The United States again voted in the UN against the law banning the glorification of Nazism.

[Ringo Stalin]

"Anti-communist scum", haha. Yeah, we are somewhat moved by the endless mountains of corpses left in communism's wake.
I don't know about worse than, but Stalin certainly belongs in whatever league Hitler resides, and whatever pathetic apologists of communism remain deserve no less scorn and ridicule as Nazi sympathizers.

Almost all the victims in the Soviet Union arose as a result of the aggressive policy of the West towards the first state that destroyed capitalism on its territory.
First it is a bloody civil war with famine and epidemics. It would not have been so bloody if not for the intervention of the West, up to the introduction of its troops on the territory of Russia.
Then recovery from the devastation and mad rush to build an industry, that can protect the country from Western aggression. Many mistakes can be made in a hurry, but Stalin said in 1931, "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced states of the world. We must overcome this gap in 10 years or we will be crushed." Exactle as it turned out to be -, after 10 years, in 1941 Hitler came, a mad dog fed by the West and new victims follows...
I applaud your propagandists, who have managed to mess up your brains in a historical sense. Although it is easier than educating people.

 

[Atreus21]

Almost all the victims in the Soviet Union arose as a result of the aggressive policy of the West towards the first state that destroyed capitalism on its territory.
First it is a bloody civil war with famine and epidemics. It would not have been so bloody if not for the intervention of the West, up to the introduction of its troops on the territory of Russia.
Then recovery from the devastation and mad rush to build an industry, that can protect the country from Western aggression. Many mistakes can be made in a hurry, but Stalin said in 1931, "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced states of the world. We must overcome this gap in 10 years or we will be crushed." Exactle as it turned out to be -, after 10 years, in 1941 Hitler came, a mad dog fed by the West and new victims follows...
I applaud your propagandists, who have managed to mess up your brains in a historical sense. Although it is easier than educating people.

View attachment 67309786

You defend communism like a neo-Nazi defends fascism. My problems aren't my fault, it's the Jew's fault (or in your case the "west"). You're cut from exactly the same cloth.

Mass executions, the gulag, dekulakization? Those several million deaths? All the west's fault.
The famine caused by forced collectivization of agriculture resulting in another casual several million deaths? All the west's fault.
The Great Leap Forward? Some 10s of millions dead? Is that also the west's fault?

What shameful garbage. Most people learn to control their childish impulse to blame other people for their actions and failures.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Mass executions, the gulag, dekulakization? Those several million deaths?

You've written a few words, that you picked up from TV and it will take a lot of articles and digits to answer each of them, which I don't have the slightest desire to do. One can call someone "idiot" and that person can prove that he is not an idiot by getting certificates from medical institutions, or he may not. And I assure you, that there are many articles and videos telling the other side of the history of the USSR, including in english, exist.
If you want to learn something new in this matter, look for it yourself or pay me the money, since you are for the free market, and I will try to educate you.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Most people learn to control their childish impulse to blame other people for their actions and failures.

Probably senator from Alabama not one of them, he thinks that his father came to France in 1944 to fight communists and socialism... He can control his childish impulses to blame commies and russkis for everything. That's american education of history for you.

 

[it's just me]

Why not outlawing glorification of socialism?

Outlawing Naziism will cover that.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Outlawing Naziism will cover that.

I have to publish again this statement of the US Ambassador to the USSR in 1937-39 Joseph Davis about communism and nazism and their fundamental difference
"(July 7, 1941)
My friend Lindbergh surprised me by saying that he preferred nazism to communism. In general, making such a choice is a desperate matter, but the difference between these two subjects is too great. Both Germany and Russia are totalitarian states. Both are realistic. Both of them apply strict and ruthless methods. However, there is one significant difference that can be shown as follows. If Marx, Lenin or Stalin were Christians, and if you try to put the Communist experiment done in Russia, in the framework of the dogmas of the Catholic or Protestant churches, the result would be declared the greatest achievement of Christianity in the history of mankind in his quest for humanity and the embodiment of Christian precepts in the society. The fact is that the Christian religion can be combined with Communist principles without committing much violence to its economic and political goals, the main one of which is the "brotherhood of all people".
If we conduct a similar test with regard to Nazism, we will find that it is impossible to combine the two ideologies. The principle of Christian ideology cannot be imposed on Nazi philosophy without destroying the political basis of the state. Fascist philosophy creates a state that is actually based on the denial of the altruistic principles of Christianity. For the Nazis, love, charity, justice, and Christian values are only manifestations of weakness and decline if they contradict the needs of the state.
This is the whole difference - the Communist Soviet state can act with Christianity as the basis for achieving the ultimate goal - the universal brotherhood of people. The Communists allow the state to die out as a person improves, while the Nazi ideal is the opposite - the state is above all."

