[Mefustae]

And just for reference, their about my age, so it's kinda less bad. And I don't really think it would make me as bad as them if I made fun of them for being extremly racist and supporting mass murderers (even if they don't see themselves like that). It'd be like that kid who makes fun of me for being in marching band, because my older 2 siblings were in it, and I was always forced to watched videos of the competitions. Is he really that evil? And I'm not racist, and I definitly do not support the killing lots and lots people.

"Evil" is an entirely subjective - not to mention wholly ambiguous - term.

[Polpolion]

: okay fine, let's use the term 'hostile'

[Getter Robo G]

If you played D&D you'd know there's all sorts of evil... Evil is a very quantifiable concept...


I just wanna see them on Maury in 10-15 years trying to find out who the daddy of their litters are? 

I'm, 10,000% sure Maury! (these boasting women are 99% wrong) 

[Sarafan]

Okay, I simply cant see how this ''just leave them alone/ignore them that they'll screw themselves up in the future'' thing can possibly work, oh, wait, it doesnt work. England and France did that and look what happened to them on WW2.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm a little foggy on the comparison you're drawing. You're saying if we ignore these girls, National Socialism might conquer the United States?

[Shade]

In case you didn't know, the situation in 1920/30s Germany was kinda special, which is what allowed the nazi party to gain a solid hold on things. In fact, it was the desire for revenge by the winners of WW1 that set the stage for WW2, not some decision to ignore the nazis because they would 'screw themselves up in the future'.

That situation does not exist today, and two nazi kids in a band frankly just do not constitute any kind of threat whatsoever to the world. Maybe to your ears and sanity though, should you be unfortunate enough to actually listen to them.

[Sarafan]

Before WW2, England and France pretty much ignored Germany thinking the URSS was the greatest threat for them, it turned out they're were wrong. ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’', of course, I'm not saying they'll take over the US but to let things like these just go on their way is dangerous at the very least, eventually it will take root somewhere and might, no, quite likely will became a problem later, IMO.

UK and France thought that Germany and URSS would wipe themselves out fighting each other, thats way they ignored the things Germany was doing.

[BlackDove]

... enough of the history for the insane.

Really though, some trash screams supremacy? Tell us something we don't know. I don't see people who have a brain going around saying "Really, racism isn't stupid?"

[Shade]

So, what you're saying is the rest of the world should intervene and invade the US to get rid of some nazi sympathisers? Because as far as I can tell, that's what you're saying should have been done with Germany before WW2.

It's also a ridiculous idea.

What should have been done back then was help Germany rebuild after the war instead of stripping it of anything of value to pay damages for the war. The rise of the nazi party was directly linked to the economic depression caused by this indifference to the suffering of the German people, and without it they simply could not have gained the foothold they needed. As such, WW2 was really little more than an extension of WW1, as to the Germans, the war never truely ended.

So indifference did play a role, but not the role you seem to think. Today, the conditions simply do not exist anywhere in the western world that would allow something similar to happen. It could, however, happen in many 3rd world countries, and in many cases already has in one form or another - Not nazism specifically, but the fundamentalism seen in so many places these days is essentially down to the same causes as WW2, the suffering of a people making them easy targets for radicals and their dangerous ideas.

[Mefustae]

Okay, I simply cant see how this ''just leave them alone/ignore them that they'll screw themselves up in the future'' thing can possibly work, oh, wait, it doesnt work. England and France did that and look what happened to them on WW2.

Are you actually conparing two brainwashed girls with the Third-****ing-Reich?! What the hell, man!?

Oh noes, we've got to do something about those two girls, lest they rally an army and invade Europe!! *Runs screaming to the hills*

[Sarafan]

So, what you're saying is the rest of the world should intervene and invade the US to get rid of some nazi sympathisers? Because as far as I can tell, that's what you're saying should have been done with Germany before WW2.

It's also a ridiculous idea.

So indifference did play a role, but not the role you seem to think. Today, the conditions simply do not exist anywhere in the western world that would allow something similar to happen.

No, the conditions always exist, take a look at the US government. Are they totally impervious to these fundamentalists and extremists? And in this case indifference may very well play a role too if something like that just go on its way.

I'm not saying that someone should invade the US and purge everything, I'm using WW2 as a example, you see a really hard core extremist group taking power on a country right next to you, what do you do?  For the UK/France, they sought to use them to get rid of someone else. And they didnt do anything to bar this group from becoming a real threat for them, like limiting its military, in this case they got what they deserve.

