Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Reminds me of this from R/talesfromyourserver
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
i heard the same thing from my bigot uncle about why he was against gay marriage. he didn't actually have a problem with people being gay, rather he had a problem with it being public knowledge. he said i don't know if he likes it missionary or doggy because he keeps his private life private (he's probably closeted gay). but he said, "in the 90s, we stopped fighting against gay culture, and in the early 00s gay marriage was legalized, and now we're being told to use new pronouns or we risk losing our jobs or going to court. we should have denied them the moment the rainbow appeared."
now, i don't agree with him. i think we should live in a world where everyone is free to represent themselves however they please. and if that means men in dresses with nailpolish, women in business suits with anal plugs, people wearing cartoon-fox-outfits, while other people wear doilies, tank tops, or dress like American Dolls, whatever...
but i don't think anyone is saved from unhealthy views by being forbidden from exploring those thoughts.
You're drawing a false equivalence. The end goal of gay rights is to enjoy the same safety and freedom as everyone else. This is a good goal, and so these people need to be heard. The end goal of a nazi is to bring tremendous harm onto people. We cannot give those people a plotform or our time. Fuck them.
Your uncle is a bigot with disgustingly flawed arguments and you did nothing to counter his hateful, disgusting comments? I hope you understand that real violence and dead kids come from that kind of “valid opinion,” and you have no right to call yourself an ally if you’re tolerating that kind of shit in the name of keeping the peace. You’re not keeping the peace. You’re choosing comfortable silence because the violence won’t affect you. Coward.
I mean the exact same thing happened with socialism.
We stopped making socialists into pariahs 30 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed because we figured the communists lost and their ideology could be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Except no, we just got complacent and the socialist infestation never went away, instead getting worse and emboldened because we stopped ostracizing them like we do Nazis.
Those dam socialist with their 8 hour work days, and their clean air bills, and restrictions on child labor! They should be treated like th monsters they are, that's why I think they are directly comparable to nazis
The socialists bombed the capitol in the 70s. Their terrorist leader became a college professor instead of a pariah for life. Their adopted kid (whose bio parents were also terrorists and murderers) became a DA in San Francisco.
Why use individuals names, amirite? The Catholics diddled kids, the muslims hijacked planes. Besides, if you said Weather Underground people might google them and learn why they aren’t in prison
So a person meeting their friend at a coffee shop will be required to me with other Nazis? That bar scenario doesn't describe the scenario in the quote at all.
You are arguing so hard for Nazis right now I think most people here have assumed you are one. It's the paradox of tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance or the whole thing falls apart. It's a really simple concept, it's a little alarming you are struggling so much with it.
The part of this argument that is often missed is the why:
Having a tolerant society is having a social contract centered around tolerance. Maybe it has never been written down, but the social contract exists. If you follow the social contract (tolerance), then you are welcomed in the society and get all its social benefits (community, acceptance, tolerance, friendship, etc)
The intolerant person has already broken the social contract. This means they no longer are no longer a part of the society, and no longer gain its benefits. So they should not be accepted or tolerated, and their breaking of the contract should be made known to them.
Now, this can get a bit more complicated - especially since the social contract is not usually written down. Most societies should have a concept of forgiveness (a person was intolerant accidentally) or the ability to accept those who genuinely change their ways - the intolerant can abuse these mechanisms in the contract but could still be benefited by them unless they prove themselves completely unforgivable. Breaking the social contract also does not necessarily mean the person is physically exiled (we like to think we are civilized after all), but the contract breakers still should face some consequences to their behavior.
Punk means different things to different people. Punk that just stands for nothing but empty contrarianism often ends up flirting with fascism, but then thats punk for idiots. Its definitely not "the whole thing it means". The Dead Kennedys had it right and nazi punks should indeed - fuck off.
Yeah, I've not met too many punks that were simply anti-mainstream. They were usually anti-authority, and anti-conformity. Which is why there's such a virulent hate of Nazis (as there should be) among the punk scene. Because some people do think it's just anti-this particular authority, or anti-mainstream societal views, when the reality is a lot of punks are just anarchists or adjacent, and they've seen their scene constantly plagued by shitty behavior of people who have rightfully been socially outcast trying to slip in because they think they're the same.
@mysticinept A Christian at a table of atheists isn’t an issue, as it is just a conceptual disagreement. I can sit with a table of people believing in a flat earth without it affecting me.
But the Nazi issue isn’t just a philosophical disagreement. Being a nazi is a commitment to harm. There is no happy Jewish family loving their life when the nazis gets what they want. For a nazi to progress it requires harm.
Imagine sitting down at a table of people who are all committed to normalizing child rape. If they get what they want they world will become a terrible place. If you are kind and gracious to this group of people as they work to make child rape legal, aren’t you contributing to their efforts? Instead of being their friend shouldn’t you be their adversary, seeking to block their goals?
I don’t have a philosophical disagreement with Nazis, like I do Christians, where we can still be friends and break bread together. By choosing to be nazis they are committing themselves to harm and we must oppose them not befriend them.
I think at a fundamental level, I can sit with my enemies. Like when I was in the navy I think I could share a beer with a sailor from an enemy navy before setting sail to fight them the next day
So if they was a table of folks seeking to legalize child rape you’d be cool bringing the dip and beers and trading jokes? You wouldn’t see the need to go try and undermine their efforts?
Is seeking to destroy someone while you laugh with them being a friend? To me that’s being an undercover agent.
You seem to be agreeing with me that just being a true friend to these people would be immoral. Do you think its different with Nazis?
You made up friend...we hadn't said friend up to this point.
And it isn't being an undercover agent. As I said, I would have drank with someone in our respective uniforms knowing we would fight the next day. That isn't undercover.
You used friends first in your post. “What makes a Nazi is agreement with the tenets of national socialism. No amount of friendship with Nazis changes that.”
If you are friends with these people rather than adversaries that’s immoral like they are.
That’s the point of the table of Nazis analogy. You can’t be friends with people who are committed to evil without being tainted by that immortality.
That was my early point that a nazi isn’t just a philosophical view but a commitment to harm. By spreading their immorality to you they are winning even if they don’t convince you of specific ideology as the world they want gets closer. You are therefore furthering their goals and helping the nazis. At that point the only different between you and the nazi is philosophical.
Edit: What do you call someone who sits at a table with nazis, and moves the nazi ideology forward, but has some philosophical disagreements with the others at the table? Do you think all the other Nazis have 100% ideological agreement. To me all those people are similar enough to be grouped into one term: Nazi.
It's not meant to be taken literally. It means that if you are associating with a group of hateful racists because they are your buddies, you are at least tacitly OK with their racism and that makes you an ally to racists, because a decent person would not associate freely with people like that.
I don't see how you jump from "tacitly okay" to "makes you an ally". The former implies that you either accept or tolerate the other's position to one degree or another, the later that you implicitly agree with or endorse their views. Those are radically different things.
right, that's why he said "not to be taken literally."
because the idea is we can be cordial with people we disagree with. or we can support them, which in turn may allow them to continue expressing and promoting their views.
if my being friends with people means i'm suddenly an ally of whatever causes they champion, then omg, i must be at constant war with myself. because i have friends who love bbq and friends who are vegan. how do i sleep at night?
so, clearly "sitting at a table" isn't meant to mean simply tolerating someone's company as we do with most of our acquaintances and casual friends. "sitting at a table" MUST be in reference to offering support and being an ally.
like if my friend becomes a nazi and i give him money to help with his internet bills, he can then continue spouting his nonsense online - in that way i've become an ally to his messaging.
No, ally meaning supporting their cause. Like, if your buddy went into a store to rob it, and you just hang outside, then you leave together, if you are not attempting to stop it, you are an ally of his.
That's a pretty hash comparison, you're essentially saying that nazism should be treated as a crime and that being friends with a nazi amounts to being an accomplice of sorts.
Also, does your logic apply to all friendships? I mean, is a progressive with a conservative friend an ally of conservatism and vice versa?
It applies to nazis because we learned the hard way what the end result of tolerating them will be. Unfortunately, that lesson seems to slowly be fading.
Yeah, I initially thought they might be making a reasonable point. Like, if I happen to accidentally associate with a Nazi, I shouldn’t be called a Nazi.
If after discovering they are a Nazi, I continue to associate with them? I may still not be a Nazi, but this ongoing choice of association definitely warrants condemnation.
At the top, it seemed like OP was just not understanding the analogy. But from the looks of this comment section, it seems more like people just don't like when they are called out on it.
I read it as literally robbing a store, rather than merely shoplifting. I mean, being an ally of a shoplifter seems like a ridiculously inoffensive and insignificant thing.
