First Conviction in Victoria for Nazi Salute: Self-Proclaimed Nazi Faces Sentencing

[Gaccha]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

From the River to the Sea

 

The sheer irony of you using this as a mic-drop winning argument is mind-blowing.

 

That expression originated as a Zionist expression. As Wikipedia states: 

 

"An early Zionist slogan envisaged statehood extending over the two banks of the Jordan river,"

 

But you have such a glancing knowledge of the conflict that you haven't heard it being used in any other way than the mainstream media have told you.

 

The expression since 1969 has meant, by the PLO, a call for a two-state democratic solution, as Wikipedia points out.

 

You are so confident in your ignorance that you'd make this a crime to say, despite its complex usages over the years.

 

And you made this determination on an obviously unbearably ignorant grasp of the conflict. 

 

Your position is exactly why there must be no hate crime laws. Precisely so you can, through open free speech, discover your ignorance.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Of course. Leftists always wish to silence those with whom they disagree. It's leftism 101. Why would you be any different?

 

 

Neither do I.

 

I defend freedom of speech. 

 

I know you like your ripped memes to do your thinking for you, but Hall was telling a porky when she attributed this particular lie to Voltaire.

 

An example of a projected righteousness founded on nothing.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

More justification of violence against those with whom you disagree. 

 

But at least you are being honest for once.

Jonny, I certainly disagree with Nazis, I have absolutely no sympathy for them or their hate filled ideology and see no reason to tolerate it given what we know it has done in the past.

 

But let me ask you, this guy throwing his Nazi salute with a ‘From the River to the Sea’ placard behind him.

 

Is he an example of who you sympathize with?

I ask because I don’t put any ‘change of view’ beyond you.

[Neeranam]

5 hours ago, Gaccha said:

Let us consider Mr Neeranam's appeal to use criminal sanctions. Who could possibly oppose the banning of immoral speech? 

 

"I listen to both sides, I do NOT wish to ban debate, I enjoy it. All I said was Islamophobia should be banned."

 

He enjoys debate, Ladies and Gentleman! Just not what is phobic. 

 

It must be very bad this relatively new phobia of which he speaks.

 

"take passages from the Quran out of context to support their arguments, particularly those that mention violence or punishment. For instance, verses that discuss conflict or warfare are sometimes highlighted without considering the historical and textual context in which they were revealed."

 

Yikes. Out of context. But there's always a bigger context. You can always appeal to something more. Mr Neeranam wants to appeal to historicity, that the violence mentioned in the Koran was normal for its time and we should ignore it now. 

 

But why? Why should we ignore the passages as they are understood now? Is not the context today the effect of the passage on those who believe in them. What of the believers who believe it is the literal word of God. They certainly don't put the passages into the context of their time. They believe as they are written. Why shouldn't we? 

 

Why is it bigoted to take a more nuanced grasp of the context than Mr Neeranam, who has a rather cute naive utopian view.

Opposing “Islamophobia” doesn’t mean advocating for censorship of all critical discussions about Islam. As I said earlier, t’s about distinguishing between legitimate critique and harmful stereotypes that perpetuate discrimination. Enjoying debate doesn’t negate the importance of recognizing how certain speech can incite hatred and violence.

You mention the need to consider how believers understand these texts today. That’s valid, but we must also acknowledge that interpretations can evolve. Many religious traditions engage with their texts in ways that reflect contemporary values and ethics. Engaging with a faith’s foundational texts doesn’t have to be a literal reading; it can be a dynamic process that respects both tradition and modernity. Labeling my views as “naive” misses an opportunity for dialogue. 

I say the same thing for Christianophobia, Judeophobia, or Buddhophobia.

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, Gaccha said:

Your position is exactly why there must be no hate crime laws. Precisely so you can, through open free speech, discover your ignorance.

Well said.

[Gaccha]

45 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

we must also acknowledge that interpretations can evolve.

Yet they won't be allowed to evolve because any alternate interpretations can easily be characterized as hate. The new pieties are always the old heresies.

 

46 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Labeling my views as “naive” misses an opportunity for dialogue. 

By having this debate, you are-- very slowly-- grasping that there is no way to come up with this imposition of religious sentiments without deeply damaging my right (and their right, and your right) to constant rigorous debate and discussion ("dialogue").

 

I'm tempted to ask for a law of Rationalophobia. Demanding that a religion's sentiments from another time should trump my rationalist, humanist values is grotesque.

 

The sheer struggle, the incredible sacrifices that were made to get the church off our backs through many centuries should not be sheepishly given away by the naive sentiments of the hippy flower-power generation. I will not allow the old to steal my future. You must not succeed.