And you want to give the state the power to get rid of any group it deems undesirable? Or do you want to break the law to get rid of them yourself? This protest is the sign that the majority will not go along with fascist talking points, it makes clear that those talking points have no space in public discourse. This is how democracy is supposed to work.
And you want to give the state the power to get rid of any group it deems undesirable?
The state already has the power to get rid of any group that seeks to destabilize our democratic system. This is a very central part of our constitution (see article 9, 18, 20 or 21). It’s basically a way to deal with the paradox of tolerance, if you’re not familiar with that concept here’s the wikipedia definition:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Ultimately, it is within the law to personally get rid of a group that wants to destroy our free and democratic system:
Article 20
[…]
(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.
This is usually interpreted as including physical violence.
I understand your longing for immediate action and I share the emotional need to cut off the snake’s head sooner than later. Those who break the social contract of tolerance for each other should not be protected by it. Unfortunately it is a matter of fact that violence will always spiral out of control.
First you just want to get rid of the fascists. Assume you succeed and don’t get reprimanded by law. Then you know how to get rid of someone and can act on it. What stops you to get to your rivals that want to strip you from your new found power? Chances are real you drift off into dictator mannerisms yourself.
The only way to not become what you try to eliminate is not to use excessive violence to begin with. Use the law. Use intimidating mass demonstrations. Use social pressure by making their views unspeakable again. Be better, stand for your values, organize with like minded folk and don’t play into the stereotype of left groups always splittering into incapable small groups that cannot cooperate and coordinate
You assume that murdering people is somehow addictive. That is not true for sane people. See for example soldiers or self defense situations. The other commenter is right that sane people will stop being violent, once the threat is eliminated. Even some absolute psychos will only kill while it’s acceptable and go back to suppress their desire for violence when it no longer is acceptable by their scociety.
At sone point violence may be the only way to defend freedom and democracy. However, I disagree with the other commenter that the time is now.
I should have worded it better - violence is the easy way. Easy is tempting. It’s harder to debate with people. Inherently better, no doubt! It’s a pattern in history that the number of people in power being corrupted by it is not low. Admittedly, not unfathomable high either, but it happens.
Last, sanity can slip in extreme situations and this, hopefully fictional, scenario is extreme in my book
The Nazis here meet in random places like mountain ranges at night time and the rare time they pop-up in protests it’s with police protection and unannounced beforehand.
Ah, I see. On the one hand here’s a green light and all you need to do is point it out to people. On the other there’s a green light and you’re saying “fuck the system, let’s go 200m down the road where the light is red and cross there”.
They’re already in your politics, taking votes and planning “deportations”. This is feel-good lib theatre.
And you want to give the state the power to get rid of any group it deems undesirable? Or do you want to break the law to get rid of them yourself? This protest is the sign that the majority will not go along with fascist talking points, it makes clear that those talking points have no space in public discourse. This is how democracy is supposed to work.
The state already has the power to get rid of any group that seeks to destabilize our democratic system. This is a very central part of our constitution (see article 9, 18, 20 or 21). It’s basically a way to deal with the paradox of tolerance, if you’re not familiar with that concept here’s the wikipedia definition:
Ultimately, it is within the law to personally get rid of a group that wants to destroy our free and democratic system:
This is usually interpreted as including physical violence.
That one.
If they get power, they’ll make it legal to do it to you. There won’t be any protests like this going on.
Good luck achieving nothing then.
A dead nazi achieves a lot more than a living one.
I understand your longing for immediate action and I share the emotional need to cut off the snake’s head sooner than later. Those who break the social contract of tolerance for each other should not be protected by it. Unfortunately it is a matter of fact that violence will always spiral out of control. First you just want to get rid of the fascists. Assume you succeed and don’t get reprimanded by law. Then you know how to get rid of someone and can act on it. What stops you to get to your rivals that want to strip you from your new found power? Chances are real you drift off into dictator mannerisms yourself.
The only way to not become what you try to eliminate is not to use excessive violence to begin with. Use the law. Use intimidating mass demonstrations. Use social pressure by making their views unspeakable again. Be better, stand for your values, organize with like minded folk and don’t play into the stereotype of left groups always splittering into incapable small groups that cannot cooperate and coordinate
You assume that murdering people is somehow addictive. That is not true for sane people. See for example soldiers or self defense situations. The other commenter is right that sane people will stop being violent, once the threat is eliminated. Even some absolute psychos will only kill while it’s acceptable and go back to suppress their desire for violence when it no longer is acceptable by their scociety.
At sone point violence may be the only way to defend freedom and democracy. However, I disagree with the other commenter that the time is now.
I should have worded it better - violence is the easy way. Easy is tempting. It’s harder to debate with people. Inherently better, no doubt! It’s a pattern in history that the number of people in power being corrupted by it is not low. Admittedly, not unfathomable high either, but it happens.
Last, sanity can slip in extreme situations and this, hopefully fictional, scenario is extreme in my book
You can’t both be sane and be ok with killing.
Depends how you define „sane“
So how many nazis have you killed? Why so few?
I’m not German?
That’s a lame excuse, there are nazis everywhere.
The Nazis here meet in random places like mountain ranges at night time and the rare time they pop-up in protests it’s with police protection and unannounced beforehand.
What a perfectly fascist way of thinking.
No.
A tolerant society cannot allow intolerance, that’s not fascism.
That’s not what you’re saying at all, though. You said:
You are arguing with a 14 year old who wants to sound tough over the internet. Or at least I hope.
Yeah, and?
You mean a martyr for other Nazis to get motivated over?
Great /s
That’s just another Nazi to kill.
No need to break the law, it’s in the German constitution:
Ah, I see. On the one hand here’s a green light and all you need to do is point it out to people. On the other there’s a green light and you’re saying “fuck the system, let’s go 200m down the road where the light is red and cross there”.