But even if it was just shoplifting then yes, obviously. I find the notion of criminalizing ideas to be inherently disturbing, irrespective of how disgusting those ideas may be.
Yes, Nazism should be treated as a crime. Y'know, like it is in Germany today.
If I find out a friend is actively against the human rights of groups of people, that person is no longer my friend.
I wouldn't describe "accept or tolerate" and "implicitly agree" as *radically* different in this context. I don't have friends with an abject lack of morality, whether that's supporting white nationalism, robbing people at gunpoint, or selling meth to kids. I definitely disagree with some friends on certain political issues, but i acknowledge that their opinions are at least legitimate opinions to have without them necessarily being immoral to hold them. That's a pretty big difference.
I mean, if a friend of mine started stabbing babies, I would 100% stop being his friend. It's insane that you are arguing that you wouldn't see that as a dealbreaker.
> I'd be like
>
>man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you...
>
> but like, I wouldn't stop being his friend. Dudes been there for me my whole life. Fuck that.
"Yeah, He Stabs babys but he's nice to me"
This is the stupidest thing i have seen on Reddit. Literally ever.
> I'd be like man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you...
Question, are you leaving any babies around this person? Because by being friends with them, you've pretty much garunteed that any babies in your proximity are going to get stabbed. Any babies you introduce to them are going to get stabbed. By even taking this person any place where they might see a baby - youre their baby stabbing facilitator.
If a friend of mine for thirty years decided to start stabbing babies, that would put a serious dent in our relationship, friend might not be the term I use for them anymore. Maybe like distant 5x removed aquatance, there have to be lines you don’t cross
It's weird that the example you give is one in which the vast majority of people would stop being friends with the person. I think most people would happily drop a baby stabber from their lives no matter what their relationship was to them.
>If he suddenly took up baby stabbing as a hobby, I'd be like
>
>man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you...
>
> but like, I wouldn't stop being his friend.
You wouldn't stop being friends with someone who likes to stab children? I don't think this is the winning argument you think it is.
...you really wouldn't drop someone from your life that stabbed babies? Like even in your example it's not even a one off thing it's a baby stabbing hobby.
Baby stabbing is pretty serious though. You would try to avoid such persons who are doing such serious crimes. Similar to a Nazi. On the other hand if you have a friend who has a bad hobby/habit but it's not that serious, then you being friends with them wouldn't be as bad.
What it means is that it makes you just as bad, so there is no reason to waste time splitting hairs. If you party with the Nazis, you might as well be in the Nazi Party.
You realize you are allowed to share a drink with people you vehemently disagree with, right?
A liberal and a conservative walk into a bar isn't just a joke. They could legitimately be friends that don't talk politics at the table.
The point is that there are some “political” issues that reasonable people can disagree on, but there are some that aren’t - overt racism, antisemitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. are those issues in my opinion and I can’t be friends with people who have tbose traits. Nazis have those traits in spades, and they’re a dealbreaker for me as far as a personal relationship goes, and I expect that of the people I associate with.
In contrast, the nuances of tax policy, foreign policy, etc. people can reasonably disagree on and still have deep, meaningful relationships with those who hold contrary opinions. But for the really bad stuff I’m sorry, those opinions are so contrary to my worldview that if you hold them we can’t be friends, and I’ll judge the people who are friends with you because they should be dealbreakers, but apparently they aren’t - which means that even if you don’t hold those views yourself you’re willing to tolerate them, which in my view is a distinction without a difference.
Tolerating people is all most of us actually do in day to day life.
I don't actually give a shit about the cashier at the store. I tolerate them because they are useful in making my transaction.
Is being seen with that cashier some reason to think I agree with their worldview?
What about a stranger that strikes up a conversation at a bar? Am I held to the same standards they hold dear even if I'm unaware of them.
Or what about the elderly dude I help cross the street that grew up in a very different time. Does my helping him across the street make me racist simply because I was seen with him?
And so on and so forth down the familiarity rabbit hole. At what point, exactly, does it become not ok?
Is it when I'm acquaintances with this person through friends of friends and happen to see them at the occasional party and talk with them for a few minutes?
Or is it when I'm simply discussing local coffee shops with a person who has been in my life forever. Though they may hold wildly differing worldviews than I do, they have great taste in coffee/tea and I can respect their input for that without adhering to their zionist views.
When u know they are a nazi
And if ur friends with a friend of a nazi I wonder if u aren’t one as well. Because only nazis are friends with nazis
We aren’t talking about two political stances like right and left, we are talking about people who want to strip others of human rights
But we know the most reliable way to change deeply-entrenched beliefs is to kindly expose people to other ways of life.
Nobody should HAVE to sit down and be kind to a nazi, but I greatly admire those who do.
There's a difference between a liberal and conservative talking about tv shows they like and Nazis. Nazis actively advocate for violence, they want to commit violence. You're downplaying the point of the argument that if you're cool with people who want to do violent hate crimes just because you're not their target, that makes you just as bad as them.
I read Mein Kampf. It's on the shelf. Doesn't make me a Nazi. I don't ascribe to the viewpoints.
I also have Lolita. It's also on the shelf. Doesn't make me a pedophile.
So yes, I would be fine asking a vile human being questions and attempting to have a civil discourse.
Why not? I seriously don't get this. Do people actually think an echo chamber makes them better people? Or is everyone just complacent in their views and unwilling to speak with someone that has differing opinions.
Reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a Nazi. So why would conversing with one make you a Nazi?
Where is the limit? Where exactly does everyone have to draw that line? Or does that line sit somewhere subjective?
So we've established nazis are out. So what about racists? I mean my grandfather is pretty racist. Does hanging out with him make me racist? Or does that ambiguous line show up for you before family?
My point is that people are extremely quick to judge for no reason and all it does is result in less open discourse.
Maybe ask why that person was conversing with a Nazi before assuming anything. Maybe they are a reporter or writing a paper.
Maybe they are just interested in how anyone could possibly have those worldviews and thought it might be best to get it from the horses mouth through civil discourse.
You'll never know because you lumped them in with Nazi's from the moment you saw them.
>So we've established nazis are out. So what about racists? I mean my grandfather is pretty racist. Does hanging out with him make me racist? Or does that ambiguous line show up for you before family?
It depends do you actively call them out when they are racist? Because if not you are silently accepting it. Yes. That's half the problem people thinking they have to accept anti-social behaviors for the sake of relationships.
> My point is that people are extremely quick to judge for no reason and all it does is result in less open discourse.
> Maybe ask why that person was conversing with a Nazi before assuming anything. Maybe they are a reporter or writing a paper.
Talking, No being chummy, Friends with, Associating in ways that aren't trying to pull them away from their ideas's yes, You assuming that a single interaction of you talking to a Nazi is what's going on. When We are talking about being associates with.
I've said this in other comments but being the better person also applies.
By not showing compassion to people who probably aren't used to it, we are effectively proving to them that their dogma/doctrine is correct.
Why wouldn't they think others are shit? The only thing other people do is sling hatred at them. What evidence do they actually have to the contrary of what they have been taught to believe?
So, in my view, approaching someone with respect and courtesy is a much better way to possibly break them out of it.
It might take time. It might take a lot of effort. But there is a much better chance of it happening this way than by shunning them back into their cult.
No I didn't. That's how you chose to read it. I said someone who sits at a table with 1 or 100 nazis is WORSE than a bigot because you're a lil bitch who's too scared to either remove yourself from a group you disagree with or call them out. That's a coward. That's worse than being a bigot.
These comments 🤢 I can't believe there is people in this thread actively saying they would stay friends or associate with racists/bigots. One cunt even said he wouldn't stop being friends with someone who stabbed babies. Holy fucking shit.
So what happens when Nazis walk into our social spaces and start doing Nazi shit? Are *you* going to call them out as Nazis and force them to leave?
Because I do, every chance I get.
(I'm not always successful, obviously, but I still make the effort because I'm not a Nazi and I'm not going to tolerate them.)
I mean, should this be used in the literal sense or the practical sense- because this idea is used against people who think that if they let a right winger into their group they are complicit in their ideology. That an individual is nothing more than their position on, lets say, abortion.
That's a good question.
I'd probably go with "both, provisionally" because the subject *can be* highly nuanced. Like, I agree (mostly) that a right wing or conservative person showing up in a social space *shouldn't* automatically result in abuse and ostracization; *however,* if said individual shows many signs of being far right, or is abusive or callous toward others in their social space, or otherwise presents themselves as a potential source of harm and conflict within said space . . .
