Right-Wing German Extremists Tricked By Trojan Shirts 457
gzipped_tar writes "Fans at a recent right-wing extremist rock festival in Germany thought they were getting free T-shirts that reflected their nationalistic worldview. But after the garment's first wash they discovered otherwise. The original image rinsed away to reveal a hidden message from an activist group. It reads: 'If your T-shirt can do it, so can you. We'll help to free you from right-wing extremism.'"
Make all the t-shirts you want (Score:2, Interesting)
This [youtube.com] isn't going to work.
Genius. (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad they didn't have cameras to record the nazi-rage reaction face.
Actually, since they're probably children, it would end up being their mom's reaction face when she is doing the laundry. Ah well.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad they didn't have cameras to record the nazi-rage reaction face.
Actually, since they're probably children, it would end up being their mom's reaction face when she is doing the laundry. Ah well.
While this is probably the most probable scenario, It does give the parents an eye on what their kids are doing and will thus cause them to consider intervening in their development. If it causes at least one parent to positively change a kids direction in life, then it was well worth the money spent.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you thought any of this through?
Re: (Score:3)
Have you thought any of this through?
First posts rarely think their post through.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Interesting)
The original T-Shirt had "Hardcore Rebellen, National und Frei" on it. Unless you already know who "Hardcore Rebellen" is, it's hard to figure out that this is a right-wing extremist group.
Well, maybe the word "National" may tip somebody off, but so many other things which have nothing to do with right-wing extremism have "national" in their name too, so you really have to already be looking for tell-tale signs to spot this. And the "tough" logo with skull and flags would look like generic rocker/biker wear to the uninitiated.
However, after the wash, the "We'll help to free you from right-wing extremism." is pretty obvious...
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a hardcore extremist be living with mommy?
Are hardcore extremists actually washing their t-shirts...?
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you mean "unambiguously, morally bad" as I think it's pretty clear that Neo-Nazism is not a good thing(TM).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't slander the monkeys as they have more intelligence than a neo-nazi and look a lot cuter
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Becoming a neo-nazi is considered a negative thing by everyone
That doesn't mean that it is negative.
Really, there are some things in life that are unambiguously, morally good.
To know that, you'd probably have to be able to prove the existence of absolute morals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you what. I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong just as soon as you prove that the moon is not made of cheese.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong
I don't think I said anything about trying to prove Nazis wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You can philosophize, write your nihilistic volumes showing whatever you want about morals, and yet back in the real world, neo-nazism will still be bad. Trying to argue otherwise makes you look silly. Or gets you modded down.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I just expect some degree of evidence before I'm willing to accept some things. And what "real world"? I'm fairly confident that moral relativism exists (I really don't understand what you meant by that comment).
Trying to argue otherwise makes you look silly.
To some people, perhaps.
Re: (Score:3)
You cant prove the existance of moral laws (they dont exist), but you can derive them via solid logic if you accept a couple of limited precepts. Kant for instance more or less derived an entire moral code from logically mapping the implications of the idea that the law of non-contradiction should apply to morals by arguing that it meant roughly "If you think its good for others then its good for yourself since a good thing cant be an evil thing and an evil thing cant be a good thing". And thats just one co
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what positively means. Although also ideally it would change the direction of their life in the way they like -- changing your mind doesn't mean permanent unhappiness.
I don't mean to be glib, but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing? It's not like this is a government fiat where they hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe; it's a charity advertising campaign.
I'm unclear what your position is. My guesses:
- A philosophical stance of no
Re: (Score:2)
but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing?
That would depend on who you ask. If you're asking me, then I'd say no.
- An irrelevant philosophical point that boils down to how morality cannot be derived from provable facts?
Well, there's no evidence of absolute morals (that I know of). It appeared as though he stated something subjective (or, at least, I believe it to be subjective) as a fact, so I replied to it.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Assume logic exists.
2. Assume logic provides a way to eliminate falsehood.
3. Assume that this elimination is a incremental increase in truth.
4. Logic would then provide for us the most likely conclusion in any situation that we have 100% of the relevant information for.
5. The subjective point of view of other self-aware beings is relevant information to any interaction that you have with them.
