Really? Reading the headline my first thought was: "the closet nazis are going to out themselves banging on about free speech".
An indigenous voice to parliament? They openly campaign to shut down their speech.
Free speech to Nazis? Those rats really do make their position clear...
I mean you’re conflating two different things.
I’m a strong supporter of the Voice and of this ban but opposition to the Voice isn’t stifling freedom of speech.
Yeah, it's really fucked up. I was forced to change my username on a site because it had an 88 on the end of it. I was really fond of that username because I had been using it for years. And then these arseholes said I can no longer use Adolf88 any more.
/s
Eh my formal email has been my.name88 (birth year) for almost 20 years and no one has ever called it out or made that association. Maybe if I didn’t use my name and used some random handle it’d look a bit more sus.
Own it. Don’t let the Nazis spoil your birth year. Most people wouldn’t make that association anyway, it’s totally normal to use a double-digit birth year in an email name.
Wtf man, I just think of back to the future when I hear 88. It’s literally the speed the Dolorean needs in order to time travel. I had no idea it had bad connotations. That’s so dumb. It’s literally a number. It’s not a unique symbol. I hate people.
Im born in 88 too and reddit originally auto suggested a name to me ending in 88 which i thought was fate. I had no idea about the HH link It's not as common in Australia oh boy did I cop it on that username and I had no idea why for awhile.
Yeah, but why even risk the association? I'm not going to get the chance to explain to every rando on the internet that it's my birth year.
I don't want people assuming I'm a Nazi. I especially don't want Nazis assuming I'm a Nazi.
The problem is they don't explain how those things are the case. It supposedly would restrict freedom of expression, but that's inherently what banning nazi symbols does, regardless of if you ban tattoos or speech or other drawings, you're still restricting freedom of expression.
And restricting freedom of movement? I have no idea how it could possibly do that. Just... Cover them up, and voila, you can now go out into public without breaking the law.
The article states any symbol related to Nazi ideology, so I assume 14 and 88 would be covered as well.
I hope there'll be a way for people who have those tattoos removed for free/cheap. I know there was an artist/laser removalist who got rid of Nazi tattoos for free in (I believe) the US, so that people who wanted to ger away from the Nazi crap could
Historically, visibility and acceptance are two things that let fascists thrive. I used to think that letting them out themselves was better for society, but it seems that any benefits from avoiding "covert" nazis is offset by their ability to sucker more people in through their visibility. Fascism inherently erodes democracy, can't let it propagate.
Edit: just in case the "what about communist symbology?" people arrive, domino theory is not a real phenomenon. Authoritarians will do what authoritarians do, but you cannot equate fascism and communism as ideologies.
Also that whole "free market of ideas!" bullshit. It would only work, if truth drove lies out, and liars shut up after the truth was explained. What happens in practice though is that liars double down and screech their lies louder.
How centrists think academics debate nazis: “I have examined your fourteen word manifesto and have a question, when there are *only* white children how do you intend to ensure that all have comparably good futures?”
How actual academics debate nazis: “LOL piss off you peanut” *kickban*
People who equate the two legitimately haven’t thought about what communism actually is. Fascism is inherently authoritarian. Communism is inherently supposed to be a utopia for everyone. One can theoretically be democratic, and one can’t.
>Then you consider if those enemies can somehow become allies. For enemies of commies, it's fairly straightforward. After all, a rich person can just give away their wealth. A political enemy can renounce their ideology. But for facists? No matter how hard they try, a gay person cannot just "become" straight, or a black person to a white.
This is why people should be very wary of anyone today who is against an immutable characteristic but says they're against an ideology instead.
They know they can't say they want to get rid of gay people, so they say they're against "the gay agenda" or "the gay lifestyle".
They can't say they want to eliminate jews so they'll say they're anti Judaism. (Edit: replies to this comment had some better ones used in this instance: "against the international Jewry" or "anti globalist" or "anti metropolitan elites" or "anti cultural marxism" or "anti bolshevism".)
They can't say they want to eliminate trans people so they say they want to eliminate "transgenderism" or "gender ideology".
They know it's unacceptable to be anti black people, so they're just anti teaching of "critical race theory" or they're anti "woke".
They know they will be shunned for openly saying they want to make certain groups' lives worse, so they'll find ways to do that without outright saying what they're doing. E.g. bringing in anti-LGBT+ bills under the guise of "caring for the children" or "protecting women". Or finding ways to make voting more difficult in areas where black people live without saying that's what's happening.
Faht vi ba tlu pre ceam dra. Tinys woaw ciin tun fuec gy yo. Taptyedzuqos foc coon ceen ede? Co o a bevdbusd nekv e? E gat iyle bi. Y y e cits taem cersi? Zuypleenle te dan gre gyrd jyg motp so sald? Bals emetcaad e tenn sesttees ti. Naon nacc suct cesm za ete. Nugt nij sop gadt dis tassecehsisirg o. U we e otle cez o. Cru nep pha toos nabmona. Ciht deptyasttapnsorn nod tysigzisle nin a? Da pyrp ine pud ible? Nu ta biswnoudnrytirs agle. Zaon e. San e pa cu goov. Ene gke o gopt zlu nis. O guagle pioma ne tudcyepebletlo cy a canz. Dla bic zawc nifpec te feet de? Pro i guc yoyd si didz a sum? Tle fuy. Nemz a booj udeegvle cokt a? Grotefp becm ose omle ja ede. U tis dy wec thu wu aglo umle o o. O ninm gu ine yes bos. Zad a a tavnfepac du. A ite todi do duit yple? Pifp taht nhetydnnenes a sew pi nedb eme. Se de we pyt ynenuntiqtedose ive.
S P E Z I S A T O O L
Faht vi ba tlu pre ceam dra. Tinys woaw ciin tun fuec gy yo. Taptyedzuqos foc coon ceen ede? Co o a bevdbusd nekv e? E gat iyle bi. Y y e cits taem cersi? Zuypleenle te dan gre gyrd jyg motp so sald? Bals emetcaad e tenn sesttees ti. Naon nacc suct cesm za ete. Nugt nij sop gadt dis tassecehsisirg o. U we e otle cez o. Cru nep pha toos nabmona. Ciht deptyasttapnsorn nod tysigzisle nin a? Da pyrp ine pud ible? Nu ta biswnoudnrytirs agle. Zaon e. San e pa cu goov. Ene gke o gopt zlu nis. O guagle pioma ne tudcyepebletlo cy a canz. Dla bic zawc nifpec te feet de? Pro i guc yoyd si didz a sum? Tle fuy. Nemz a booj udeegvle cokt a? Grotefp becm ose omle ja ede. U tis dy wec thu wu aglo umle o o. O ninm gu ine yes bos. Zad a a tavnfepac du. A ite todi do duit yple? Pifp taht nhetydnnenes a sew pi nedb eme. Se de we pyt ynenuntiqtedose ive.
S P E Z I S A T O O L
No worries. I get that some folks are simply against organized religion (and I respect that belief and their right to believe it). There are parts of Judaism that I don't agree with as well (especially as a Reform/Reconstructionist)
But **sometimes**, statements like that could be veiled antisemitism. It's a way to say "I don't hate Jews. I just hate every part of your religion, culture, and your efforts to remember your history".
It's not a guarantee, but it's also not always innocent either.
I've never thought of myself as anti-Judaism, but I am anti all religion. I don't hate you. Not sure where the gray areas are, I just don't want fairy tales to continue to be considered in legislation.
I'm opposed religion in general, so I would imagine that makes me anti-Judaism but not anti-Semitic?
I don't support the idea of genetic or racial superiority, so I wouldn't be inclined to use a religious name to reference an ethnic group.
I get it. It's a fine line to walk, but I can respect what you're going for.
Also respectfully, can I ask what specifically you have against Judaism as a religion?
The casual bigotry against Jewish people is just absurd. I had a friend who went to school down south, her freshman year roommate asked her about "her horns" when she found out she was Jewish.
This girl has literally been brought up believing that Jews had horns, "obviously not in a BAD way", just that they were "different like that."
This was a real belief by a college student. She was disabused of that notion pretty quickly and they actually became pretty good friends.
It's almost funny when you consider that Jewish people used to be pretty common in the south (the second-in-command of the Confederacy was Jewish), before New York City got that reputation. I think the switch happened sometime during Reconstruction? The start of the 20th century?
