• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle


  • They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.

    If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it’s proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

    The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don’t let terrorism win.


  • The burners are not causing problems. They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.

    These sick people who would hurt someone for burning a book are the same sort that would throw acid on a woman for some bullshit medieval family honor, for example.

    Better to incite them and get them arrested and perhaps even deported before they’re allowed to hurt anyone. It shows you won’t tolerate it in your society.

    Hell, it may even encourage more moderate Muslims to move to that country if they know that the society doesn’t tolerate the actions of the small, insane minority. The Muslims that believe in liberal ideals like freedom of expression are exactly the type of immigrants that make a society stronger and we should encourage them.

    All this law will do is allow that unhinged mental illness to rest, in secret, before coming out in some other toxic way.

    I’m not saying that the book burners are being entirely altruistic here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they honestly hated all Muslims. But it is their right to express it without hurting anyone. This feels more like a “broken clock is right twice a day” sort of situation.






  • Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no “paving the way”. They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.

    As for your first point, that’s a fair statement. I maybe jumped the gun a little bit. Human rights are Human rights. My point is more addressed at civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.

    You lose your right to live in a certain places if convicted of sex crimes.

    If you are a Nazi, you definitely still deserve the human rights. But you shouldn’t have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn’t have the right to vote, because you will always vote to attack minorities for no reason. You shouldn’t have the right to own a gun.




  • Wow, that’s pretty crazy to think that so many people can’t/won’t get a bank account. Are these people undocumented immigrants with no identification? Is this the same part of the population that is targeted by the ID laws for voting?

    How are those people getting money? Is it really possible in the USA to just be paid with an envelope of cash? Or is it under the table work? Or if they are poor, is there any kind of benefit/welfare from the government? Don’t they need a bank account to receive those funds?

    I’m just asking because in my country, I was able to open a bank account for free. I’ve had it for a year and I’ve never even deposited any money into it. But I have a debit card for that account. It seems impossible to me to have no access to a bank account. Even if you’re homeless, you’re still able to use your town hall as a contact address for official things.



  • I think there’s a big reason why treating them the same way they treat others is fine.

    The people that Nazis target are not only usually innocent, but they often don’t even have a choice in the reason for their bullying. You don’t choose to be non-white, be gay, be trans, etc.

    Nazis choose to be pieces of shit that hurt innocent people.

    The argument that people bring up for not treating them badly is that we don’t want to set a precedent in case the Nazis eventually get in control and decide being on the left is worthy of being deprived your rights.

    But I think we all know that they wouldn’t need a precedent to deprive you of your rights if they took control and didn’t like you. They would simply do it if they had the power.






  • For sure, I agree it should be used only in cases where we’re absolutely sure that they did it. For example, mass shooters that are taken into custody mid-shooting and there is an absolutely undeniable chain of custody to ensure that the wrong person isn’t getting killed.

    That doesn’t seem possible, at least in my country. The fact that we have executed people that turned out to be incocent later makes my stomach turn.

    I don’t have a problem with the state killing people in principle. I just have a problem with the state killing the incorrect people (actual, guilty people that don’t deserve to live).