the room. But I digress.
I try not to use the word “Nazi” unless referring to Nazis. And I try not to make any (all too apparent) references to the Nazi seizure of power because I’m lecturing (again) and no one understands the comparison anyway. But I agree with Mr. Gerber, those slope headed, knuckle dragging morons settle their differences with brutality. You can’t let them have a seat at the table. They are not interested in any ideas but their own. They aren’t there to do anything helpful, constructive, reasonable. They are there to push the table over, and beat everyone to death with the table legs.
What is Nazism based on? It’s based on a division of the entire world into Us vs them. As the Nazis see it, this dichotomy is racial in nature. Mankind is an animal species that divides into racial types. Some races are superior to others. The superior races should not care very much about the inferior races, because they are perforce “inferior” and therefore, undeserving of the territory they call home or the resources they may have that are necessary for their survival.
The superior race or races cannot allow these inferior races to thwart its evolution, or impinge upon its desires and goals. Inferior races -the Nazis referred to them as “untermenschen” or subhuman, can and should, no must be exterminated by the superior race(s) because as I mentioned earlier, mankind is an animal, and it is locked in an eternal struggle to survive with all of the different “races” as competitors for land and resources necessary for survival. From the Nazi perspective it is a biological imperative for only one race to come out on top - and that must be the master race. Laws to prevent murder, mass killing, genocide, religious concepts of morality, ideas about human rights, civil rights, inalienable rights, these are all concepts and ideas put forth by racially inferior human beings to impede and retard the natural evolution of the master race; which in the world of Nazism, is almost worse than the death of the master race - a slow, purposeful weighing down and sapping of the energy, the creative genius and the will to dominate, that is the natural state of the ubermenschen - Supermen.
Now, this is all well known, and I apologize for the lengthy lecture. The superiority of the Caucasian race is the core belief of Nazism. Everything is based on race and racial purity. Whether you are racially akin to the master race, or rather far removed from it, is the sole determinant of your place in Nazi hierarchy of whether you live or die. As we know Europe was divided into 3 zones (A, B and C). Those who lived in Zones A and B were deemed worthy of life - provided they weren’t Jews - those in zone C were slated for extermination.
Now, insofar as I know, none of this has changed. The Nazis are still supreme racists. Everything is still racially based. They still want to kill every Jew they can lay their hands on, because for whatever reason, Adolf Hitler really hated the Jews and thought they were responsible for everything wrong in the world. And, we can add to the Nazi short list of those slated for the “final solution” every brown and black person that draws breath on the planet and their descendants - so what’s that, about 7/8ths of humanity?
Like I said, the Nazis haven’t changed. They aren’t interested in updating their message. The message comes directly from Adolf Hitler himself and it is inviolate. It can’t be altered by the present circumstances, and it won’t be. Nazism calls for the extermination, by any and all means possible, for the extermination of every Jew on the planet, and every other racially inferior type, save for the few left to provide slave labor to the master race.
The Nazi message remains the same. Death. Lawlessness. The application of racial discrimination in every aspect of life. No more rights. No more morality. No pity or mercy. Death on an industrial scale.
You talk about our response to this as though we’re engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product. We don’t have to engage in any such thing. I mean, I’m all for quick comebacks, and pithy arguments that remorselessly drive nails into the coffin of Nazism once and for all, and if you have any, please share them. Nazism is a toxin, a failed ideology that still won’t die. And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a”competing argument”. We all know what the Nazi position on any given issue is, and it is abhorrent, vicious, and wrong. Your response indicates to me, that you feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. You’re wrong. And nothing you can say will change my mind.
I think you meant to say: “educating people in general”? What, exactly, are you trying to say here? “Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.” Understanding what? Understanding that competition is a process? Okay, it’s a process of a kind. But what’s at play here? A competition between Nazism and other political ideologies? Or are you suggesting a competition between my inherent and legal right to free speech against the adherents of a toxic, loathsome political ideology that has already shown itself to be inimical to human life and happiness?
What dead horse are you inferring here? I realize you’re not suggesting a real dead horse, it’s just a euphemism, but what, exactly, is this dead horse? Can you define your terms? Can you explain what it is you’re trying to say?