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
Patently false, as any peasant who struck the king would soon find out.
You need to clarify to yourself whether you're describing the facts as they are or whether you're designing an ideal state.
Re: (Score:3)
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
Are you saying that in order to understand someone's point of view, you need to empathize with them? I don't think that's true. You can understand how they came to their conclusion without actually empathizing with them, as far as I know.
The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't.
I didn't say otherwise. But I don't believe that someone can.
and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.
Wouldn't that depend on who you ask?
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
>8. Emotional understanding of a person and emotional destruction of a person are mutually exclusive actions.
This is just plain false. The very existence of psychological torture proves that you can understand somebodies emotions and then proceed to destroy them emotionally. If anything well-developed abilities at empathy makes those who would do so more effective.
Scientists largely believe now that empathy was developed as a defense mechanism. We evolved the ability to try and understand another person's thoughts and feelings primarily to allows us to better tell if we can trust that person, and recognize if they are lying. We turned it into a positive thing over time, that could build better social bonds, but it didn't start out that way and there is no reason it cannot be used in a negative way now (the new uses did not remove the originals - or prevent other more destructive new uses from developing).
The best generals are the ones who can predict the enemy's actions. The most destructive battles are fought by the leaders with the most empathy for the opponents.
Even then your entire rational is flawed as it fundamentally violates Aristotle's first law of logic. A thing cannot be other than itself.
Emotion by definition is not rational, logic by definition is rational.
Therefore emotion cannot be logical.
This is not entirely a bad thing. Human's are better off for having both.
If you want to make statements about logic I highly recomend you learn something about the subject first. For starters there are two major branches of logic. Inductive and Deductive logic. Only deductive logic results in necessary truth. And that comes with a caveat: deductive logic if properly followed means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion MUST be true, if any of the propositions is false the conclusion MUST also be false.
More-over deductive logic cannot and never should be, directly applied to the real world. It doesn't work. It only applies to highly abstract constructs. Mathematics is built on deductive logic. Therefore it provides (within it's own framework) absolute truth. If I have an apple, and add another I will have two apples, and this will never change.
But in the real world - no two apples are the same size. So the weight of "apple mass" has changed by a different number. That's what I meant by (within it's own framework). The degree of truth is dependent on the level of abstraction.
To get the mass of apples, I must in the first case measure each apple's weight individually. That is to - get the truth in a more detailed abstraction my propositions must also be made more detailed.
Science mostly relies on inductive logic, and a fundamental part of the definition of inductive logic is that it NEVER gives you truth. It only gives you high probability.
A scientific experiment is a prime example of inductive logic. If I boil water, and it boils at the same temperature ten of 100 degrees celcius times- I can say with high probability that water at that temperature will boil. If I do it a million times the probability has gone up a lot. But it still isn't "truth". Just one out of a million times where it boils at a different temperature proves the theory false.
That's easy to do, just get higher above sea-level. On top of Mount Everest water boils at about 7 degrees celcius.
So we have to refine our theory - and now all we can say is "at sea-level, all other things being equal, water will boil at 100 degrees celcius".
That's science in a nutshell. Inductive logic, highly reliable (and increasingly moreso) results, but never truth. Because "all other things being equal" is an impossible suggestion. There will always be more to learn.
Don't try to analyze emotions with logic - it's as useless as the auditors in Terry Pratchett breaking down great works of art into component atoms in their fruitless search for "beauty" and being perplexed that the pigments of these beautiful works do not contain some special and previously unknown
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll win in the end anyway. You lost this war the moment you lost the war on miscegeny. You can't win. It's better if you just kill yourself. Come on, Nazi scum. Do it. It's the one way you can finally escape the horrors of multiculturalism. Go out like a man and eat one of the dozens of barrels that adorn the walls of your squalid little shack.
Re: (Score:2)
While some neo-Nazis are self-radicalized, most are raised that way. That's the point of these shirts. To try to sneak a message through to the kids and get them to reconsider whether they really want to follow in their parents' footsteps. With the adults, it's likely too late -- they're too set in their ways. Kids can still change.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also guess it really depends on what you define neo-nazism as, to some Germans doing anything that vaguely takes pride in some sort of German cultural identity is neo-nazisism, and to an extent I think the whole movement is just a response to that.....