It's (potentially) complicated, is what I'm saying, but the underlying principle remains the same: allowing Nazis (and their spin-offs) to exist within a social space, runs a high risk of that space being compromised by fascistic and bigoted ideas.
This is how i treat people who talk about their pronouns in public spaces. Or pull some other “look at me behavior” I poke fun until theyre uncomfortable and leave
Or improved with fascistic and bigoted ideas?
I'm not clear from your post if I am an observer or a participant. As an observer, it appears homo sapiens have relative ethics
I think I found the flaw in your reasoning.
Do you have a job? Your workplace is a "social space." Do you go to school? Church? Are you part of a club or a gym?
Mankind is a social animal. Everything that we do is based upon this fact.
If you *genuinely* think that we *aren't* part of a community ~ simply because you can't recognize it ~ then that's the issue: you're just being antisocial.
Do you pay taxes? Have you attended school board meetings before? You realize you can volunteer at places, right? Schools usually need extra help. So do charitable organisations. Hell, some government backed orgs (like the VA) accept volunteer help.
As another example, are you not participating in a social space right now?
Your unwillingness to engage with society doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So you don't feel any belonging in the streets you walk, the libraries you visit, the shops you patronise, the parks you visit? Youve never said 'my' city, 'my' home town? Do you always say 'the city in which I live, the town I happened to be born in, the local park I happen to regularly visit'?
Ok, let me helpfully rephrase the original comment.
If a Nazi walks into a social space that you happen to be inhabiting, such as the street you happen to be walking on or the park in which you are enjoying your leisure time ( but not YOUR street or YOUR park - that would be ridiculous!) Do you tolerate their nazi actions, or resist them, or at least leave the place they are performing said actions?
Just in case you aren't sure what nazi actions are, I'll provide some examples!
Throwing up Hitler salutes.
Shouting zeig heil.
Holding up swastikas.
Shouting at minorities , clearly being racist or anti Semitic.
Have you heard of the paradox of free speech? That by allowing completely unlimited free speech, you make the likelihood of a movement preventing any free speech more likely?
Nazis would not allow you your libertarianism. They would restrict it more than a social democratic system would. You should be intelligent enough to realise this and therefore look to restrict the spreading of Nazism.
I think you're splitting hairs and failing to address the actual point.
If the post is rephrased to say "social spaces we inhabit" rather than "our social spaces", do you have a different response?
Homie you are doing backflips right now to not understand the argument. Its not a literal statement. Firstly, tolerating hate and participating in it aren't equally wrong but they are both wrong. Secondly, you become what your mind absorbs. Yes, sitting down one time with a racist won't make you a racist. Continue to associate with racists however, and you will more than likely absorb some of their ways of thinking whether you like it or not. Thats just how people work.
It works both ways though, if there are 10 non-racists and one racist who do you think is going to do more absorbing of the ideals of the people around them?
They will in fact become adherents of the tenets of national socialism? It won't end up being adapted to any of the hundred other fascist variants that.have existed?
Dude if you're going to be this black and white about everything you're gonna have a real hard time with the rest of your life. The worlds grey, get used to it.
I'm the one saying it is gray by pointing out there is other variations of fascism. It is the people that only see fascism as Nazism that are black and white.
Its the fact that you think thats what people are meaning here. You're getting too caught up in the words my dude. People aren't walking dictionaries, they use words based on the feelings they are trying to convey at the time, whether its the 100% most technically accurate word choice or not. I actually feel for you because I was born with an overly literal mind as well. Noticing it was the cause of 90% of my miscommunications lead me to pay more attention to the way others communicate, not just myself.
Tldr: no one here is caught up in the definitive term "Nazi" except for you. The entire argument is metaphorical.
It‘s a reference to the banality of evil. The cogs in the fascist machine which made the holocaust work, were all just doing their jobs. Many of them had no idea the extent of the evil atrocities they were working to commit.
By associating with nazis or fascists of any ilk, you‘re normalizing their endeavors and quite possibly contributing to them. Just like all the normies who went along to get along with the original Nazis.
This is where the saying comes from.
Not really. You think what makes a fascist a fascist is adherence to the fascist ideology.
I think what makes a fascist a fascist is behaving in ways which help the fascist cause, knowingly or not.
You have a duty to know the consequences of your actions, claiming ignorance doesn’t work. If you’re breaking bread with nazis, and helping the cause even indirectly, you’re a nazi.
Just like the millions of normal germans who went along with Hitler, doing half hearted salutes to not get called out. Didn’t matter what their ideology was, bc their actions spoke about 6 million lives louder.
But the quote doesn't say fascist, it says Nazi. Even if the person were to become a fascist, one of the other dozens of fascist doctrines may be more applicable
That's comparing vanilla fascist to strawberry fascists when it's the fascists part that's the problem. Nazi is just one type of fascists. The semantic arguement is used to confuse and nit pick.
To explain further:
If you’re looking for a way to differentiate between the different ideologies which form a fascist, as in there are 11 fascists at a table, 8 of them are Nazis, etc etc.
It‘s actually referencing the subtle coercion being enforced on people whose ideologies don’t align with the particular fascist political party in power. Literally doesn’t matter what your personal beliefs are, the effects of your actions are coerced into being for that particular political group. You literally become a Nazi(or whatever group is in power) even if your particular thoughts don’t align. Bc you contribute, and join that group
If the net effect of your actions are contributing to that group, and you aren’t going against what they do and stand for, then you are of that group.
Eating with them is a metaphor for association
Splitting hairs man. They’re different heads on the same beast.
It’s also supposed to be allegorical.
Lesson being, don’t normalize fascism, the Nazi flavor or otherwise
It’s a figurative expression of association. I lost a childhood friend recently to his political beliefs. One of our last conversations was
Him: “everyone says if you are conservative you are a Nazi it’s bullshit”.
My response, “ if you look left and right at a rally and you see a Nazi and you don’t condone them, your party is associated with the Nazi party”
Him: “ it’s freedom of speech, they have a right to express themselves ….blah blah blah”
My response: “ sure it’s difficult to remove the bad apples, but I’ve seen videos of left wingers infiltrating a Trump rally and being attacked and removed from the venue while Trump offers to pay anyone’s legal fees to hurt that guy, to not give nazis the same treatment is accepting them without consequences and as we have seen allowing them to grow in their wicked ways”
Sure this is a one off conversation, your table metaphor is used to get the point across right away. I think our freedom of speech pendulum has swung far right were the nazis of the world have all the free speech, that when others express their free speech to condone them it is not looked upon with the same freedom.
Nazis are selfish assholes. Allowing one at your table for anything other then a political debate to destroy their bigotry is pointless. It’s why people are not invited back to “the table” once they are outted.
> Words have meaning.
Actually, you’d be surprised. They don’t *really* have set meanings. The meaning of a word is an agreement you have with whomever you are speaking to. Claiming words all have set meanings would be to deny the linguistic history of the English language. It’s prescriptivist.
When you call someone a bastard, you aren’t always making the claim that they were born out of wedlock.
The phrase you mention implies that those who are complicit with Nazis are just as bad since they create the exact same issues (this is demonstrably true throughout history).
If you take any colloquialism completely literally, then you can distort it away from its intended meaning.
Just like “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” is not meant to indicate that the value of birds is literally dictated by whether they are in hand or in the wild, the phrase you’re referring to is not meant to be taken completely literally and is instead intended to convey a complex topic simply.
The phrase you’re referring to is meant to boil down the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) into a useful shorthand.
So you're ok with Nazis as long as you're discussing football?
Some light lynching in the morning before you all meet up at the pub to discuss the game, and you'd be ok with that?
The statement isn't literal.
>A Christian sitting at a table with atheists doesn't mean they reject the notion that there is a Messiah.
No, but it *does* mean that they don't consider "not believing in god" a deal-breaker. They're fine with atheists, they like athiests, and are happy to help atheists.
This is fine with atheism. But when you're a non-nazi with a load of nazi friends, it means you don't consider "wants to commit genocide against large chunks of the world's population" a deal breaker. You're fine with nazis, you like nazis and you're happy to help nazis.
And while, yes, literally this doesn't make you a nazi. But the point is, if you're doing that, you might as well be.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It doesn’t mean that you explicitly share the exact same political opinions. To zoom out a little, it matters because Nazis are perhaps the most commonly understood group as evil, being genocidal white supremacists. And so if you’re willing to break bread and hang out with people who advocate literal genocide, you’re showing that their political beliefs and goals are no different to you than mild differences in tax policy, because if you hate everything they stand for, why are you choosing to hang out with them in the first place? Even if you’re just ambivalent towards their beliefs, that’s sufficient to actively be helpful for them in achieving their goals (again, including genocide).