The competition I'm referencing to is effectively the confrontation or interactions between thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. Within a broader framework, like a marketplace of ideas, competition entails a dynamic, discovery process. Individuals involved within this competition identify gaps or unmet needs in the market. Individuals constantly seek to innovate and introduce new ideas to address the opportunities identified (gaps or unmet needs).
Why does this matter? First, ask yourself why we are all here. None of us would've likely been writing about Nazis hadn't their presence been seen. My point, objectionable content tends to lead to a flow of counter-speech, content directed against that. I think, that presence serves as a useful indicator toward individuals to identify gaps or unmet needs within the broader market, precisely in that we need to refine or innovate our arguments against Nazism. We need to update it to the current times. The market allows for that. Of course, the market isn't perfect. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but it serves as a useful way to think about things. Hopefully this clears up some things.
The point: that if or not you do regulate speech, the currents, the social dynamics that exist are influenced by political and economic factors. The marketplace is just the place where such currents take place, that information, knowledge, and ideas compete. Then, you problem isn't the marketplace, it's something larger.
I'm not convinced that had there been sufficient or strict forms of moderation by social media platforms, that our ills would've be gone.
We should try to think about 2-3 different aspects within this discussion: the 'marketplace of ideas's, the political aspect and the economic aspect.
The marketplace of ideas effectively only manages the currents that comes from the political and economic aspects. If you see a large economic recession or inflation, expect to see a change within the marketplace of ideas of how to manage the 'currents'.
By that point, some may, nonetheless, resort to nationalistic tendencies, or other more violent ideological approaches, as a way to view the world unfortunately. Nothing that the social media platforms could've done, in that the ill would always be there either way.
The only true suppression of such ill, aside from our political and economic aspects, is the thorough attacks against those ideologies once individuals are able to identify such gaps--I'm leaning off the term presence since such ideologies will always exist, but it's more clarifying and addresses what you've been saying, in that gaps refer to informational or ideas that need to be refined, created, or disproven. I'm sure you'll argue Nazism has been disproven, indeed it has, but the Nazis as well unfortunately have refined or created new arguments in favor, that is using the current fears or stories to make their arguments seem more reasonable. There will always be periods of reemerging old ideas, particularly harmful ones, that was dismantled and thoroughly criticized, which will need individuals to again identify such gaps. That is the market's role, a discovery process. Our immediate instinct shouldn't be to restrict the market of ideas, as either way those periods will indeed come either way, but to allow individuals to be able to efficiently identify gaps, to argue effectively against violent ideologies.
Did you read the article? The whole point is that the guy did exactly what you're advocating: attacked those ideologies, early and often. And so did a lot of other people in Weimar Germany. The Nazis cheated their way into power and those critics wound up dead.
There's an aspect ignored by this: counter-speech against Nazism isn't just toward those who espouse it; you're educating people in geral. Competition is a type of process. Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.
Hello Nell, this will be my last response regarding this. Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the notification and only checked the thread now due to my curiosity.
"You talk about our response to this as though we're engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product."
Models are a tool of analysis. Our responses aren't genuinely illustrative of PR or a marketing scrimmage, but I use the framework of a market to see what implications would entail from that. I find it personally to be clarifying. You presumably would object, which I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"We don't have to engage in any such thing."
Unfortunately, we do. Those truly concerned about threats of Nazism have to actively counter against them. I strongly agree with you in how dangerous Nazism is. That position amplifies my belief of the need to continuously attacking Nazi arguments and of better educating people.
"And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a 'competiting argument'."
I'm not sorry for characterizing it as a competing argument, in that I don't see it as necessarily implying an ethical issue in attributing it as competing with other ideas. We must see it as a competing idea, not due to its legitimacy as a good argument (don't interpret it as that lol), but as that entails the greater need, of again, refining and innovating arguments against it.
"feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas."