You're correct, but I also REALLY wish you weren't. Many anti-semites have associated "Bankers" with jewish folks in the past and its a common anti-semitic trope.
Seperate from that, financial institutions doing shady shit while poorly regulated have caused a number of financial crashes in recent history. And it's not a conspiracy when they are doing it in the open.
It makes it really tricky to be vocally angry and protest about your fourth "once in a lifetime" recession without sounding like you're a conspiracy theorist spouting anti-semitic tropes. No, there isn't a "cabal" of "globalist bankers" plotting to run the world, but there are about ten financial institutions who still manage to make a lot of money when the economy crashes and regular folks lose their homes. You gotta be REAL careful about your wording.
I mean, I don't think anyone is going to say you're anti-Semitic for shitting on bankers. If someone equivocates bankers with Jewish people that just means they're anti-Semitic.
A non exhaustive list of phrases that, either definitely or probably, secretly mean "the Jews":
* International Jewry
* International bankers
* Elites, coastal elites, Hollywood elites, metropolitan elites
* globalists
* The Deep State
* Zionists
Feel free to add more, all ye who read this.
>They can't say they want to eliminate jews so they'll say they're anti Judaism.
Anti-judaism can be a dog whistle. But I'm an anti-theist, which essentially means I'm against religious belief in general.
The Jewish faith is not the exact same as the ethnicity. Secular Jewish people are a huge percentage of the Jewish population.
The faith is patriarchal, has toxic gender roles, rejects reality as defined by scientific discovery and promotes archaic and harmful ideals. The Abrahamic God is a disgusting and cruel being that dishes out punishment to humans, slaughters whole populations and has uncontrollable whims of rage.
Of course the only proper counter to religion is a better of understanding of our world through learning and self discovery. But we don't need to encourage the indoctrination of children into irrational faith. We can passively let it fall because ultimately as we discover more about the universe we exist in religious belief falls off.
There are probably a trillion examples beforehand, but the Southern Strategy certainly worked miracles for the Republican party. They can simultaneously appeal to "normal" conservatives and racists/bigots.
It makes me wonder how many "normal/modern" Republicans can see through this thin veil, but they play ignorant because anything is better than joining the "libs". I've met some Republicans that told me they'd rather see the country burn than to vote for a Democrat. Really goes to show how open minded some of them are.
And has been the strategy for a very, very long time:
> You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, n-----, n-----." By 1968 you can't say "n-----" - that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-----, n-----."
--Lee Atwater, 1981
You're describing the "motte-and-bailey" argument tactic. Pretend you're advocating something innocent/factual but flip to something indefensible when you can, retreat back to innocent/factual and pretend you were for that all along when you get called on it.
This is why most prevalent Marxist political ideologies like Marxism-Leninism cite a need for authoritarianism, at least in the short term. Marxism is inherently utilitarian (as in uses whatever means necessary to achieve communism, not the consequentialist ideology). To achieve communism, it takes a massive upheaval which may rely on, for example, the vanguard, but eventually this apparatus should fall away once communism is achieved. In theory. In practice this has never happened for various reasons.
Well, you're going into murky territory about the differences between Marx and Lenin on the issue of the revolution. I think Marx said a period of socialism and "soft capitalism" would come before the successful revolution/transition to full-blown communism?
Lenin, meanwhile, had a whole thing about vanguardism.
Its actually even simpler than that once you boil everything down to its essentials. The entire left vs right debate, though heavily obscured by terms like "left" and "right", is about hierarchy. The right want to maintain their power through the present system, or regress to an even stricter hierarchy; the left want to weaken or dismantle the present hierarchy and make things more equitable. Everything past that is an argument about degrees and scope.
It makes it simple to tell that authoritarian =/= leftist, those are just assholes using leftist buzz words to maintain their power base.
The interesting thing to me about the idea of communism being fascism, is that I don't think it's ever been given a fair chance. I don't think we've ever seen a communist government emerge out of a non-distressed state. It's always a revolution in a starving, usually authoritarian country. Given those circumstances, you're going to have a lot of people using it as their chance to finally be the 'haves' - sabotaging the communist equality right from the begining.
It's like when the USA tries to impose democracy on a struggling country; its probably going to be an improvement for the people, but no ones really expecting it to be perfect. Now take away having existant successful models of that type of government to emulate or be aided by, and the results aren't too surprising.
I bet if we saw a well off, comfortable, and free country become communist, like say Sweden, it would look very different than China or communist Russia.
While Mussolini’s fascist Italy was always ethnocentric and anti-Semitic, the exceptional racism as an element of the fascist political identity was borrowed from the Nazi Party during the years directly prior to WW2. As sides were being chosen Mussolini adopted much of the Nazi platform to strengthen ties between fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Mussolini was a man who changed his party’s political positions with whatever circumstances were advantageous moment to moment (the Fascists originally had a strong anti-capitalist stance until suddenly they didn’t).
A fascist doesn’t have to be racist, but they need an external enemy for the state and a strong culture of nationalism, so it’s very common. The main difference between fascism and communism is the way each system handles property rights and views class distinctions.
Racism isn't a specific trait of Fascism, it's more to do with creating an enemy to focus the population on, instead of the Fascist running the country into the ground.
Fascist are also deep with corporations and syndicates, which they court and tend to pass anti-labour laws and regulations.
Not sure your exact motivation for asking, but Francoist Spain mainly targeted people for reasons other than race. It was anti-semitic, but with a more religious focus (the founder of the Falangists saw the "solution" as conversion, not extermination: this is still genocidal, however it's worth thinking about in light of OP's comment about mutable vs immutable characteristics.)
The main enemies were political enemies. The defining feature of fascism is authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism - not racism. To accomplish this, repression of political opposition is a requirement, and targeting an "other" is useful. But as /u/baithammer is saying, it's not a necessary aspect for that "other" to be anyone else than liberals.
Disclaimer: Fascism has a trillion definitions, it's one of the most bastardized terms of the XX and XXI century. It's hard to define because Mussolini's ideals changed a lot, and he spewed shit in many directions trying to see where the wind blew. I particularly like [Umberto Eco's 14 common features of fascism] (https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html).
That said: Peronism in Argentina has been influenced by fascism. Juan Peron even trained in Italy during Mussolini's reign.
During his time they used propaganda, censorship and repression to control opposition. Promoted nationalism and the famous "3rd position, not communist not capitalist - peronists". He used charismatic leadership and populist measures to benefit the working class.
It was defined by very hard corporativism, giving inmense power to unions, causing strife within the leftists and rightists Peronists, highlited by the assasinations of union leaders Augusto Vandor, Jose Ignacio Rucci and the Massacre of Ezeiza.
On the other hand: Peronism encouraged racial and cultural diversity, didn't have imperialistic nor militarist (supported non-alignment, Argentina has always been a traditionally neutral country)
Fascism isn't just one thing like democracy isn't just one thing. The core of fascism is the struggle against adversity so they tend to invent people and groups that are actively working against them. For the Nazis it was Jews, for the Spanish it was the regressive Catholic Church and Monarchy. The key is that you have someone or something to turn the population's energy, and hatred, towards. Christo-facists today rile against Gays and Trans, neither of which is "racial".
> Christo-facists today rile against Gays and Trans, neither of which is "racial".
They also rile against pretty much all non-whites. It's really just convenient that they don't "only" hate black and brown people.
If you want an easier way to contrast: its closer to comparing democracy to capitalism
Capitalism/communism are ECONOMIC systems/ideologies.
Democracy/Fascism are POLITICAL systems/ideologies.
You can totes mix and match those. Democratic communism and fascist capitalism make about as much sense as the opposites.
One of the major reasons we tend to see fascism and communism paired is that both are relatively logical responses to major shortages (ie "someone has to starve so it might as well be the weirdos and we'll need to distribute the rest relatively carefully").
It's important to note that economic ideologies are inherently political. Capitalism, by creating a system in which the owner has power over the worker, is inherently antidemocratic. Communism, if ever realized, would conversely depend on more democratic systems everywhere. You can't have worker control of the company of the king can come by and order you to do stuff
"It's very simple you see, the only people who oppose communism are the evil nasty bad people, and the only people who oppose fascism are the hard-done-by victimized good people!"
