This. Dehumanizing people, even the scum of the world, is not good or justified.

There is only so much empathy you can lend out to a fascist black hole before it sucks you into its hateful gravitational pool. Purity tests like what you are proposing just makes them stronger.

It's literally the one message every old European used to preach to us younger generations back in the day. I remember how important it was to them to make us understand that the minute we start dehumanizing people we don't like, we are repeating the cycle.

It is why movies like Der Untergang exists. We have to understand that the most despicable people who ever lived were still human beings and much closer to ourselves than we like to think.

I have carried with me, my whole life the knowledge that I am fallible and I am capable of evil no matter how good of a person I think I am. To a lesser extent, every time I have thought I was too clever to fall for x, y and z, that's when I have fallen right into it. "I would never end up in an abusive relationship. I have too much self respect for that" 🤡 "I'm far too strong to become the doormat in this and that friendship" 🤡 "I'll never fall for fake information online. I'm too observant" 🤡

I could never trust myself to believe I would be too smart, kind or principled to not fall into a destructive and abusive pattern of behavior if the circumstances are twisted just right. I think more people would benefit if they reminded themselves of their imperfections and got off their high horses. On Lemmy alone I have encountered far too many holier than thou types who are super duper anti fascist but ironically act exactly like fascists, but to them it doesn't count because they are "on the right side of history".

Am I sad that some nazi KKK guy died? No. But he was human. Most likely a very terrible human, but still human.

Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.

In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.

Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.

Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.

The point is, if somebody has:

1. Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and

2. Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then

Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.

Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.

Not going to downvote but no I sharply disagree.

Nazi lives don't matter. The paradox of tolerance goes both ways. Do not tolerate the intolerant.

Btw this story was in May 2018 and sadly is not from a recent event (Nazis regime is now in the white house)

Genuinely curious your perspective: so what then?

How would you want to handle the growing fascism problem because I believe shaming, ridicule and cruelty are due with where we stand and with how bad things are and how much, much, worse they can get.

These are your enemies they have the entire govenment and a cult and they want to brutalize, make illegal and remove people (one way or the other).

What do you propose?

I would ask you, is it OK to fight Nazis in a war? If you say yes, then what's the difference?

one of the primary protections of the constitution is that nobody can infringe upon your constitutional rights. if they do, they lose some of the protections given to them through the constitution.

I think it's fair that if some racist fuckhole wants to kill people based on their color or gender identity, it's only fair that we celebrate when they die. obviously death is not the goal, however a celebration that the hate they injected into the world is now slightly weaker over all is.

my point is, if you lead a life of an asshole you will be remembered as an asshole.

^reddit chud