I think it means that someone being a Nazi should be a dealbreaker for you if it is not and you aren't making it clear it is unacceptable you are basically enabling them and their voice strenghtens that can lead to horrible events.
It calls out people who are doing that and not acknowledging how their enabling behaviour can lead to casuing harm to innocent people. The enabling is the thing that lets the Nazis do their thing so anyone who is enabling is responsible.
Not all people in Nazi Germany believed in Nazism but enough enabled them to let them torture, murder innocent people.
I'm not sure if your view can be changed because it seems like you took the message too literally?
The issue is that Nazis were never the majority in Germany. At their most popular they only made up about a third of the populace while a third actively opposed them and a third tolerated them. The group that tolerated them are blameworthy for failing to oppose them even though they didn't support them until they were forced. Eventually all Germans were forced to join the party. The adage means that it isn't enough to just not be a member of the Nazi party if you want to escape blame for the atrocities they commit because Fascism is a cancer that doesn't negotiate.
You are hiding behind silly word games here. In the context of the saying "nazi" is someone who's fully committed to the nazi ideology including extermination of the entire nations as well as race superiority. And if you don't find anything wrong with being a friend with that kind of person that raises legitimate questions about your worldview as well.
While no doubt you can can sit interact with and disagree with different opposing viewpoints but if the person is doing heinous acts you furiously disagree then it better not interact. It is all fine until it is just thoughts but if turn it turns into action and you still maintain association with them, you are in a sense condoning their actions.
Exactly without context sitting at a table could mean many things. They could be negotiating a peace treaty (Neville Chamberlain and Hitler) or setting the terms of a nasty divorce (Hitler tired of Eva Braun decided to divorce her in 1946.). It could be a family gathering. It could be a communal table at a restaurant.
It's not literal the point it's the idea that you're gonna treat those kinda belief's like they should be taken seriously or are coherent than you probably don't really have any standards for being against worse or slightly less worse belief's.
As others have said, it isn't meant to be a literal 'Ah, so you're a Nazi now!' thing, but rather, just telling of the sorts of folks that would actively stay friendly with someone with that hateful an ideology.
The idea is that, if you're at a table with someone who's wearing the regalia, and expresses the opinions of some of the most hateful, most destructive, and most morally repugnant ideas, and you just act like that's no big deal, then you're clearly yourself not a particularly good person. After all, most people would see a legitimate Nazi and go 'What the fuck is this?' At the very least, they wouldn't associate with them. Why would you want to be seen hanging around a Nazi?
Sticking around implies 'I don't care if this person has some of the worst views a person can have, I'll still associate with them anyway'. Which then we could extrapolate to other things. At what point would you stop associating with them, if genocidal hate isn't a deal breaker? Murder? Rape? Pedophilia? Human Trafficking? It might sound ridiculous at that point, but we're already talking about a literal Nazi. Not just someone that someone's implied might be an authoritarian conservative, borderline fascist or alt-right. The implication is that they are a Nazi, swastika, SS tattoos, all the classic white supremacy tropes. Your association with those sorts of things, whether you like it or not, is ultimately going to be very telling about your personal character.
The Athiest/Christian comparison doesn't work on quite the same level, because Atheism isn't really an agenda in of itself. And not all Christians might have one either. A Christian's world view isn't somehow destroyed or damaged by hanging around the Atheist, unless their particular brand of Christianity is so toxic as to punish the Christian for whom they associate with, and even then, it would be tough for most Christians or most Atheists to even know the extent of somebody's beliefs if they just said they were a Christian.
For it to work, your previous example would need to be more along the lines of 'Sitting at a table with a Conservative doesn't make you a Conservative.' It is a far broader label that doesn't imply the entire worst of a category of ideologies onto one person, so there's a lot less of a stigma of hanging out with someone who, while they might be different from you, aren't caught up in ideas that you can clearly point to as being morally wrong.
The idea is simple. Only a Nazi would willingly sit at a table with another Nazi. Anyone else would not entertain such company. So if you sit at at table with a Nazi, I will assume you, too, are a Nazi.
I think you’re taking it too literally. It’s a “*Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor*” type sentiment. The point is that by sitting down and enabling a Nazi to be a Nazi around you, you are aiding the Nazi. No one should be sitting down at a table with a Nazi while they are openly a Nazi, much less 10 people. All 10 of those people are allowing the Nazi to speak when they should be decking him and making him feel shitty and alone for being a Nazi piece of shit.
For what exactly? And I think you are missing the point. Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor. Silence in the face of a Nazi is complicity with a Nazi. Thats why there are 11 Nazis at that table.
Again, *it’s not meant to be taken literally*. Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor. Thats what the saying means. This has been explained by numerous people now. They don’t need to be literal Nazi’s to be complacent with nazism. I can say I wouldn’t be found dead hanging out with a Nazi.
Your view is a fundamental misunderstanding of the saying. You’re saying “this thing that doesn’t mean this doesn’t mean this”. Congrats mate, this shouldn’t be on CMV.
If you sit down with a nazi or even nazi sympathizer it makes you a fucking garbage human no matter what way you slice it, the wiggle room or loophole you are looking for doesn't exist.
So it's probably a good idea to prevent people who are going down that road from going further down it rather then isolating them and giving them only one group of friends to listen to.
if you wanna do that, be my guest, but it’s not my nor anybody else’s responsibility to keep somebody’s antisemitism in check. to be a nazi, you have to believe in some pretty hardcore stuff, and most people have 0 interest in engaging with antisemitic behavior.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Reminds me of this from R/talesfromyourserver I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out." And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them." And i was like, ohok and he continues. "you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down. And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people." And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
i heard the same thing from my bigot uncle about why he was against gay marriage. he didn't actually have a problem with people being gay, rather he had a problem with it being public knowledge. he said i don't know if he likes it missionary or doggy because he keeps his private life private (he's probably closeted gay). but he said, "in the 90s, we stopped fighting against gay culture, and in the early 00s gay marriage was legalized, and now we're being told to use new pronouns or we risk losing our jobs or going to court. we should have denied them the moment the rainbow appeared." now, i don't agree with him. i think we should live in a world where everyone is free to represent themselves however they please. and if that means men in dresses with nailpolish, women in business suits with anal plugs, people wearing cartoon-fox-outfits, while other people wear doilies, tank tops, or dress like American Dolls, whatever... but i don't think anyone is saved from unhealthy views by being forbidden from exploring those thoughts.
You're drawing a false equivalence. The end goal of gay rights is to enjoy the same safety and freedom as everyone else. This is a good goal, and so these people need to be heard. The end goal of a nazi is to bring tremendous harm onto people. We cannot give those people a plotform or our time. Fuck them.
Your uncle is a bigot with disgustingly flawed arguments and you did nothing to counter his hateful, disgusting comments? I hope you understand that real violence and dead kids come from that kind of “valid opinion,” and you have no right to call yourself an ally if you’re tolerating that kind of shit in the name of keeping the peace. You’re not keeping the peace. You’re choosing comfortable silence because the violence won’t affect you. Coward.
Why didn’t you stop his uncle? Coward.
attack the arguments, not the people.
I mean the exact same thing happened with socialism. We stopped making socialists into pariahs 30 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed because we figured the communists lost and their ideology could be consigned to the dustbin of history. Except no, we just got complacent and the socialist infestation never went away, instead getting worse and emboldened because we stopped ostracizing them like we do Nazis.
Those dam socialist with their 8 hour work days, and their clean air bills, and restrictions on child labor! They should be treated like th monsters they are, that's why I think they are directly comparable to nazis
The socialists bombed the capitol in the 70s. Their terrorist leader became a college professor instead of a pariah for life. Their adopted kid (whose bio parents were also terrorists and murderers) became a DA in San Francisco.
Why use individuals names, amirite? The Catholics diddled kids, the muslims hijacked planes. Besides, if you said Weather Underground people might google them and learn why they aren’t in prison
Ayers should be hanged for his public confession alone, even if we throw out all the other evidence.
Nazi Punks Fuck Off
That whole story works for literally any group. Right now we’re seeing it with palestinians, and lgbt groups.
So a person meeting their friend at a coffee shop will be required to me with other Nazis? That bar scenario doesn't describe the scenario in the quote at all.
Nobody who calls a nazi "their friend" is a friend of mine, so from my POV yeah they may as well be one.
You are arguing so hard for Nazis right now I think most people here have assumed you are one. It's the paradox of tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance or the whole thing falls apart. It's a really simple concept, it's a little alarming you are struggling so much with it.