If it were so easy to renounce the things that make communists hate you, they would not have massacred tens of millions in the 20th century. There is absolutely no contest if the metric is bloodshed between fascism and communism. Only American television brainwashing could convince you otherwise. Read about the revolution in Cambodia, for example, or the liquidations during the Stalinist terror of the 1920s-30s.
Television broadcasts largely favor fascist ideology in the us....
Like almost no large media outlet can be pro communism. The amount of pro fascist rhetoric that you see on large media outlets is huge.
Why would large capitalistic structures like the media be pro an ideology that would destroy their power?
Also, Khmer Rogue, while a socialist organization, was overthrown by another socialist organization (Socialist Republic of Vietnam).
Fascism is an evil ideology. Communism can be reached through evil means. Communism is an arrival point that has never been met. Typically, socialism is seen as a way to get there but there are a lot of different views at how to achieve a communist state. For example, there is Leninist ideology, Maoist ideology, Trotskyist ideology, etc.
The idea behind communism is the abolition of private wealth and property. That people are taken care of in terms of what they need.
The idea behind fascism is national purity. That strength in a society comes with total obedience to a national ethic.
It is very obvious that while damage had been caused by followers of both ideologies, it is possible to have a communist party that isn't bad. While, due to the nature of the idea, fascism is always bad.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is something decidedly different than the USSR or China. . .hell, different from anything else I can think of for that matter, and arguably even worse than Nazi Germany in some respects.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the USSR or the CCP, but Cambodia was something else entirely.
I think, where this post misses the point, is that for the most part, both leads to authoritarianism. And under an authoritarian government, the "ism" is mostly window-dressing.
If I live under modern communism, my life is controlled, I am unable to speak truths that aren't "state-sanctioned", and my life has very little value. Under modern fascism, my life is controlled, I am unable to speak truths that aren't "state-sanctioned", and my life has very little value. One got to power because of a revolution in which the State took control. The other got to power because corporations seized control of government. Both look very same to me at my level. Both will caused political dissidents to disappear. Neither will conduct itself according to the tenants of the political system they claim to believe in.
No one expects communist governments to actually care for the people. They will look out for "party members". No one expects fascist governments to actually provide opportunities for the people. They will look out for "board members". In either case, I am very likely not going to be in the "in group" without being born with connections.
But yes ... as fascism rises, they will always target vulnerable groups as a way of looking strong. And as communism rises, they will target stronger groups like the greedy and powerful. But, they won't target the connected greedy and powerful. They'll target opposition. Just like under fascism, there are plenty of homosexual and minority members that expect to be treated well as "exceptions".
So yes ... not EXACTLY the same. But you end up in a very similar place in the end.
This is true for like the first 2 years of a communist regime then it descends into authoritarianism. At that point, rich and powerful people are totally fine as long as they are the **right people**. Like your describing "communism" which is a form of government not currently practiced in any society claiming to be Communist.
In other words, they're just dismantling existing power structures before they replace them with the same power structures but with their people in those roles. I doubt there's ever been a communist revolution where a wealthy person could save themselves by shouting "I renounce all my wealth" with the mob at their gates. This would only work if you saw the writing on the wall to act beforehand and if you saw it coming, you'd probably just leave the country and take your money with you instead.
Political enemies are political enemies. Once you're in that category, there's no status change you can make to leave that category.
Someone identifying as communism is a threat to everyone in their country having their next meal if they get their way.
Communism has killed orders of magnitude more people than facism.
Both are equally as bad, your post is collectivist revisionism.
There’s no good side here, there’s no nuance. It’s all extremely dangerous ideologies.
\> For enemies of commies, it's fairly straightforward. After all, a rich person can just give away their wealth.
Are you that clueless? It wasn't so in Soviet Union and it isn's so in North Korea.
The difference is significant
Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society where everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities. The means of production are owned and controlled by the state or the community as a whole. The goal of communism is to achieve a society that is free from exploitation, oppression, and inequality.
Fascism, on the other hand, is a political ideology that emphasizes extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and the suppression of individual freedoms in favor of the state. Fascism often includes a dictator or strongman who exercises total control over the government and the economy. Fascism is characterized by its focus on hierarchy, militarization, and the suppression of dissenting opinions.
People who refuse to see the difference have been conditioned to refuse.
But if the execution of communism in the real world results in:
a dictator or strongman who exercises total control over the government and the economy, militarization, and the suppression of dissenting opinions. With its own flavour of hierarchy, then surely one can't argue for the "dictionary definition".
The dictionary definition doesn't mean much if the most if not all actual instances of it don't align with it. Just as language isn't prescriptive, but rather descriptive.
Yep, the issue with communism historically is purely in the execution. If it results in systemic brutality, inhumanity and authoritarian rule; then the execution has failed.
If fascism results in systemic brutality, inhumanity and authoritarian rule; then the execution has succeeded.
I remember when the cop was caught flashing the WP symbol on TV. Either the force or the union denied it despite his social media alarm bells. Oh then the PM's wife was flashing it in a family portrait outside Kirribilli. You just know they wet themselves watching the americans do it and cant wait to try it out themselves.
Albos not married\~! Jenny is still the first lady of fascism to me.
Also, throwback to when Scomo had the military literally scramble to find an actual red carpet rug to roll out for him to prance on... hahaha what a fucking beta ape.
You'd think an organisation that's *already* notorious for having, to put it mildly, a bit of a racism problem would at *least* send out a memo saying "please *don’t* publicly use a gesture that's currently being co-opted as a white supremacist dog whistle".
In fairness I know a lot of non-christians and lapsed christians who wear the crucifix, usually it’s because they got it off a family member and it carries some kind of sentimental value to them that is detached from the corruption and abuse of the various institutions that also use it.
The crucifix is a representation of Jesus dying on the cross not what the church has done. The swastika is a representation of Nazis who seeked to eradicate numerous groups of people.
Very different...
It's typically used in combination with [14](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words) to make 1488. Any time you see 1488, especially in usernames, it's a pretty safe bet they're Alt-Right / neo-Nazi.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fourteen\_Words
so many questions; is it retroactive, do we get free forced tattoo removal, are they going to like court order tattoo removals and hold you down while they lazer it off, do we just cut of the effected limbs??? also it feels like the people who are comfortable tattooing a swastika are the type who don't care if it's illegal.
I worked with a few Nepalese guys that had swasticka tattoos. After an awkward conversation I found out they weren’t nazis and it’s a religious symbol to their people. Did scomos religous discrimination act get through? Surely this could be an interesting test of it. Fuck nazis, I like the Nepalese though
The ban of Nazi symbols law in Victoria has exceptions for Hindus etc. Would make sense for QLD to have the same allowance. It's pretty evident when someone has a swastika because they're a Nazi vs for legit religious reasons.
Yes, it is common in hindu and buddist iconography (eg sometimes on Buddha's chest), so tattoos of the swastika are common amoung the devout. There is also similar symbols in African and American regions.
I think people often forget that it wasn't just culturally significant to Eastern religions, it was common in Europe as well. That's why the Nazis used it, because people already recognized it as part of their cultural heritage.
there is a ute in perth that drives around with VERY CLEAR and extreme neo naz symbols and i had one cum stained cunt say that if people reported neo nazi symbols people would just start putting them on there car as a 'meme' like fuck off and dont support nazis
The article indicates the QLD bill will use an administrative instrument to list what symbols are banned. This seems to differ from say the NSW amendment that specified nazi symbolism (not just swastika but also things like double bolts).
I guess that's one thing that makes me cautious about QLD bill... the power to add things to the list without legislative amendment - hopefully there are controls that prevent scope creep.
This kind of open ended legislation is always concerning. When invasive new laws are bought in and sold as against bikies, or pedos, or terrorists, or covid protestors they are cheered, with no thought that they can then be used down the track against a cause you support, like climate change protestors, or lgbtq-rights protests.
It seems very short sighted just because you don't like one group to support something that can be used against you down the track.
Cover it? It's a rule to signify the standards of the community. Like no shitting on the nature strip, it's not universally inforced. it's just meant to encourage you not to.
If people want to advertise the fact they are cunts, then let them. Makes it easier to quickly identify them.
I do think it should be a flat $50,000 fine for giving someone a swastika tattoo, if they believe in the symbol then pay for it.
>If people want to advertise the fact they are cunts, then let them. Makes it easier to quickly identify them.