But ultimately the extremists in Germany are largely comprised of the same types of people, those who cannot get meaningful jobs/work, as it is anywhere else in the rich world. You arent likely to see a lot of engineers in the hard core Japanese right wing socities, but you do see people who 30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle. Likewise you arent going to see a lot of scientists in the religious right, but what you will see are people whose best hope in life is to get a job working at Wal-Mart for low pay and no benefits, people who again 30 years ago probably would have had a comfortable middle class lifestyle with a job that actually had at least some, maybe not a lot, but some significance. People need meaning in their lives, if they cannot find it at work, they are going to find some other cause to get behind, and the results are rarely pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle.
Why? If they are poor now, there is no reason to expect that they would fare any better in 80's (or at any other point in history). You are trying to make parallels with post-WWI Germany where EVERYONE was worse off than before the war, but this just isn't the case. Poor and ignorant people are likely to blame other races and ethnicities for their misfortune regardless of any facts.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Informative)
Now unless you have an education, and sometimes even then, the # of jobs that are open to you that will provide a middle class lifestyle are almost non-existant if you dont already have one. Germanys GINI coefficient is rising, especially among the young.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, since they're probably children
How do you know this?
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
... that washed out and advertised for gay something, i'd just use the free t-shirt to wipe my ass...
So the moral is that when you get gay propaganda you stick it up your arse?
That is awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
That is one of the most awesome ideas I've read about. I especially liked the part where they acknowledged that it probably won't do any good now, but it plants the name in their heads for when they're ready to get out of their extremist organization.
Say, anyone want to chip in for some t-shirts to give away at the next Tea Party convention?
Re: (Score:2)
I met a lot of ignorant Tea Partiers, but they seem to be at the bottom level. But many of the upper level people have a grasp.
The thing is, on the Democratic side, I have seen much of the same thing. The average voter is pretty ignorant, period.
Now, I know it went from a Ron Paul/Libertarian founded group to a Fox News/GOP overtaken "organization", but honestly, I find the heaps of scorn it recieves a bit ironic,
Re:That is awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that the wacko left-winger Democrats are kept out in the fringe, whereas the wacko Tea Party types have essentially taken over the Republican party. This situation is made worse by the fact that those same nitwits who control the GOP are receiving their marching orders from Fox News, as you said. So nearly half the government of the United States is now directly controlled by a single corporation. If that doesn't terrify you, it should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one fringe left wing democrat? I mean one? Kucinich is the only one I know of. I laugh at those who say Obama is a radical socialist. He is far from it
Re: (Score:3)
No, but if they keep saying it, more people start believing it. Even moderate Republicans have been saying things like this.
Re:That is awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Words Mean Things, and claiming to be whatever Fox News says Republicans are does not, in fact, make it so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just sent one to everybody who owes more than one months salary to the the credit card companies.
Re: (Score:3)
It can. The money has to come from somewhere. It all depends on how much. And it also depends what it is spent on. This all harkens back to the broken window fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]
But it's not a hard and fast rule. But 3-second soundbites rule the day. But not all jobs are good either. Toll booths collectors are jobs. But they add nothing to anybody's standard of living (decrease it actually, except their own, and those ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?
The stimulus may have cost $278k per job, some of that analysis though is handwaving and ignoring the value of the few infrastructure investments themselves (hardly hoover dam projects though
Re: (Score:3)
How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?
The stimulus is only a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the US's financial problems. The two big ones are the Bush tax cuts and the increased military spending (Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly). These didn't benefit anyone except the millionaires and the military-industrial complex. I'm not claiming that the stimulus was money well-spent, but there are far, far bigger issues that need to be addressed, and the US government is refusing to do so. That is why the credit rating was downgraded.
Re: (Score:3)
How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?
As for the downgrade, you should read or skim over the S&P report [standardandpoors.com] (warning: pdf). Here are a couple of excerpts:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
and
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.