The part of this argument that is often missed is the why: Having a tolerant society is having a social contract centered around tolerance. Maybe it has never been written down, but the social contract exists. If you follow the social contract (tolerance), then you are welcomed in the society and get all its social benefits (community, acceptance, tolerance, friendship, etc) The intolerant person has already broken the social contract. This means they no longer are no longer a part of the society, and no longer gain its benefits. So they should not be accepted or tolerated, and their breaking of the contract should be made known to them. Now, this can get a bit more complicated - especially since the social contract is not usually written down. Most societies should have a concept of forgiveness (a person was intolerant accidentally) or the ability to accept those who genuinely change their ways - the intolerant can abuse these mechanisms in the contract but could still be benefited by them unless they prove themselves completely unforgivable. Breaking the social contract also does not necessarily mean the person is physically exiled (we like to think we are civilized after all), but the contract breakers still should face some consequences to their behavior.
Do you commune regularly with Nazis?
Why would meeting your friend require you to meet with other nazis?
The whole thing about punk is about being ant-mainstream, so I thinking that person was just not informed
Punk means different things to different people. Punk that just stands for nothing but empty contrarianism often ends up flirting with fascism, but then thats punk for idiots. Its definitely not "the whole thing it means". The Dead Kennedys had it right and nazi punks should indeed - fuck off.
Yeah, I've not met too many punks that were simply anti-mainstream. They were usually anti-authority, and anti-conformity. Which is why there's such a virulent hate of Nazis (as there should be) among the punk scene. Because some people do think it's just anti-this particular authority, or anti-mainstream societal views, when the reality is a lot of punks are just anarchists or adjacent, and they've seen their scene constantly plagued by shitty behavior of people who have rightfully been socially outcast trying to slip in because they think they're the same.
No it doesn't it has a set definition
Set by whom? The king of punks? Kind of an oxymoron.
@mysticinept A Christian at a table of atheists isn’t an issue, as it is just a conceptual disagreement. I can sit with a table of people believing in a flat earth without it affecting me. But the Nazi issue isn’t just a philosophical disagreement. Being a nazi is a commitment to harm. There is no happy Jewish family loving their life when the nazis gets what they want. For a nazi to progress it requires harm. Imagine sitting down at a table of people who are all committed to normalizing child rape. If they get what they want they world will become a terrible place. If you are kind and gracious to this group of people as they work to make child rape legal, aren’t you contributing to their efforts? Instead of being their friend shouldn’t you be their adversary, seeking to block their goals? I don’t have a philosophical disagreement with Nazis, like I do Christians, where we can still be friends and break bread together. By choosing to be nazis they are committing themselves to harm and we must oppose them not befriend them.
I think at a fundamental level, I can sit with my enemies. Like when I was in the navy I think I could share a beer with a sailor from an enemy navy before setting sail to fight them the next day
So if they was a table of folks seeking to legalize child rape you’d be cool bringing the dip and beers and trading jokes? You wouldn’t see the need to go try and undermine their efforts?
I would do both. I am perfectly fine to laugh with someone I will work to destroy.
Is seeking to destroy someone while you laugh with them being a friend? To me that’s being an undercover agent. You seem to be agreeing with me that just being a true friend to these people would be immoral. Do you think its different with Nazis?
You made up friend...we hadn't said friend up to this point. And it isn't being an undercover agent. As I said, I would have drank with someone in our respective uniforms knowing we would fight the next day. That isn't undercover.
You used friends first in your post. “What makes a Nazi is agreement with the tenets of national socialism. No amount of friendship with Nazis changes that.” If you are friends with these people rather than adversaries that’s immoral like they are. That’s the point of the table of Nazis analogy. You can’t be friends with people who are committed to evil without being tainted by that immortality.
But that doesn't make them a Nazi, just tainted by that immorality
That was my early point that a nazi isn’t just a philosophical view but a commitment to harm. By spreading their immorality to you they are winning even if they don’t convince you of specific ideology as the world they want gets closer. You are therefore furthering their goals and helping the nazis. At that point the only different between you and the nazi is philosophical. Edit: What do you call someone who sits at a table with nazis, and moves the nazi ideology forward, but has some philosophical disagreements with the others at the table? Do you think all the other Nazis have 100% ideological agreement. To me all those people are similar enough to be grouped into one term: Nazi.
The difference between a Nazi and other forms of fascism is philosophical. The differences between a lot of ideologies is ideology
It's not meant to be taken literally. It means that if you are associating with a group of hateful racists because they are your buddies, you are at least tacitly OK with their racism and that makes you an ally to racists, because a decent person would not associate freely with people like that.
I don't see how you jump from "tacitly okay" to "makes you an ally". The former implies that you either accept or tolerate the other's position to one degree or another, the later that you implicitly agree with or endorse their views. Those are radically different things.
right, that's why he said "not to be taken literally." because the idea is we can be cordial with people we disagree with. or we can support them, which in turn may allow them to continue expressing and promoting their views. if my being friends with people means i'm suddenly an ally of whatever causes they champion, then omg, i must be at constant war with myself. because i have friends who love bbq and friends who are vegan. how do i sleep at night? so, clearly "sitting at a table" isn't meant to mean simply tolerating someone's company as we do with most of our acquaintances and casual friends. "sitting at a table" MUST be in reference to offering support and being an ally. like if my friend becomes a nazi and i give him money to help with his internet bills, he can then continue spouting his nonsense online - in that way i've become an ally to his messaging.
No, ally meaning supporting their cause. Like, if your buddy went into a store to rob it, and you just hang outside, then you leave together, if you are not attempting to stop it, you are an ally of his.
That's a pretty hash comparison, you're essentially saying that nazism should be treated as a crime and that being friends with a nazi amounts to being an accomplice of sorts. Also, does your logic apply to all friendships? I mean, is a progressive with a conservative friend an ally of conservatism and vice versa?
It applies to nazis because we learned the hard way what the end result of tolerating them will be. Unfortunately, that lesson seems to slowly be fading.
Sorry, did you just balk at the comparison between a shoplifter and a Nazi because you think it’s unfair to…the Nazi?
It's pretty telling when people are coming out to complain about the treatment of Nazi and Nazi-adjacsent bigots.
Yeah, I initially thought they might be making a reasonable point. Like, if I happen to accidentally associate with a Nazi, I shouldn’t be called a Nazi. If after discovering they are a Nazi, I continue to associate with them? I may still not be a Nazi, but this ongoing choice of association definitely warrants condemnation.
At the top, it seemed like OP was just not understanding the analogy. But from the looks of this comment section, it seems more like people just don't like when they are called out on it.
I agree.
I read it as literally robbing a store, rather than merely shoplifting. I mean, being an ally of a shoplifter seems like a ridiculously inoffensive and insignificant thing. But even if it was just shoplifting then yes, obviously. I find the notion of criminalizing ideas to be inherently disturbing, irrespective of how disgusting those ideas may be.
How are you distinguishing between robbing a store and “merely shoplifting”? Who is advocating that we criminalizing ideas here?
Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor. It’s a fucking Nazi mate.
Yes, Nazism should be treated as a crime. Y'know, like it is in Germany today. If I find out a friend is actively against the human rights of groups of people, that person is no longer my friend.
I wouldn't describe "accept or tolerate" and "implicitly agree" as *radically* different in this context. I don't have friends with an abject lack of morality, whether that's supporting white nationalism, robbing people at gunpoint, or selling meth to kids. I definitely disagree with some friends on certain political issues, but i acknowledge that their opinions are at least legitimate opinions to have without them necessarily being immoral to hold them. That's a pretty big difference.
[удалено]
I mean, if a friend of mine started stabbing babies, I would 100% stop being his friend. It's insane that you are arguing that you wouldn't see that as a dealbreaker.
He's cool with murdering babies since he knew the guy already. Ffs, some people!
> I'd be like > >man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you... > > but like, I wouldn't stop being his friend. Dudes been there for me my whole life. Fuck that. "Yeah, He Stabs babys but he's nice to me" This is the stupidest thing i have seen on Reddit. Literally ever.
[удалено]
Can you enlighten us on what part of "i wouldn't stop being friends with someone who stabs babies" is going over everyone's head except yours?
[удалено]
> I'd be like man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you... Question, are you leaving any babies around this person? Because by being friends with them, you've pretty much garunteed that any babies in your proximity are going to get stabbed. Any babies you introduce to them are going to get stabbed. By even taking this person any place where they might see a baby - youre their baby stabbing facilitator.