[Mars]

EDIT:Oh... nevermind.


This is where I point out that Neo Nazi's have root all over Europe too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Nazi

Does that mean that we should limit Germanies military? I don't think so...

[Shade]

The US is nowhere near having the conditions needed to foster that kind of extremism on a large scale. And as much as I dislike the current US administration, the damage they can do is limited. Do you really think the general populace would support dissolving congress, dropping the clause the prevents a president from serving more two terms, and placing all executive, judicial, legislative and military power in the hands of the president? There'd be a revolution before something like that would happen, just look at how unpopular Bush has become from the (relatively mild in comparison) things he's done in his latest term.

Now, as for the whole doing nothing thing in regards to the German military, then yes, they could have done something there. But it would not have prevented war, it would simply have delayed it. Unless they did it again, and again, and again. They only way they could've prevented the war was to prevent the conditions that fostered the resentment of them across Germany. Another thing to consider is that the treaty of versaille already placed some pretty serious limits on the German military. Hitler was simply able to secretly get around many of those limits. I doubt the French and english were really aware of the full scale of German military buildup until it was too late to intervene without getting into a lenghty war.

[NGTM-1R]

No they didn't. Granted, they're the most well-publicised, but what of the Stalinit Purges? Religious genocide in the Balkans and Africas? And of course, let's not forget the hyjinx of that old chestnut, the British Empire. The did invent the concentration camp, after all.

The Nazis managed to accomplish their work with less time and resources then all but a select few; they also did it completely on their own, without something so capricious as endemic famine or other natural causes, which no one else did.

EDIT: for spelling. Need sleep.

[Mefustae]

Ah, I didn't think about resources used in conducting the act. Okay, the Nazis were the most efficient, but I maintain that the Soviets were still the best in recent history.

[Sarafan]

EDIT:Oh... nevermind.


This is where I point out that Neo Nazi's have root all over Europe too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_Nazi

Does that mean that we should limit Germanies military? I don't think so...

Ok, nothing bad will ever happen, I'll drop this. Interesting read though.

Ah, I didn't think about resources used in conducting the act. Okay, the Nazis were the most efficient, but I maintain that the Soviets were still the best in recent history.

This on the other hand, no. The german military was by far the best one, it took the direct intervetion of Hitler on the chain of command and the obviuos error of a war on two fronts to lead to a defeat. The red army only fought as a real force much later, after who know's how purges Stalin did, did you know that over 100 thousand, soviets fought with the nazis till the end of the war?

[Mefustae]

Ah, I didn't think about resources used in conducting the act. Okay, the Nazis were the most efficient, but I maintain that the Soviets were still the best in recent history.

This on the other hand, no. The german military was by far the best one, it took the direct intervetion of Hitler on the chain of command and the obviuos error of a war on two fronts to lead to a defeat. The red army only fought as a real force much later, after who know's how purges Stalin did, did you know that over 100 thousand, soviets fought with the nazis till the end of the war?

Wait, what the hell are you on about?

I was having a light conversation about which group/organisation/nation is/was the best and/or most efficient at conducting genocide. Stop trying to segue the thread into WWII, dang it!

[Inquisitor]

Anyone who thinks there is a place in the world for genocidal Nazis needs their head examined.

Would you* though?  I mean, it's one thing to quote that, but quite another to, you know, actually defend it.

No, I would not. I would take up arms against them, as a matter of fact. In a heartbeat.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

[Flipside]

The problem is that Freedom of Speech does not take into account that Opinion and Behaviour are closely related. If someone wants to have a Nazi 'opinion' of the world, it's not, strictly speaking, an evil thing, very closed minded, ignorant, selfish and stupid perhaps, but not inherently 'evil'.

However, Opinion controls action, whether you eat an apple or a pear depends on your opinion. Same with Nazi, Socialist, Republican, Liberal or any other opinion, If people want to sit around and think 'Supreme Race' type thoughts, more fool them, but the moment they take any action to confirm to themselves that they are right, they move out of speech and into activism.

That's where 'Free Speech' gets you coming and going

And heres the real killer, if you do pick up a gun and shoot them for being evil, greedy, selfish leeches on society, then aren't you shooting them for the same excuses they used to kill others?

[Inquisitor]

Nope, this is not something I will debate in the abstract. It's not abstract, its pure hate. Maybe you can sleep at night believing that, I can't nor am I willing to try.

I am intolerant of intolerance, and that is ok with me. There's enough hate in the world without **** like this.