So, I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but they seem more worried about our inability to address medicare, the deficit in general, and the fact that we just finished a national argument about whether or not to default. Thanks, Tea party, your unwillingness to compromise is one of the reasons for the downgrade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That survey is bias and very uninformative. I would bet that your answer would be scored as incorrect even though you recognize that there is a conditional answer. You would be forced choose between 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure, you might be tempted to choose 3. I would argue that the correct answer to many of the survey questions is 5 due to lack of information or ambiguity in the questions.
For example:
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
So I'm supposed to agree that there
Re: (Score:2)
Also the survey was only given to actively enrolled college students. Without looking, I assume that the majority are freshmen and self identify as liberal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. They make it possible to fund roads, which add to people's standard of living (if they didn't, people wouldn't be willing to pay to drive on them).
Re:That is awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of crap. A conservative, writing for a conservative paper, looks at some polls. He labels the answers he disagrees with as "unenlightened" and then feigns surprise when the people he disagrees with are most likely to choose the "unenlightened" answers. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with him is "dumber than a fifth grader". Ironically, a fifth grader could probably see the flaw in his logic.
And it's not like these questions have hard and fast answers. Let's look at some examples:
"Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree)"
Excuse me, but whose standard of living is he talking about? For the bottom sixty percent of Americans (also known as "the majority"), their inflation adjusted income has declined over the past thirty years. And meanwhile the safety nets meant to keep them out of the gutter have been systematically shredded. Welfare is gone, the current batch of Republicans already voted to end Medicare and will do so if they ever get a majority, and Social Security is undoubtedly next on the hit list. Of course, if you're talking about the looters in the top 1%, they're doing great.
"Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)"
Are you fucking kidding me? I, personally, have see my overseas coworkers get exploited. The statement wasn't that every third world worker gets exploited. This guy's an absolute hack. But what else could one expect from a Murdoch-owned rag like the Wall Street Journal?
Re:That is awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
You arrogant twit. I get my data directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, same as your graph. But unlike you, I restricted the query to wage earners, instead of letting executives and wall street looters pull up the average.
Stop repeating the drivel you heard from Lord Murdoch and get your own facts.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but check out this graph for one counterpoint [google.com].
Would have been nice to cite the full-size image [nabe.com], or the article [nabe.com] in which it appears, rather than a badly resized Google image result, but whatever. The graph you cited compares hourly wages to productivity, and I'm not sure how that relates to standard of living rather than employee productivity. Within its context the graph pretty poorly done; the axis aren't labeled ($140 per hour in 2005?), the description is vague, nothing is said about what was actually measured (or how) and I'd be willing to bet any
Re: (Score:2)
People think I'm stupid for being a Libertarian. I've never taken them seriously, because look at the source. I like the article, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
You should read what Nate Silver had to say about that survey:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html [fivethirtyeight.com]
Parent summary is biased (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Parent summary is biased (Score:4)
As my sibling post points out, many of the questions were unattached from the unfortunate negative consequences of the actual terms. However, I will point out that this was done with direct intent to make liberals/progressives answer wrong. Watch, let me do it to conservatives: "Deregulation of medicine and healthcare will result in more deaths." If you answered "disagree" then congratulations, you're empirically wrong.
What happened though was I intentionally gave a question whose consequences the individual's political beliefs would object to, and therefore basically handing them the wrong answer with a big "DO IT!!!! Come on, YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!"
So, the problem with all of the questions is that they're all trick questions. Even if a libertarian/progressive can see through all the sham, the best answers they can give are "yeah, but..." or "no, but..." But that's not how people answer surveys. They don't answer the question they're presented, they answer the questions they think they've been asked, and when you have trick questions intended to obfuscate the details to elicit an ideological response, you're going to get ideological responses. This also effects the conservatives as well though! There's no provision for questioning why the person answered the way that they did, so even if someone gives an "enlightened" answer, there's no guaranteed that they arrived at that answer through "enlightened" thought. A statement that is true can still be a lie, if the person speaking it thinks that they are lying. "Yes, Jenny went to the movies." (She actually did, but I thought she went to a party, and I was trying to cover up that she went to a party, so I'm lying even though my statement is true.)
1) "Mandatory licensing raises prices." Yes, but why would we ever consider endangering people's lives and/or livelihoods over removing mandatory licenses? If I make potato soup, then buying potato soup raises my prices. It's a trick question because few people will actually logically break down the question properly, and will just answer with a gut answer that is ideologically based.
