Nazi lives DO matter according to the mods of europe@feddit.org

It's not a propaganda mill, feddit.org is the biggest German instance (since feddit.de essentially shut down)

It's worth mentioning that mods of a community do not have to come from the instance the community is hosted on. The mod who upset you may not even be associated with the instance.

Not that directly, but saying they have "zero worth" might be against GG Article 1

Human dignity is inviolable

Pretty sure dehumanizing can be prosecuted under this, even if its rather tame. Also there have been some laws over the last few years that criminalize violent speech on the internet and that give people the ability to report comments directly to agencies. These might make it quite dangerous for the instance to keep up these comments.

I assure you, German leftist often say way more intense stuff on a daily basis, but not on publicly hosted servers

Nothing easier than that: Art 130 StGB

Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population, incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or slandering a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population,

The Post was in A Manner to disturb the public by being a public post. It attacks the human dignity by dehumanising a group based on their world view. Under current German law this is incitement to people.

Ban is definitely over the top.

Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren't situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).

Saying "nazi lives don't matter" isn't even "dehumanizing".

Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerland's laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.

Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.

I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their "no dehumanization" rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.

Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don't want that shit in any community.

Yes, you shut them down. That doesn't require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I'm sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn't human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.

I don't think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn't say kill them, it says don't tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.

Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

You guys always stop halfway through Poppers writings of the Paradox.

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument. They may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

Popper never argued to strip people of the right to free speech. Even immoral free speech. He makes the line very clear: when people begin using fists and pistols. That is, tolerate up to the point of physical violence.

And you sound like someone who is very quick to jump to conclusions without the full context.
They remove all hate speech, including any from actual nazi’s.
I don’t see how that makes anyone involved a nazi.

I can see where he was coming

A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.

I only meant to say that changing another mod decision would only be taken, after discussion with them, if there's a clear and robust disagreement (a permanent ban). This, to me, is just a lack of agreement (a temporal ban).

I can see where he was coming

A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.

At least in fiction. Big difference.

Asterion enters the chat

If Hitler had been assassinated right before the war, it might have been infinitely worse.

The Nazis weren't predicated solely on Hitler. He actually was meant to be just a speechmaker while the smarter people made all the important decisions, because he was kind of an aggressive moron. Things got out of hand, though, and he was able to take over and to a large extent fuck everything up. A few of the attempts on his life were from other committed Nazis of a pretty high rank. The allies thought about trying to assassinate him, but decided ultimately that it was way better for the war effort if he was in charge.

I don't think the movement would have petered out without Hitler and constitutional order restored. Not by 1939. They might not have exterminated the Jews quite so completely, but they might have, and they also might have stayed allied with the Soviets and won the war in spades. I think one of the few saving graces about the way it all went down was that Hitler was in charge, fucking everything up.

The parallels to Trump are uncanny.

The same if he had been detained.

It isn't a race to the bottom.

You're not going to win moderate people to your side by labeling them Nazis.

It's a mistake to find the most extreme opinions in a group and use them to label the entire group. Just because outrage and self-righteousness feels good, doesn't mean it's actually accomplishing anything.

The kinds of statements, like in the OP, are just a form of public masturbation. You're just yelling into the void for the pleasure and mental rush.

If your goal is to defeat right-wing nationalists, you need to convince the undecided people and that isn't happening if you're just ranting like a crazy person because your brain is addicted to upvotes and outrage.

You don't prevent a Nazi problem by playing their game of hate. It's a game they will always win. By saying shit like that, all you're doing is emboldening the hardliners and giving them ammunition, while reconfirming those doubting their beliefs.

Making friends with Nazis won't make them any less fascist. It just serves to normalize fascism.

Can you give an example for implementing “aggressive reeducation”?

"The West" is a massive mob of people with a lot of variation within them, both in motivation and action.

Some parts of it did full-throated support for fascism of all varieties, before, during and after the war. Some parts of it were against the Nazis (because, more or less, they were competition), but fully in favor of other fascism like Pinochet. Some parts of it were breaking their backs to try to save as many innocent people from the Nazis as they could, simply because of concern for human rights. Some parts of it continued that same opposition to fascism, even the flavor of it that the State Department likes, in the decades that followed, even including hearings to try to stop the fascism our people were doing in Central America, and trying very hard to send some high-ranking people in the US to prison for their embrace of fascism in Nicaragua. It didn't work (except in the case of Thomas Clines, which I don't consider much of a success), but it wasn't for lack trying. By some people.

We don't need to have a big argument over which of those is the "real" face of the US. They're all real. The second grouping is probably the dominant grouping as far as representation inside the State Department and actual control of the US's foreign policy, yes, which is a god damned shame. We can agree on that. The vast majority of Nazi war criminals were never punished, just kind of went on about their business.

For the most part, the people who set up Nuremberg were best buds with the people who helped Pinochet later on, but the sins of the second doesn't completely cancel out the virtues of the first.

The Nuremburg Trials still falls within the determination that Nazi lives did not matter. The executions were definitely the point.

Maybe it’s just a question of semantics. But to get at the point I was trying to make, you can try a thought experiment:

Imagine someone brings in a big leaking bag of garbage off the street. They haul it into the courtroom, get a lawyer for it, spend months making sure it’s resupplied with water when it stops leaking and gets good housing, repeatedly had experts come in and examine it and look up the records of what type of garbage it had inside it. And then, everything having been satisfied to everyone’s satisfaction, they take it out and toss it in the dump.

Or, someone puts leaking garbage on a truck, drives it to a place where it’s stored until they can get themselves organized to get rid of it, and then they burn it. It’s given an asset tag, but mostly just so they can make use of a system to count the garbage and make sure there’s nothing of value in any of the bags.

You get my point, I think. My point is not that you need to be tolerant or soft about people who are going to try to kill you. My point is that they are (depressingly enough) very much human beings, the whole time they’re doing that, and the allies did good by vigorously rejecting the “anyone who wrongs me stops being a person” model.

Not all Nazis at Nuremberg were condemned to death. The most prominent examples are Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer.

Of course the antisemites show up right away to spread their hate.

I have protested against and fought Nazis with my own fists since I was 16.

Well, if you don’t believe in universal human rights, then your moral standing against Nazis is very shallow.

I believe the death penalty is immoral because I don't believe there is such a thing as an act so heinous that it would be moral to kill them after the fact.

There is room in my moral framework for killing in self defense or defense of others, but I leave that to require some kind of immediacy. And I think enemy combatants in a hot war are fair game, too, but that requires a hot war as a precondition, and I don't think we're there right now.

cockroaches

You are using literal Nazi rhetoric. You have no moral standing.

Yeah but they're not human, though

If they’re imaginary, why did the US Congress have to lift a ban on arming Nazis to send them weapons?