 

[it's just me]

I have to publish again this statement of the US Ambassador to the USSR in 1937-39 Joseph Davis about communism and nazism and their fundamental difference
"(July 7, 1941)
My friend Lindbergh surprised me by saying that he preferred nazism to communism. In general, making such a choice is a desperate matter, but the difference between these two subjects is too great. Both Germany and Russia are totalitarian states. Both are realistic. Both of them apply strict and ruthless methods. However, there is one significant difference that can be shown as follows. If Marx, Lenin or Stalin were Christians, and if you try to put the Communist experiment done in Russia, in the framework of the dogmas of the Catholic or Protestant churches, the result would be declared the greatest achievement of Christianity in the history of mankind in his quest for humanity and the embodiment of Christian precepts in the society. The fact is that the Christian religion can be combined with Communist principles without committing much violence to its economic and political goals, the main one of which is the "brotherhood of all people".
If we conduct a similar test with regard to Nazism, we will find that it is impossible to combine the two ideologies. The principle of Christian ideology cannot be imposed on Nazi philosophy without destroying the political basis of the state. Fascist philosophy creates a state that is actually based on the denial of the altruistic principles of Christianity. For the Nazis, love, charity, justice, and Christian values are only manifestations of weakness and decline if they contradict the needs of the state.
This is the whole difference - the Communist Soviet state can act with Christianity as the basis for achieving the ultimate goal - the universal brotherhood of people. The Communists allow the state to die out as a person improves, while the Nazi ideal is the opposite - the state is above all."

How has that worked out so far?

 

[Tigerace117]

Outlawing Naziism will cover that.

Oh look, another conservative too dumb to figure out that the people who murdered every left winger they could catch weren’t left wing.

 

[Amyishere]

There is a very dangerous path taken when you censor, however, hate speech like that the nazis espouse, combined with the power that those that hate can have, makes me wonder where the responsibility of speech should be thought about just as much as the freedom of it, if not more.

 

[Logophile]

No. That's just insulting one person.


That's shutting the barn door after the horse is out.

I'm not advocating putting people in jail, or stopping them from expressing themselves in their living rooms or club houses, or whatever. I've heard all the arguments, including yours, which seems to be, I can be rude as I like, so there. There are more thoughtful arguments against mine. But I still think we have a duty not to scapegoat whole races or religions, which is what Nazis and white nationalists do. Besides the fact that stereotypes are stupid and usually full of hateful lies, it does not respect their human dignity. It is their natural born right as much as yours. Our country is founded on that principle. Why would we fight to protect groups who undermine it?

Because we are first and foremost, an egalitarian society. Why would I put up with your opinions if i don't agree with them, if I have power and you don't?? It's only because of our forefathers - however flawed as we all are - that you get to say what you want, and I get to say what I want. Take a good hard look at what some people say here. Pretty shocking stuff. You want to stop people from shouting Nazi slogans but what about what you think?? What if you believe in the right to use weed or drink aka Prohibition or are against capitol punishment?? Does the law get to shut you up?? I hope not ever. Thanks!!

 

[MaryP]

Because we are first and foremost, an egalitarian society. Why would I put up with your opinions if i don't agree with them, if I have power and you don't?? It's only because of our forefathers - however flawed as we all are - that you get to say what you want, and I get to say what I want. Take a good hard look at what some people say here. Pretty shocking stuff. You want to stop people from shouting Nazi slogans but what about what you think?? What if you believe in the right to use weed or drink aka Prohibition or are against capitol punishment?? Does the law get to shut you up?? I hope not ever. Thanks!!

You're ignoring that we are talking about hate speech, specifically. That doesn't lead to a slippery slope if it is well defined. I've read some of the awful stuff racists write. It is harmful to give societal sanction to those ideas. We are supposed to be founded on the concept that we are all equal. We are human beings first, and should be judged on our individual merits. Scapegoating a group for the emotional or psychological high of feeling superior to them is not just pathetic, it's destructive to the group being scapegoated and we should not give it a billboard in this country. It goes against everything we stand for.