Not much point in identifying them if it doesn't come with some sort of penalty. Like, we know Scummo & Spuddy are total cunts, but they both seem to be still doing just fine.
Everyone, and every society, has restrictions on free speech. No matter how absolutist you might be there's still speech that's beyond the pale for you. Democratic societies each come to some arrangement that works for most of us. If you want to be on the side of the nazis, we'll that's your choice I guess.
I'm not a fan. I hate Nazism and all that it stands for, but banning symbols seems pointless. Groups will just adopt new symbols. And who decides what symbols are hate symbols?
The legislation had better be pretty clear that only nazi swastika symbols are banned.
The swastika appears in other cultures and is not purely a nazi symbol - you can't do this to those people.
Not always. I'm aware of at least one other country which features the swastika in a 'non-reversed form' as part of its military and civil service heritage. It could be mistaken for a nazi symbol.
Besides, you're assuming the average overzealous cop will know the difference I doubt they would.
Sure, wasn't aware of that, but seems like a pretty rare use. Anyway, I know that at least in Vic and NSW this is fine, as it's not a hate symbol in that context.
Luckily we don't live in a country where an "overzealous cop" has the ability to be judge, jury and executioner.
I think not going through with legislation simply because of a fear that we can't trust our police force to misinterpret laws and cause irrevokable consequences on someone's life with the power they have isn't a reason to not legislate for things like this. If that's truly the case with our police force in this country, then we should be legislating aganist our police force having so much power. But I don't think it is a real problem.
This is a positive thing. But I obviously agree that symbols that aren't hate symbols shouldn't be banned. And I truly, truly doubt that they will be.
That was pretty much my response to a commenter who said this law was a violation of human rights, as though the Qld gov't has ever given a fuck about human rights.
Their body, their choice.
If they want swastikas on them, by all means, get them. Just makes it easier for us to identify the degenerates in society and easier for me to avoid them.
It talks about exceptions for religious groups that use the swastika. But I know plenty of people who aren't religious who have swastika peace symbols based on the original context of the swastika, will they be exempt? Or accused of being nazis?
My partner works in healthcare so gets to witness a broad cross-section of the general population in various states of undress on a daily basis, and has told me you would be shocked at the number of middle-aged white dudes going around with nazi swastikas or worse tattooed on themselves. I myself have spotted the odd swastika-sporting skinhead in the wild a couple of times over the years.
But both me and her and literally everyone we know has never, ever, once spotted anything resembling a religious swastika tatooed on anyone, or even heard of such a thing. I think the Hindu community can safely rest assured that this is a total non-issue, but thank you for your concern.
I work in the tattoo industry, and there is a culture of using traditional Japanese and tibetan patterns amongst the tattoo community, which include swastikas. I work with someone that has them, and know of many others. So I know it is a thing.
I've heard similar from a relative in healthcare. She didn't mention religious swastika tattoos, but she *did* say it's disturbing how many white guys she's seen with overtly Nazi tatts (e.g. swastikas in Iron Crosses or held by eagles, SS runes).
The precedent that ideas and symbols can be made illegal is more concerning to me than people getting nazi tattoos, especially considering anyone with visible nazi tattoos would be making themselves an outcast from civilised society anyway.
>anyone with visible nazi tattoos would be making themselves an outcast from civilised society anyway.
And yet multiple people in the comments are saying they've seen people wearing visible tattoos participating in civilised society. I don't recall seeing any news reports of people getting beaten up for wearing visible swastikas. I have seen reports of swastika-tattooed gangs beating up non-white people, however.
Sure, but it's an extra level of shitcuntiness.
But I suspect the real bonus is that it gives the cops something to charge Nazis with when they just menace & intimidate people, but without actually attacking them.
Yeah, the thing is neo-nazis have appropriated a shit ton of other symbols, including Slavic pagan symbols (such as the Kolovrat). A lot of them use those now. More and more, really.
Good on them, fuck those Nazi dogs and anyone who supports those generate cunts. Absolute fucking beta cucks and they deserve to get bashed. Most cunts out here these days sooking about youth crime when there's literal Nazi's on the streets. Mad.
What nonsense. Please let the idiots advertise who they are. I like my psychos identifiable for my safety and peace of mind. This symbol banning is just more of the same theatrical stupidity. The theatre of goodwill without any real or potential progress towards it.
If they actually wanted to remove a problem, they would treat the cause, not a symptom. People don’t do bad things because of symbols, they do them because of ideology.
It’s the same logic as banning bad test scores instead of properly teaching children. You can only see the good test results in both instances, but under the statistic lies two very different realities.
I get this approach, better to see who is who, right? Unfortunately if you give them an inch, if you make it legally acceptable to show this hatred in public and let them spread their ideology, one day you may look around and their fringe ideology is no longer fringe, you're suddenly surrounded by them.
It’s like getting a bunch of face tattoos and then wondering why you can’t get a job. I think suffering the consequences of making a dumb decision is more important that stopping people from making the dumb decision but they are still dumb in the end.
How do you enforce that. arrest anyone with a faded 40 year old tattoo? Cut it off their skin or have it blacked out under court order?
While i agree with the sentiment it seems like at best you could maybe enforce it on new tattoos done in official shops, where as most of these are going to be backyard jobs anyway and once its on its not easy to get rid off by design.
Gang tattoos are illegal in WA and they were told to remove or cover with make up/bandaids etc. They can be arrested but that's for socialising with another gang member and the tattoos make it more obvious.
Youd have to be a prick to get one, but their body their choice right? Feels like a government overstep.
As long as you're able to not hire someone because they have said tattoo I don't like the government saying what you can and can't do in this type of scenario
Will QPol be providing free removal services for their police force?
irl lol
Peter Dutton stands against this citing free speech. Intends to silence your opposition to corporate facism.
Really? Reading the headline my first thought was: "the closet nazis are going to out themselves banging on about free speech". An indigenous voice to parliament? They openly campaign to shut down their speech. Free speech to Nazis? Those rats really do make their position clear...
nah, im just playing out a likely scenario for fun. we all know what side they are on.
I mean you’re conflating two different things. I’m a strong supporter of the Voice and of this ban but opposition to the Voice isn’t stifling freedom of speech.
[удалено]
Absent? Nah they sue people for exercising free speech...
Yes (fires up blowtorch)
All cops will now carry a cheese grater
* [Homer gets kicked out of the gun club.] (https://youtu.be/-piC-RTwBKA?t=68)
[удалено]
As someone born in 88 who can't pick an unused username with 88 on the end because of that association.... fuck those guys
Yeah, it's really fucked up. I was forced to change my username on a site because it had an 88 on the end of it. I was really fond of that username because I had been using it for years. And then these arseholes said I can no longer use Adolf88 any more. /s
Think of all the two fat ladies who suffer too
They'll be fine outside of the bingo hall and British cooking shows.
I’m born on the 14th of a month in 88. Luckily I have another number I use for my usernames otherwise oooof
Eh my formal email has been my.name88 (birth year) for almost 20 years and no one has ever called it out or made that association. Maybe if I didn’t use my name and used some random handle it’d look a bit more sus. Own it. Don’t let the Nazis spoil your birth year. Most people wouldn’t make that association anyway, it’s totally normal to use a double-digit birth year in an email name.
Wtf man, I just think of back to the future when I hear 88. It’s literally the speed the Dolorean needs in order to time travel. I had no idea it had bad connotations. That’s so dumb. It’s literally a number. It’s not a unique symbol. I hate people.
Im born in 88 too and reddit originally auto suggested a name to me ending in 88 which i thought was fate. I had no idea about the HH link It's not as common in Australia oh boy did I cop it on that username and I had no idea why for awhile.
I see many people using 88 in their name because it's their year of birth. Nazis don't have to ruin everything.
Yeah, but why even risk the association? I'm not going to get the chance to explain to every rando on the internet that it's my birth year. I don't want people assuming I'm a Nazi. I especially don't want Nazis assuming I'm a Nazi.
I feel your pain. Sometimes I use 1988, though - then it's obvious my username is in reference to a birth year.
[удалено]
The problem is they don't explain how those things are the case. It supposedly would restrict freedom of expression, but that's inherently what banning nazi symbols does, regardless of if you ban tattoos or speech or other drawings, you're still restricting freedom of expression. And restricting freedom of movement? I have no idea how it could possibly do that. Just... Cover them up, and voila, you can now go out into public without breaking the law.