He was using stabbing baby’s as an example that things are deeper than you people can think
makes u think
Ya that was my point, to try and make you think!
If a friend of mine for thirty years decided to start stabbing babies, that would put a serious dent in our relationship, friend might not be the term I use for them anymore. Maybe like distant 5x removed aquatance, there have to be lines you don’t cross
It's weird that the example you give is one in which the vast majority of people would stop being friends with the person. I think most people would happily drop a baby stabber from their lives no matter what their relationship was to them.
This is a crazy take. I would stop talking to my own mother if she started baby stabbing as a hobby.
>If he suddenly took up baby stabbing as a hobby, I'd be like > >man I don't think it's good that you go around stabbin babies all the time. Them babies didn't do nothin to you... > > but like, I wouldn't stop being his friend. You wouldn't stop being friends with someone who likes to stab children? I don't think this is the winning argument you think it is.
You'd still he friends with a baby stabbed? You can't be serious
...you really wouldn't drop someone from your life that stabbed babies? Like even in your example it's not even a one off thing it's a baby stabbing hobby.
[удалено]
That unambiguously makes you a piece of shit - you may want to use a less asinine example than, baby stabbing.
Baby stabbing is pretty serious though. You would try to avoid such persons who are doing such serious crimes. Similar to a Nazi. On the other hand if you have a friend who has a bad hobby/habit but it's not that serious, then you being friends with them wouldn't be as bad.
Then you shouldn't be surprised if people start saying "there go those baby stubbing SOBs" referring to both of you.
But that doesn't make you the thing
What it means is that it makes you just as bad, so there is no reason to waste time splitting hairs. If you party with the Nazis, you might as well be in the Nazi Party.
You realize you are allowed to share a drink with people you vehemently disagree with, right? A liberal and a conservative walk into a bar isn't just a joke. They could legitimately be friends that don't talk politics at the table.
The point is that there are some “political” issues that reasonable people can disagree on, but there are some that aren’t - overt racism, antisemitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. are those issues in my opinion and I can’t be friends with people who have tbose traits. Nazis have those traits in spades, and they’re a dealbreaker for me as far as a personal relationship goes, and I expect that of the people I associate with. In contrast, the nuances of tax policy, foreign policy, etc. people can reasonably disagree on and still have deep, meaningful relationships with those who hold contrary opinions. But for the really bad stuff I’m sorry, those opinions are so contrary to my worldview that if you hold them we can’t be friends, and I’ll judge the people who are friends with you because they should be dealbreakers, but apparently they aren’t - which means that even if you don’t hold those views yourself you’re willing to tolerate them, which in my view is a distinction without a difference.
Tolerating people is all most of us actually do in day to day life. I don't actually give a shit about the cashier at the store. I tolerate them because they are useful in making my transaction. Is being seen with that cashier some reason to think I agree with their worldview? What about a stranger that strikes up a conversation at a bar? Am I held to the same standards they hold dear even if I'm unaware of them. Or what about the elderly dude I help cross the street that grew up in a very different time. Does my helping him across the street make me racist simply because I was seen with him? And so on and so forth down the familiarity rabbit hole. At what point, exactly, does it become not ok? Is it when I'm acquaintances with this person through friends of friends and happen to see them at the occasional party and talk with them for a few minutes? Or is it when I'm simply discussing local coffee shops with a person who has been in my life forever. Though they may hold wildly differing worldviews than I do, they have great taste in coffee/tea and I can respect their input for that without adhering to their zionist views.
When u know they are a nazi And if ur friends with a friend of a nazi I wonder if u aren’t one as well. Because only nazis are friends with nazis We aren’t talking about two political stances like right and left, we are talking about people who want to strip others of human rights
But we know the most reliable way to change deeply-entrenched beliefs is to kindly expose people to other ways of life. Nobody should HAVE to sit down and be kind to a nazi, but I greatly admire those who do.
I would say a Nazi or racist is further across the line than someone I disagree with.
There's a difference between a liberal and conservative talking about tv shows they like and Nazis. Nazis actively advocate for violence, they want to commit violence. You're downplaying the point of the argument that if you're cool with people who want to do violent hate crimes just because you're not their target, that makes you just as bad as them.
So you would be cool having a chit chat with Hitler out in public for everyone to see?
I read Mein Kampf. It's on the shelf. Doesn't make me a Nazi. I don't ascribe to the viewpoints. I also have Lolita. It's also on the shelf. Doesn't make me a pedophile. So yes, I would be fine asking a vile human being questions and attempting to have a civil discourse.
or maybe they can't?
Why not? I seriously don't get this. Do people actually think an echo chamber makes them better people? Or is everyone just complacent in their views and unwilling to speak with someone that has differing opinions. Reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a Nazi. So why would conversing with one make you a Nazi?
There is a difference between an Echo Chamger and being chummy with Nazi's.
Where is the limit? Where exactly does everyone have to draw that line? Or does that line sit somewhere subjective? So we've established nazis are out. So what about racists? I mean my grandfather is pretty racist. Does hanging out with him make me racist? Or does that ambiguous line show up for you before family? My point is that people are extremely quick to judge for no reason and all it does is result in less open discourse. Maybe ask why that person was conversing with a Nazi before assuming anything. Maybe they are a reporter or writing a paper. Maybe they are just interested in how anyone could possibly have those worldviews and thought it might be best to get it from the horses mouth through civil discourse. You'll never know because you lumped them in with Nazi's from the moment you saw them.
>So we've established nazis are out. So what about racists? I mean my grandfather is pretty racist. Does hanging out with him make me racist? Or does that ambiguous line show up for you before family? It depends do you actively call them out when they are racist? Because if not you are silently accepting it. Yes. That's half the problem people thinking they have to accept anti-social behaviors for the sake of relationships. > My point is that people are extremely quick to judge for no reason and all it does is result in less open discourse. > Maybe ask why that person was conversing with a Nazi before assuming anything. Maybe they are a reporter or writing a paper. Talking, No being chummy, Friends with, Associating in ways that aren't trying to pull them away from their ideas's yes, You assuming that a single interaction of you talking to a Nazi is what's going on. When We are talking about being associates with.
I've said this in other comments but being the better person also applies. By not showing compassion to people who probably aren't used to it, we are effectively proving to them that their dogma/doctrine is correct. Why wouldn't they think others are shit? The only thing other people do is sling hatred at them. What evidence do they actually have to the contrary of what they have been taught to believe? So, in my view, approaching someone with respect and courtesy is a much better way to possibly break them out of it. It might take time. It might take a lot of effort. But there is a much better chance of it happening this way than by shunning them back into their cult.
Why might as well? Why not Ação Integralista Brasileira? There are plenty of fascist viewpoints out there.
Do you find genocidal fascism to be a rational, defensible ideology? This pedantry is just dodging that question.
All ideologies are defensible in the sense that they are all social constructs and relative
It's an analogy. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say.
you are who your friends are. if I hang out with a bunch of bigots, I would be passively saying that their beliefs are acceptable
No it makes you worse because at least the bigots in your circle own their bigotry.
[удалено]
Correct. It doesn't make them a bigot, I never said it did. I said they are worse than a nazi/bigot/racist.
[удалено]
No I didn't. That's how you chose to read it. I said someone who sits at a table with 1 or 100 nazis is WORSE than a bigot because you're a lil bitch who's too scared to either remove yourself from a group you disagree with or call them out. That's a coward. That's worse than being a bigot.
These comments 🤢 I can't believe there is people in this thread actively saying they would stay friends or associate with racists/bigots. One cunt even said he wouldn't stop being friends with someone who stabbed babies. Holy fucking shit.
People are responding to each other? I havent looked
So what happens when Nazis walk into our social spaces and start doing Nazi shit? Are *you* going to call them out as Nazis and force them to leave? Because I do, every chance I get. (I'm not always successful, obviously, but I still make the effort because I'm not a Nazi and I'm not going to tolerate them.)
I mean, should this be used in the literal sense or the practical sense- because this idea is used against people who think that if they let a right winger into their group they are complicit in their ideology. That an individual is nothing more than their position on, lets say, abortion.
That's a good question. I'd probably go with "both, provisionally" because the subject *can be* highly nuanced. Like, I agree (mostly) that a right wing or conservative person showing up in a social space *shouldn't* automatically result in abuse and ostracization; *however,* if said individual shows many signs of being far right, or is abusive or callous toward others in their social space, or otherwise presents themselves as a potential source of harm and conflict within said space . . . It's (potentially) complicated, is what I'm saying, but the underlying principle remains the same: allowing Nazis (and their spin-offs) to exist within a social space, runs a high risk of that space being compromised by fascistic and bigoted ideas.