We aren't who decide what is competed in the market. Let me clarify that. We don't own the table. We may try to control parts of the table to regulate speech, but it's still in the marketplace of ideas, competing nonetheless. My approach understands that. It is far better to have proponents of Nazism on a public platform such as Substack, rather than some fringe or niche network, to show how weak and dangerous their viewpoints are. The whole controversy, in fact, reinforces my view that misguided, dangerous content such as Nazism tends to create a flow of counter-speech that can combat those dangerous ideas. If you agree with that, then the existence or presence of Nazism serves as an indicator toward other individuals, within this type of 'marketplace' to find the gaps that current arguments against Nazism aren't effectively able to cover. Perhaps seeing it as an indicator serves as another argument to why I don't find censorship or removal of their content particularly effective but rather counterproductive. People forget history. I feel like certain comments of yours assumes that, even if you were to say you don't. Thank you for the discussion.
I visited Germany when many actual former Nazis were in their midlife years. None of them had horns. But they had supported what decent people should never support. Some renounced the past; others stayed mum. But they had been Nazis.
You cannot debate with people who want to eradicate you, oppress you, harm you, or think you are not quite human. You can debate with people about bridge building.
Bravo for this, Jim. Precisely the piece we need now. Online “debate” has so devalued language that we forget how REAL Fascists work. Substack is wagering the lives of all of its writers--and indeed, their own lives too--that they will be able to “control” Nazi ideology. The same mistake people made in the Weimar Republic.
Of course, the "Nazis" and neo-Nazis in America today are on the lunatic fringe with little or no influence, a far cry from Hitler's dynamic and aggressive mass movement in the last few years of the Weimar Republic. Fighting the last war is a common military mistake. The most aggressive opponents of democracy and employers of violence as a tactic today are on the left. When was the last time you saw a mob of Nazis out in the streets of America rioting, looting burning and killing? Don't forget the Bolsheviks killed people also.
Um, precisely three years ago. Thanks for the anniversary heads-up.
Yep. Remember what I said about the stories you tell yourself?
You just told me another one. Good one: if this coup doesn’t resemble that one in every respect, it’s not a coup.
Real top notch world building you got there.
You aren't referring to the disorganized protest that consisted largely of people wandering around inside the Capitol with police assistance? They were not rioting burning and killing.
Keep telling yourself that. It will make you feel better about the crowd you have fallen in with. But did you really plan to fall in with THAT crowd, or are you better than that?
I have not fallen in with any crowd. I am not involved in any party or any activism. But I have read some history - take for example the Bolshevik coup that overthrew Kerensky's provisional government in 1917. It was carefully planned well in advance, with the use of armed forces to seize strategic positions, and to take control of the provisional assembly. It ended with a real seizure of power - it wasn't a bunch of unarmed unorganized civilians wandering around gaping at the capitol with no attempt to seize control of the military or of vital communication centers. It was a protest, and not by any means an attempt to seize power.
Joe, I never forget that—and we are lucky that Bolshevism hasn’t taken root here. There is no organized, radical, violent Left in America anything like there was in Weimar (or even anything akin to the Weather Underground, much less Baader-Meinhof). But to my mind, I saw that mob on January 6th—or as close to it as I’d ever like to get.
Those disorganized protestors milling around aimlessly in the capitol were not trying to seize power or overturn an election. They were protesting blatant and manifest election irregularities. You don't think BLM and Antifa are organized, radical left?
Whatever story gets you through the night, Joe. You seem to need them.
I don't need any political story to get me through the night as politics are not my main interest or concern. I believe what it says in Daniel 4:32, which says that "the most High ruleth (rules) in the kingdom of men, and giveth (gives) it to whomsoever he will." I believe that Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden occupy/occupied the White House according to the express will of God. As it says in Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." As to God arranging Biden's accession to the White House, it can be debated whether that was arranged for America's greater peace, freedom, security and blessing, or whether it was arranged as an expression of divine displeasure, with very negative consequences yet to come. Time will tell if Biden's policies on energy, the southern border, defense, spending and other issues will work to the ultimate benefit of the nation. Personally, I feel they will not, that his policies will prove to be disastrous, but I have no crystal ball.
Did I say it was a political story? Oh no no.
Joe, I think there is no question that the J6 people wanted to prevent the certification of an election where their candidate lost; they didn’t just protest, they violently stormed a Capitol building that was left purposely lightly unguarded; and they were encouraged to do so by a President who was angry that he lost and had exhausted all legal remedies to overturn his clear and decisive loss. Any other reading of J6 is simply nonsense.