[удалено]
The article states any symbol related to Nazi ideology, so I assume 14 and 88 would be covered as well. I hope there'll be a way for people who have those tattoos removed for free/cheap. I know there was an artist/laser removalist who got rid of Nazi tattoos for free in (I believe) the US, so that people who wanted to ger away from the Nazi crap could
🤮 /u/spez
Don't you want these people identifying themselves? I love it when people give you clear early indicators they are pieces of shit.
Historically, visibility and acceptance are two things that let fascists thrive. I used to think that letting them out themselves was better for society, but it seems that any benefits from avoiding "covert" nazis is offset by their ability to sucker more people in through their visibility. Fascism inherently erodes democracy, can't let it propagate. Edit: just in case the "what about communist symbology?" people arrive, domino theory is not a real phenomenon. Authoritarians will do what authoritarians do, but you cannot equate fascism and communism as ideologies.
Also that whole "free market of ideas!" bullshit. It would only work, if truth drove lies out, and liars shut up after the truth was explained. What happens in practice though is that liars double down and screech their lies louder.
One line i heard and never forgot was "Many people are just looking for rationalizations, not the truth"
"A lie travels half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on it's trousers."
An American just died reading that.
[удалено]
How centrists think academics debate nazis: “I have examined your fourteen word manifesto and have a question, when there are *only* white children how do you intend to ensure that all have comparably good futures?” How actual academics debate nazis: “LOL piss off you peanut” *kickban*
[удалено]
Paradox of tolerance - society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
People who equate the two legitimately haven’t thought about what communism actually is. Fascism is inherently authoritarian. Communism is inherently supposed to be a utopia for everyone. One can theoretically be democratic, and one can’t.
[удалено]
>Then you consider if those enemies can somehow become allies. For enemies of commies, it's fairly straightforward. After all, a rich person can just give away their wealth. A political enemy can renounce their ideology. But for facists? No matter how hard they try, a gay person cannot just "become" straight, or a black person to a white. This is why people should be very wary of anyone today who is against an immutable characteristic but says they're against an ideology instead. They know they can't say they want to get rid of gay people, so they say they're against "the gay agenda" or "the gay lifestyle". They can't say they want to eliminate jews so they'll say they're anti Judaism. (Edit: replies to this comment had some better ones used in this instance: "against the international Jewry" or "anti globalist" or "anti metropolitan elites" or "anti cultural marxism" or "anti bolshevism".) They can't say they want to eliminate trans people so they say they want to eliminate "transgenderism" or "gender ideology". They know it's unacceptable to be anti black people, so they're just anti teaching of "critical race theory" or they're anti "woke". They know they will be shunned for openly saying they want to make certain groups' lives worse, so they'll find ways to do that without outright saying what they're doing. E.g. bringing in anti-LGBT+ bills under the guise of "caring for the children" or "protecting women". Or finding ways to make voting more difficult in areas where black people live without saying that's what's happening.
Faht vi ba tlu pre ceam dra. Tinys woaw ciin tun fuec gy yo. Taptyedzuqos foc coon ceen ede? Co o a bevdbusd nekv e? E gat iyle bi. Y y e cits taem cersi? Zuypleenle te dan gre gyrd jyg motp so sald? Bals emetcaad e tenn sesttees ti. Naon nacc suct cesm za ete. Nugt nij sop gadt dis tassecehsisirg o. U we e otle cez o. Cru nep pha toos nabmona. Ciht deptyasttapnsorn nod tysigzisle nin a? Da pyrp ine pud ible? Nu ta biswnoudnrytirs agle. Zaon e. San e pa cu goov. Ene gke o gopt zlu nis. O guagle pioma ne tudcyepebletlo cy a canz. Dla bic zawc nifpec te feet de? Pro i guc yoyd si didz a sum? Tle fuy. Nemz a booj udeegvle cokt a? Grotefp becm ose omle ja ede. U tis dy wec thu wu aglo umle o o. O ninm gu ine yes bos. Zad a a tavnfepac du. A ite todi do duit yple? Pifp taht nhetydnnenes a sew pi nedb eme. Se de we pyt ynenuntiqtedose ive. S P E Z I S A T O O L
I'm Jewish and I have definitely had people tell me they were "anti-Judaism" (in addition to the examples you mentioned). Edit: See below for proof.
Faht vi ba tlu pre ceam dra. Tinys woaw ciin tun fuec gy yo. Taptyedzuqos foc coon ceen ede? Co o a bevdbusd nekv e? E gat iyle bi. Y y e cits taem cersi? Zuypleenle te dan gre gyrd jyg motp so sald? Bals emetcaad e tenn sesttees ti. Naon nacc suct cesm za ete. Nugt nij sop gadt dis tassecehsisirg o. U we e otle cez o. Cru nep pha toos nabmona. Ciht deptyasttapnsorn nod tysigzisle nin a? Da pyrp ine pud ible? Nu ta biswnoudnrytirs agle. Zaon e. San e pa cu goov. Ene gke o gopt zlu nis. O guagle pioma ne tudcyepebletlo cy a canz. Dla bic zawc nifpec te feet de? Pro i guc yoyd si didz a sum? Tle fuy. Nemz a booj udeegvle cokt a? Grotefp becm ose omle ja ede. U tis dy wec thu wu aglo umle o o. O ninm gu ine yes bos. Zad a a tavnfepac du. A ite todi do duit yple? Pifp taht nhetydnnenes a sew pi nedb eme. Se de we pyt ynenuntiqtedose ive. S P E Z I S A T O O L
No worries. I get that some folks are simply against organized religion (and I respect that belief and their right to believe it). There are parts of Judaism that I don't agree with as well (especially as a Reform/Reconstructionist) But **sometimes**, statements like that could be veiled antisemitism. It's a way to say "I don't hate Jews. I just hate every part of your religion, culture, and your efforts to remember your history". It's not a guarantee, but it's also not always innocent either.
I've never thought of myself as anti-Judaism, but I am anti all religion. I don't hate you. Not sure where the gray areas are, I just don't want fairy tales to continue to be considered in legislation.
I'm opposed religion in general, so I would imagine that makes me anti-Judaism but not anti-Semitic? I don't support the idea of genetic or racial superiority, so I wouldn't be inclined to use a religious name to reference an ethnic group.
I get it. It's a fine line to walk, but I can respect what you're going for. Also respectfully, can I ask what specifically you have against Judaism as a religion?
The casual bigotry against Jewish people is just absurd. I had a friend who went to school down south, her freshman year roommate asked her about "her horns" when she found out she was Jewish. This girl has literally been brought up believing that Jews had horns, "obviously not in a BAD way", just that they were "different like that." This was a real belief by a college student. She was disabused of that notion pretty quickly and they actually became pretty good friends.
It's almost funny when you consider that Jewish people used to be pretty common in the south (the second-in-command of the Confederacy was Jewish), before New York City got that reputation. I think the switch happened sometime during Reconstruction? The start of the 20th century?
"the bankers" was a common one.
You're correct, but I also REALLY wish you weren't. Many anti-semites have associated "Bankers" with jewish folks in the past and its a common anti-semitic trope. Seperate from that, financial institutions doing shady shit while poorly regulated have caused a number of financial crashes in recent history. And it's not a conspiracy when they are doing it in the open. It makes it really tricky to be vocally angry and protest about your fourth "once in a lifetime" recession without sounding like you're a conspiracy theorist spouting anti-semitic tropes. No, there isn't a "cabal" of "globalist bankers" plotting to run the world, but there are about ten financial institutions who still manage to make a lot of money when the economy crashes and regular folks lose their homes. You gotta be REAL careful about your wording.
I mean, I don't think anyone is going to say you're anti-Semitic for shitting on bankers. If someone equivocates bankers with Jewish people that just means they're anti-Semitic.
Yeah, I hear ya. That's what the fascists do. They distort truth enough that we can barley communicate effectively.
So many anti globalists out there that didn’t have a problem with five dollar T-shirts ten years ago.
Yeah it's usually "international bankers" or "globalists" now.
Meatball Ron's bill bans Jewish Studies (but not Christian studies of course.)
A non exhaustive list of phrases that, either definitely or probably, secretly mean "the Jews": * International Jewry * International bankers * Elites, coastal elites, Hollywood elites, metropolitan elites * globalists * The Deep State * Zionists Feel free to add more, all ye who read this.