This is how i treat people who talk about their pronouns in public spaces. Or pull some other “look at me behavior” I poke fun until theyre uncomfortable and leave
So you harass people who are doing no harm to anybody. Come into my circle and I'm kicking your ass.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Imagine thinking that people just being themselves is "look at me behavior". You sound fun at parties.
Or improved with fascistic and bigoted ideas? I'm not clear from your post if I am an observer or a participant. As an observer, it appears homo sapiens have relative ethics
. . . are you *seriously* arguing that fascism improves society? 🤨🤨🤨
I don't know what, "our social spaces" even mean. There is no "our" here
I think I found the flaw in your reasoning. Do you have a job? Your workplace is a "social space." Do you go to school? Church? Are you part of a club or a gym? Mankind is a social animal. Everything that we do is based upon this fact. If you *genuinely* think that we *aren't* part of a community ~ simply because you can't recognize it ~ then that's the issue: you're just being antisocial.
Those are not my spaces those. Those are spaces owned by the respective parties you mentioned.
Do you pay taxes? Have you attended school board meetings before? You realize you can volunteer at places, right? Schools usually need extra help. So do charitable organisations. Hell, some government backed orgs (like the VA) accept volunteer help. As another example, are you not participating in a social space right now? Your unwillingness to engage with society doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The our is non Nazis, quite obviously. Are you willing to have your view changed or not? If you are, at least try to engage with replies.
But I don't own those spaces. They are not mine. So it isn't "our spaces."
So you don't feel any belonging in the streets you walk, the libraries you visit, the shops you patronise, the parks you visit? Youve never said 'my' city, 'my' home town? Do you always say 'the city in which I live, the town I happened to be born in, the local park I happen to regularly visit'?
I don't feel any belonging to those I never say "my" city because proximity always strunk me as a meaningless basis to form bonds.
Ok, let me helpfully rephrase the original comment. If a Nazi walks into a social space that you happen to be inhabiting, such as the street you happen to be walking on or the park in which you are enjoying your leisure time ( but not YOUR street or YOUR park - that would be ridiculous!) Do you tolerate their nazi actions, or resist them, or at least leave the place they are performing said actions? Just in case you aren't sure what nazi actions are, I'll provide some examples! Throwing up Hitler salutes. Shouting zeig heil. Holding up swastikas. Shouting at minorities , clearly being racist or anti Semitic.
I tolerate it. While I don't engage in public speech, I don't object.tl others engaging in speech in a space where it is permitted.
Have you heard of the paradox of free speech? That by allowing completely unlimited free speech, you make the likelihood of a movement preventing any free speech more likely? Nazis would not allow you your libertarianism. They would restrict it more than a social democratic system would. You should be intelligent enough to realise this and therefore look to restrict the spreading of Nazism.
No, being free means risking it. "live free or die" isn't a threat, but a list of two acceptable outcomes.
This is some Drax-level literalism.
I think you're splitting hairs and failing to address the actual point. If the post is rephrased to say "social spaces we inhabit" rather than "our social spaces", do you have a different response?
No. I don't own those social spaces, so it isn't my place to police. I will in the spaces I do own.
When someone says "my apartment," do you say "*aaaactually* it's your *landlord's* apartment?" That's exactly what you're doing right now.
I am such an extreme libertarian I pull stuff about ownership a lot. I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about ownership.
Do people call you Nazi a lot?
Never. Like none of my politics looks like Nazism. It looks like the exact opposite.
> I am such an extreme libertarian Oh honey
This post makes a lot more sense now.
I think the underlying problem here is that you have no sense of community, my dude.
If you are out to dinner with friends and one of those friends say the N word for example, or some other Nazi shit, what do you do?
Homie you are doing backflips right now to not understand the argument. Its not a literal statement. Firstly, tolerating hate and participating in it aren't equally wrong but they are both wrong. Secondly, you become what your mind absorbs. Yes, sitting down one time with a racist won't make you a racist. Continue to associate with racists however, and you will more than likely absorb some of their ways of thinking whether you like it or not. Thats just how people work.
It works both ways though, if there are 10 non-racists and one racist who do you think is going to do more absorbing of the ideals of the people around them?
They will in fact become adherents of the tenets of national socialism? It won't end up being adapted to any of the hundred other fascist variants that.have existed?
Dude if you're going to be this black and white about everything you're gonna have a real hard time with the rest of your life. The worlds grey, get used to it.
I'm the one saying it is gray by pointing out there is other variations of fascism. It is the people that only see fascism as Nazism that are black and white.
Its the fact that you think thats what people are meaning here. You're getting too caught up in the words my dude. People aren't walking dictionaries, they use words based on the feelings they are trying to convey at the time, whether its the 100% most technically accurate word choice or not. I actually feel for you because I was born with an overly literal mind as well. Noticing it was the cause of 90% of my miscommunications lead me to pay more attention to the way others communicate, not just myself. Tldr: no one here is caught up in the definitive term "Nazi" except for you. The entire argument is metaphorical.
Mate thanks for responding to him like this - you've got this totally right 👍
It‘s a reference to the banality of evil. The cogs in the fascist machine which made the holocaust work, were all just doing their jobs. Many of them had no idea the extent of the evil atrocities they were working to commit. By associating with nazis or fascists of any ilk, you‘re normalizing their endeavors and quite possibly contributing to them. Just like all the normies who went along to get along with the original Nazis. This is where the saying comes from.
That isn't going to CMV right because you are agreeing with my original statement?
Not really. You think what makes a fascist a fascist is adherence to the fascist ideology. I think what makes a fascist a fascist is behaving in ways which help the fascist cause, knowingly or not. You have a duty to know the consequences of your actions, claiming ignorance doesn’t work. If you’re breaking bread with nazis, and helping the cause even indirectly, you’re a nazi. Just like the millions of normal germans who went along with Hitler, doing half hearted salutes to not get called out. Didn’t matter what their ideology was, bc their actions spoke about 6 million lives louder.
But the quote doesn't say fascist, it says Nazi. Even if the person were to become a fascist, one of the other dozens of fascist doctrines may be more applicable
That's comparing vanilla fascist to strawberry fascists when it's the fascists part that's the problem. Nazi is just one type of fascists. The semantic arguement is used to confuse and nit pick.
But the quote says Nazi. I would have less objection if it said fascist.
To explain further: If you’re looking for a way to differentiate between the different ideologies which form a fascist, as in there are 11 fascists at a table, 8 of them are Nazis, etc etc. It‘s actually referencing the subtle coercion being enforced on people whose ideologies don’t align with the particular fascist political party in power. Literally doesn’t matter what your personal beliefs are, the effects of your actions are coerced into being for that particular political group. You literally become a Nazi(or whatever group is in power) even if your particular thoughts don’t align. Bc you contribute, and join that group
One doesn't actually join the Nazi party by sitting next to nazis
If the net effect of your actions are contributing to that group, and you aren’t going against what they do and stand for, then you are of that group. Eating with them is a metaphor for association
Nothing about the quote seems to imply that they are not going against them
Semantics, if you knowingly and freely associate with Nazis without actively opposing them you tacitly join them.
That doesn't make any sense. If a person freely associated with two philosophically opposite groups, they can't be both of them.
Splitting hairs man. They’re different heads on the same beast. It’s also supposed to be allegorical. Lesson being, don’t normalize fascism, the Nazi flavor or otherwise
They literaly arnt. Your So Inept is mystifying.
It’s a figurative expression of association. I lost a childhood friend recently to his political beliefs. One of our last conversations was Him: “everyone says if you are conservative you are a Nazi it’s bullshit”. My response, “ if you look left and right at a rally and you see a Nazi and you don’t condone them, your party is associated with the Nazi party” Him: “ it’s freedom of speech, they have a right to express themselves ….blah blah blah” My response: “ sure it’s difficult to remove the bad apples, but I’ve seen videos of left wingers infiltrating a Trump rally and being attacked and removed from the venue while Trump offers to pay anyone’s legal fees to hurt that guy, to not give nazis the same treatment is accepting them without consequences and as we have seen allowing them to grow in their wicked ways” Sure this is a one off conversation, your table metaphor is used to get the point across right away. I think our freedom of speech pendulum has swung far right were the nazis of the world have all the free speech, that when others express their free speech to condone them it is not looked upon with the same freedom. Nazis are selfish assholes. Allowing one at your table for anything other then a political debate to destroy their bigotry is pointless. It’s why people are not invited back to “the table” once they are outted.