Yeah. Reality is the thing that doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
In Pennsylvania, a key battleground state, the Democrat dominated State Supreme Court arbitrarily changed the election laws just months before the election and authored a series of changes that made it vastly more difficult to control the balloting. The Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) states that the legislatures shall determine the rules for presidential election, making arbitrary changes by the Court arbitrary and illegal. Biden won the state by a small majority of 81,000 votes, and unverified ballots, late ballots, invalid ballots could very well have made the difference. Notice I say "could have." I don't claim to know.
Do you believe that there was never any cheating of any kind in previous elections, and that all elections have always been honest? Do you know anything about the Tilden-Hayes election of 1876 in which there was rampant fraud that took months to untangle? Democrats claimed there was fraud in the Republican victories of 2000, 2004, and 2016 - and now anyone who questions a Democrat victory is an enemy of the people, and the 2020 election was the only completely honest election we have had since 1789 when George Washington was unopposed?
There were many arbitrary and illegal procedures in other states in 2020, and people had every right to protest an election full of manifest irregularities. Because the mayor of Washington DC and Nancy Pelosi refused Donald Trump's request for National Guard troops, another reading is that the Democrats willingly left the Capitol undefended and encouraged protestors to enter as a very clever tactical maneuver designed to demonize the opposition and pave the way for future repressive measures against them. I only present that as an alternative reading for you to consider.
And what good would convincing me do? That would just make two deluded people instead of one.
No, what you want is to convince a court of law of your notions.
And how did those many suits pan out?
So laughable. There hasn’t been an official, organized anti-fascist movement since WW2 when OG Antifa Uncle Sam gathered all of America to prove Nazis follow a losing script.
Joe, again. You can special plead this forever and the fact remains: you still lost. Nothing you could say to me will change that.
You said I was completely focused on a three to four hour period when I mentioned the Pennsylvania election fraud months before the election. Since you are not even reading or responding to what I say, good bye and farewell, this time to the entire thread, not just a particular conversation like I opted out of before.
That’s a good idea. You might want to spend a bit of time asking yourself “what would prove me wrong?” Right now you are stuck in a moebius loop of mutually reinforcing ideas that nothing can penetrate. I know you like it that way, but it’s a fearful, lazy and childish way for an adult to be. That is why I don’t engage with your so-called ‘arguments.’ which are really just professions of absolute faith in flawed premises.
Am I guilty of debasing the coinage? Do I say fascist too often? Maybe. The word is oddly polarizing. If I use it when speaking, I begin to lose people. They accuse me of lecturing them. It’s a “bad” word, not because it connotes a bad ideology and worse people, but because people who use it are always agitated and in the-Sky-is-falling! mode of talking down to their listeners. Use of the word fascist causes eyes to glaze over. My fellow citizens don’t have the faintest idea what I’m referring to when I use the word fascist. But this is a country where great swathes of people couldn’t pick Adolf Hitler out of a line up, and kinda sorta think he was maybe king of Germany once - a long time ago?
And that, is a problem in the “... condemned-to-repeat-it” mode. If there is one area of preparing the ground for the “cause” the Repukes have excelled at, it was destroying this nation’s public education system- once a marvel of the world- and making the American citizen one of the least educated people in the room. But I digress.
I try not to use the word “Nazi” unless referring to Nazis. And I try not to make any (all too apparent) references to the Nazi seizure of power because I’m lecturing (again) and no one understands the comparison anyway. But I agree with Mr. Gerber, those slope headed, knuckle dragging morons settle their differences with brutality. You can’t let them have a seat at the table. They are not interested in any ideas but their own. They aren’t there to do anything helpful, constructive, reasonable. They are there to push the table over, and beat everyone to death with the table legs.
What is Nazism based on? It’s based on a division of the entire world into Us vs them. As the Nazis see it, this dichotomy is racial in nature. Mankind is an animal species that divides into racial types. Some races are superior to others. The superior races should not care very much about the inferior races, because they are perforce “inferior” and therefore, undeserving of the territory they call home or the resources they may have that are necessary for their survival.