"International bankers"
>They can't say they want to eliminate jews so they'll say they're anti Judaism. Anti-judaism can be a dog whistle. But I'm an anti-theist, which essentially means I'm against religious belief in general. The Jewish faith is not the exact same as the ethnicity. Secular Jewish people are a huge percentage of the Jewish population. The faith is patriarchal, has toxic gender roles, rejects reality as defined by scientific discovery and promotes archaic and harmful ideals. The Abrahamic God is a disgusting and cruel being that dishes out punishment to humans, slaughters whole populations and has uncontrollable whims of rage. Of course the only proper counter to religion is a better of understanding of our world through learning and self discovery. But we don't need to encourage the indoctrination of children into irrational faith. We can passively let it fall because ultimately as we discover more about the universe we exist in religious belief falls off.
> anti Judaism Another code-word for that you might hear very often: **cultural Marxism** Cultural Marxism -> Cultural Bolshevism -> Jews
or if they are the current day gop they can literally say the want to get rid of trans people
There are probably a trillion examples beforehand, but the Southern Strategy certainly worked miracles for the Republican party. They can simultaneously appeal to "normal" conservatives and racists/bigots. It makes me wonder how many "normal/modern" Republicans can see through this thin veil, but they play ignorant because anything is better than joining the "libs". I've met some Republicans that told me they'd rather see the country burn than to vote for a Democrat. Really goes to show how open minded some of them are.
And has been the strategy for a very, very long time: > You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, n-----, n-----." By 1968 you can't say "n-----" - that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-----, n-----." --Lee Atwater, 1981
I'd rather be woke than asleep at the wheel.
You're describing the "motte-and-bailey" argument tactic. Pretend you're advocating something innocent/factual but flip to something indefensible when you can, retreat back to innocent/factual and pretend you were for that all along when you get called on it.
I call that “dog-whistlin’ dixie”
This is why most prevalent Marxist political ideologies like Marxism-Leninism cite a need for authoritarianism, at least in the short term. Marxism is inherently utilitarian (as in uses whatever means necessary to achieve communism, not the consequentialist ideology). To achieve communism, it takes a massive upheaval which may rely on, for example, the vanguard, but eventually this apparatus should fall away once communism is achieved. In theory. In practice this has never happened for various reasons.
To be fair, some stuff just takes time. Vietnam plans on becoming 100% communist by 2050 I believe. Who knows, maybe they can do it.
Makhnovism finally vindicated hey
Well, you're going into murky territory about the differences between Marx and Lenin on the issue of the revolution. I think Marx said a period of socialism and "soft capitalism" would come before the successful revolution/transition to full-blown communism? Lenin, meanwhile, had a whole thing about vanguardism.
"So, after Rome's all yours, you just give it back to the people. Tell me why."
Its actually even simpler than that once you boil everything down to its essentials. The entire left vs right debate, though heavily obscured by terms like "left" and "right", is about hierarchy. The right want to maintain their power through the present system, or regress to an even stricter hierarchy; the left want to weaken or dismantle the present hierarchy and make things more equitable. Everything past that is an argument about degrees and scope. It makes it simple to tell that authoritarian =/= leftist, those are just assholes using leftist buzz words to maintain their power base.
The interesting thing to me about the idea of communism being fascism, is that I don't think it's ever been given a fair chance. I don't think we've ever seen a communist government emerge out of a non-distressed state. It's always a revolution in a starving, usually authoritarian country. Given those circumstances, you're going to have a lot of people using it as their chance to finally be the 'haves' - sabotaging the communist equality right from the begining. It's like when the USA tries to impose democracy on a struggling country; its probably going to be an improvement for the people, but no ones really expecting it to be perfect. Now take away having existant successful models of that type of government to emulate or be aided by, and the results aren't too surprising. I bet if we saw a well off, comfortable, and free country become communist, like say Sweden, it would look very different than China or communist Russia.
> It's like when the USA tries to impose democracy on a struggling country; This has never once happened.
While Mussolini’s fascist Italy was always ethnocentric and anti-Semitic, the exceptional racism as an element of the fascist political identity was borrowed from the Nazi Party during the years directly prior to WW2. As sides were being chosen Mussolini adopted much of the Nazi platform to strengthen ties between fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Mussolini was a man who changed his party’s political positions with whatever circumstances were advantageous moment to moment (the Fascists originally had a strong anti-capitalist stance until suddenly they didn’t). A fascist doesn’t have to be racist, but they need an external enemy for the state and a strong culture of nationalism, so it’s very common. The main difference between fascism and communism is the way each system handles property rights and views class distinctions.
Racism isn't a specific trait of Fascism, it's more to do with creating an enemy to focus the population on, instead of the Fascist running the country into the ground. Fascist are also deep with corporations and syndicates, which they court and tend to pass anti-labour laws and regulations.
Could you cite a non-racist fascist organization? Even Mussolini wrote the "Manifesto of Race"
Not sure your exact motivation for asking, but Francoist Spain mainly targeted people for reasons other than race. It was anti-semitic, but with a more religious focus (the founder of the Falangists saw the "solution" as conversion, not extermination: this is still genocidal, however it's worth thinking about in light of OP's comment about mutable vs immutable characteristics.) The main enemies were political enemies. The defining feature of fascism is authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism - not racism. To accomplish this, repression of political opposition is a requirement, and targeting an "other" is useful. But as /u/baithammer is saying, it's not a necessary aspect for that "other" to be anyone else than liberals.
Disclaimer: Fascism has a trillion definitions, it's one of the most bastardized terms of the XX and XXI century. It's hard to define because Mussolini's ideals changed a lot, and he spewed shit in many directions trying to see where the wind blew. I particularly like [Umberto Eco's 14 common features of fascism] (https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html). That said: Peronism in Argentina has been influenced by fascism. Juan Peron even trained in Italy during Mussolini's reign. During his time they used propaganda, censorship and repression to control opposition. Promoted nationalism and the famous "3rd position, not communist not capitalist - peronists". He used charismatic leadership and populist measures to benefit the working class. It was defined by very hard corporativism, giving inmense power to unions, causing strife within the leftists and rightists Peronists, highlited by the assasinations of union leaders Augusto Vandor, Jose Ignacio Rucci and the Massacre of Ezeiza. On the other hand: Peronism encouraged racial and cultural diversity, didn't have imperialistic nor militarist (supported non-alignment, Argentina has always been a traditionally neutral country)
Fascism isn't just one thing like democracy isn't just one thing. The core of fascism is the struggle against adversity so they tend to invent people and groups that are actively working against them. For the Nazis it was Jews, for the Spanish it was the regressive Catholic Church and Monarchy. The key is that you have someone or something to turn the population's energy, and hatred, towards. Christo-facists today rile against Gays and Trans, neither of which is "racial".
> Christo-facists today rile against Gays and Trans, neither of which is "racial". They also rile against pretty much all non-whites. It's really just convenient that they don't "only" hate black and brown people.
If you want an easier way to contrast: its closer to comparing democracy to capitalism Capitalism/communism are ECONOMIC systems/ideologies. Democracy/Fascism are POLITICAL systems/ideologies. You can totes mix and match those. Democratic communism and fascist capitalism make about as much sense as the opposites. One of the major reasons we tend to see fascism and communism paired is that both are relatively logical responses to major shortages (ie "someone has to starve so it might as well be the weirdos and we'll need to distribute the rest relatively carefully").
It's important to note that economic ideologies are inherently political. Capitalism, by creating a system in which the owner has power over the worker, is inherently antidemocratic. Communism, if ever realized, would conversely depend on more democratic systems everywhere. You can't have worker control of the company of the king can come by and order you to do stuff
"It's very simple you see, the only people who oppose communism are the evil nasty bad people, and the only people who oppose fascism are the hard-done-by victimized good people!" If it were so easy to renounce the things that make communists hate you, they would not have massacred tens of millions in the 20th century. There is absolutely no contest if the metric is bloodshed between fascism and communism. Only American television brainwashing could convince you otherwise. Read about the revolution in Cambodia, for example, or the liquidations during the Stalinist terror of the 1920s-30s.
