«12. . .1,5171,5181,5191,5201,5211,5221,523. . .2,6872,688»
By this argument then you could ban everyone on the far left because they believe that their own people are committing genocide (in as few words as I can try to explain communism) and then kill everyone that they can
Communism killed more people than nazism and terrorised the world (arguably terrorised) for a much longer time
If you're going to suppress free speech then why don't you dissolve everything that isn't moderate while we're at it
And again
People identify as these ideologies while disagreeing with certain parts of it
I've seen this happen, in Thaecia, twice
You fail to see the actual point of my argument, you have to define what is right wing, what ideologies are allowed, what ideologies are not, etc. You have to pick and choose which ideologies are bad enough to be bannable
Bad bill
That may be true, but if you express that hate towards someone or that group explicitly, you’re already able to get rid of them legally. If they don’t express those views, it just becomes a huge process to weed these people out.
You have fascists, nazis, identitarians, islamists, what's next? I don't see why we get to pick and choose which ideologies are evil, especially with such loose sources such as wikipedia
^ you could argue that sometimes displaying excessive amounts of hate towards certain races could be considered to be in violation of NS rules
Although that takes a lot of interpretation on the rules that you'd probably have to ask admin about
Dizgovzy, Giant Redwoods, and Titanne
Islamists: Believe homosexuality should be punished by death
Identitarians: Believe that non-white people are committing genocide against them
If this isn't evil to you, you need to wake up.
In my study of these ideologies I have, at times, figured out that rejecting their ideology and declaring it unacceptable is one of the deepest cutting stings you can do to one of them.
What many in the alt-right look for is belonging. Give it to them in spite of that and they will keep doing it. The best way to stop this is to force them to pick between their beliefs and a community. That simple.
No no no no no
First of all that could be argued to go against the constitution.
Second of all we dont ban people for political views without explicit hate speech. Because by your logic someone could make an argument to get rid of ICH or something like that.
You guys were muted in Thaecord for a reason. Stop circlejerking over witch hunts and fringe ideologies and definitely dont take a muted/lockdown discussion to the RMB to avoid consequences.
World Trade, Pap sculgief, Islonia, The marconian state, and 3 othersBrototh, Titanne, and Marvinville
I identify as far right, should I get banned too?
Dizgovzy, Giant Redwoods, World Trade, Islonia, and 5 othersThe marconian state, Brototh, Catlin, Emazia, and Marvinville
It is evil to me
I didn't tell you once that I agree with their ideologies
Or I think that it's something that should be promoted
My problem is that you suppress people of these groups
Simply because they identify with these groups
You don't give them a chance for their freedom of speech
You don't define what a far right person is-- while that might sound simple, there's a very fine line between being racist and being far right. might sound weird, but i've seen it before, in thaecia
Once again
bad bill
Dizgovzy, Giant Redwoods, and Titanne
Nationalism for the new western atlantic doesn't count
Andusre, Titanne, and Emazia
That's fair, but the thing is, stopping specific ideologies rather than a group leads to a lot of loopholes. Particularly with these folk since they switch labels all the time: "I'm not a racialist, I support human biodiversity!" or some other stupid and insane thing that has happened already.
It's pretty clearly unconstitutional
And hate speech could be considered to be illegal by default
This bill does nothing except suppress people who are right wing
They switch labels all the time, but I thought that was a good thing because you 'are focused on self-identification more than rhetoric', right?
I mean it's specifically people who SAY they are fascists. It's not like Dennis Prager's going to call himself a Nazi tomorrow, is he?
Also, hate speech isn't banned by default...Just look at all the fascists crawling in NSG.
No, but rather it makes it hard to track the same belief as it moves through a meandering series of labels.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but there's an explicit OOC stance against Fascism
That stance being a direct ban on sight
Even Tar who has spouted some pro-conf state jokes have been warned to tone it down
Writing a bill that formalises our OOC stance on fascism is too bureaucratic (PM or Prez giving the founder permission to ban)
Without this bill we already allow officers regardless of title and political importance to our region to ban fascists and other similar things
Dizgovzy, United cascadian peoples, World Trade, Islonia, and 6 othersThe marconian state, Andusre, Brototh, Titanne, Marvinville, and Maow i
Maybe you should consider putting restrictions on hate speech then, instead of purging entire ideologies.
Addressing Diz:
Not being toxic, I tried to work through an issue I found in the region by proposing a bill to solve said issue. This is the way the region is meant to work, and so I am proposing legislation that could meaningfully make our region live up to the tags that we identify with.
If this bill is unconstitutional and folks think that it goes against our community's goals, I'd move that we remove the Anti-fascist tag from our region
If you have laws protecting against racial, religious, sexual, and gender-based discrimination, then when someone comes into the region espousing those awful views, they'll be banned. That's the protection covered, is it not? Why go on to begin infringing upon freedom of speech over blurry and subjective ideologies? If someone's fascist and they enter the region, whatever. If said fascist begins to proclaim their hatred of a demographic of people then they can be banned. The bill seems like a way to accomplish something already done in a worse way
:P
That depends. Would you support a constitutional amendment that would do that?
We're the cool kids :sunglasses:
Islonia and Titanne
All it says is if they identify with fascism, they will be banned. I am very confused as to why this is a bill that is receiving heated debate. Do we not oppose fascists suddenly?
«12. . .1,5171,5181,5191,5201,5211,5221,523. . .2,6872,688»
Advertisement