The superior race or races cannot allow these inferior races to thwart its evolution, or impinge upon its desires and goals. Inferior races -the Nazis referred to them as “untermenschen” or subhuman, can and should, no must be exterminated by the superior race(s) because as I mentioned earlier, mankind is an animal, and it is locked in an eternal struggle to survive with all of the different “races” as competitors for land and resources necessary for survival. From the Nazi perspective it is a biological imperative for only one race to come out on top - and that must be the master race. Laws to prevent murder, mass killing, genocide, religious concepts of morality, ideas about human rights, civil rights, inalienable rights, these are all concepts and ideas put forth by racially inferior human beings to impede and retard the natural evolution of the master race; which in the world of Nazism, is almost worse than the death of the master race - a slow, purposeful weighing down and sapping of the energy, the creative genius and the will to dominate, that is the natural state of the ubermenschen - Supermen.
Now, this is all well known, and I apologize for the lengthy lecture. The superiority of the Caucasian race is the core belief of Nazism. Everything is based on race and racial purity. Whether you are racially akin to the master race, or rather far removed from it, is the sole determinant of your place in Nazi hierarchy of whether you live or die. As we know Europe was divided into 3 zones (A, B and C). Those who lived in Zones A and B were deemed worthy of life - provided they weren’t Jews - those in zone C were slated for extermination.
Now, insofar as I know, none of this has changed. The Nazis are still supreme racists. Everything is still racially based. They still want to kill every Jew they can lay their hands on, because for whatever reason, Adolf Hitler really hated the Jews and thought they were responsible for everything wrong in the world. And, we can add to the Nazi short list of those slated for the “final solution” every brown and black person that draws breath on the planet and their descendants - so what’s that, about 7/8ths of humanity?
Like I said, the Nazis haven’t changed. They aren’t interested in updating their message. The message comes directly from Adolf Hitler himself and it is inviolate. It can’t be altered by the present circumstances, and it won’t be. Nazism calls for the extermination, by any and all means possible, for the extermination of every Jew on the planet, and every other racially inferior type, save for the few left to provide slave labor to the master race.
The Nazi message remains the same. Death. Lawlessness. The application of racial discrimination in every aspect of life. No more rights. No more morality. No pity or mercy. Death on an industrial scale.
You talk about our response to this as though we’re engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product. We don’t have to engage in any such thing. I mean, I’m all for quick comebacks, and pithy arguments that remorselessly drive nails into the coffin of Nazism once and for all, and if you have any, please share them. Nazism is a toxin, a failed ideology that still won’t die. And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a”competing argument”. We all know what the Nazi position on any given issue is, and it is abhorrent, vicious, and wrong. Your response indicates to me, that you feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. You’re wrong. And nothing you can say will change my mind.
No such thing as a “non violent Nazi.”
I think you meant to say: “educating people in general”? What, exactly, are you trying to say here? “Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.” Understanding what? Understanding that competition is a process? Okay, it’s a process of a kind. But what’s at play here? A competition between Nazism and other political ideologies? Or are you suggesting a competition between my inherent and legal right to free speech against the adherents of a toxic, loathsome political ideology that has already shown itself to be inimical to human life and happiness?
What dead horse are you inferring here? I realize you’re not suggesting a real dead horse, it’s just a euphemism, but what, exactly, is this dead horse? Can you define your terms? Can you explain what it is you’re trying to say?
The competition I'm referencing to is effectively the confrontation or interactions between thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. Within a broader framework, like a marketplace of ideas, competition entails a dynamic, discovery process. Individuals involved within this competition identify gaps or unmet needs in the market. Individuals constantly seek to innovate and introduce new ideas to address the opportunities identified (gaps or unmet needs).
Why does this matter? First, ask yourself why we are all here. None of us would've likely been writing about Nazis hadn't their presence been seen. My point, objectionable content tends to lead to a flow of counter-speech, content directed against that. I think, that presence serves as a useful indicator toward individuals to identify gaps or unmet needs within the broader market, precisely in that we need to refine or innovate our arguments against Nazism. We need to update it to the current times. The market allows for that. Of course, the market isn't perfect. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but it serves as a useful way to think about things. Hopefully this clears up some things.