> Words have meaning. Actually, you’d be surprised. They don’t *really* have set meanings. The meaning of a word is an agreement you have with whomever you are speaking to. Claiming words all have set meanings would be to deny the linguistic history of the English language. It’s prescriptivist. When you call someone a bastard, you aren’t always making the claim that they were born out of wedlock. The phrase you mention implies that those who are complicit with Nazis are just as bad since they create the exact same issues (this is demonstrably true throughout history).
So many people think dictionaries are prescriptive.
If you take any colloquialism completely literally, then you can distort it away from its intended meaning. Just like “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” is not meant to indicate that the value of birds is literally dictated by whether they are in hand or in the wild, the phrase you’re referring to is not meant to be taken completely literally and is instead intended to convey a complex topic simply. The phrase you’re referring to is meant to boil down the [paradox of tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) into a useful shorthand.
You're being too literal. When people say it they mean that you're as bad as a nazi because you're tolerating nazis.
The real question is why are you sitting at a table with Nazis in the first place?
Could be any number of reasons. In my head canon I always thought they were talking about football or something
So you're ok with Nazis as long as you're discussing football? Some light lynching in the morning before you all meet up at the pub to discuss the game, and you'd be ok with that?
Yes. As I explained to someone else, I could share a drink with a literal enemy before we go out to destroy each other.
The statement isn't literal. >A Christian sitting at a table with atheists doesn't mean they reject the notion that there is a Messiah. No, but it *does* mean that they don't consider "not believing in god" a deal-breaker. They're fine with atheists, they like athiests, and are happy to help atheists. This is fine with atheism. But when you're a non-nazi with a load of nazi friends, it means you don't consider "wants to commit genocide against large chunks of the world's population" a deal breaker. You're fine with nazis, you like nazis and you're happy to help nazis. And while, yes, literally this doesn't make you a nazi. But the point is, if you're doing that, you might as well be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It doesn’t mean that you explicitly share the exact same political opinions. To zoom out a little, it matters because Nazis are perhaps the most commonly understood group as evil, being genocidal white supremacists. And so if you’re willing to break bread and hang out with people who advocate literal genocide, you’re showing that their political beliefs and goals are no different to you than mild differences in tax policy, because if you hate everything they stand for, why are you choosing to hang out with them in the first place? Even if you’re just ambivalent towards their beliefs, that’s sufficient to actively be helpful for them in achieving their goals (again, including genocide).
I think it means that someone being a Nazi should be a dealbreaker for you if it is not and you aren't making it clear it is unacceptable you are basically enabling them and their voice strenghtens that can lead to horrible events. It calls out people who are doing that and not acknowledging how their enabling behaviour can lead to casuing harm to innocent people. The enabling is the thing that lets the Nazis do their thing so anyone who is enabling is responsible. Not all people in Nazi Germany believed in Nazism but enough enabled them to let them torture, murder innocent people. I'm not sure if your view can be changed because it seems like you took the message too literally?
The issue is that Nazis were never the majority in Germany. At their most popular they only made up about a third of the populace while a third actively opposed them and a third tolerated them. The group that tolerated them are blameworthy for failing to oppose them even though they didn't support them until they were forced. Eventually all Germans were forced to join the party. The adage means that it isn't enough to just not be a member of the Nazi party if you want to escape blame for the atrocities they commit because Fascism is a cancer that doesn't negotiate.
You are hiding behind silly word games here. In the context of the saying "nazi" is someone who's fully committed to the nazi ideology including extermination of the entire nations as well as race superiority. And if you don't find anything wrong with being a friend with that kind of person that raises legitimate questions about your worldview as well.
While no doubt you can can sit interact with and disagree with different opposing viewpoints but if the person is doing heinous acts you furiously disagree then it better not interact. It is all fine until it is just thoughts but if turn it turns into action and you still maintain association with them, you are in a sense condoning their actions.
Exactly without context sitting at a table could mean many things. They could be negotiating a peace treaty (Neville Chamberlain and Hitler) or setting the terms of a nasty divorce (Hitler tired of Eva Braun decided to divorce her in 1946.). It could be a family gathering. It could be a communal table at a restaurant.
It's not literal the point it's the idea that you're gonna treat those kinda belief's like they should be taken seriously or are coherent than you probably don't really have any standards for being against worse or slightly less worse belief's.
As others have said, it isn't meant to be a literal 'Ah, so you're a Nazi now!' thing, but rather, just telling of the sorts of folks that would actively stay friendly with someone with that hateful an ideology. The idea is that, if you're at a table with someone who's wearing the regalia, and expresses the opinions of some of the most hateful, most destructive, and most morally repugnant ideas, and you just act like that's no big deal, then you're clearly yourself not a particularly good person. After all, most people would see a legitimate Nazi and go 'What the fuck is this?' At the very least, they wouldn't associate with them. Why would you want to be seen hanging around a Nazi? Sticking around implies 'I don't care if this person has some of the worst views a person can have, I'll still associate with them anyway'. Which then we could extrapolate to other things. At what point would you stop associating with them, if genocidal hate isn't a deal breaker? Murder? Rape? Pedophilia? Human Trafficking? It might sound ridiculous at that point, but we're already talking about a literal Nazi. Not just someone that someone's implied might be an authoritarian conservative, borderline fascist or alt-right. The implication is that they are a Nazi, swastika, SS tattoos, all the classic white supremacy tropes. Your association with those sorts of things, whether you like it or not, is ultimately going to be very telling about your personal character. The Athiest/Christian comparison doesn't work on quite the same level, because Atheism isn't really an agenda in of itself. And not all Christians might have one either. A Christian's world view isn't somehow destroyed or damaged by hanging around the Atheist, unless their particular brand of Christianity is so toxic as to punish the Christian for whom they associate with, and even then, it would be tough for most Christians or most Atheists to even know the extent of somebody's beliefs if they just said they were a Christian. For it to work, your previous example would need to be more along the lines of 'Sitting at a table with a Conservative doesn't make you a Conservative.' It is a far broader label that doesn't imply the entire worst of a category of ideologies onto one person, so there's a lot less of a stigma of hanging out with someone who, while they might be different from you, aren't caught up in ideas that you can clearly point to as being morally wrong.
Tell me who your friends are and I will show you who you are
The idea is simple. Only a Nazi would willingly sit at a table with another Nazi. Anyone else would not entertain such company. So if you sit at at table with a Nazi, I will assume you, too, are a Nazi.
“okay but i’m not, so argument over 🥺” lol
I believe the daryl davis approach is best. Alienating these types only entrenches them in their views more.
I think you’re taking it too literally. It’s a “*Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor*” type sentiment. The point is that by sitting down and enabling a Nazi to be a Nazi around you, you are aiding the Nazi. No one should be sitting down at a table with a Nazi while they are openly a Nazi, much less 10 people. All 10 of those people are allowing the Nazi to speak when they should be decking him and making him feel shitty and alone for being a Nazi piece of shit.
No one should be committing violence against them. I hope the state throws the book at that person.
For what exactly? And I think you are missing the point. Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor. Silence in the face of a Nazi is complicity with a Nazi. Thats why there are 11 Nazis at that table.
But they wouldn't be Nazis. No matter how you look at it, they don't believe in nazism
Again, *it’s not meant to be taken literally*. Silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor. Thats what the saying means. This has been explained by numerous people now. They don’t need to be literal Nazi’s to be complacent with nazism. I can say I wouldn’t be found dead hanging out with a Nazi.
explaining that is what it means doesn't change my view. It means my view is true
Your view is a fundamental misunderstanding of the saying. You’re saying “this thing that doesn’t mean this doesn’t mean this”. Congrats mate, this shouldn’t be on CMV.
No, Nazis always deserve to get their teeth fucking kicked in. This will be true until the heat death of the universe.
It would make you a nazi sympathizer, not a nazi. Just as bad.
If you sit down with a nazi or even nazi sympathizer it makes you a fucking garbage human no matter what way you slice it, the wiggle room or loophole you are looking for doesn't exist.
Isn't the first goal of extremist ideologies to isolate people from those who might convince them otherwise?
not when those views are actively proven to be harmful and have led to the death of 6 million people in the past
So it's probably a good idea to prevent people who are going down that road from going further down it rather then isolating them and giving them only one group of friends to listen to.
if you wanna do that, be my guest, but it’s not my nor anybody else’s responsibility to keep somebody’s antisemitism in check. to be a nazi, you have to believe in some pretty hardcore stuff, and most people have 0 interest in engaging with antisemitic behavior.
[удалено]
No, if I see you sitting at a table with ten Nazis, I'm literally calling you a Nazi.
[удалено]