2) "Standard of living is better now than 30 years ago." The median standard of living has factually gone down relative to the mean standard of living, even though both have risen as absolute values. The two ideologies are answering different questions about the vague term "standard of living".
3) "Rent control leads to housing shortages." Making french fries leads to a shortage of potatoes. People renting more than one property leads to housing shortages... I mean, the statement is technically true, but the original premise behind asking it is so absurd, that no one would expect it. So they answer a different question based on their perceived premise behind the question.
4) "Largest market share is a monopoly" Yes, because everyone will give the most unique answer possible here. Oh wait, I just abused the word "unique" like the entire population does. "Monopoly" doesn't mean "single supplier" to most people anymore, it means "the person with the largest market share." because true monopolies are rare, but one doesn't need a true monopoly to begin leveraging the benefits of being a monopoly. It's a trick question because most people don't use "monopoly" exclusively for true monopolies anymore.
5) "Third World workers working for Americans are being exploited." Well, some liberals/progressives think that American employees are being exploited. What does "exploited" really mean? Are Third World employers using the relatively massive pay that they can offer the third world workers to make those workers concede reasonable accommodations in their employment? Tell you what: I have a job, it pays a million dollars a year, but you have to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, with zero vacation time, and no benefits, or other perks. Would you take this job? Many people would, because hey, it's freaking a million dollars a year! Would you count it as exploitation? Some people think there are maximums
Re: (Score:3)
If the liberals questioned aren't able to decompose a situation into component parts and answer questions about each of them separately, but have to shout a "YAY" or "BOO" on the basis of their feelings about the situation, totally ignoring whatever is asked about, then something is wrong.
But there was no accounting for the possibility that the conservatives questioned weren't doing the exact same thing, because the whole survey suffers from a confirmation bias. They're only looking for confirmation of their preconceived theory (that liberals are gullible to trick questions), rather than looking for disproving theory (that conservatives are just as gullible to trick questions). If a conservative were to answer entirely without reason or logic according to his "YAY" or "BOO" on the basis of h
Re: (Score:3)
>Whether the question "accounts for the consequences of unqualified professional services" is a separate question as to whether or not it raises the cost of providing those services.
No. It isn't. Because the cost of those consequences must be considered part of the cost of the service. If an unlicensed doctor messes up an operation and now you need four more operations and years of drugs to recover, then the cost of the condition for which you sought treatment has been massively increased.
It could be sho
Re: (Score:3)
*snip* because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The need for regulation is not predicated on the price of a service, but on the potential for damage, to the consumer and the economy as a whole, from incompetent practitioners.
Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."
The "vote with your wallet" argument is, in this context, disingenuous at best. Sure, the cost of waiting for the market to weed out shitty lightbulb manufacturers is relatively small, and the market will eventually produce a generally decent grade of lightbulb-makers. But we are not talking about ligh
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The summary was somewhat misleading. In Germany, there is nothing similar to the tea party kind of right wing nutters, just more or less openly radical neo-nazis. And exactly that kind of people was tricked by that awesome t-shirt.
Good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
it was not one of those gathering that simulates rain. Imagine their reaction if the artificial rain washes away the external print exposing the message hidden beneath. That would not be a party, would it..
Typical (Score:2)
So what? Are they trying to white wash the issues?
Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked" (Score:3)
I give you free stuff and it turns out to be unsuitable for its apparent purpose. Wow, I really tricked you there.
Still, it's kind of amusing.
This would only work on imposters anyway (Score:2)
everyone knows that if you're hardcore enough your clothes never get dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
everyone knows that if you're hardcore enough your clothes never get laundered.
I fixed that for you.
more nazi's in america (Score:2)
Re:how big is the movement? (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as there's one, there's at least one too many.
I guess it depends on what you'd count towards "Neo Nazis". Just those that actually believe the bull, or generally everyone who enjoys freezing their brains and beating up people who look different?