 

[Logophile]

You're ignoring that we are talking about hate speech, specifically. That doesn't lead to a slippery slope if it is well defined. I've read some of the awful stuff racists write. It is harmful to give societal sanction to those ideas. We are supposed to be founded on the concept that we are all equal. We are human beings first, and should be judged on our individual merits. Scapegoating a group for the emotional or psychological high of feeling superior to them is not just pathetic, it's destructive to the group being scapegoated and we should not give it a billboard in this country. It goes against everything we stand for.

You're on a slippery slope. I've seen plenty of hate speech here. I've seen Trump supporters called every name in the book right on this forum. They are a group of people with a common affiliation. Do you have any problem with that?? Should that be illegal?? Thanks!!

 

[Amyishere]

You're on a slippery slope. I've seen plenty of hate speech here. I've seen Trump supporters called every name in the book right on this forum. They are a group of people with a common affiliation. Do you have any problem with that?? Should that be illegal?? Thanks!!

names like what? Like shithole, which is what Trump called entire nations? Or should the bad guys be complimented and called "fine people" like Trump did with the nazis in Charlottesville? Or should we all, like Trump himself has, wish Gislaine Maxwell well? I know I don't wish that evil woman well at all. And what names shall we call Trump supporters that they don't already call themselves? Proud Boys? Oathkeepers? Three Percenters? KKK? Nazis? They are all basically one and the same thing. Oh yeah almost forgot the Q supporters that believe the conspiracy lies and projections. But then I am all talking about the same group of people. That's not "hate speech" when it's factual.

And scapegoating is something they have all mastered and brought to an art form. Scapegoating the other to the pont to where they take children away form their parents and try to justify the unjustifiable.

Unlike the "far" right that just has to tell their lies often enough to have them believed, their targets only have the facts, and there are those that are offended by that, well, too bad. I would rather have people offended at the truth I speak than be silent in the face of their lies. Speaking in general, of course.

 

[Logophile]

names like what? Like shithole, which is what Trump called entire nations? Or should the bad guys be complimented and called "fine people" like Trump did with the nazis in Charlottesville? Or should we all, like Trump himself has, wish Gislaine Maxwell well? I know I don't wish that evil woman well at all. And what names shall we call Trump supporters that they don't already call themselves? Proud Boys? Oathkeepers? Three Percenters? KKK? Nazis? They are all basically one and the same thing. Oh yeah almost forgot the Q supporters that believe the conspiracy lies and projections. But then I am all talking about the same group of people. That's not "hate speech" when it's factual.

And scapegoating is something they have all mastered and brought to an art form. Scapegoating the other to the pont to where they take children away form their parents and try to justify the unjustifiable.

Unlike the "far" right that just has to tell their lies often enough to have them believed, their targets only have the facts, and there are those that are offended by that, well, too bad. I would rather have people offended at the truth I speak than be silent in the face of their lies. Speaking in general, of course.

You're making this partisan. It's a broader discussion than that. I chose Trump supporters because they are broad brushed as a "group," and called Nazis more often than they should be here and elsewhere so I thought the example relevant to the discussion. I am not defending vicious speech or conduct by any group or president. But I am defending freedom of speech. The realities are that freedom comes with a price, and sometimes that means that mean-spirited people get to have their say like the rest of us. That's not true in China. A woman was just sentenced to 20 years in prison - Reuters carried it yesterday - for "causing trouble." Her sentence looked like it was in retaliation against her two kids - both in the States - that have openly opposed China's gross lack of human rights. Now, opposition is not hate speech by anybody's definition except the Chinese regime. Right?? But we don't want to live like that, so we tolerate even spiteful folks and let them have their say. Happily, we don't have to listen. Thanks!!

 

[MaryP]

You're on a slippery slope. I've seen plenty of hate speech here. I've seen Trump supporters called every name in the book right on this forum. They are a group of people with a common affiliation. Do you have any problem with that?? Should that be illegal?? Thanks!!

Well, I only do that on my crabbiest days, and tbh it gets boring to read it, which is why I come here to a fairly civil board.

Hate speech is nothing like partisan caterwauling. People choose to be Trump supporters, and that choice, or his platform can be criticized by others without affecting their lives every single day.

People don't choose their race or the religion and culture they were born into. Yet there are people out there who hate this group or that for unexamined reasons and go searching for every negative tidbit they can find to justify their opinion. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I've seen it here, even. ( I think that guy is gone though.) It can color others' opinions of people in that group and make life difficult, not on an equal footing when it comes down to it, because although we have laws for fair treatment, people influenced by hate speech will make biased individual decisions against individuals in that group.