The point: that if or not you do regulate speech, the currents, the social dynamics that exist are influenced by political and economic factors. The marketplace is just the place where such currents take place, that information, knowledge, and ideas compete. Then, you problem isn't the marketplace, it's something larger.
I recommend reading my other responses.
I'm not convinced that had there been sufficient or strict forms of moderation by social media platforms, that our ills would've be gone.
We should try to think about 2-3 different aspects within this discussion: the 'marketplace of ideas's, the political aspect and the economic aspect.
The marketplace of ideas effectively only manages the currents that comes from the political and economic aspects. If you see a large economic recession or inflation, expect to see a change within the marketplace of ideas of how to manage the 'currents'.
By that point, some may, nonetheless, resort to nationalistic tendencies, or other more violent ideological approaches, as a way to view the world unfortunately. Nothing that the social media platforms could've done, in that the ill would always be there either way.
The only true suppression of such ill, aside from our political and economic aspects, is the thorough attacks against those ideologies once individuals are able to identify such gaps--I'm leaning off the term presence since such ideologies will always exist, but it's more clarifying and addresses what you've been saying, in that gaps refer to informational or ideas that need to be refined, created, or disproven. I'm sure you'll argue Nazism has been disproven, indeed it has, but the Nazis as well unfortunately have refined or created new arguments in favor, that is using the current fears or stories to make their arguments seem more reasonable. There will always be periods of reemerging old ideas, particularly harmful ones, that was dismantled and thoroughly criticized, which will need individuals to again identify such gaps. That is the market's role, a discovery process. Our immediate instinct shouldn't be to restrict the market of ideas, as either way those periods will indeed come either way, but to allow individuals to be able to efficiently identify gaps, to argue effectively against violent ideologies.
Did you read the article? The whole point is that the guy did exactly what you're advocating: attacked those ideologies, early and often. And so did a lot of other people in Weimar Germany. The Nazis cheated their way into power and those critics wound up dead.
There's an aspect ignored by this: counter-speech against Nazism isn't just toward those who espouse it; you're educating people in geral. Competition is a type of process. Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.
And in this country we have Nazis too. Like the Hair Füror and his deplorable SS swat team.
Hello Nell, this will be my last response regarding this. Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the notification and only checked the thread now due to my curiosity.
"You talk about our response to this as though we're engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product."
Models are a tool of analysis. Our responses aren't genuinely illustrative of PR or a marketing scrimmage, but I use the framework of a market to see what implications would entail from that. I find it personally to be clarifying. You presumably would object, which I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"We don't have to engage in any such thing."
Unfortunately, we do. Those truly concerned about threats of Nazism have to actively counter against them. I strongly agree with you in how dangerous Nazism is. That position amplifies my belief of the need to continuously attacking Nazi arguments and of better educating people.
"And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a 'competiting argument'."
I'm not sorry for characterizing it as a competing argument, in that I don't see it as necessarily implying an ethical issue in attributing it as competing with other ideas. We must see it as a competing idea, not due to its legitimacy as a good argument (don't interpret it as that lol), but as that entails the greater need, of again, refining and innovating arguments against it.
"feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas."
We aren't who decide what is competed in the market. Let me clarify that. We don't own the table. We may try to control parts of the table to regulate speech, but it's still in the marketplace of ideas, competing nonetheless. My approach understands that. It is far better to have proponents of Nazism on a public platform such as Substack, rather than some fringe or niche network, to show how weak and dangerous their viewpoints are. The whole controversy, in fact, reinforces my view that misguided, dangerous content such as Nazism tends to create a flow of counter-speech that can combat those dangerous ideas. If you agree with that, then the existence or presence of Nazism serves as an indicator toward other individuals, within this type of 'marketplace' to find the gaps that current arguments against Nazism aren't effectively able to cover. Perhaps seeing it as an indicator serves as another argument to why I don't find censorship or removal of their content particularly effective but rather counterproductive. People forget history. I feel like certain comments of yours assumes that, even if you were to say you don't. Thank you for the discussion.
I visited Germany when many actual former Nazis were in their midlife years. None of them had horns. But they had supported what decent people should never support. Some renounced the past; others stayed mum. But they had been Nazis.