Re: (Score:3)
This is inaccurate; however, people who consider endorsing civil rights for minorities equivalent to endorsing muslim terrorism definitely meet the criteria.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the implied distinction is that it's "illegal" foreigners that are doing the job stealing. At least, that's been my experience. I honestly haven't heard a "foreigners" rant in it's own right since my grandfather passed away 15 years ago. Pretty much everyone accepts the people that come here properly and follow the law (although you do have rants about people not learning English and such, but I'd bet that happens in any country that has a universal language if not a national one).
With most neo-Nazis the distinction is that it's the people with brown skin who are stealing the jobs from the people with white skin, nothing more subtle than that.
Re:how big is the movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear that a lot but then I don't meet very many people willing to do the work they are doing.
Well, at least not at the wages the corporate owners want to pay them. Illegal immigration basically pits rich corporate owners against the poor. The owners win by bringing in scabs thereby keeping wages low.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because we're not willing to work for slave wages with no protections or benefits of any kind like they are.
I mean, c'mon, there are plenty of people that are willing to do these jobs, there always has been, but if you expect people to go out and pick strawberries in the heat for $20 a day then you expect too much. Any business running a margin that razor-thin that they can't afford to hire legal citizens for a reasonable wage should probably not be in business, whether it be a farm, or any other ty
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I won't. Why? Because in this economy it is not possible to run a successful strawberry farm without breaking the law. That's why.
Also I wonder where the usual right-wings cries for "less legislation and let the market sort it out" are. I can see why there are none, though. Why? Because it would not only go against another demand of them, it would also make prices go UP, not down, as they usually promise when you take away regulations.
That's what I don't like about the new right, it's inconsistent. We don't
Re: (Score:3)
If they'd be gung-ho about the drug war, they should start hanging the ones that launder the drug money. You'd see a lot clean up in very little time.
And it's quite logic why the right is vocal about illegal immigration, to appease its voters, but not really interested in getting rid of them. They're essentially slaves, near free workforce that need not be subject to labour laws because they have no representation and no legal protection at all.
This is, btw, what we'd get if we really let the market "sort i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that, since NSDAP symbology and speech is illegal in Germany, it would be slightly hard to tell. They couch it into as many subtleties as they can for the most part. Aside from the occasional concert or march, you'd likely have an easier time finding neo-nazis in Idaho than you would in Germany.
Re:how big is the movement? (Score:4, Funny)
Woah, you set the bar pretty high there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not German though so I'm not entirely sure about the rulings surrounding such symbols.
Re: (Score:2)
It does boil down to this, yes.
As an example, take the Lucas Arts Indiana Jones adventures. In those, the Svastika was colored black, resulting in a misshapen square.
On the other hand, Nazi uniforms in movies are not really censored so go figure. I guess back then Lucas Arts was just very careful and decided to err on the side of caution.
On the other hand, Wolfenstein was on the index I believe, but you decide whether it's because of the brutality or the Svastika ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I understand correctly, nazi symbols (like the swastika) aren't illegal per se in Germany, as long as they're used in the proper context. Used in entertainment or as a way to promote the nazi ideology is forbidden, but in a historical documentary about what happened in WW2, I don't believe the symbol necessarily need to be blurred out or removed from footage from that era for example.
I'm not German though so I'm not entirely sure about the rulings surrounding such symbols.
"Proper context", according to Strafgesetzbuch section 86a (paragraph 86a of the German Criminal Code) [wikipedia.org] is:
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.
Re:how big is the movement? (Score:4, Interesting)
I watched Inglorious Basterds in a Berlin cinema, and in one shot where a swastika flag filled the screen, there was an audible gasp from the audience. So I can tell from first hand experience that Nazi symbols are allowed in the right context (i.e. not glorifying Nazism), and that Germans are still very uncomfortable around them.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean Illinois, not Idaho.
Re:how big is the movement? (Score:4, Interesting)
according to a pre-release of the 2010 statement [verfassungsschutz.de] of the Verfassungsschutz [wikimedia.org] (German domestic intelligence service) we have a headcount of 5600 neo nazis.
Take this with a grain of salt, like most government agencies the Verfassungsschutz has a political agenda - every publication is announced by the far-(left||right) wing* with "the data is biased"
*) and everyone else...
Re:why attack them? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, right-wing extremists are known worldwide for their tolerance and inclusive rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer harmless attacks on political views over those that would use politics to interfere with my life.