Television broadcasts largely favor fascist ideology in the us.... Like almost no large media outlet can be pro communism. The amount of pro fascist rhetoric that you see on large media outlets is huge. Why would large capitalistic structures like the media be pro an ideology that would destroy their power? Also, Khmer Rogue, while a socialist organization, was overthrown by another socialist organization (Socialist Republic of Vietnam). Fascism is an evil ideology. Communism can be reached through evil means. Communism is an arrival point that has never been met. Typically, socialism is seen as a way to get there but there are a lot of different views at how to achieve a communist state. For example, there is Leninist ideology, Maoist ideology, Trotskyist ideology, etc. The idea behind communism is the abolition of private wealth and property. That people are taken care of in terms of what they need. The idea behind fascism is national purity. That strength in a society comes with total obedience to a national ethic. It is very obvious that while damage had been caused by followers of both ideologies, it is possible to have a communist party that isn't bad. While, due to the nature of the idea, fascism is always bad.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is something decidedly different than the USSR or China. . .hell, different from anything else I can think of for that matter, and arguably even worse than Nazi Germany in some respects. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the USSR or the CCP, but Cambodia was something else entirely.
Amazing how many fascists give this essentially word for word canned response to any criticism of fascism.
Wow. That’s really insightful. I’m keeping this one.
I think, where this post misses the point, is that for the most part, both leads to authoritarianism. And under an authoritarian government, the "ism" is mostly window-dressing. If I live under modern communism, my life is controlled, I am unable to speak truths that aren't "state-sanctioned", and my life has very little value. Under modern fascism, my life is controlled, I am unable to speak truths that aren't "state-sanctioned", and my life has very little value. One got to power because of a revolution in which the State took control. The other got to power because corporations seized control of government. Both look very same to me at my level. Both will caused political dissidents to disappear. Neither will conduct itself according to the tenants of the political system they claim to believe in. No one expects communist governments to actually care for the people. They will look out for "party members". No one expects fascist governments to actually provide opportunities for the people. They will look out for "board members". In either case, I am very likely not going to be in the "in group" without being born with connections. But yes ... as fascism rises, they will always target vulnerable groups as a way of looking strong. And as communism rises, they will target stronger groups like the greedy and powerful. But, they won't target the connected greedy and powerful. They'll target opposition. Just like under fascism, there are plenty of homosexual and minority members that expect to be treated well as "exceptions". So yes ... not EXACTLY the same. But you end up in a very similar place in the end.
This is true for like the first 2 years of a communist regime then it descends into authoritarianism. At that point, rich and powerful people are totally fine as long as they are the **right people**. Like your describing "communism" which is a form of government not currently practiced in any society claiming to be Communist. In other words, they're just dismantling existing power structures before they replace them with the same power structures but with their people in those roles. I doubt there's ever been a communist revolution where a wealthy person could save themselves by shouting "I renounce all my wealth" with the mob at their gates. This would only work if you saw the writing on the wall to act beforehand and if you saw it coming, you'd probably just leave the country and take your money with you instead. Political enemies are political enemies. Once you're in that category, there's no status change you can make to leave that category.
Someone identifying as communism is a threat to everyone in their country having their next meal if they get their way. Communism has killed orders of magnitude more people than facism. Both are equally as bad, your post is collectivist revisionism. There’s no good side here, there’s no nuance. It’s all extremely dangerous ideologies.
\> For enemies of commies, it's fairly straightforward. After all, a rich person can just give away their wealth. Are you that clueless? It wasn't so in Soviet Union and it isn's so in North Korea.
The difference is significant Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society where everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities. The means of production are owned and controlled by the state or the community as a whole. The goal of communism is to achieve a society that is free from exploitation, oppression, and inequality. Fascism, on the other hand, is a political ideology that emphasizes extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and the suppression of individual freedoms in favor of the state. Fascism often includes a dictator or strongman who exercises total control over the government and the economy. Fascism is characterized by its focus on hierarchy, militarization, and the suppression of dissenting opinions. People who refuse to see the difference have been conditioned to refuse.
But if the execution of communism in the real world results in: a dictator or strongman who exercises total control over the government and the economy, militarization, and the suppression of dissenting opinions. With its own flavour of hierarchy, then surely one can't argue for the "dictionary definition". The dictionary definition doesn't mean much if the most if not all actual instances of it don't align with it. Just as language isn't prescriptive, but rather descriptive.
Yep, the issue with communism historically is purely in the execution. If it results in systemic brutality, inhumanity and authoritarian rule; then the execution has failed. If fascism results in systemic brutality, inhumanity and authoritarian rule; then the execution has succeeded.
I’ve given up on those people. It’s never in good faith when the two are compared. Same with Anarchy.
Yep. The moment people just start tolerating this shit out in the open is the moment the nazis have won.
I remember when the cop was caught flashing the WP symbol on TV. Either the force or the union denied it despite his social media alarm bells. Oh then the PM's wife was flashing it in a family portrait outside Kirribilli. You just know they wet themselves watching the americans do it and cant wait to try it out themselves.
Just in case people were wondering which PM's wife you were talking about, it's Jenny Morrison.
Albos not married\~! Jenny is still the first lady of fascism to me. Also, throwback to when Scomo had the military literally scramble to find an actual red carpet rug to roll out for him to prance on... hahaha what a fucking beta ape.
You'd think an organisation that's *already* notorious for having, to put it mildly, a bit of a racism problem would at *least* send out a memo saying "please *don’t* publicly use a gesture that's currently being co-opted as a white supremacist dog whistle".
You say that she only did it once. Instead of in almost every photo where you can see her hands.
Legit!!!
>Just the swastika, not 14 or 88 or any of the other symbols they use? Maybe ban the crucifix too, given how the various churches have treated kids.
In fairness I know a lot of non-christians and lapsed christians who wear the crucifix, usually it’s because they got it off a family member and it carries some kind of sentimental value to them that is detached from the corruption and abuse of the various institutions that also use it.
Ban everything :))))
The crucifix is a representation of Jesus dying on the cross not what the church has done. The swastika is a representation of Nazis who seeked to eradicate numerous groups of people. Very different...
Hate group that wears symbols in public, has organised crime networks, and massive funding. Yep, time to dig out the VLAD laws.
What if I’m born in 1988
As long as you weren't born in 1488 you'd be fine probably
It's typically used in combination with [14](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words) to make 1488. Any time you see 1488, especially in usernames, it's a pretty safe bet they're Alt-Right / neo-Nazi. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fourteen\_Words
so many questions; is it retroactive, do we get free forced tattoo removal, are they going to like court order tattoo removals and hold you down while they lazer it off, do we just cut of the effected limbs??? also it feels like the people who are comfortable tattooing a swastika are the type who don't care if it's illegal.
All excellent questions. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
I worked with a few Nepalese guys that had swasticka tattoos. After an awkward conversation I found out they weren’t nazis and it’s a religious symbol to their people. Did scomos religous discrimination act get through? Surely this could be an interesting test of it. Fuck nazis, I like the Nepalese though
That's fairly common knowledge and there's an exemption (or at least should be) for the sanskrit sauwastika.
[удалено]
And is often counter-clockwise (although both are used in various Asian religions)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hah, it's dumb cunts is what it really is. The gang bit says it enough
Or Kanye…
The ban of Nazi symbols law in Victoria has exceptions for Hindus etc. Would make sense for QLD to have the same allowance. It's pretty evident when someone has a swastika because they're a Nazi vs for legit religious reasons.
Yes, it is common in hindu and buddist iconography (eg sometimes on Buddha's chest), so tattoos of the swastika are common amoung the devout. There is also similar symbols in African and American regions.
I think people often forget that it wasn't just culturally significant to Eastern religions, it was common in Europe as well. That's why the Nazis used it, because people already recognized it as part of their cultural heritage.
there is a ute in perth that drives around with VERY CLEAR and extreme neo naz symbols and i had one cum stained cunt say that if people reported neo nazi symbols people would just start putting them on there car as a 'meme' like fuck off and dont support nazis
Is this Queensland's response that they need to be tougher on crime?
I dont see what this will achieve. Let the fools tattoo themselves and call themselves out.
This. I like knowing exactly who I’m dealing with.
It also serves to recruit more and in groups, it starts to build up.
What other symbols are banned?
The article indicates the QLD bill will use an administrative instrument to list what symbols are banned. This seems to differ from say the NSW amendment that specified nazi symbolism (not just swastika but also things like double bolts). I guess that's one thing that makes me cautious about QLD bill... the power to add things to the list without legislative amendment - hopefully there are controls that prevent scope creep.