Re: (Score:3)
Attack?
A trick tee-shirt that reveals it's message in a quiet moment at home is an attack now?
An attack would be if it used a small explosive charge to tattoo rainbow brite on their chests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus man, I mean it would suck pretty bad to hate the Dutch and all, but no need to kill yourself!
Re: (Score:3)
The Dutch are getting increasingly intolerant of other cultures, unfortunately. A growing group is even intolerant of much of Dutch culture.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop listening to Fox "News". There is no relationship between Nazis and socialism. The Nazis hated socialists. They simply co-opted the word for their name as a little trick to steal supporters. The Nazis were right-wing by all standards. I know it makes you sad that there have been bad people on your "team". Life is so much easier when you can see in black and white. The professional liars know this, and so they carefully craft their lies to let you think that way. They take every bad person in hi
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi's hated communist, Hitler did what he could to dissociate the similarities between Socialism and Communism, much as today's Progressives try to disassociate social programs from socialism. I actually have a little admiration for people who call themselves Socialist, it beats the deniers who call themselves Progressives and Liberals (Liberal being a term corrupted to a point that makes it's real/original meaning unusable). Under the Nazi regime nearly every facet of life was controlled by the state, e
Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can pretend to ignore the liars all you like. But the whole "Obama = Nazi Socialist!" tripe is a right-wing talking point that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe. You've already revealed yourself to be poisoned. Maybe it was by Beck or Limbaugh or Free Republic, instead of Fox. But you're poisoned all the same. Try to cure yourself, instead of striking out at me.
Re: (Score:3)
You're one of those people who's allowed Obama to trip the religious centers in your brain much like Apple users (are you one of those too?).
How can bribing (the Louisiana Purchase), threatening (the Pelosi guard dog), and generally holding the Congress hostage to push a social health care bill exempt him from being a socialist? Love it or hate it your boy Obama is a socialist, hung out with socialist in college, and read socialist propaganda in college.
You started out by striking me out.
My hero's are And
Re: (Score:3)
How can...holding the Congress hostage to push a social health care bill exempt him from being a socialist?
The same way it did for Otto von Bismarck: he created social welfare programs to improve the condition of the working class without destabilizing the bourgeoisie. The whole point was to draw them away from the socialists and give them less incentive to radicalize, thus buttressing the empire from internal collapse. Perhaps a left-wing concession, but completely on behalf of a conservative realpolitik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Paternalistic_welfare_state [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler had socialistic policies for the preferred race. (See Lebensborn camps.)
"Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it.[182] Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm."
Re: (Score:3)
You realize they came into power by allying with conservatives, don't you? If not, read some history. Hitler hated socialists. He was all about traditionalism and a hierarchically structured society.
Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context? (Score:5, Informative)
When Hitler got his real power in government, the brownshirts demanded that he actually follow through and implement the social portion of his national socialist program. Of course he had no plans on doing this, resulting in the "Night of the Long Knives".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention that nationalism is antithetical to socialism because it creates divisions among the proletariat by national lines, thus weakening it by division and mixing it with the class enemy of capitalists. This absurdity, when the whole point is to unite the proletariat and make those divisions purely on class lines.
So, no, the viewpoint was not socialist. They may have had some social programs in there, but there's not a shred of Marx to be found.
Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please do some research before you imply Hitler and Mussolini are not right-wing. Contrary to popular believe in the US, they were NOT leading socialist movements in any shape or form although they tried to disguise some of their activities under that false banner. They were nationalist right-wing extremists and fascists. They were absolutely not left-wing or socialist in any tangible way.
In the US it's more accurate to label politics as far right (republicans) or center right (democrats). There is no true left in popular US politics, even democrats are more right of center than in many other progressive countries (including many EU and all Nordic countries).
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? German neo-nazis are never punk anarchists. In fact, they beat up or even kill punks.
Also, get your other facts straight. In Germany, swastika is only allowed in the historical context because this law was dictated by the allied control council after the end of WW2.
Re: (Score:3)
Since... ever?
From Wikipedia's entry on fascism [wikipedia.org]:
Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century.".[41][42] The majority of scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[43][38][39][40]