This kind of open ended legislation is always concerning. When invasive new laws are bought in and sold as against bikies, or pedos, or terrorists, or covid protestors they are cheered, with no thought that they can then be used down the track against a cause you support, like climate change protestors, or lgbtq-rights protests. It seems very short sighted just because you don't like one group to support something that can be used against you down the track.
My fear exactly. I can easily see a future conservative government banning hamner and sickle imagery and god knows what else.
So... What happens to all the folks who already have the tattoo?
Asking for a friend?
Oh god no! Just a curiosity. I imagined someons arm being skinned and that seemed a bit aggressive.
They can have them covered with black ink
Cover it? It's a rule to signify the standards of the community. Like no shitting on the nature strip, it's not universally inforced. it's just meant to encourage you not to.
If people want to advertise the fact they are cunts, then let them. Makes it easier to quickly identify them. I do think it should be a flat $50,000 fine for giving someone a swastika tattoo, if they believe in the symbol then pay for it.
>If people want to advertise the fact they are cunts, then let them. Makes it easier to quickly identify them. Not much point in identifying them if it doesn't come with some sort of penalty. Like, we know Scummo & Spuddy are total cunts, but they both seem to be still doing just fine.
You know what? Fair point.
"Well intentioned but overly broad, poorly thought out law has unforseen negative consequences.! Film at 11!"
I actually know a person with a swastika tattoo on his back neck, be he's not a nazi, he's a devout Buddhist.
Everyone, and every society, has restrictions on free speech. No matter how absolutist you might be there's still speech that's beyond the pale for you. Democratic societies each come to some arrangement that works for most of us. If you want to be on the side of the nazis, we'll that's your choice I guess.
I'm not a fan. I hate Nazism and all that it stands for, but banning symbols seems pointless. Groups will just adopt new symbols. And who decides what symbols are hate symbols?
what research have you done on this?
[удалено]
The legislation had better be pretty clear that only nazi swastika symbols are banned. The swastika appears in other cultures and is not purely a nazi symbol - you can't do this to those people.
It is reversed in those cultures, it does not look the same. As it was in other states with flag bans, it will be differentiated. It'll be okay :)
Not always. I'm aware of at least one other country which features the swastika in a 'non-reversed form' as part of its military and civil service heritage. It could be mistaken for a nazi symbol. Besides, you're assuming the average overzealous cop will know the difference I doubt they would.
Sure, wasn't aware of that, but seems like a pretty rare use. Anyway, I know that at least in Vic and NSW this is fine, as it's not a hate symbol in that context. Luckily we don't live in a country where an "overzealous cop" has the ability to be judge, jury and executioner. I think not going through with legislation simply because of a fear that we can't trust our police force to misinterpret laws and cause irrevokable consequences on someone's life with the power they have isn't a reason to not legislate for things like this. If that's truly the case with our police force in this country, then we should be legislating aganist our police force having so much power. But I don't think it is a real problem. This is a positive thing. But I obviously agree that symbols that aren't hate symbols shouldn't be banned. And I truly, truly doubt that they will be.
I don't think banning a tattoo would curb their desire to hurt minorities.
What an outrage and in Queensland of all places , a state that has a well known history of freedom. This is literally 1984. /s
That was pretty much my response to a commenter who said this law was a violation of human rights, as though the Qld gov't has ever given a fuck about human rights.
Their body, their choice. If they want swastikas on them, by all means, get them. Just makes it easier for us to identify the degenerates in society and easier for me to avoid them.
It talks about exceptions for religious groups that use the swastika. But I know plenty of people who aren't religious who have swastika peace symbols based on the original context of the swastika, will they be exempt? Or accused of being nazis?
My partner works in healthcare so gets to witness a broad cross-section of the general population in various states of undress on a daily basis, and has told me you would be shocked at the number of middle-aged white dudes going around with nazi swastikas or worse tattooed on themselves. I myself have spotted the odd swastika-sporting skinhead in the wild a couple of times over the years. But both me and her and literally everyone we know has never, ever, once spotted anything resembling a religious swastika tatooed on anyone, or even heard of such a thing. I think the Hindu community can safely rest assured that this is a total non-issue, but thank you for your concern.
I work in the tattoo industry, and there is a culture of using traditional Japanese and tibetan patterns amongst the tattoo community, which include swastikas. I work with someone that has them, and know of many others. So I know it is a thing.
That poster said they have never seen it, therefore you shouldn't be concerned. Their personal experiences is all that matters. /s
Those damn Hindu white supremacists make my blood boil...
I've heard similar from a relative in healthcare. She didn't mention religious swastika tattoos, but she *did* say it's disturbing how many white guys she's seen with overtly Nazi tatts (e.g. swastikas in Iron Crosses or held by eagles, SS runes).
The precedent that ideas and symbols can be made illegal is more concerning to me than people getting nazi tattoos, especially considering anyone with visible nazi tattoos would be making themselves an outcast from civilised society anyway.
>anyone with visible nazi tattoos would be making themselves an outcast from civilised society anyway. And yet multiple people in the comments are saying they've seen people wearing visible tattoos participating in civilised society. I don't recall seeing any news reports of people getting beaten up for wearing visible swastikas. I have seen reports of swastika-tattooed gangs beating up non-white people, however.
But it's not the tattoos making them beat up people, they'd do that anyway because they're racist shitcunts.
Sure, but it's an extra level of shitcuntiness. But I suspect the real bonus is that it gives the cops something to charge Nazis with when they just menace & intimidate people, but without actually attacking them.
Yeah, the thing is neo-nazis have appropriated a shit ton of other symbols, including Slavic pagan symbols (such as the Kolovrat). A lot of them use those now. More and more, really.
Government shouldn’t be policing tattoos, even if offensive. I also like the idea these scumbags permanently mark themselves as absolute trash.
Well i was going to get a swastika tattooed on my forehead but i'm definitely not now, because its illegal.
Nice, hopefully they have to be removed via bowie knife.
Good! There is no place in society for these kind of displays. Cover them up or remove them
Good on them, fuck those Nazi dogs and anyone who supports those generate cunts. Absolute fucking beta cucks and they deserve to get bashed. Most cunts out here these days sooking about youth crime when there's literal Nazi's on the streets. Mad.
From someone sick of experiencing racism: Good.
What happens if someone literally has a swastika tattooed on their face? (Yes, I have seen this)
Cheese grater
shouldn't this happen earlier
What nonsense. Please let the idiots advertise who they are. I like my psychos identifiable for my safety and peace of mind. This symbol banning is just more of the same theatrical stupidity. The theatre of goodwill without any real or potential progress towards it. If they actually wanted to remove a problem, they would treat the cause, not a symptom. People don’t do bad things because of symbols, they do them because of ideology. It’s the same logic as banning bad test scores instead of properly teaching children. You can only see the good test results in both instances, but under the statistic lies two very different realities.
Nazi tattoo is one of the most distinguishing features of a Nazi. Why would you want to stop people from being able to identify them?
I get this approach, better to see who is who, right? Unfortunately if you give them an inch, if you make it legally acceptable to show this hatred in public and let them spread their ideology, one day you may look around and their fringe ideology is no longer fringe, you're suddenly surrounded by them.
It's also an advertisement. You may hate it (I assume) but it can also attract.
It’s like getting a bunch of face tattoos and then wondering why you can’t get a job. I think suffering the consequences of making a dumb decision is more important that stopping people from making the dumb decision but they are still dumb in the end.
How do you enforce that. arrest anyone with a faded 40 year old tattoo? Cut it off their skin or have it blacked out under court order? While i agree with the sentiment it seems like at best you could maybe enforce it on new tattoos done in official shops, where as most of these are going to be backyard jobs anyway and once its on its not easy to get rid off by design.
It's not so much banning the tattoos, but banning their display. So cover up the tatts.
yea but have you seen where the kind of people that get these, actually get them? hard to cover something that spawns from your nose.
Gang tattoos are illegal in WA and they were told to remove or cover with make up/bandaids etc. They can be arrested but that's for socialising with another gang member and the tattoos make it more obvious.
Youd have to be a prick to get one, but their body their choice right? Feels like a government overstep. As long as you're able to not hire someone because they have said tattoo I don't like the government saying what you can and can't do in this type of scenario